3 ms·

> if you had that system, we have no idea whether or not the masses will be content enough to stay sane and peaceful. Belgium, the Netherlands and a lot of Eur

by 317070 2mo ago

> if you had that system, we have no idea whether or not the masses will be content enough to stay sane and peaceful. Belgium, the Netherlands and a lot of European countries, have a "leefloon" or "bijstand". It is a monthly payment from the government if you have no other sources of income or wealth. The name means it is "pay to stay alive". It's not a lot (1518.29 dollars today for a single person), but allows for the necessities. So what happens is not _really_ unknown.

ElProlactin 2mo ago
Quick AI research: the number of people receiving minimum income benefits in European countries represents under 5% of the population. So I don't think that tells you what happens to society when this becomes a primary source of income for a significant minority if not the majority of people.
- 317070 2mo ago
  If you adjust for all ways people receive minimum income benefits, not just the 'final resort' one, you get > In Belgium, roughly 4.35 million adults (aged 18 and older) are not working out of an adult population of about 9.5 million, around 45%. Of those, roughly 3.95 million or 40% receive government income above the leefloon.
  - hamper653 2mo ago
    Are you counting retired workers?
    - 317070 2mo ago
      Absolutely. Do note that in the US (and loads of countries) people save for their own retirement, whereas in Belgium the government pays the retirement in a "workers today pay retirees today" system.
      - hamper653 2mo ago
        Are you also counting workers on vacation? On a weekend? At home after their shift?
        317070 2mo ago
        If those workers receive pay from somebody else than their employer to do that, one might count them, but I don't know any countries where they do. I don't think there are economic metrics that take weekends into account when defining regular employment. I'm not sure what you're aiming at with this question.
        hamper653 2mo ago
        There is no ontological difference between: - a worker taking a few weeks of paid rest as a compensation for working several months, - and a worker taking a few years of paid rest as a compensation for working several decades. Whatever practicalities you may invoke to make them seem different, these situations are in essence the same.
        317070 2mo ago
        A retiree and a person during a weekend are not even close to the same. For one, the econometrists have no problem distinguishing them, because they don't look the same at all. I can get accurate numbers for retirees, and they will not be confused by people who are off for the weekend. For two, in context of the original article, what matters is "are they working" which the author clarified to "having a job". A person during the weekend has a job, a retired person does not. Again, no confusion. For three, in the context of minimum guaranteed wage: a person during the weekend is not paid by the government, but by his employer. A retired person is paid his pension by the government. So one can go in the bucket of people that is actually receiving a minimum income already, the other one does not. So within the context of my first post, they also don't look the same. If there is a parallel you are seeing and I'm missing, feel free to point it out. What I agree with is that from the person's perspective, they are both not working (in a sense not meant by the OP) and both receiving an income (though from a different source). But after that all similarity stops as far as I can tell.
    - IAmBroom 2mo ago
      Why do you assume that "retired workers" are not included in the group "people"?
sscaryterry 2mo ago
I'm sure its saying living loan (could be grant in this context) or assistance and not "pay to stay alive".
- 317070 2mo ago
  "Loon" is Dutch for wage. A loan would be "lening", even though "loon" and loan sound exactly the same.
  - sscaryterry 2mo ago
    > not "pay to stay alive" Focus on this part. (Edit: I consider the choice of words either clumsy or insensitive)
    - 317070 2mo ago
      Because without an income people tend to not live for very long and that idea makes people uncomfortable? I had not considered that. "Wage to live on" is perhaps a more euphonic translation then.
spwa4 2mo ago
In Belgium they make "Living Wage" extremely unattractive by having a LOT of extra conditions associated with it. In other words: a number of people at least as large as the number getting leefloon choose to instead do with nothing (and not pay rent, and steal, and ...) Why? A few conditions to getting leefloon: 1) you have to rent (officially) and pay your rent (we'll start of easy) 2) you do not get enough money to pay rent in any of the big cities. Oh and the city and police will hate you since OCMW eats out of their budgets The amount depends on your circumstances, but minimum wage in Belgium (which you won't get on "interim" jobs, btw) is 2200 (after tax). Leefloon is: 800 if sharing an apartment, 1300 if you live by yourself, 1800 if you provide for at least one child. 3) you must give FULL insight to all your finances to the OCMW. If you have savings you are not eligible (and if you don't they can reclaim up to 10 years of benefits) If you own a house you have to sell that and live off the proceeds until they run out before you become eligible for leefloon. 4) you must give FULL insight to your entire situation to the OCMW. If you have any sort of support, even outside of the country, you are not eligible (standard 10 year ...) 5) you must be willing to work, unless you have a recent certification from a Belgian doctor that you are permanently unable to (and you have to get that again, at your expense, every year). Oh and you have to prove this, at minimum once per month, but usually once per year. Going to the OCMW, wait 2 hours, list, with proof, what you've done to get a job since last time This includes working for free "for the community", which means for city hall. Oh, there are now several ways for employers to pay you less than minimum wage, as well as make you pay for insurance ("interim" jobs) and you can't refuse those jobs if on leefloon 6) you must let the OCMW do a "social investigation" into you and your entire situation (your home, your friends, your family, ...). This also means you have to accept "social help" (which many people are unwilling to do because, well because it sucks). OCMW wants you to take drug treatment? You have to? OCMW wants you to learn a language course? You have to show up. OCMW wants you to take a plumber course? You have to. 7) you have to justify ALL your expenses (meaning you have to get receipts for everything, down to every drink you buy in the supermarket), and go over them on a monthly basis with an OCMW employee. 8) you're not allowed to do any kind of studying (and can't have done so in the last 2 years) 9) OCMW is known for being very unpleasant to work with, to the point they need police protection in a lot of places (certainly in cities) This is VERY different from UBI. Very, very, very different. The way to cheat the system is to "work", but be fake long term ill. You get a job, you get a doctor to declare you long term ill (you know, take drugs before you do or something) and they can't fire you for 2 years. This will generally pay between double and triple leefloon for as long as it lasts. Needless to say, the government is in a fight with doctors. The government wants to set a quota on doctors for how many patients they can declare long-term ill. And doctors complain, first about patients that are long term ill and patients' existnece doesn't respect quotas, second about patients that threaten (and commit) violence unless they get their long-term-ill certification. Obviously government also demands doctors don't refuse patients and almost never gives any kind of protection even in hospitals (meaning hospitals have to provide private security which is fine for huge hospitals but a problem for small ones. Also, obviously, such security will not protect patients' rights against doctors). Obviously employers don't want this, since the government has decided they're paying most of the wage in this case. This is so expensive, even just one long term ill employee can make a company go out of business, and even huge companies have a big burden of people who do this. The number of ex-youth services kids (who were removed from their parents against their will) who have given this system as a reason for their suicide is in the double digits now. Neither Belgium, nor the Netherlands, have anything remotely resembling UBI. And that people avoid this system has nothing to do with inherent willingness to work.
xtiansimon 2mo ago
> “So what happens is not _really_ unknown.” I made a career change in my 40s into at a small (< 20 persons) company just above minimum wage. Once my employer decided I was worth keeping around, my wages increased. I was living in a cheap 1rm SRO (very hard to find), commuting 1.5h to Manhattan. Now after 11yrs I’ve purchased a coop in Queens. I put my success as due to low cost of living. A guaranteed income _might_ have helped do this faster. The jobs I had (previous to now) directly lead me to cheap housing owned by that employer. My next 2 years were filled with labor abuse—long hours below minimum wage. But That community took care of its own. I don’t know how that scales up with everyone getting this Guaranteed Wage. Maybe this GW helps you rent at market rates, but I had some rent forbearance in the form of more abusive work in that little community. You can’t have that with government assistance. Work and housing at the bottom are precarious, and you need support which in my case came from the same private source. I guess what I’m trying to get my head around is the idea government programs are inflationary but in a way that the underground economy are not.

by 317070 2mo ago

ElProlactin 2mo ago

Quick AI research: the number of people receiving minimum income benefits in European countries represents under 5% of the population. So I don't think that tells you what happens to society when this becomes a primary source of income for a significant minority if not the majority of people.

317070 2mo ago
If you adjust for all ways people receive minimum income benefits, not just the 'final resort' one, you get > In Belgium, roughly 4.35 million adults (aged 18 and older) are not working out of an adult population of about 9.5 million, around 45%. Of those, roughly 3.95 million or 40% receive government income above the leefloon.
- hamper653 2mo ago
  Are you counting retired workers?
  - 317070 2mo ago
    Absolutely. Do note that in the US (and loads of countries) people save for their own retirement, whereas in Belgium the government pays the retirement in a "workers today pay retirees today" system.
    - hamper653 2mo ago
      Are you also counting workers on vacation? On a weekend? At home after their shift?
      - 317070 2mo ago
        If those workers receive pay from somebody else than their employer to do that, one might count them, but I don't know any countries where they do. I don't think there are economic metrics that take weekends into account when defining regular employment. I'm not sure what you're aiming at with this question.
        hamper653 2mo ago
        There is no ontological difference between: - a worker taking a few weeks of paid rest as a compensation for working several months, - and a worker taking a few years of paid rest as a compensation for working several decades. Whatever practicalities you may invoke to make them seem different, these situations are in essence the same.
        317070 2mo ago
        A retiree and a person during a weekend are not even close to the same. For one, the econometrists have no problem distinguishing them, because they don't look the same at all. I can get accurate numbers for retirees, and they will not be confused by people who are off for the weekend. For two, in context of the original article, what matters is "are they working" which the author clarified to "having a job". A person during the weekend has a job, a retired person does not. Again, no confusion. For three, in the context of minimum guaranteed wage: a person during the weekend is not paid by the government, but by his employer. A retired person is paid his pension by the government. So one can go in the bucket of people that is actually receiving a minimum income already, the other one does not. So within the context of my first post, they also don't look the same. If there is a parallel you are seeing and I'm missing, feel free to point it out. What I agree with is that from the person's perspective, they are both not working (in a sense not meant by the OP) and both receiving an income (though from a different source). But after that all similarity stops as far as I can tell.
  - IAmBroom 2mo ago
    Why do you assume that "retired workers" are not included in the group "people"?

sscaryterry 2mo ago

I'm sure its saying living loan (could be grant in this context) or assistance and not "pay to stay alive".

317070 2mo ago
"Loon" is Dutch for wage. A loan would be "lening", even though "loon" and loan sound exactly the same.
- sscaryterry 2mo ago
  > not "pay to stay alive" Focus on this part. (Edit: I consider the choice of words either clumsy or insensitive)
  - 317070 2mo ago
    Because without an income people tend to not live for very long and that idea makes people uncomfortable? I had not considered that. "Wage to live on" is perhaps a more euphonic translation then.

spwa4 2mo ago

In Belgium they make "Living Wage" extremely unattractive by having a LOT of extra conditions associated with it. In other words: a number of people at least as large as the number getting leefloon choose to instead do with nothing (and not pay rent, and steal, and ...) Why? A few conditions to getting leefloon: 1) you have to rent (officially) and pay your rent (we'll start of easy) 2) you do not get enough money to pay rent in any of the big cities. Oh and the city and police will hate you since OCMW eats out of their budgets The amount depends on your circumstances, but minimum wage in Belgium (which you won't get on "interim" jobs, btw) is 2200 (after tax). Leefloon is: 800 if sharing an apartment, 1300 if you live by yourself, 1800 if you provide for at least one child. 3) you must give FULL insight to all your finances to the OCMW. If you have savings you are not eligible (and if you don't they can reclaim up to 10 years of benefits) If you own a house you have to sell that and live off the proceeds until they run out before you become eligible for leefloon. 4) you must give FULL insight to your entire situation to the OCMW. If you have any sort of support, even outside of the country, you are not eligible (standard 10 year ...) 5) you must be willing to work, unless you have a recent certification from a Belgian doctor that you are permanently unable to (and you have to get that again, at your expense, every year). Oh and you have to prove this, at minimum once per month, but usually once per year. Going to the OCMW, wait 2 hours, list, with proof, what you've done to get a job since last time This includes working for free "for the community", which means for city hall. Oh, there are now several ways for employers to pay you less than minimum wage, as well as make you pay for insurance ("interim" jobs) and you can't refuse those jobs if on leefloon 6) you must let the OCMW do a "social investigation" into you and your entire situation (your home, your friends, your family, ...). This also means you have to accept "social help" (which many people are unwilling to do because, well because it sucks). OCMW wants you to take drug treatment? You have to? OCMW wants you to learn a language course? You have to show up. OCMW wants you to take a plumber course? You have to. 7) you have to justify ALL your expenses (meaning you have to get receipts for everything, down to every drink you buy in the supermarket), and go over them on a monthly basis with an OCMW employee. 8) you're not allowed to do any kind of studying (and can't have done so in the last 2 years) 9) OCMW is known for being very unpleasant to work with, to the point they need police protection in a lot of places (certainly in cities) This is VERY different from UBI. Very, very, very different. The way to cheat the system is to "work", but be fake long term ill. You get a job, you get a doctor to declare you long term ill (you know, take drugs before you do or something) and they can't fire you for 2 years. This will generally pay between double and triple leefloon for as long as it lasts. Needless to say, the government is in a fight with doctors. The government wants to set a quota on doctors for how many patients they can declare long-term ill. And doctors complain, first about patients that are long term ill and patients' existnece doesn't respect quotas, second about patients that threaten (and commit) violence unless they get their long-term-ill certification. Obviously government also demands doctors don't refuse patients and almost never gives any kind of protection even in hospitals (meaning hospitals have to provide private security which is fine for huge hospitals but a problem for small ones. Also, obviously, such security will not protect patients' rights against doctors). Obviously employers don't want this, since the government has decided they're paying most of the wage in this case. This is so expensive, even just one long term ill employee can make a company go out of business, and even huge companies have a big burden of people who do this. The number of ex-youth services kids (who were removed from their parents against their will) who have given this system as a reason for their suicide is in the double digits now. Neither Belgium, nor the Netherlands, have anything remotely resembling UBI. And that people avoid this system has nothing to do with inherent willingness to work.

xtiansimon 2mo ago

> “So what happens is not _really_ unknown.” I made a career change in my 40s into at a small (< 20 persons) company just above minimum wage. Once my employer decided I was worth keeping around, my wages increased. I was living in a cheap 1rm SRO (very hard to find), commuting 1.5h to Manhattan. Now after 11yrs I’ve purchased a coop in Queens. I put my success as due to low cost of living. A guaranteed income _might_ have helped do this faster. The jobs I had (previous to now) directly lead me to cheap housing owned by that employer. My next 2 years were filled with labor abuse—long hours below minimum wage. But That community took care of its own. I don’t know how that scales up with everyone getting this Guaranteed Wage. Maybe this GW helps you rent at market rates, but I had some rent forbearance in the form of more abusive work in that little community. You can’t have that with government assistance. Work and housing at the bottom are precarious, and you need support which in my case came from the same private source. I guess what I’m trying to get my head around is the idea government programs are inflationary but in a way that the underground economy are not.