4 ms·

>That would require that taking something from A and giving it to B would increase aggregate demand. I don't see how that can be. It has been observed in histo

>That would require that taking something from A and giving it to B would increase aggregate demand. I don't see how that can be. It has been observed in historical data that the MPC for the poor is higher than for the rich--who are more likely to engage rent-seeking behaviors--which increases AD. >This safety net may encourage people to drive around Australia in a van who would otherwise work, reducing investment. Once in France I observed toll workers who take a euro from you to use the toilet were often of quite unhappy appearance. I heard "well its good because it gives them a job." If you truly believe spending a year doing a mundane job that could easily be automated, or long-hours in MS Excel making "fat stacks" on Wall St, much of the lawyering, tax accounting, lobbying, etc, has more inherent virtue than surfing in Australia than we disagree on first-principles about human dignity. What is the point of doing anything if it does not make people able to be happy, avoid suffering, and live into the future? If your concern is that nobody will produce anything useful: I would really bet that more than 30% of the population would want to live on more than a basic income for their entire life.

nickpp 9y ago
While I agree with you about the human dignity issue, I believe that a horrible, really bad paid job is an incredible, underestimated motivator. A basic income which allows me to do something fun is quite the demotivator for doing anything more. The problem is that improving yourself in order to raise you place in society usually sucks: endless learning, boring repetition, countless tired, lonely evenings. Why would anyone go through all that when they can surf in Australia living in a van off basic income?!
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Most people probably want to live on more than just a basic income. And assuming we cleaned up the waste and fraud in the economy, it is reasonable to assume we would only need around 1 in 3 people to maintain current economic growth. Like I said, way less than 50% really do much of any useful commerce at the moment. A lot are making things worse.
  - nickpp 9y ago
    I disagree on both counts. First, I believe that most people would rather relax and take it easy as long as their basic needs are covered (food, shelter, porn, games and some weed). Secondly I think that we need SO much more work done around us, and of so much better quality. Everywhere I look I see crumbling cities, broken infrastructure, decaying building and wild nature reclaiming areas that used to be domesticated and manicured. The work being done is crappy, substandard and simply done badly. It's like nobody even thinks anymore. Business are crying for better, smarter employees but they are unable to get them no matter the cost. Consumers are crying for better services and products but are facing a race to the bottom everywhere we look. Markets are failing everywhere due to the massive governmental interventions. Maybe all this will be solved when robots appear, but for right now there is a lot of work to be done...
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Business are crying for better, smarter employees but they are unable to get them no matter the cost. If this is true, it's because the existing system actually locks people in place rather than enabling improvement. Willingness to pay more once a state is achieved doesn't actually free people to achieve it. Doing what work one can for now to survive competes with investing time into self-improvement, which is literally a luxury many cannot afford.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > A basic income which allows me to do something fun is quite the demotivator for doing anything more. I disagree that this is generally true (all of human history shows that humans generally want to continually gain both improved material position over time and more than those they see around them if there is an avenue to do so.) Moreover, that's a rather distant theoretical complaint, anyway, because a basic income that provides anything more than the kind of marginal existence provided by American public welfare programs now (but with fewer disincentives to work) is probably far outside the ability of the economy to sustain without enormous technological progress.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    >is probably far outside the ability of the economy to sustain without enormous technological progress. FWIW we already spend nearly $10,000/person on transfer payments, welfare, housing, health, etc.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Yes, people getting that much in outside income annually are usually still recieving some of those payments and subsidies, and still living pretty marginally. The idea of a sustainable, near term, more-than-marginal UBI is a pipe dream.
WalterBright 9y ago
Nobody has managed to automate janitorial services yet. There are a LOT of boring, unpleasant jobs that need doing. I doubt the economy can be sustained by only happy jobs. There are only so many astronomy, forest ranger, and talk show host jobs. I know, and have known, quite a lot of people who would be happy to do nothing productive and have someone else provide their needs. In a way, it's a bit like college. How many people learn something by auditing a course? Not many - it's the pressure of exams and grades that provides the motivation for most students. All you have to do is look at their study habits - procrastinate until the last moment and then cram.

nickpp 9y ago

While I agree with you about the human dignity issue, I believe that a horrible, really bad paid job is an incredible, underestimated motivator. A basic income which allows me to do something fun is quite the demotivator for doing anything more. The problem is that improving yourself in order to raise you place in society usually sucks: endless learning, boring repetition, countless tired, lonely evenings. Why would anyone go through all that when they can surf in Australia living in a van off basic income?!

wallace_f 9y ago
Most people probably want to live on more than just a basic income. And assuming we cleaned up the waste and fraud in the economy, it is reasonable to assume we would only need around 1 in 3 people to maintain current economic growth. Like I said, way less than 50% really do much of any useful commerce at the moment. A lot are making things worse.
- nickpp 9y ago
  I disagree on both counts. First, I believe that most people would rather relax and take it easy as long as their basic needs are covered (food, shelter, porn, games and some weed). Secondly I think that we need SO much more work done around us, and of so much better quality. Everywhere I look I see crumbling cities, broken infrastructure, decaying building and wild nature reclaiming areas that used to be domesticated and manicured. The work being done is crappy, substandard and simply done badly. It's like nobody even thinks anymore. Business are crying for better, smarter employees but they are unable to get them no matter the cost. Consumers are crying for better services and products but are facing a race to the bottom everywhere we look. Markets are failing everywhere due to the massive governmental interventions. Maybe all this will be solved when robots appear, but for right now there is a lot of work to be done...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Business are crying for better, smarter employees but they are unable to get them no matter the cost. If this is true, it's because the existing system actually locks people in place rather than enabling improvement. Willingness to pay more once a state is achieved doesn't actually free people to achieve it. Doing what work one can for now to survive competes with investing time into self-improvement, which is literally a luxury many cannot afford.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> A basic income which allows me to do something fun is quite the demotivator for doing anything more. I disagree that this is generally true (all of human history shows that humans generally want to continually gain both improved material position over time and more than those they see around them if there is an avenue to do so.) Moreover, that's a rather distant theoretical complaint, anyway, because a basic income that provides anything more than the kind of marginal existence provided by American public welfare programs now (but with fewer disincentives to work) is probably far outside the ability of the economy to sustain without enormous technological progress.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  >is probably far outside the ability of the economy to sustain without enormous technological progress. FWIW we already spend nearly $10,000/person on transfer payments, welfare, housing, health, etc.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Yes, people getting that much in outside income annually are usually still recieving some of those payments and subsidies, and still living pretty marginally. The idea of a sustainable, near term, more-than-marginal UBI is a pipe dream.

WalterBright 9y ago

Nobody has managed to automate janitorial services yet. There are a LOT of boring, unpleasant jobs that need doing. I doubt the economy can be sustained by only happy jobs. There are only so many astronomy, forest ranger, and talk show host jobs. I know, and have known, quite a lot of people who would be happy to do nothing productive and have someone else provide their needs. In a way, it's a bit like college. How many people learn something by auditing a course? Not many - it's the pressure of exams and grades that provides the motivation for most students. All you have to do is look at their study habits - procrastinate until the last moment and then cram.