7 ms·

I think in the end this wouldn't work. It'd play out something like this: A certain percentage of the population would stop working entirely since they no long

by cdoxsey 13y ago

I think in the end this wouldn't work. It'd play out something like this: A certain percentage of the population would stop working entirely since they no longer need to. (Particularly when politicians push the basic income amount up to placate constituencies) Because workers bow out of the system certain industries lose productive capacity. Maybe we stop producing enough food, or enough fuel. Prices rise (assuming a moderately free market), which causes the basic income amount to rise and it spirals out of control from there. The state is forced to intervene. Either by forcing people to work certain jobs (ala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...) or by capping the basic income and reincentivizing work. Hayek: The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.

milesskorpen 13y ago
Alternative scenario: A certain % stop working for existing businesses. However, since there is greater money velocity in the system (vs. investments), there's still high demand (likely _higher_ demand). Businesses which had been slow to automate their production do so, spending more money on high-skill positions. Prices temporarily increase to pay for this capital investment, but within a few years drop to below prices pre-BI. Note that the author DOESN'T advocate necessarily doing this today, but that this is somewhat inevitable. I think I agree — eventually, the vast majority of jobs in our society will be automated / done by machines. Either we give these people a BI, or a very large segment of our population falls into poverty, which has other damaging political ramifications (revolution?).
summerdown2 13y ago
> A certain percentage of the population would stop working entirely since they no longer need to. Everyone I've ever seen argue this has had strong opinions about how other (more greedy and venal) people would act. They, of course, would still work, but the great unwashed masses would sit on their backsides and take the money. I suggest, instead, we try specifics. Given a basic income, I wouldn't be lazy. Nor would anyone I know, which includes some very poor people who would love to work if they could only do better than on benefits. I suspect (though I don't know), that you wouldn't be lazy, either. Also, the evidence of limited trials is that this increases work, not idle people: eg http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html > The BIG is a form of social protection, which reduces poverty and supports pro-poor economic growth.
- cdoxsey 13y ago
  They, of course, would still work, but the great unwashed masses would sit on their backsides and take the money. The counter argument would be the existence of industries that people will already not work in. For example Italy has a 38.5% youth unemployment rate. It also can't get enough workers for the garment industry. So why don't the youth of Italy want these jobs? Maybe the work is seen as menial (so a cultural condition) or maybe the wages are too low (they think they deserve more) or maybe Italy has made hiring citizens too difficult (so they shift to the black economy), but either way their reluctance is sustained by a welfare state that allows them to not work. The same can be said in this country with the absurdly low unemployment rate in North Dakota while the disability rate has shot through the roof. Unless you think people have suddenly and inexplicably become disabled this is clear evidence that people are willing to go on the Government dole rather than get a job in North Dakota. I'm not even saying these people are evil or irrational. (It actually seems entirely rational to me) In a similar situation I'd probably do the same thing. The question is: how many people currently working would stop working if they didn't need to? (particularly in the areas vital for the basic functioning of society) That question is so impossibly difficult to answer that I don't think any system we come up with won't have potentially disastrous consequences.
  - summerdown2 13y ago
    > That question is so impossibly difficult to answer I agree, which is why I think we should not implement a basic income immediately, but that we should proceed with further trials and examine the evidence on the ground.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The same can be said in this country with the absurdly low unemployment rate in North Dakota while the disability rate has shot through the roof. Unless you think people have suddenly and inexplicably become disabled this is clear evidence that people are willing to go on the Government dole rather than get a job in North Dakota. Or, people who are able-bodied and unemployed have chosen to move out of North Dakota (perhaps due to work available elsewhere), and/or people who are disabled have chosen to move to North Dakota for financial or environmental or other reasons. Either of these would both reduce the rate of unemployment and increase the rate of disability without people "choosing to go on the Government dole". > The question is: how many people currently working would stop working if they didn't need to? The price consequences of BI are such that this is self-limiting. Once you set a level of BI, the more people choose to opt out of work, the less affordable it is for people to choose to opt out of work. Less people working -> higher market clearing cost of labor -> higher market clearing cost of all goods and services -> reduced standard of living for people on fixed incomes (including whatever point the BI is set at.)
sageikosa 13y ago
Yes, market forces can only be controlled by getting rid of the market. At that point social forces will only be materialized through physical force. The difference between a socialist and an individualist is in how they think the physical force equation (applied to the society in which they live) will work out for them.
danielweber 13y ago
It might be best just to have some portion of people become an idle class and another class of people become the productive class. (But allow people to move between them.) I don't think it's compatible with universal suffrage, though. It ends up a lot like an aristocracy, albeit an aristocracy that people can join at will. Is that acceptable? I dunno.
penguindev 13y ago
I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. What's really depressing is that not a single comment here or on the article even mentions this. Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I don't think the number of kids goes up with prosperity. Developed countries and upper classes typically have much lower birth rates than their counterparts, and some countries are even experiencing negative population growth.
  - penguindev 13y ago
    I agree, but in depressions/recessions it goes down quite reliably. It's a strong signal
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Hmm, true. Probably something to keep an eye on, then.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. Strong social safety nets seem to be pretty strong contributors to reduced family size (which is why the developed world has low natural population growth and many of the places with the strongest safety nets have negative natural population growth) because people don't need children as a form of old-age insurance. > Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids? A fixed basic income per adult is self-evidently not a subsidy for having more kids. In fact, compared to existing welfare policy (where the principal basis for cash benefits is number of dependent children), its a disincentive for that.
- wavefunction 13y ago
streptomycin 13y ago
A certain percentage of the population would stop working entirely since they no longer need to. True. The problem is, as things are now, a certain percentage of the population will be forced to stop working as they are made obsolete by increasingly efficient globalization and automation. As that percentage increases, eventually either society will collapse or something fundamental will have to change (such as implementing a basic income).
- twoodfin 13y ago
  What evidence is there of that? Because we've had a slow recovery from the last recession? That couldn't possibly be because of bad policy, no?
  - spdy 13y ago
    To give one example the Google Car. If this car works as advertised millions of jobs will get irreplaceable lost. Cab drivers / Car Manufactures / Truck driver etc.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      When the car was invented, millions of horse and buggy operators, manufacturers, and horse dung sweepers lost their jobs. Their jobs were then replaced by used car salesmen, mechanics, the tires industry, etc. etc. But it is a bit presumptuous to believe that all future inventions will destroy jobs. A great example of the reverse is the compiler industry. As compiler technology / programming languages have become easier and easier... smaller and smaller teams of programmers have been able to get more things done. This hasn't destroyed programmers... it has instead increased the demand of programmers.
      - TeMPOraL 13y ago
        > This hasn't destroyed programmers... it has instead increased the demand of programmers. Nor has invention of internal combustion engine decreased the demand for cars. Programming today is far from its full potential, just like transportation was 100 years ago. Software is a very young technology and it is just beginning to take over the world, but keep in mind that developing it is a) high-skill job, and b) mostly aimed toward automating other people out of their jobs.

by cdoxsey 13y ago

milesskorpen 13y ago

Alternative scenario: A certain % stop working for existing businesses. However, since there is greater money velocity in the system (vs. investments), there's still high demand (likely _higher_ demand). Businesses which had been slow to automate their production do so, spending more money on high-skill positions. Prices temporarily increase to pay for this capital investment, but within a few years drop to below prices pre-BI. Note that the author DOESN'T advocate necessarily doing this today, but that this is somewhat inevitable. I think I agree — eventually, the vast majority of jobs in our society will be automated / done by machines. Either we give these people a BI, or a very large segment of our population falls into poverty, which has other damaging political ramifications (revolution?).

summerdown2 13y ago

> A certain percentage of the population would stop working entirely since they no longer need to. Everyone I've ever seen argue this has had strong opinions about how other (more greedy and venal) people would act. They, of course, would still work, but the great unwashed masses would sit on their backsides and take the money. I suggest, instead, we try specifics. Given a basic income, I wouldn't be lazy. Nor would anyone I know, which includes some very poor people who would love to work if they could only do better than on benefits. I suspect (though I don't know), that you wouldn't be lazy, either. Also, the evidence of limited trials is that this increases work, not idle people: eg http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html > The BIG is a form of social protection, which reduces poverty and supports pro-poor economic growth.

cdoxsey 13y ago
They, of course, would still work, but the great unwashed masses would sit on their backsides and take the money. The counter argument would be the existence of industries that people will already not work in. For example Italy has a 38.5% youth unemployment rate. It also can't get enough workers for the garment industry. So why don't the youth of Italy want these jobs? Maybe the work is seen as menial (so a cultural condition) or maybe the wages are too low (they think they deserve more) or maybe Italy has made hiring citizens too difficult (so they shift to the black economy), but either way their reluctance is sustained by a welfare state that allows them to not work. The same can be said in this country with the absurdly low unemployment rate in North Dakota while the disability rate has shot through the roof. Unless you think people have suddenly and inexplicably become disabled this is clear evidence that people are willing to go on the Government dole rather than get a job in North Dakota. I'm not even saying these people are evil or irrational. (It actually seems entirely rational to me) In a similar situation I'd probably do the same thing. The question is: how many people currently working would stop working if they didn't need to? (particularly in the areas vital for the basic functioning of society) That question is so impossibly difficult to answer that I don't think any system we come up with won't have potentially disastrous consequences.
- summerdown2 13y ago
  > That question is so impossibly difficult to answer I agree, which is why I think we should not implement a basic income immediately, but that we should proceed with further trials and examine the evidence on the ground.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The same can be said in this country with the absurdly low unemployment rate in North Dakota while the disability rate has shot through the roof. Unless you think people have suddenly and inexplicably become disabled this is clear evidence that people are willing to go on the Government dole rather than get a job in North Dakota. Or, people who are able-bodied and unemployed have chosen to move out of North Dakota (perhaps due to work available elsewhere), and/or people who are disabled have chosen to move to North Dakota for financial or environmental or other reasons. Either of these would both reduce the rate of unemployment and increase the rate of disability without people "choosing to go on the Government dole". > The question is: how many people currently working would stop working if they didn't need to? The price consequences of BI are such that this is self-limiting. Once you set a level of BI, the more people choose to opt out of work, the less affordable it is for people to choose to opt out of work. Less people working -> higher market clearing cost of labor -> higher market clearing cost of all goods and services -> reduced standard of living for people on fixed incomes (including whatever point the BI is set at.)

sageikosa 13y ago

Yes, market forces can only be controlled by getting rid of the market. At that point social forces will only be materialized through physical force. The difference between a socialist and an individualist is in how they think the physical force equation (applied to the society in which they live) will work out for them.

danielweber 13y ago

It might be best just to have some portion of people become an idle class and another class of people become the productive class. (But allow people to move between them.) I don't think it's compatible with universal suffrage, though. It ends up a lot like an aristocracy, albeit an aristocracy that people can join at will. Is that acceptable? I dunno.

penguindev 13y ago

I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. What's really depressing is that not a single comment here or on the article even mentions this. Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids?

dllthomas 13y ago
I don't think the number of kids goes up with prosperity. Developed countries and upper classes typically have much lower birth rates than their counterparts, and some countries are even experiencing negative population growth.
- penguindev 13y ago
  I agree, but in depressions/recessions it goes down quite reliably. It's a strong signal
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Hmm, true. Probably something to keep an eye on, then.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. Strong social safety nets seem to be pretty strong contributors to reduced family size (which is why the developed world has low natural population growth and many of the places with the strongest safety nets have negative natural population growth) because people don't need children as a form of old-age insurance. > Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids? A fixed basic income per adult is self-evidently not a subsidy for having more kids. In fact, compared to existing welfare policy (where the principal basis for cash benefits is number of dependent children), its a disincentive for that.
wavefunction 13y ago

streptomycin 13y ago

A certain percentage of the population would stop working entirely since they no longer need to. True. The problem is, as things are now, a certain percentage of the population will be forced to stop working as they are made obsolete by increasingly efficient globalization and automation. As that percentage increases, eventually either society will collapse or something fundamental will have to change (such as implementing a basic income).

twoodfin 13y ago
What evidence is there of that? Because we've had a slow recovery from the last recession? That couldn't possibly be because of bad policy, no?
- spdy 13y ago
  To give one example the Google Car. If this car works as advertised millions of jobs will get irreplaceable lost. Cab drivers / Car Manufactures / Truck driver etc.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    When the car was invented, millions of horse and buggy operators, manufacturers, and horse dung sweepers lost their jobs. Their jobs were then replaced by used car salesmen, mechanics, the tires industry, etc. etc. But it is a bit presumptuous to believe that all future inventions will destroy jobs. A great example of the reverse is the compiler industry. As compiler technology / programming languages have become easier and easier... smaller and smaller teams of programmers have been able to get more things done. This hasn't destroyed programmers... it has instead increased the demand of programmers.
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
      > This hasn't destroyed programmers... it has instead increased the demand of programmers. Nor has invention of internal combustion engine decreased the demand for cars. Programming today is far from its full potential, just like transportation was 100 years ago. Software is a very young technology and it is just beginning to take over the world, but keep in mind that developing it is a) high-skill job, and b) mostly aimed toward automating other people out of their jobs.