5 ms·
I think this is pretty self evident, but the issue is that let's say you have some system where economic forces are removed. Essentially a researcher basic inco
by TangoTrotFox 9y ago
I think this is pretty self evident, but the issue is that let's say you have some system where economic forces are removed. Essentially a researcher basic income in one scenario. This would suddenly massively incentivize people towards this direction since it's basically a career path that guarantees a stable livelihood, which is something that's extremely rare today. Well you need to ensure there's nobody just completely gaming the system and so inextricably you'll end up with some sort of qualifier for results. And now suddenly you've done nothing but kick the can since this new qualifier is what's going to be gamed.
Maybe the biggest problem is what you mention, but in another direction. For whatever reason there seems to be extremely little interest in the private direct funding of science. In times past the aristocracy would often fund scientific research on all sorts of topics. Today the practice seems to have all but disappeared, certainly if we measure relative ratios of the practice.
- JackFr 9y ago> For whatever reason there seems to be extremely little interest in the private direct funding of science. Too much income equality. You can't have Rockefeller University without Rockefeller.
- throwawaymarx 9y agoSmall correction. A basic income is guaranteed no matter what; there’s no means testing or anything like that. You can’t game the system because there’s nothing to game: you get the money regardless. You seem to be describing the system we have now, where you’re paid for results.
- PeterisP 9y agoA universal basic income is guaranteed no matter what; but it's certainly possible to have basic income schemes that are not universal but limited to some (small) subpopulation, and the criteria for being in that subpopulation can be gamed.
- dyarosla 9y agoI think what the parent is saying is that with a basic income only for researchers that creates a scenario where ‘Well you need to ensure there's nobody just completely gaming the system and so inextricably you'll end up with some sort of qualifier for results.’ That you don’t have ‘fake researchers’ gaming the ‘basic income only for researchers’ reward.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- geofft 9y agoI don't see why you would want to solve this with a researcher basic income (and overhead/bureaucracy of figuring out who is a researcher) and not the simpler solution of an actual universal basic income.
- jxub 9y agoSimpler but still more expensive by far, and I suppose the ROI would be far smaller.
- knodi123 9y ago> and not the simpler solution of an actual universal basic income Eliminating fossil fuel use is also simple. But there's another dimension to this problem, called "political viability", which I feel you're overlooking.
- gehwartzen 9y agoI don't think a $10-20k/yr UBI is anywhere close to the actual cost of allowing individuals to conduct meaningful scientific studies.
- geofft 9y agoGrad students seem to make it work, somehow.
- gehwartzen 9y agoFair point and even I managed to live off of and conduct research on 25k/yr in grad school. Though much of that cost was also offset by access to facilities, labs, equipment, and supplies. Would love to see more public access to these sorts of resources.