4 ms·

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 w

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.

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.