4 ms·

This is the big reason I think we need to figure out as a society how to make it possible for everyone to keep a roof over their head and food on their plates e

by geofft 7y ago

This is the big reason I think we need to figure out as a society how to make it possible for everyone to keep a roof over their head and food on their plates even if they don't work at all. The question of whether lazy people will take advantage of the system is not a life-or-death question. The life-or-death question is whether highly motivated and desperate people will take risks they shouldn't because we make them take those risks.

donatj 7y ago
I am a highly motivated person, yet if I could keep my home and health without working I would stop working day 1. I would target my motivation at things I personally care about that don't help the economy in the least. My art, woodworking, finishing my stack of books. I am certainly not alone. This is why I think there needs to be some level of threat of destitution to keep society functional. Without it, this all falls apart.
- geofft 7y ago
  What sort of things would you target your motivation towards? Would they be valuable for humanity? Is "the economy" really the right barometer? (edit: I see you added this - I think those are valuable for humanity! I wish you could spend your time on art and woodworking!) Personally, I spend a lot of my time keeping a hedge fund's computers working, because they pay me well for it (and I want to not only avoid destitution now, I want savings to avoid destitution in the future). I spend about zero time on any of my open-source projects, which would be more valuable for humanity as a whole, but I can't figure out how to get paid the same amount (or really anything) working on them. And I know my projects are valuable to the economy too - I arrived at this job to find that another team was doing a big migration onto a project I maintain (and haven't had much time for). I didn't know this in advance, and they didn't know I was joining their company. Besides - it's okay if many people lose their motivation to work, as long as enough people still work from intrinsic motivation. And you'd still have the motivation of needing to earn money for luxuries. Once you finish your stack of books, the survival stipend wouldn't cover buying any more books.
  - richk449 7y ago
    You are payed well to do X. You can’t get anyone to pay you to do Y. Yet you believe that Y is more valuable to society than X. Why? Isn’t society’s willingness to pay you for something a decent signal that society values it?
    - geofft 7y ago
      No, because as I just demonstrated, they use my open-source work - society just has no mechanism to monetize it. It is possible that I could charge support contracts for the software now - but it's just about done, and it's pretty well documented, and if anything I'd have less incentive to write public docs. And I have no mechanism to get people to fund the next thing I want to work on and think is a good idea. (Well, I could continue working at a high-paying job for a few years and then quit, of course... but the logical conclusion of that loophole is that nobody should be paid enough that they can afford to quit, else they'd be able to ignore the market, right?)
- pas 7y ago
  Current basic income studies show about ~10% work disincentive. Sure, you might start painting, and never turn back. But most people would like to do something, to have some extra money, etc. Basic will always be just that, very basic. But it would help tremendously to lift people out of the vicious cycle. (That they must take the shittiest jobs because they need money right now, so wages are low, because there are a lot of people who will take those jobs even at those low wages.)
  - geofft 7y ago
    That's better than I expected! 90% of people still working but actually taking sick leave / taking time off to care for family members / taking time off to learn new skills, plus 10% of people not working (and some fraction of them working on art or other good-for-humanity things that are traditionally unprofitable, some fraction of them working on moonshot ideas, etc.) should be even better for the economy!
    - pas 7y ago
      Yes, I was surprised too. Probably there's a serious but unknown-sized effect about what would happen if it wouldn't be a trial. (There was a link and a discussion on HN a few days ago.) The folks in the trial went to school and so on. (And that's included in the 10%, so who knows, maybe those would cancel out.)
- humbledrone 7y ago
  We could differentiate between providing basic life support (housing + food + medicine) and paying for your hobbies. I am doubtful that the stick is the only option (destitution) and not the carrot ( having an iPhone Pro Max Super Wazoo 300, eating at restaurants). In your example, books I'll concede you could do on the cheap, but woodworking not so much. As a hobbyist woodworker myself, I know how much all the basic tools cost, and then the wood on top of that (+ a large margin for how frequently I botch a good plank). And it's not like we need to provide a 3,000 sqft penthouse to those who are not contributing to society; something that keeps people safe from the elements but is otherwise pretty bland would be okay. I think it could be sufficiently bland that folks would be motivated to work to upgrade.
- Ghjklov 7y ago
  Your interests/hobbies don't help the current economy, which does not value them as much as other types of labor. I think we'll find that the economy quickly changes once the incentives go from "wage slave at some company to pay for roof and food" to doing whatever you want without fear of becoming homeless and dying, which can range from doing nothing, to dedicating your life to art or woodworking. There absolutely will still be people willing to do the work that needs to be done, this time, at a more proper price, not the price that is set because there's an oversupply of workers who are forced to work or face death.
- evan_ 7y ago
  This argument gets used a lot but for some reason people who argue this always forget to finish the thought, specifically why Americans need the threat of torturous death to participate in society while people in countries with strong social safety nets do not.
  - donatj 7y ago
    I think there are fair questions about the long term sustainability of such safety nets and what place countries without such nets have in propping these places up. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Debt/External/Per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Debt...
    - geofft 7y ago
      What are those question? I don't see them stated on the page you linked, just some data about external public and private debt.
      - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        The social democracies can't afford to pay for their own defence, for one thing. Peace makes prosperity possible. Before you brush that off, I'll add that my forebears migrated to the US after having survived WWII and it's aftermath. The current generation takes global peace for granted but anyone who has studied history knows that is not the natural order of things.
        piva00 7y ago
        So take the lesson that Europe got after WW2: investing in defence is a pointless exercise as it keeps pushing the inevitable until its breaking point, tighter integration, trade and shared experiences are the only way for longer lasting peace. Instead you are telling the world to go back to the pre-WW2 state of affairs and invest in defence, because "that is not the natural order of things". Great, we are humans, we have built a lot of things out of the natural order, I believe we can do better and I'm glad it's become the norm to consider peace as the status quo and not as an outlier, as a mindset it's much healthier for humanity.
- grayclhn 7y ago
  Don’t sell yourself short. “Art” and “woodworking” are both potentially “work.” If the worst case scenario is having too many literate artists and craftspeople, I’m not sure what the problem is. :)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
heartbeats 7y ago
I'll say the same thing as I always do; what if you're depressed? A kid drops out of high school, plays video games instead. Two years have passed, now he has a two year career gap. "Eh, I'll just stay home and figure something out." Now he has a four year career gap...
- geofft 7y ago
  Well, one, what's your alternative? Force depressed people who can't hold down a job to starve on the streets? We're trying that approach now, does it seem to be working out well? If you have a survival stipend, it's probably a lot more common for qualified, competent people to have career gaps. I probably would, personally. That makes it easier for the depressed kid to compete whenever he decides to rejoin the job market. (Also, for some reason, parents who set up trust funds tend not to worry about this....) Also chances are if the depressed kid stays home for a few years, he will find some calling he actually likes - programming, music, writing, some specific type of research, whatever - and come out of it with a particular qualification to do something. What's the benefit to the depressed kid of having him flip burgers and stack shelves and have no time to figure out what he actually enjoys?
- searchableguy 7y ago
  What if that kid or his parents can't afford treatment of his depression? Treatment for mental health problems is expensive. The underlying issues can have causes that require a lot of time to solve. Therapist trips are expensive. Some of it isn't covered by your insurance. You lose a lot on productivity as a parent of the kid. You will need to dedicate time to him unlike in other situations where you can be fine delegating the responsibilities. A kid drops out of high school, gets depressed instead. Two years have passed, he can't afford the treatment and needs to get out but his issues aren't resolved. He is forced to work, burning himself out. He can't be productive or do critical creative work that pays well. Now he has gone 4 years without being treated, having time to recover and is in a worse position.
jseliger 7y ago
This is the big reason I think we need to figure out as a society how to make it possible for everyone to keep a roof over their head and food on their plates even if they don't work at all. Start with comprehensive zoning reform to reduce the cost of housing. https://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf Using a spatial equilibrium model and data from 220 metropolitan areas we find that these constraints lowered aggregate US growth by 36 percent from 1964 to 2009. (JEL E23, J24, J31, R23, R31) Imagine multiplying everyone's effective salary by 36%. We'd have a lot less real poverty. California meanwhile, despite its ostensible liberality, has the highest poverty rate in the country due to building restrictions: https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/ https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20....

by geofft 7y ago

This is the big reason I think we need to figure out as a society how to make it possible for everyone to keep a roof over their head and food on their plates even if they don't work at all. The question of whether lazy people will take advantage of the system is not a life-or-death question. The life-or-death question is whether highly motivated and desperate people will take risks they shouldn't because we make them take those risks.

donatj 7y ago

I am a highly motivated person, yet if I could keep my home and health without working I would stop working day 1. I would target my motivation at things I personally care about that don't help the economy in the least. My art, woodworking, finishing my stack of books. I am certainly not alone. This is why I think there needs to be some level of threat of destitution to keep society functional. Without it, this all falls apart.

geofft 7y ago
What sort of things would you target your motivation towards? Would they be valuable for humanity? Is "the economy" really the right barometer? (edit: I see you added this - I think those are valuable for humanity! I wish you could spend your time on art and woodworking!) Personally, I spend a lot of my time keeping a hedge fund's computers working, because they pay me well for it (and I want to not only avoid destitution now, I want savings to avoid destitution in the future). I spend about zero time on any of my open-source projects, which would be more valuable for humanity as a whole, but I can't figure out how to get paid the same amount (or really anything) working on them. And I know my projects are valuable to the economy too - I arrived at this job to find that another team was doing a big migration onto a project I maintain (and haven't had much time for). I didn't know this in advance, and they didn't know I was joining their company. Besides - it's okay if many people lose their motivation to work, as long as enough people still work from intrinsic motivation. And you'd still have the motivation of needing to earn money for luxuries. Once you finish your stack of books, the survival stipend wouldn't cover buying any more books.
- richk449 7y ago
  You are payed well to do X. You can’t get anyone to pay you to do Y. Yet you believe that Y is more valuable to society than X. Why? Isn’t society’s willingness to pay you for something a decent signal that society values it?
  - geofft 7y ago
    No, because as I just demonstrated, they use my open-source work - society just has no mechanism to monetize it. It is possible that I could charge support contracts for the software now - but it's just about done, and it's pretty well documented, and if anything I'd have less incentive to write public docs. And I have no mechanism to get people to fund the next thing I want to work on and think is a good idea. (Well, I could continue working at a high-paying job for a few years and then quit, of course... but the logical conclusion of that loophole is that nobody should be paid enough that they can afford to quit, else they'd be able to ignore the market, right?)
pas 7y ago
Current basic income studies show about ~10% work disincentive. Sure, you might start painting, and never turn back. But most people would like to do something, to have some extra money, etc. Basic will always be just that, very basic. But it would help tremendously to lift people out of the vicious cycle. (That they must take the shittiest jobs because they need money right now, so wages are low, because there are a lot of people who will take those jobs even at those low wages.)
- geofft 7y ago
  That's better than I expected! 90% of people still working but actually taking sick leave / taking time off to care for family members / taking time off to learn new skills, plus 10% of people not working (and some fraction of them working on art or other good-for-humanity things that are traditionally unprofitable, some fraction of them working on moonshot ideas, etc.) should be even better for the economy!
  - pas 7y ago
    Yes, I was surprised too. Probably there's a serious but unknown-sized effect about what would happen if it wouldn't be a trial. (There was a link and a discussion on HN a few days ago.) The folks in the trial went to school and so on. (And that's included in the 10%, so who knows, maybe those would cancel out.)
humbledrone 7y ago
We could differentiate between providing basic life support (housing + food + medicine) and paying for your hobbies. I am doubtful that the stick is the only option (destitution) and not the carrot ( having an iPhone Pro Max Super Wazoo 300, eating at restaurants). In your example, books I'll concede you could do on the cheap, but woodworking not so much. As a hobbyist woodworker myself, I know how much all the basic tools cost, and then the wood on top of that (+ a large margin for how frequently I botch a good plank). And it's not like we need to provide a 3,000 sqft penthouse to those who are not contributing to society; something that keeps people safe from the elements but is otherwise pretty bland would be okay. I think it could be sufficiently bland that folks would be motivated to work to upgrade.
Ghjklov 7y ago
Your interests/hobbies don't help the current economy, which does not value them as much as other types of labor. I think we'll find that the economy quickly changes once the incentives go from "wage slave at some company to pay for roof and food" to doing whatever you want without fear of becoming homeless and dying, which can range from doing nothing, to dedicating your life to art or woodworking. There absolutely will still be people willing to do the work that needs to be done, this time, at a more proper price, not the price that is set because there's an oversupply of workers who are forced to work or face death.
evan_ 7y ago
This argument gets used a lot but for some reason people who argue this always forget to finish the thought, specifically why Americans need the threat of torturous death to participate in society while people in countries with strong social safety nets do not.
- donatj 7y ago
  I think there are fair questions about the long term sustainability of such safety nets and what place countries without such nets have in propping these places up. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Debt/External/Per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Debt...
  - geofft 7y ago
    What are those question? I don't see them stated on the page you linked, just some data about external public and private debt.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      The social democracies can't afford to pay for their own defence, for one thing. Peace makes prosperity possible. Before you brush that off, I'll add that my forebears migrated to the US after having survived WWII and it's aftermath. The current generation takes global peace for granted but anyone who has studied history knows that is not the natural order of things.
      - piva00 7y ago
        So take the lesson that Europe got after WW2: investing in defence is a pointless exercise as it keeps pushing the inevitable until its breaking point, tighter integration, trade and shared experiences are the only way for longer lasting peace. Instead you are telling the world to go back to the pre-WW2 state of affairs and invest in defence, because "that is not the natural order of things". Great, we are humans, we have built a lot of things out of the natural order, I believe we can do better and I'm glad it's become the norm to consider peace as the status quo and not as an outlier, as a mindset it's much healthier for humanity.
grayclhn 7y ago
Don’t sell yourself short. “Art” and “woodworking” are both potentially “work.” If the worst case scenario is having too many literate artists and craftspeople, I’m not sure what the problem is. :)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

heartbeats 7y ago

I'll say the same thing as I always do; what if you're depressed? A kid drops out of high school, plays video games instead. Two years have passed, now he has a two year career gap. "Eh, I'll just stay home and figure something out." Now he has a four year career gap...

geofft 7y ago
Well, one, what's your alternative? Force depressed people who can't hold down a job to starve on the streets? We're trying that approach now, does it seem to be working out well? If you have a survival stipend, it's probably a lot more common for qualified, competent people to have career gaps. I probably would, personally. That makes it easier for the depressed kid to compete whenever he decides to rejoin the job market. (Also, for some reason, parents who set up trust funds tend not to worry about this....) Also chances are if the depressed kid stays home for a few years, he will find some calling he actually likes - programming, music, writing, some specific type of research, whatever - and come out of it with a particular qualification to do something. What's the benefit to the depressed kid of having him flip burgers and stack shelves and have no time to figure out what he actually enjoys?
searchableguy 7y ago
What if that kid or his parents can't afford treatment of his depression? Treatment for mental health problems is expensive. The underlying issues can have causes that require a lot of time to solve. Therapist trips are expensive. Some of it isn't covered by your insurance. You lose a lot on productivity as a parent of the kid. You will need to dedicate time to him unlike in other situations where you can be fine delegating the responsibilities. A kid drops out of high school, gets depressed instead. Two years have passed, he can't afford the treatment and needs to get out but his issues aren't resolved. He is forced to work, burning himself out. He can't be productive or do critical creative work that pays well. Now he has gone 4 years without being treated, having time to recover and is in a worse position.

jseliger 7y ago

This is the big reason I think we need to figure out as a society how to make it possible for everyone to keep a roof over their head and food on their plates even if they don't work at all. Start with comprehensive zoning reform to reduce the cost of housing. https://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf Using a spatial equilibrium model and data from 220 metropolitan areas we find that these constraints lowered aggregate US growth by 36 percent from 1964 to 2009. (JEL E23, J24, J31, R23, R31) Imagine multiplying everyone's effective salary by 36%. We'd have a lot less real poverty. California meanwhile, despite its ostensible liberality, has the highest poverty rate in the country due to building restrictions: https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/ https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20....