4 ms·

The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Maybe we should just accept that there isn'

The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Maybe we should just accept that there isn't going to be enough work for everyone, and that that's going to become more true in the future, not less. And furthermore, maybe we should accept that that's a good thing, as long as we shape our economy accordingly.

jimzvz 14y ago
>The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Why? Someone has to pay for it.
- ken_railey 14y ago
  Not coming down for or against, but one argument is that it causes less market distortion than a minimum wage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
- mistercow 14y ago
  >Why? See the rest of my comment. >Someone has to pay for it. Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture. The idea that automation and technological advancement can cause people to go hungry is frankly crazy. Instead of celebrating the fact that humans don't have to waste their time on menial crap, we are forced by our economic system to wring our hands over the fact that that menial crap can no longer be used as an arbitrary metric for distributing resources.
  - jimzvz 14y ago
    >Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture. I don't follow this logic. The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      >The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. We do not currently have a problem with people not wanting to work. We currently have a problem with people being unable to find work. >The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone. That's why the system has to be dynamic. If you have a surplus of jobs, you reduce the GMI so that people have to work more. If you have a deficit of jobs, you increase the GMI accordingly.
- jvm 14y ago
  Someone has to pay for the increased minimum wage too. I agree with parent that EITC has more bang for the buck if you're interested in helping the poor. I guess someone on the right would just want neither; fair enough I say. WONKY ASIDE: The incidence of the minimum wage is almost certainly equivalent to that of a regressive consumption tax. So assuming no disemployment effects, it basically transfers wealth from everyone who buys the products of low-wage labor (disproportionately from the poor) to people who work minimum wage jobs, some of whom are also poor. It also kills some low-wage workers' jobs. By contrast, EITC is a transfer from people who pay income tax (disproportionately the rich) to people with low incomes. So unlike the minimum wage increase, it is unambiguously beneficial to the poor. In my personal opinion, one of the big reasons the minimum wage is so popular (and it really is, even across party lines) is that the costs are hidden, so people can pretend it's being paid for by big bad corporations even though the costs are ultimately borne by disproportionately poor consumers.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Why do you assume that consumers will pay the cost of higher wages, and not owners (via lower profits)?
    - pixl97 14y ago
      >and not owners (via lower profits)? Because 'free market' competition would have already reduced that cost/profit via other market factors. Assume the market is colluding on price and it's not hard to see that consumers could pay the cost.
crusso 14y ago
I'd be okay with some bare subsistence level income, but the reality is that politicians will buy votes by redefining "bare subsistence" over time. Eventually these types of programs all get out of control. See medicare, social security, student loans, food stamps, etc.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >Eventually these types of programs all get out of control. See medicare, social security, student loans, food stamps, etc. I don't know what you see as "out of control" about medicare, social security, or food stamps, but it doesn't really matter. The more important question is why you think the minimum income should be limited to bare subsistence. Once the system is in place, you can use it to control job availability. Not enough jobs? Raise the minimum income and people will work fewer hours.
  - crusso 14y ago
    Out of control means $184,000 total government debt per CITIZEN. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Regarding "subsistence", make NOT working attractive and you get more of it. It's simple human nature.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      "Our debt is really high, therefore social programs must be out of control" is not a sound argument.
      - crusso 14y ago
        I guess if you didn't know or care that entitlements are the largest identifiable chunks of government spending you might feel that way.
        mistercow 14y ago
        The argument "our debt is really high, therefore there is too much spending" is also not a sound argument.
robryan 14y ago
For this to work there really has to be significant rewards for working on the lower end. If people are guaranteed 40k but can make 50k toiling away at Walmart full time it will likely become hard to find people to fill the jobs.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  Just take away $0.25 (of basic income) for every $1 earned working. Or whatever numbers make sense. But it should be straightforward enough to keep incentives available.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Maybe. The difference between 40k and 50k sounds small in terms of raw percentage, but if you consider disposable income, it's more significant. What I think you'd much more likely see is an increase in part time work. In your scenario, likely nobody would be willing to work full time as a cashier at Walmart. But they would work part time if they wanted to save up for a new car, for example. If the labor pool can support it, I think that's as it should be. The neat thing about the minimum guaranteed income is how well it scales as we automate jobs in the future. If we no longer need very many people working jobs at the skill level of Walmart cashiers, then raising the minimum income will account for that relatively painlessly. But it's obviously not something you can just slap into place. You have to analyze the problem to figure out both how to set the minimum income initially, and how to adjust it over time.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  That's why you grant a smaller basic income stipend (say, more like $15k/year -- equivalent to minimum wage at full time), but take away nothing for working. So if you grant $15k and Wal-Mart pays $15k (same wage levels as now), the worker has a total income of $30k.
OstiaAntica 14y ago
Society's income, or capacity to work, isn't a fixed pie.
- mistercow 14y ago
  I'm not sure if that point is intended to support or reject GMI.

jimzvz 14y ago

>The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Why? Someone has to pay for it.

ken_railey 14y ago
Not coming down for or against, but one argument is that it causes less market distortion than a minimum wage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
mistercow 14y ago
>Why? See the rest of my comment. >Someone has to pay for it. Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture. The idea that automation and technological advancement can cause people to go hungry is frankly crazy. Instead of celebrating the fact that humans don't have to waste their time on menial crap, we are forced by our economic system to wring our hands over the fact that that menial crap can no longer be used as an arbitrary metric for distributing resources.
- jimzvz 14y ago
  >Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture. I don't follow this logic. The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    >The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. We do not currently have a problem with people not wanting to work. We currently have a problem with people being unable to find work. >The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone. That's why the system has to be dynamic. If you have a surplus of jobs, you reduce the GMI so that people have to work more. If you have a deficit of jobs, you increase the GMI accordingly.
jvm 14y ago
Someone has to pay for the increased minimum wage too. I agree with parent that EITC has more bang for the buck if you're interested in helping the poor. I guess someone on the right would just want neither; fair enough I say. WONKY ASIDE: The incidence of the minimum wage is almost certainly equivalent to that of a regressive consumption tax. So assuming no disemployment effects, it basically transfers wealth from everyone who buys the products of low-wage labor (disproportionately from the poor) to people who work minimum wage jobs, some of whom are also poor. It also kills some low-wage workers' jobs. By contrast, EITC is a transfer from people who pay income tax (disproportionately the rich) to people with low incomes. So unlike the minimum wage increase, it is unambiguously beneficial to the poor. In my personal opinion, one of the big reasons the minimum wage is so popular (and it really is, even across party lines) is that the costs are hidden, so people can pretend it's being paid for by big bad corporations even though the costs are ultimately borne by disproportionately poor consumers.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Why do you assume that consumers will pay the cost of higher wages, and not owners (via lower profits)?
  - pixl97 14y ago
    >and not owners (via lower profits)? Because 'free market' competition would have already reduced that cost/profit via other market factors. Assume the market is colluding on price and it's not hard to see that consumers could pay the cost.

crusso 14y ago

I'd be okay with some bare subsistence level income, but the reality is that politicians will buy votes by redefining "bare subsistence" over time. Eventually these types of programs all get out of control. See medicare, social security, student loans, food stamps, etc.

mistercow 14y ago
>Eventually these types of programs all get out of control. See medicare, social security, student loans, food stamps, etc. I don't know what you see as "out of control" about medicare, social security, or food stamps, but it doesn't really matter. The more important question is why you think the minimum income should be limited to bare subsistence. Once the system is in place, you can use it to control job availability. Not enough jobs? Raise the minimum income and people will work fewer hours.
- crusso 14y ago
  Out of control means $184,000 total government debt per CITIZEN. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Regarding "subsistence", make NOT working attractive and you get more of it. It's simple human nature.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    "Our debt is really high, therefore social programs must be out of control" is not a sound argument.
    - crusso 14y ago
      I guess if you didn't know or care that entitlements are the largest identifiable chunks of government spending you might feel that way.
      - mistercow 14y ago
        The argument "our debt is really high, therefore there is too much spending" is also not a sound argument.

robryan 14y ago

For this to work there really has to be significant rewards for working on the lower end. If people are guaranteed 40k but can make 50k toiling away at Walmart full time it will likely become hard to find people to fill the jobs.

maxerickson 14y ago
Just take away $0.25 (of basic income) for every $1 earned working. Or whatever numbers make sense. But it should be straightforward enough to keep incentives available.
mistercow 14y ago
Maybe. The difference between 40k and 50k sounds small in terms of raw percentage, but if you consider disposable income, it's more significant. What I think you'd much more likely see is an increase in part time work. In your scenario, likely nobody would be willing to work full time as a cashier at Walmart. But they would work part time if they wanted to save up for a new car, for example. If the labor pool can support it, I think that's as it should be. The neat thing about the minimum guaranteed income is how well it scales as we automate jobs in the future. If we no longer need very many people working jobs at the skill level of Walmart cashiers, then raising the minimum income will account for that relatively painlessly. But it's obviously not something you can just slap into place. You have to analyze the problem to figure out both how to set the minimum income initially, and how to adjust it over time.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
That's why you grant a smaller basic income stipend (say, more like $15k/year -- equivalent to minimum wage at full time), but take away nothing for working. So if you grant $15k and Wal-Mart pays $15k (same wage levels as now), the worker has a total income of $30k.

OstiaAntica 14y ago

Society's income, or capacity to work, isn't a fixed pie.

mistercow 14y ago
I'm not sure if that point is intended to support or reject GMI.