4 ms·

Though its not exactly what the article is talking about, I accept the idea of a basic income in some form as almost inevitable... but it'll have to wait until

by swalsh 13y ago

Though its not exactly what the article is talking about, I accept the idea of a basic income in some form as almost inevitable... but it'll have to wait until after the baby boomers loose power.

tomjen3 13y ago
I doubt it will ever be accepted and I hope it isn't. Basic income is a waste of money -- a stack of clothing, a toothbrush and deodorant, 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in could be provided to any citizen who asked for it for a lot cheaper and it would prevent anybody from dying in the streets (the scenario welfare proponents argue necessitates the governments involment), yet would also provide maximum incentives to get of welfare and to find a job. (since I don't think this should be means-tested, I guess you could argue it is a form of basic income, although usually basic-income is paid in some form of cash).
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Oh please, as if there will be jobs for most of the population in the future.
- azundo 13y ago
  Read the article. This is exactly what NGOs attempt to do right now, figure out exactly which things people need and provide the bare minimum. It doesn't work. The point of the article and paper is that people with choice actually do make good decisions and turn that money into economic growth. While you may think that handing out a bunch of stuff to people (even if that stuff is the bare minimum) would provide incentive to move off of such assistance it doesn't. It strips people of any interest in agency and has them believe they don't control their own well-being. This is exactly what the development sector has gotten wrong for several decades and until things change, not much good will come out of it.
  - josh2600 13y ago
    Yes that's exactly the point. I originally agreed that providing the basic units of subsistence would be the most equitable form of welfare, and perhaps in a country like the United States it is, but in a society without access to means of production or meaningful employment, the basic units of subsistence cannot provide economic growth. If you want growth, you need enterprise, not subsistence.
- justin66 13y ago
  > Basic income is a waste of money -- a stack of clothing, a toothbrush and deodorant, 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in could be provided If it's saving money you're worried about, just giving them the money is probably a lot more efficient. Whatever that crap you listed is worth? Give them the cash instead, let them handle the logistics of buying it (or buying something else they need, a determination they're in a much better position to make than you are), and save the substantial amount of money involved in having an entire apparatus for handing out crap.
  - lmm 13y ago
    The idea is to avoid the failure mode where people spend the money on drugs/art/whatever and then still die in the streets.
    - justin66 13y ago
      That's certainly not the ONLY idea. There are a seemingly infinite number of reasons why people want to avoid just giving poor people money, and many of them are well-intentioned. The problem is that people don't even attempt an objective assessment of the impact of doing things one way versus the impact of doing things another way. It's more common to assess a plan based on "how does this jive with the ideology I've taken on for myself?" or to use a simple judgment based on aesthetics.
      - tomjen3 13y ago
        I suppose that, from an economic stand-point, the poor would benefit more from the same amount in money. However the benefit isn't necesarilly what we care about, in this case at least I am much more interested in avoiding the failure mode where they stay on wellfare because it is nicer than getting a job.
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      No, actually the idea is to avoid the failure mode where people go on wellfare because it is better than to have a job while at the same time avoidng the failure mode where people starve and the failure mode where people don't have an incentive to work (which is what we have now, sadly).
- DenisM 13y ago
  Where are you going to get that stuff you're going to give people? A giant government procurement contract? Who will decide what goes into it? The problem with your suggestion is you're trying to do soviet-style central planning of consumption, even if only at "basic needs" level. As history shows, it will be both cost-inefficient and not inadequate at meeting the basic needs.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Where are you going to get that stuff you're going to give people? A giant government procurement contract? Or perhaps many local ones. But yes, exploit the capitalist system and let the cheapest provider win. Who will decide what goes into it? The political system. Basically, there will be a public itemized list of what people gain from the welfare system. Periodically, progressive types will say "oh no, the poor lack XXX", and XXX will be added to the list of items. Conversely, conservative types can read the list and point out "WTF, why are we paying for YYY", and get such items removed. It's far better than the current system, in which basically no one has any clue what goods and services the poor have access to. This enables progressive types to say "oh noes, the poor are barely surviving" and conservatives to say "they all drive cadillacs", and neither side can refute the other without reading obscure Census reports (and obviously no one does that).
- pocvmbcxvb 13y ago
  How do I start earning money with only the items you listed? I need a PC, internet connection, VPS server, appstore developer account, and smartphone. Your list doesn't have any of those.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    It isn't the governments job to start your business, you can do that with the money you save up while working part (or full time) and basically have no expenses (except, possibly, bus-fare).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kefka 13y ago
I came here too to discuss a mincome system as well. But alas, your comments about the baby boomers seems spot on.
ams6110 13y ago
There is a difference though between giving someone a year's income in a 3rd world country like Uganda, where there is no other safety net, where as the OP states, nobody is "unemployed" because everybody has to find a way to scrape by, or die. So everyone is essentially an entrepreneur. Their mindset is that they need to work to survive. When they get cash, they do what entrepreneurs do, invest it in things that will let them generate more income. In a developed country like the USA, if you gave a person on welfare a pile of cash, they'd most likely just go mad with it until it was all spent, then revert to their prior welfare lifestyle. This has been studied, though I can't find the citation I'm specifically thinking of. People who live in long-term poverty in the USA see money as something to be spent for immediate gratification. The idea of saving it and investing it is foreign to them.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  > In a developed country like the USA, if you gave a person on welfare a pile of cash, they'd most likely just go mad with it until it was all spent, then revert to their prior welfare lifestyle. Some people surely will. The question is, are those the outliers, or the mainstream? And, even if people do that, is that a cheaper way than the current social welfare provider industry structure to keep them out of prisons or emergency rooms or other expensive institutions?
- nitrogen 13y ago
  People who live in long-term poverty in the USA see money as something to be spent for immediate gratification. The idea of saving it and investing it is foreign to them. This is partly because they don't have enough money to take care of their immediate needs and save for something better, and partly because nobody they trust has shown them any other way of living. Imagine you have a choice between paying for a flat screen TV and starving, and eating high quality food for a month. You have no social connections outside your economic class, thus no evidence that any action you can take will lead to your situation changing. If you are poor, you will choose the TV because it guarantees a baseline level of pleasure indefinitely, while the food will run out after a month and you'll be back where you started. Since you're constantly coping with the stress of being on the edge of survival, your willpower is continually depleted. Congratulations, you're now stuck.

by swalsh 13y ago

Though its not exactly what the article is talking about, I accept the idea of a basic income in some form as almost inevitable... but it'll have to wait until after the baby boomers loose power.

tomjen3 13y ago

I doubt it will ever be accepted and I hope it isn't. Basic income is a waste of money -- a stack of clothing, a toothbrush and deodorant, 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in could be provided to any citizen who asked for it for a lot cheaper and it would prevent anybody from dying in the streets (the scenario welfare proponents argue necessitates the governments involment), yet would also provide maximum incentives to get of welfare and to find a job. (since I don't think this should be means-tested, I guess you could argue it is a form of basic income, although usually basic-income is paid in some form of cash).

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Oh please, as if there will be jobs for most of the population in the future.
azundo 13y ago
Read the article. This is exactly what NGOs attempt to do right now, figure out exactly which things people need and provide the bare minimum. It doesn't work. The point of the article and paper is that people with choice actually do make good decisions and turn that money into economic growth. While you may think that handing out a bunch of stuff to people (even if that stuff is the bare minimum) would provide incentive to move off of such assistance it doesn't. It strips people of any interest in agency and has them believe they don't control their own well-being. This is exactly what the development sector has gotten wrong for several decades and until things change, not much good will come out of it.
- josh2600 13y ago
  Yes that's exactly the point. I originally agreed that providing the basic units of subsistence would be the most equitable form of welfare, and perhaps in a country like the United States it is, but in a society without access to means of production or meaningful employment, the basic units of subsistence cannot provide economic growth. If you want growth, you need enterprise, not subsistence.
justin66 13y ago
> Basic income is a waste of money -- a stack of clothing, a toothbrush and deodorant, 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in could be provided If it's saving money you're worried about, just giving them the money is probably a lot more efficient. Whatever that crap you listed is worth? Give them the cash instead, let them handle the logistics of buying it (or buying something else they need, a determination they're in a much better position to make than you are), and save the substantial amount of money involved in having an entire apparatus for handing out crap.
- lmm 13y ago
  The idea is to avoid the failure mode where people spend the money on drugs/art/whatever and then still die in the streets.
  - justin66 13y ago
    That's certainly not the ONLY idea. There are a seemingly infinite number of reasons why people want to avoid just giving poor people money, and many of them are well-intentioned. The problem is that people don't even attempt an objective assessment of the impact of doing things one way versus the impact of doing things another way. It's more common to assess a plan based on "how does this jive with the ideology I've taken on for myself?" or to use a simple judgment based on aesthetics.
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      I suppose that, from an economic stand-point, the poor would benefit more from the same amount in money. However the benefit isn't necesarilly what we care about, in this case at least I am much more interested in avoiding the failure mode where they stay on wellfare because it is nicer than getting a job.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    No, actually the idea is to avoid the failure mode where people go on wellfare because it is better than to have a job while at the same time avoidng the failure mode where people starve and the failure mode where people don't have an incentive to work (which is what we have now, sadly).
DenisM 13y ago
Where are you going to get that stuff you're going to give people? A giant government procurement contract? Who will decide what goes into it? The problem with your suggestion is you're trying to do soviet-style central planning of consumption, even if only at "basic needs" level. As history shows, it will be both cost-inefficient and not inadequate at meeting the basic needs.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Where are you going to get that stuff you're going to give people? A giant government procurement contract? Or perhaps many local ones. But yes, exploit the capitalist system and let the cheapest provider win. Who will decide what goes into it? The political system. Basically, there will be a public itemized list of what people gain from the welfare system. Periodically, progressive types will say "oh no, the poor lack XXX", and XXX will be added to the list of items. Conversely, conservative types can read the list and point out "WTF, why are we paying for YYY", and get such items removed. It's far better than the current system, in which basically no one has any clue what goods and services the poor have access to. This enables progressive types to say "oh noes, the poor are barely surviving" and conservatives to say "they all drive cadillacs", and neither side can refute the other without reading obscure Census reports (and obviously no one does that).
pocvmbcxvb 13y ago
How do I start earning money with only the items you listed? I need a PC, internet connection, VPS server, appstore developer account, and smartphone. Your list doesn't have any of those.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  It isn't the governments job to start your business, you can do that with the money you save up while working part (or full time) and basically have no expenses (except, possibly, bus-fare).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kefka 13y ago

I came here too to discuss a mincome system as well. But alas, your comments about the baby boomers seems spot on.

ams6110 13y ago

There is a difference though between giving someone a year's income in a 3rd world country like Uganda, where there is no other safety net, where as the OP states, nobody is "unemployed" because everybody has to find a way to scrape by, or die. So everyone is essentially an entrepreneur. Their mindset is that they need to work to survive. When they get cash, they do what entrepreneurs do, invest it in things that will let them generate more income. In a developed country like the USA, if you gave a person on welfare a pile of cash, they'd most likely just go mad with it until it was all spent, then revert to their prior welfare lifestyle. This has been studied, though I can't find the citation I'm specifically thinking of. People who live in long-term poverty in the USA see money as something to be spent for immediate gratification. The idea of saving it and investing it is foreign to them.

Zigurd 13y ago
> In a developed country like the USA, if you gave a person on welfare a pile of cash, they'd most likely just go mad with it until it was all spent, then revert to their prior welfare lifestyle. Some people surely will. The question is, are those the outliers, or the mainstream? And, even if people do that, is that a cheaper way than the current social welfare provider industry structure to keep them out of prisons or emergency rooms or other expensive institutions?
nitrogen 13y ago
People who live in long-term poverty in the USA see money as something to be spent for immediate gratification. The idea of saving it and investing it is foreign to them. This is partly because they don't have enough money to take care of their immediate needs and save for something better, and partly because nobody they trust has shown them any other way of living. Imagine you have a choice between paying for a flat screen TV and starving, and eating high quality food for a month. You have no social connections outside your economic class, thus no evidence that any action you can take will lead to your situation changing. If you are poor, you will choose the TV because it guarantees a baseline level of pleasure indefinitely, while the food will run out after a month and you'll be back where you started. Since you're constantly coping with the stress of being on the edge of survival, your willpower is continually depleted. Congratulations, you're now stuck.