4 ms·

Those of you who are opposed to Basic Income Guarantees or cash transfers on the basis that you believe they don't work: Can you define the assumptions / belie

Those of you who are opposed to Basic Income Guarantees or cash transfers on the basis that you believe they don't work: Can you define the assumptions / beliefs that make you think they don't work, in a testable fashion? (Ideally in a fashion which would be testable on as small and cheap a scale as possible.) I'm not asking this because I'm planning to rubbish those assumptions or beliefs. I'm asking because this is an area of enough interest to me that I may look into organising fundraising for trials in the future, and it'd be useful to know what the most compelling hyphotheses to test would be.

mseebach 13y ago
The problem is the erosion of morals, and that is obviously difficult to test. It's not about what happens if someone gets a grant for a couple of years to do whatever, it's waking up in the morning, every morning, and knowing that even if you never lift a finger to do a single thing for someone else, you're guaranteed a minimum quality of life. The promises of the vast european welfare systems were similar to those of the basic income guarantee proposals: That people's morals are fundamentally wired to be ashamed of idleness and eagerness to contribute to society, so if you just remove the negative spirals of poverty, everything will fix itself. The lessons from the european welfare systems, however, shows something quite different: Plenty of people are happy never to lift a finger, either for themselves or anyone else, and a culture of entitlement has blossomed.
- EliRivers 13y ago
  "Plenty of people are happy never to lift a finger, either for themselves or anyone else, and a culture of entitlement has blossomed." Nothing we can do about that. They will continue to do so no matter what the system is. So, we can either keep going as we are, or we can have a basic income. Keep going as we are; these people who won't lift a finger continue to do so. All the people who would use a basic income to better themselves and thus improve society are also still screwed. Society does not benefit. Have basic income; these people who won't lift a finger continue to do so. All the people who would use a basic income to better themselves and thus improve society do so. Society benefits. Is it fair? No. Given the choice between more fair, or less fair and a better society (by which I mean an actual opportunity for people to build themselves better lives, because no matter what propaganda we hear about "American dream" the evidence clearly indicates it's just that - a dream), which should we pick? That's a personal choice, but I know which I'd go for.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    You're missing two dimensions in your analysis: 1: The possibility that some people that are currently contributing (by having a job, even if it's not a great job, and takes care of themselves) choose a life of no positive activity. I don't know what the calculus is, but they're not balanced out by just any >0 number of people choosing to improve society. 2: That when at least some of those people on long term passive income receive a good, solid kick in the butt (in terms of expiring benefits), they are, in fact, able to turn their lives around and become contributing members of society.
    - EliRivers 13y ago
      Guess all we can do is look at the evidence where this has been tried. It's my understanding that it looks good. Seems that more people are caught in the benefits trap than choose to actually be there.
- scotty79 13y ago
  European welfare systems are not BI because you loose the benefits if you go to work. They penalize getting a job hence people are disincentivised to get one. At leas legal one.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    Indeed they're not, and BI has a lot going for it in it's simple incentives. I just struggle to think that's the only thing keeping so many people passive for so long.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
I believe that expanding the BI would reduce the amount of work performed, thereby destroying wealth. Assumptions: most people prefer not to work, and most people gain diminishing marginal utility from income. A lot of people will be satisfied to relax and produce nothing while enjoying merely the BI. Evidence in support of this hypothesis: poor Americans already have a BI [1] and choose not to work. See some numbers here: http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_work.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor... In contrast, poor folks in many other nations (e.g., India) have a much lower BI and choose to work.
- scotty79 13y ago
  Business prefers not to hire a lot of people because their work is worth for the economy less then what they have to pay for their food and shelter. Wealth does not come from human work. It comes from machine work. Business is no longer in recession. It produces as much as before 2008 but with much less people. Manufacturing just used the recession to shed off unnecessary workers.

mseebach 13y ago

The problem is the erosion of morals, and that is obviously difficult to test. It's not about what happens if someone gets a grant for a couple of years to do whatever, it's waking up in the morning, every morning, and knowing that even if you never lift a finger to do a single thing for someone else, you're guaranteed a minimum quality of life. The promises of the vast european welfare systems were similar to those of the basic income guarantee proposals: That people's morals are fundamentally wired to be ashamed of idleness and eagerness to contribute to society, so if you just remove the negative spirals of poverty, everything will fix itself. The lessons from the european welfare systems, however, shows something quite different: Plenty of people are happy never to lift a finger, either for themselves or anyone else, and a culture of entitlement has blossomed.

EliRivers 13y ago
"Plenty of people are happy never to lift a finger, either for themselves or anyone else, and a culture of entitlement has blossomed." Nothing we can do about that. They will continue to do so no matter what the system is. So, we can either keep going as we are, or we can have a basic income. Keep going as we are; these people who won't lift a finger continue to do so. All the people who would use a basic income to better themselves and thus improve society are also still screwed. Society does not benefit. Have basic income; these people who won't lift a finger continue to do so. All the people who would use a basic income to better themselves and thus improve society do so. Society benefits. Is it fair? No. Given the choice between more fair, or less fair and a better society (by which I mean an actual opportunity for people to build themselves better lives, because no matter what propaganda we hear about "American dream" the evidence clearly indicates it's just that - a dream), which should we pick? That's a personal choice, but I know which I'd go for.
- mseebach 13y ago
  You're missing two dimensions in your analysis: 1: The possibility that some people that are currently contributing (by having a job, even if it's not a great job, and takes care of themselves) choose a life of no positive activity. I don't know what the calculus is, but they're not balanced out by just any >0 number of people choosing to improve society. 2: That when at least some of those people on long term passive income receive a good, solid kick in the butt (in terms of expiring benefits), they are, in fact, able to turn their lives around and become contributing members of society.
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    Guess all we can do is look at the evidence where this has been tried. It's my understanding that it looks good. Seems that more people are caught in the benefits trap than choose to actually be there.
scotty79 13y ago
European welfare systems are not BI because you loose the benefits if you go to work. They penalize getting a job hence people are disincentivised to get one. At leas legal one.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Indeed they're not, and BI has a lot going for it in it's simple incentives. I just struggle to think that's the only thing keeping so many people passive for so long.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

I believe that expanding the BI would reduce the amount of work performed, thereby destroying wealth. Assumptions: most people prefer not to work, and most people gain diminishing marginal utility from income. A lot of people will be satisfied to relax and produce nothing while enjoying merely the BI. Evidence in support of this hypothesis: poor Americans already have a BI [1] and choose not to work. See some numbers here: http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_work.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor... In contrast, poor folks in many other nations (e.g., India) have a much lower BI and choose to work.

scotty79 13y ago
Business prefers not to hire a lot of people because their work is worth for the economy less then what they have to pay for their food and shelter. Wealth does not come from human work. It comes from machine work. Business is no longer in recession. It produces as much as before 2008 but with much less people. Manufacturing just used the recession to shed off unnecessary workers.