5 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.)
- rdouble 13y ago
  Although the unemployment rate is low in North Dakota there are actually only about 17,000 open jobs. This wouldn't even employ all the unemployed people from Minneapolis. Compounding the issue are a lack of housing, and the fact that over half of those positions are low paying dead end jobs like fast food, walmart, etc. It's also very far away from almost everywhere - a four to nine hour drive from the closest major airport.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  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. I don't think it's all that difficult to answer. When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways? I can think of 100s of other jobs that someone wouldn't show up for because they aren't worth the time, they aren't fun, or even remotely interesting.
ihateloggingin 13y ago
If there were no work left in the world for humans (and yet I was still allowed to live), I might devote my entire energies to the education of my daughter. Today, that is called idleness. But in that future world, perhaps it would not.

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.)
rdouble 13y ago
Although the unemployment rate is low in North Dakota there are actually only about 17,000 open jobs. This wouldn't even employ all the unemployed people from Minneapolis. Compounding the issue are a lack of housing, and the fact that over half of those positions are low paying dead end jobs like fast food, walmart, etc. It's also very far away from almost everywhere - a four to nine hour drive from the closest major airport.
Zimahl 13y ago
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. I don't think it's all that difficult to answer. When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways? I can think of 100s of other jobs that someone wouldn't show up for because they aren't worth the time, they aren't fun, or even remotely interesting.

ihateloggingin 13y ago

If there were no work left in the world for humans (and yet I was still allowed to live), I might devote my entire energies to the education of my daughter. Today, that is called idleness. But in that future world, perhaps it would not.