4 ms·

Because for the latter scenario to hold true every society and organisation would have to agree to stop chasing growth. How would that even be done? Have a univ

by gms 14y ago

Because for the latter scenario to hold true every society and organisation would have to agree to stop chasing growth. How would that even be done? Have a universal law that sets a ceiling on the amount of work one is allowed to perform in a week? That is unrealistic.

gizmo686 14y ago
Or some form of socialism. Even a guarantee of some minimal income, even for the unemployed, should do the trick. With this method, you can think of the economy as a sliding scale of jobs that need to be done, and people willing to do them. As you increase the minimum income, you decrease the people willing to do the jobs, and as you decrease the minimum income you increase the people willing to do the jobs. The trick is to find the income that makes the two numbers equal. Now, as technology allows people to work more efficiently, the economy can support a higher effective minimum income. We can see how this could work even in our current system. At the moment, we have people willing and able to work who cannot. If we start giving every citizen some amount of money, either the unemployed will stop wanting to work, or the employed will decide that they would be happier working less because the additional money is no longer worth their time.
- noahl 14y ago
  Interesting point. Thinking it through for myself, it seems important that the money be sent to everyone, not just the unemployed. Otherwise you'd get a weird situation where taking a job might not increase the amount of money you make - or even decrease it, if the rule is that you only get money if you have literally zero income. Giving money to everyone makes it much easier to view jobs as a sort of sliding scale where you work harder and get more money. Alternatively, you could set the minimum wage such that every job pays more than the base wage. But you'd still need a rule to deal with part-time work.
  - jacalata 14y ago
    We do already have this problem with high marginal tax rates (counting the drop in available welfare as part of that 'marginal tax') at the border between unemployed/low-income/middle class. This article gives some good examples of where it happens currently: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/effective-marginal-tax-rates-for-low-income-workers-are-high http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/effective-m...
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      The other side of that same problem is that people who fall into lower levels of income have a very hard time proving they deserve access to the meager welfare programs that keep the permanently destitute from burning down society in a fit of lumpenproletarian rage.
- ams6110 14y ago
  And where would the money for this "minimum income" come from? It's either printed, which simply inflates prices, or it's taken from the people who are actually working, which is not only a disincentive for them to work but also causes them to be resentful of the people who are sitting around on their couches being given an income. Socialism doesn't work. It's against human nature.
  - gizmo686 14y ago
    If you read my post, you will see that distinctiveness people from working is half of the point. Our current problem is that our population is currently willing to do X amount of work, but we only have Y amount of work to do. If we make income (which I am using as a proxy for 'stuff') directly proportional to how much work you do, then a small percentage of the population will attempt to gain as much economic power as possible leaving the rest of the population without. If we decouple income from the amount of work you do, then we do not have sufficient incentive to work, and do not have enough stuff to go around (although I think we will reach a point where this is no longer true). If we have a minimum income, we can increase it until our workforce still has the capacity to do all the work available, but does not have such a surplus in capacity that people who want to do more work but cannot find any do not suffer. If we get to the point where their is work that is not being done, we would need to decrease minimum income. The resentment you are speaking about is a cultural problem that would simply need to change along with society. Also, in my basic implementation of this system, every individual would receive the minimum income in addition to whatever they receive from their job. The alternative is that we keep increasing the amount of work we need to do. Unfourtuantly, work is expensive and a key strength of capitilism is that it encourages minimizing the work that needs to be done. I believe a minimum income is a comprimise that maintains an economy that improves efficiency by being capitalistic at the micro level, while at the same time providing the best quality of life it can support to all of its citizens. If it ever falls into pure socialism, it would be because everyone is content.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Here's a notion for us to think about: why not start structuring a basic-income system in a "capitalist" way by reforming the way companies pay out dividends? I mean, how does it make sense that, on the one hand, American business corporations are sitting on record-sized heaps of cash, but on the other hand, most gains for investors are made via buy-low, sell-high capital gains and almost all stock is owned by the investor-capitalist class, institutions, and retirement accounts? Why not transform our existing paper certificates that theoretically place a legal claim on a stream of profits into a real, enforceable claim on a stream of profits? So we could maintain our notions of "labor" and "deserving" by radically shortening the lifespan of a person's mandatory career. You work until you build enough wealth to start living off capital income, then "retire" into the rest of your life with a standard of living that remains linked to the work you actually did. A sovereign wealth fund could distribute social dividends through ownership of society's common assets for those who don't have much else.

by gms 14y ago

gizmo686 14y ago

Or some form of socialism. Even a guarantee of some minimal income, even for the unemployed, should do the trick. With this method, you can think of the economy as a sliding scale of jobs that need to be done, and people willing to do them. As you increase the minimum income, you decrease the people willing to do the jobs, and as you decrease the minimum income you increase the people willing to do the jobs. The trick is to find the income that makes the two numbers equal. Now, as technology allows people to work more efficiently, the economy can support a higher effective minimum income. We can see how this could work even in our current system. At the moment, we have people willing and able to work who cannot. If we start giving every citizen some amount of money, either the unemployed will stop wanting to work, or the employed will decide that they would be happier working less because the additional money is no longer worth their time.

noahl 14y ago
Interesting point. Thinking it through for myself, it seems important that the money be sent to everyone, not just the unemployed. Otherwise you'd get a weird situation where taking a job might not increase the amount of money you make - or even decrease it, if the rule is that you only get money if you have literally zero income. Giving money to everyone makes it much easier to view jobs as a sort of sliding scale where you work harder and get more money. Alternatively, you could set the minimum wage such that every job pays more than the base wage. But you'd still need a rule to deal with part-time work.
- jacalata 14y ago
  We do already have this problem with high marginal tax rates (counting the drop in available welfare as part of that 'marginal tax') at the border between unemployed/low-income/middle class. This article gives some good examples of where it happens currently: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/effective-marginal-tax-rates-for-low-income-workers-are-high http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/effective-m...
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    The other side of that same problem is that people who fall into lower levels of income have a very hard time proving they deserve access to the meager welfare programs that keep the permanently destitute from burning down society in a fit of lumpenproletarian rage.
ams6110 14y ago
And where would the money for this "minimum income" come from? It's either printed, which simply inflates prices, or it's taken from the people who are actually working, which is not only a disincentive for them to work but also causes them to be resentful of the people who are sitting around on their couches being given an income. Socialism doesn't work. It's against human nature.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  If you read my post, you will see that distinctiveness people from working is half of the point. Our current problem is that our population is currently willing to do X amount of work, but we only have Y amount of work to do. If we make income (which I am using as a proxy for 'stuff') directly proportional to how much work you do, then a small percentage of the population will attempt to gain as much economic power as possible leaving the rest of the population without. If we decouple income from the amount of work you do, then we do not have sufficient incentive to work, and do not have enough stuff to go around (although I think we will reach a point where this is no longer true). If we have a minimum income, we can increase it until our workforce still has the capacity to do all the work available, but does not have such a surplus in capacity that people who want to do more work but cannot find any do not suffer. If we get to the point where their is work that is not being done, we would need to decrease minimum income. The resentment you are speaking about is a cultural problem that would simply need to change along with society. Also, in my basic implementation of this system, every individual would receive the minimum income in addition to whatever they receive from their job. The alternative is that we keep increasing the amount of work we need to do. Unfourtuantly, work is expensive and a key strength of capitilism is that it encourages minimizing the work that needs to be done. I believe a minimum income is a comprimise that maintains an economy that improves efficiency by being capitalistic at the micro level, while at the same time providing the best quality of life it can support to all of its citizens. If it ever falls into pure socialism, it would be because everyone is content.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Here's a notion for us to think about: why not start structuring a basic-income system in a "capitalist" way by reforming the way companies pay out dividends? I mean, how does it make sense that, on the one hand, American business corporations are sitting on record-sized heaps of cash, but on the other hand, most gains for investors are made via buy-low, sell-high capital gains and almost all stock is owned by the investor-capitalist class, institutions, and retirement accounts? Why not transform our existing paper certificates that theoretically place a legal claim on a stream of profits into a real, enforceable claim on a stream of profits? So we could maintain our notions of "labor" and "deserving" by radically shortening the lifespan of a person's mandatory career. You work until you build enough wealth to start living off capital income, then "retire" into the rest of your life with a standard of living that remains linked to the work you actually did. A sovereign wealth fund could distribute social dividends through ownership of society's common assets for those who don't have much else.