9 ms·

Basic income is a nice idea, but as long as we cannot automate everything, I do feel that it misses the point somewhat because it doesn't address unemployment.

Basic income is a nice idea, but as long as we cannot automate everything, I do feel that it misses the point somewhat because it doesn't address unemployment. As long as somebody has to work, unemployment is very divisive for society. Those who are employed tend to be valued over those who do not work, even when the unemployment is involuntary (actually, unemployment is usually defined to be involuntary). This can have jarring psychological consequences. It also reduces the overall size of the economy. If somebody wants to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them? Finally, it means that a basic income is always going to be a politically unstable proposition. It will always be easy for those who hate basic income to attack it with "welfare queen" type smears. This attack will likely be even more effective than it is with current welfare programs. This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. One can still have Basic Income on top of a Job Guarantee, of course. The two proposals aren't mutually exclusive. But I think the Job Guarantee is better at addressing the real issues, at least as long as we cannot automate everything.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction. This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. But how does it do this? I'm not disputing that it could, I'm just uncertain how you are proposing to implement this. For example, will I have a choice over the sort of work I like to do? What if I feel like changing that? I also a see a bit of a problem when people who are much more competent at some particular task feel unhappy that they are not able to earn more than someone who is unskilled or lazy and does inferior work.
- Dewie 13y ago
  > I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction. In my language, "employer" is an concatenation of "work" and "give": "workgiver". While "employee" is an concatenation of "work" and "take": "worktaker". :)
- huherto 13y ago
  Having a job is a privilege. just think of all the people who need one but don't have one.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  Yes, semantics can be fun... As for the implementation, I am partial to the proposals of MMT economists like Bill Mitchell. They boil down to an arrangement where certain institutions - mostly local and regional government and non-profits, but the details vary - can post jobs. Those jobs will administrated by the institution itself with minimal central oversight. However, funding comes from the central (monetarily sovereign) government at an hourly wage that is fixed by law. So it is simply an offer that you can take or not. If there is nothing that you like, don't take anything. The theory is that there are so many useful things that could be done once money stops being the limiting factor, it's extremely unlikely this would happen. Basic income advocates like to say that it allows you to do whatever work you want to do. Well, the Job Guarantee intends to allow essentially the same freedom as long as what you want to do provides some public benefit. That said, there are other proposals for how to generate infinite demand for labor at a fixed price, e.g. this one: http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-auction-the-unemployed http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-in...
scarmig 13y ago
If somebody wants to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them? The point of a basic income is that it allows people to work. Because it's unconditional (at least in the variant I support), there are no marginal disincentive effects. If you want to call having people dig holes and fill them back in "work," okay, fine. But at that point I don't see why we shouldn't just call simply living a job and call it a day, because at least that way people can focus on valuable economic tasks that a government can't necessarily see or effectively plan. And it's harder to attack because it is universal and unconditional. Compare foodstamps and Medicaid to a program that's available to all income classes, such as, say, Medicare or Social Security. One class is constantly attacked, while attacking the other ends political careers.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Because it's unconditional (at least in the variant I support), there are no marginal disincentive effects. If you believe in diminishing marginal utility, there certainly are. Compare foodstamps and Medicaid to a program that's available to all income classes, such as, say, Medicare or Social Security. These programs are not universal - no one under 65 receives them. Those programs are popular because the beneficiaries of redistribution vote for them at high rates, while the people being redistributed from vote at lower rates. It's nothing but a standard "pay some people to vote for us" scheme.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Isn't the point that many unemployment benefits actually penalize people for taking a job? i.e. it's the difference between the marginal utility falling towards 0 as you earn/receive more money and the the utility being below 0 as you are punished for working by having welfare equal to more than you have earned taken away.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      It's not actually that bad. Your consumption is basically flat as you go from $0k/year to $20k/year earned income. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_work.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...
flyinRyan 13y ago
>This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. Oh good lord no. First of all, this means the creation of countless "dig a hole, fill it back in" jobs. Second of all, it will leave us stuck in this barbaric form of living once we can automate everything because the mega-rich with their robot work force aren't going to want to contribute "their" earnings to basic income. And finally, basic income is just that: it's income for everyone. It doesn't mean you can't work if you want to. In fact it's better because it means you can truly choose what you want to do with your life instead of being under pressure to avoid starvation or living on the street.
- chii 13y ago
  The mega-rich will _never_ want to contribute any significant amount of their money (gained from the output of their automated robots and factories/greenhouses) towards feeding those who are not working, unless forced to. They might pay lip service, and donate to some charity/feed the poor program, but they don't do it due to the goodness of their hearts - they do it due to the need to look to be charitable (i.e., marketing/PR reasons). Its a business cost. I bet if you asked them to make these donations completely anonymously, and never admit to having made them to anyone, most would not comply (and note, not like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw).
  - michas 13y ago
    And they shouldn't be forced, because it's their money after all. Just because they are richer than you that doesn't mean they owe you anything. Also, you contradict yourself by first saing that rich "never want to contribute" and later giving example of people actualy doing this for "marketing/PR reasons". Those reasons may be selfish, but still people like Bill Gates donate literaly billions of dollars to help others.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      It's not "their money after all". They did not make it alone, they were supported by the community in countless ways. How do you propose the government be paid for? How do you propose we deal with people for which there is no work to do? If you don't have some kind of solution for the poor then they'll simply kill these rich people and take everything they have. And since you don't want taxes to pay for the police, they'll be shooting in the same direction.
kaoD 13y ago
The economy cannot be controlled nor manipulated by external means. Job Guarantee will only lead to people working in unproductive jobs such as brooming highways (ok, I know it's an extreme example, but you get the idea). The productive economy assimilates a number of jobs naturally, and forcing it won't fix the issue, just like a basic unconditional income will only lead to inflation.
michas 13y ago
I am from Poland and I've seen that Job Guarantee policy in action when our country was ruled by communists. It ends in disaster: companies are forced to hire more people than they need to do the job, employees come to their workplace and have nothing to do so they spend a whole day chatting, doing nothing, sometimes even drinking alcohol as a way to fight boredom. At the end of the month they all receive a paycheck, which quickly leads company to bankruptcy but since goverment promised everyone Job Guarantee it has to support bankrupting company with some money to continue operating. This leads to a huge debt and eventualy bankruptcy of a whole country, as it was the case of Poland in 1980s

anigbrowl 13y ago

I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction. This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. But how does it do this? I'm not disputing that it could, I'm just uncertain how you are proposing to implement this. For example, will I have a choice over the sort of work I like to do? What if I feel like changing that? I also a see a bit of a problem when people who are much more competent at some particular task feel unhappy that they are not able to earn more than someone who is unskilled or lazy and does inferior work.

Dewie 13y ago
> I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction. In my language, "employer" is an concatenation of "work" and "give": "workgiver". While "employee" is an concatenation of "work" and "take": "worktaker". :)
huherto 13y ago
Having a job is a privilege. just think of all the people who need one but don't have one.
nhaehnle 13y ago
Yes, semantics can be fun... As for the implementation, I am partial to the proposals of MMT economists like Bill Mitchell. They boil down to an arrangement where certain institutions - mostly local and regional government and non-profits, but the details vary - can post jobs. Those jobs will administrated by the institution itself with minimal central oversight. However, funding comes from the central (monetarily sovereign) government at an hourly wage that is fixed by law. So it is simply an offer that you can take or not. If there is nothing that you like, don't take anything. The theory is that there are so many useful things that could be done once money stops being the limiting factor, it's extremely unlikely this would happen. Basic income advocates like to say that it allows you to do whatever work you want to do. Well, the Job Guarantee intends to allow essentially the same freedom as long as what you want to do provides some public benefit. That said, there are other proposals for how to generate infinite demand for labor at a fixed price, e.g. this one: http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-auction-the-unemployed http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-in...

scarmig 13y ago

If somebody wants to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them? The point of a basic income is that it allows people to work. Because it's unconditional (at least in the variant I support), there are no marginal disincentive effects. If you want to call having people dig holes and fill them back in "work," okay, fine. But at that point I don't see why we shouldn't just call simply living a job and call it a day, because at least that way people can focus on valuable economic tasks that a government can't necessarily see or effectively plan. And it's harder to attack because it is universal and unconditional. Compare foodstamps and Medicaid to a program that's available to all income classes, such as, say, Medicare or Social Security. One class is constantly attacked, while attacking the other ends political careers.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Because it's unconditional (at least in the variant I support), there are no marginal disincentive effects. If you believe in diminishing marginal utility, there certainly are. Compare foodstamps and Medicaid to a program that's available to all income classes, such as, say, Medicare or Social Security. These programs are not universal - no one under 65 receives them. Those programs are popular because the beneficiaries of redistribution vote for them at high rates, while the people being redistributed from vote at lower rates. It's nothing but a standard "pay some people to vote for us" scheme.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Isn't the point that many unemployment benefits actually penalize people for taking a job? i.e. it's the difference between the marginal utility falling towards 0 as you earn/receive more money and the the utility being below 0 as you are punished for working by having welfare equal to more than you have earned taken away.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    It's not actually that bad. Your consumption is basically flat as you go from $0k/year to $20k/year earned income. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_work.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...

flyinRyan 13y ago

>This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. Oh good lord no. First of all, this means the creation of countless "dig a hole, fill it back in" jobs. Second of all, it will leave us stuck in this barbaric form of living once we can automate everything because the mega-rich with their robot work force aren't going to want to contribute "their" earnings to basic income. And finally, basic income is just that: it's income for everyone. It doesn't mean you can't work if you want to. In fact it's better because it means you can truly choose what you want to do with your life instead of being under pressure to avoid starvation or living on the street.

chii 13y ago
The mega-rich will _never_ want to contribute any significant amount of their money (gained from the output of their automated robots and factories/greenhouses) towards feeding those who are not working, unless forced to. They might pay lip service, and donate to some charity/feed the poor program, but they don't do it due to the goodness of their hearts - they do it due to the need to look to be charitable (i.e., marketing/PR reasons). Its a business cost. I bet if you asked them to make these donations completely anonymously, and never admit to having made them to anyone, most would not comply (and note, not like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw).
- michas 13y ago
  And they shouldn't be forced, because it's their money after all. Just because they are richer than you that doesn't mean they owe you anything. Also, you contradict yourself by first saing that rich "never want to contribute" and later giving example of people actualy doing this for "marketing/PR reasons". Those reasons may be selfish, but still people like Bill Gates donate literaly billions of dollars to help others.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    It's not "their money after all". They did not make it alone, they were supported by the community in countless ways. How do you propose the government be paid for? How do you propose we deal with people for which there is no work to do? If you don't have some kind of solution for the poor then they'll simply kill these rich people and take everything they have. And since you don't want taxes to pay for the police, they'll be shooting in the same direction.

kaoD 13y ago

The economy cannot be controlled nor manipulated by external means. Job Guarantee will only lead to people working in unproductive jobs such as brooming highways (ok, I know it's an extreme example, but you get the idea). The productive economy assimilates a number of jobs naturally, and forcing it won't fix the issue, just like a basic unconditional income will only lead to inflation.

michas 13y ago

I am from Poland and I've seen that Job Guarantee policy in action when our country was ruled by communists. It ends in disaster: companies are forced to hire more people than they need to do the job, employees come to their workplace and have nothing to do so they spend a whole day chatting, doing nothing, sometimes even drinking alcohol as a way to fight boredom. At the end of the month they all receive a paycheck, which quickly leads company to bankruptcy but since goverment promised everyone Job Guarantee it has to support bankrupting company with some money to continue operating. This leads to a huge debt and eventualy bankruptcy of a whole country, as it was the case of Poland in 1980s