5 ms·

With BI, there are going to be some people who use it as an excuse to slack off. They're not ambitious or energetic and, relieved of the need to make something

With BI, there are going to be some people who use it as an excuse to slack off. They're not ambitious or energetic and, relieved of the need to make something of their lives, they probably won't do much. That's true. Here's a question: how much are they doing right now? My guess: not much. Given the high rate of unemployment that exists already, it seems like society's value for unskilled work is pretty low already. So I don't think the bulk loss to society in having the least ambitious ~10-20% slack off is that bad, especially if a large number of people are more engaged in their work. Parasites at the bottom of society are pretty harmless. Parasites at the top, on the other hand, are extremely damaging. We have a lot of the second kind. Because people have to work and most need a steady income that just barely meets expenses, that pretty much means they end up in a subordinate role, there's a class of useless people called "executives" who have total control over the economy (and mediocritize it, because it's best for their positional stability to do so) because people are terrified of losing the jobs and incomes. If there's a trade-off between having more parasites at the bottom of society who don't work vs. having more parasites at the top who ruin others' work, I'd take the former, hands down.

jjoonathan 14y ago
> If there's a trade-off between having more parasites at the bottom of society who don't work vs. having more parasites at the top who ruin others' wor Nonono, you have it backwards. We NEED more parasites! The supply of labor exceeds demand right now which sends the price to 0 (minimum wage paints the problem a different color but doesn't fix anything). We need to decrease the supply of labor so that the market can start pricing it rationally again. If everybody stops working, the price of services skyrockets. But the problem (soaring cost of services) and the solution (soaring reward for labor) are one and the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work. In fact, I'd go so far to say that BI presents a closer approximation to a free market than the system we have now (where the government price-controls labor).
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Yes, we basically agree. I don't consider it abstractly good for someone to live on society, while able to work, and not working. However, the cost of that is pennies compared to what we pay by having terrible leadership (parasites at the top).
- Houshalter 14y ago
  >The supply of labor exceeds demand right now which sends the price to 0 That's not quite how prices work. There is always a demand for labor. If the price of labor fell low enough there would be plenty of jobs. Though no one would want to work at those wages, it's even illegal to do so. The point is just that the price will never really fall to zero, even if it gets low. >If everybody stops working, the price of services skyrockets. But the problem (soaring cost of services) and the solution (soaring reward for labor) are one and the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work. In fact, I'd go so far to say that BI presents a closer approximation to a free market than the system we have now (where the government price-controls labor). That's not the intention of guaranteed minimum income at all, and not a good thing either. You are just cutting off one place (higher prices) to feed the other (higher wages). At least if I understand what you mean correctly, which I'm not sure. But the idea of the system is that it will balance out wealth disparities over time, but not too unfairly on people who do succeed. As well as provide a safety net. And get rid of all the bad incentives and complications created by other systems which attempt to do the same.
  - johnnyg 14y ago
    > Nonono, you have it backwards. We NEED more parasites! The supply of labor exceeds demand right now which sends the price to 0 (minimum wage paints the problem a different color but doesn't fix anything). We need to decrease the supply of labor so that the market can start pricing it rationally again. We need to fix the market in a new way, so that the market can be free? What the what?! A free market is one where price accurately reflects the mix of supply and demand. A free market is NOT and NEVER one where supply and demand are manipulated to produce a "better" result. You are arguing supply side good, demand side bad but consider zooming out and asking first if manipulation of either variable will really produce a predictable, desirable result. I've heard lot of arguments that say "but this is GOOD market manipulation" but it always ends in tears. Supply and demand will always win out in the end. The market is faster, smarter and stronger than you. The winners are the ones that can ride the waves, see what the result of manipulation this way to that will be, and position themselves accordingly. Increasing the ability of the participants in the system to react in these ways makes the system more rational, and in turn more stable. Juicing one variable or the other makes people build knowledge/lives/decisions on a pseudo foundation that will eventually be undercut by market forces. It teaches people the wrong things and makes the system less rational and therefore more bubble prone.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  The supply of labor exceeds demand right now which sends the price to 0... The price of labor has not decreased since 2001 (the beginning of the data series). Wages have not decreased either. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECICOM http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECICOM http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIWAG http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIWAG
gizmo686 14y ago
> Given the high rate of unemployment that exists already, it seems like society's value for unskilled work is pretty low already. For some reason, I can't seem to explain this concept to many people. We currently have a large population of people who want to work but do not have work. If systems like BI make some of those people (or people who do have jobs) not want to work, that is not a problem; because we would still have more people who want to work than we need. Systems like BI literally give us a sliding scale to control the incentive to work.
mtrimpe 14y ago
I'm always surprised that people don't bring up the Netherlands, which essentially has a BI. If you see a homeless person on the street here you can be sure they're either a drug addict or a mental patient, both on the street by choice rather than necessity. We indeed have a parasitic class, for a large degree consisting of immigrants who don't share our culture and consider depending on BI 'awesome' rather than shameful as Dutch people do. The effects of our version of BI aren't actually that pronounced, and the main thing is actually a feeling of comfort, safety and an increased willingness to cooperate (as opposed to compete.) Now a single piece of data from a single country doesn't imply anything, but according to the OECD we work the least yet are the most productive country (per capita, not working hour.) Intuitively and emotionally I would attribute that to our BI / socialist state.
- rtpg 14y ago
  >We indeed have a parasitic class, for a large degree consisting of immigrants who don't share our culture and consider depending on BI 'awesome' rather than shameful as Dutch people do. Citation needed. The amount of racism people seem to allow themselves recently makes it feel like we've dragged society back 100 years.
  - pfortuny 14y ago
    Apart from "immigrants" not being a "race", this need for references is a bit ... how would I state it.. overconfident? Come on...
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      In almost all countries (including non-White countries) "immigrants" when used as a pejorative is code-word for race. When Americans complain about "immigrants", they sure as shit don't mean Gunther from Germany, they mean Juan from Mexico or Chang from Korea. Europe is not immune from this - France as a whole seems much more staunchly racist (or rather, accepting of casual racism) than the USA. Racism has many faces, especially today where it's now taboo. There are all kinds of ways that racism manifests in modern, developed society without someone screaming "he's black! get him!".
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Here's a question: how much are they doing right now? My guess: not much. That's because in the US we have BI of about $20k/year [1]. They don't need to work, so they don't. In India and other locales with minimal/negligable BI, they do domestic labor and other such tasks (at least in urban areas, rural locales are another game entirely). There is no good reason any software engineer or other high skill individual should do laundry or clean their own house. It's a complete waste of their time. It's merely the perverse incentives created by our BI system (and other labor market rigidities) that cause this to happen. [1] No matter how low a person's earned income is, their consumption is about $20k. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt

jjoonathan 14y ago

> If there's a trade-off between having more parasites at the bottom of society who don't work vs. having more parasites at the top who ruin others' wor Nonono, you have it backwards. We NEED more parasites! The supply of labor exceeds demand right now which sends the price to 0 (minimum wage paints the problem a different color but doesn't fix anything). We need to decrease the supply of labor so that the market can start pricing it rationally again. If everybody stops working, the price of services skyrockets. But the problem (soaring cost of services) and the solution (soaring reward for labor) are one and the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work. In fact, I'd go so far to say that BI presents a closer approximation to a free market than the system we have now (where the government price-controls labor).

michaelochurch 14y ago
Yes, we basically agree. I don't consider it abstractly good for someone to live on society, while able to work, and not working. However, the cost of that is pennies compared to what we pay by having terrible leadership (parasites at the top).
Houshalter 14y ago
>The supply of labor exceeds demand right now which sends the price to 0 That's not quite how prices work. There is always a demand for labor. If the price of labor fell low enough there would be plenty of jobs. Though no one would want to work at those wages, it's even illegal to do so. The point is just that the price will never really fall to zero, even if it gets low. >If everybody stops working, the price of services skyrockets. But the problem (soaring cost of services) and the solution (soaring reward for labor) are one and the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work. In fact, I'd go so far to say that BI presents a closer approximation to a free market than the system we have now (where the government price-controls labor). That's not the intention of guaranteed minimum income at all, and not a good thing either. You are just cutting off one place (higher prices) to feed the other (higher wages). At least if I understand what you mean correctly, which I'm not sure. But the idea of the system is that it will balance out wealth disparities over time, but not too unfairly on people who do succeed. As well as provide a safety net. And get rid of all the bad incentives and complications created by other systems which attempt to do the same.
- johnnyg 14y ago
  > Nonono, you have it backwards. We NEED more parasites! The supply of labor exceeds demand right now which sends the price to 0 (minimum wage paints the problem a different color but doesn't fix anything). We need to decrease the supply of labor so that the market can start pricing it rationally again. We need to fix the market in a new way, so that the market can be free? What the what?! A free market is one where price accurately reflects the mix of supply and demand. A free market is NOT and NEVER one where supply and demand are manipulated to produce a "better" result. You are arguing supply side good, demand side bad but consider zooming out and asking first if manipulation of either variable will really produce a predictable, desirable result. I've heard lot of arguments that say "but this is GOOD market manipulation" but it always ends in tears. Supply and demand will always win out in the end. The market is faster, smarter and stronger than you. The winners are the ones that can ride the waves, see what the result of manipulation this way to that will be, and position themselves accordingly. Increasing the ability of the participants in the system to react in these ways makes the system more rational, and in turn more stable. Juicing one variable or the other makes people build knowledge/lives/decisions on a pseudo foundation that will eventually be undercut by market forces. It teaches people the wrong things and makes the system less rational and therefore more bubble prone.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
The supply of labor exceeds demand right now which sends the price to 0... The price of labor has not decreased since 2001 (the beginning of the data series). Wages have not decreased either. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECICOM http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECICOM http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIWAG http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIWAG

gizmo686 14y ago

> Given the high rate of unemployment that exists already, it seems like society's value for unskilled work is pretty low already. For some reason, I can't seem to explain this concept to many people. We currently have a large population of people who want to work but do not have work. If systems like BI make some of those people (or people who do have jobs) not want to work, that is not a problem; because we would still have more people who want to work than we need. Systems like BI literally give us a sliding scale to control the incentive to work.

mtrimpe 14y ago

I'm always surprised that people don't bring up the Netherlands, which essentially has a BI. If you see a homeless person on the street here you can be sure they're either a drug addict or a mental patient, both on the street by choice rather than necessity. We indeed have a parasitic class, for a large degree consisting of immigrants who don't share our culture and consider depending on BI 'awesome' rather than shameful as Dutch people do. The effects of our version of BI aren't actually that pronounced, and the main thing is actually a feeling of comfort, safety and an increased willingness to cooperate (as opposed to compete.) Now a single piece of data from a single country doesn't imply anything, but according to the OECD we work the least yet are the most productive country (per capita, not working hour.) Intuitively and emotionally I would attribute that to our BI / socialist state.

rtpg 14y ago
>We indeed have a parasitic class, for a large degree consisting of immigrants who don't share our culture and consider depending on BI 'awesome' rather than shameful as Dutch people do. Citation needed. The amount of racism people seem to allow themselves recently makes it feel like we've dragged society back 100 years.
- pfortuny 14y ago
  Apart from "immigrants" not being a "race", this need for references is a bit ... how would I state it.. overconfident? Come on...
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    In almost all countries (including non-White countries) "immigrants" when used as a pejorative is code-word for race. When Americans complain about "immigrants", they sure as shit don't mean Gunther from Germany, they mean Juan from Mexico or Chang from Korea. Europe is not immune from this - France as a whole seems much more staunchly racist (or rather, accepting of casual racism) than the USA. Racism has many faces, especially today where it's now taboo. There are all kinds of ways that racism manifests in modern, developed society without someone screaming "he's black! get him!".

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Here's a question: how much are they doing right now? My guess: not much. That's because in the US we have BI of about $20k/year [1]. They don't need to work, so they don't. In India and other locales with minimal/negligable BI, they do domestic labor and other such tasks (at least in urban areas, rural locales are another game entirely). There is no good reason any software engineer or other high skill individual should do laundry or clean their own house. It's a complete waste of their time. It's merely the perverse incentives created by our BI system (and other labor market rigidities) that cause this to happen. [1] No matter how low a person's earned income is, their consumption is about $20k. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt