7 ms·

Every single adult member receives a weekly payment from the state, which is enough to live comfortably on. The only condition is citizenship and/or residency.

Every single adult member receives a weekly payment from the state, which is enough to live comfortably on. The only condition is citizenship and/or residency. Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life! You get the basic income whether or not you’re employed, any wages you earn are additional. Few, that's a relief. It'll be nice to close all of the school's down and tell kids they can go home, play video games indefinitely, and never have to worry about their future again. The welfare bureaucracy is largely dismantled. No means testing, no signing on, no bullying young people into stacking shelves for free, no separate state pension. Down with welfare, up with communism! Employment law is liberalised, as workers no longer need to fear dismissal. Hey boss, fuck you! Why? Because fuck you, that's why! What are you going to do about it? Fire me? Ha! People work for jobs that are available in order to increase their disposable income. That's cool. Make sure to tax them high enough to pay for all of my house parties. Large swathes of the economy are replaced by volunteerism, a continuation of the current trend. Who wants to volunteer to clean my toilet and mow my lawn? Anyone? Even if I say thank you when you're done? The system would be harder to cheat when there’s only a single category of claimant, with no extraordinary allowances. I can't figure a way to game it either; it's mathematically and economically perfect!

FreakyT 13y ago
I agree with these concerns; I really can't see how a system like this would possibly work. Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work?
- gems 13y ago
  I can't tell if you're trolling. I would say most mathematicians and scientists are enthusiasts. Many programmers are also enthusiasts. I don't even have to specify the occupation. All I have to say is that "some people are enthusiasts and would continue to produce anyway".
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  I think that's just it. Under our current system, that's what people believe because that's what we've been taught to believe in order to make the system work. But, if we were free from the need to earn income, would we all just curl up and die? Or, would we pursue other interests and make (perhaps even more valuable) contributions to society? In fact, when you look at the financial incentives our society provides, they are frequently misaligned with their net value to society. But, that's another discussion. The author makes the point that even now, much work is done for free and given away (software, music, content creation and information curation, etc.) Then, remember, this is just a basic, livable income. There is still financial incentive for those who desire more. Not having to work to live may be the best thing to ever happen to the planet. :)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- pavel_lishin 13y ago
  > Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work? A lot of people wouldn't do anything; but they don't do much now, either. Others, however, wouldn't be satisfied with basic survival. I could probably quit my job and move somewhere cheaper and work 10 hours a week and be able to afford basic food and accommodations - but that doesn't equate to a party at my house every night, because the ultra-basic income wouldn't pay for any frills like alcohol, drugs, or entertainment.
- Drakim 13y ago
  Not that I think this system would work, but people do volunteer without being paid: charity, soup kitchens, etc.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Yeah, but notice that most volunteer work has a special feel-good element to it? Feeding the homeless. Saving lost animals. Helping disadvantaged children. There aren't many volunteer organizations that, to borrow dgallagher's example, mow lawns or rake leaves, and the ones that do, only do it for special places. Perhaps for a monument or a park.
    - pi18n 13y ago
      Obviously people would mow lawns but the price would be higher because they don't have to. If you wanted someone to mow your lawn, you would probably need extra income. Or, since you have more free time, you can now mow it yourself and enjoy it instead of feeling like it's cutting into your only spare 48 hours.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        The point is that volunteer work is not going to grow dramatically and fill the void left by paid work.
        pi18n 13y ago
        Oh. I'm assuming the same thing, then. The attractive part of basic income for me is that everyone has enough to buy food and housing, so suddenly menial laborers have an iota of bargaining power.
- jeffasinger 13y ago
  For example, if the basic income was $10k/year, would you feel as though you still had an incentive to work and earn a little more money than that?
- imgabe 13y ago
  You don't ever do anything - not any one single thing - without a profit motive?
  - miguelrochefort 13y ago
    Who does?
    - imgabe 13y ago
      Everyone.
    - lifeformed 13y ago
      Today I drew a picture for fun.
  - yaddayadda 13y ago
    "You don't ever do anything - not any one single thing - without a <strike>profit</strike> motive?" [Corrected] There are many non-profit motives, from simple hunger (i.e., when you're hungry you want food, not "profit") to curiosity (e.g., can I build a robot to beat Bill's bot?), from sex-drive (e.g., oh-la-la, she's hot, let me go chat her up and see if there's a "we" in our future) to helping friends and family (e.g., mom's yard has a dead tree in it, and she can't remove it herself, let me get some buddies together to go do it).
    - imgabe 13y ago
      Yes, that's why there's plenty of reasons you would still want to "do things" even if you didn't need to work.
      - ihateloggingin 13y ago
        There's a really odd logic involved here. If people did not have any motivation besides making money, they would not have any desire to _spend_ money.
- btilly 13y ago
  Do you want to live in poverty? No? There's your incentive! You don't believe that is an incentive? Well do you personally do more than is required to survive in poverty? Could you work less and get by? See, the incentive works on you! Where basic income really helps is with groups like single mothers. Single mothers have a strong disincentive to work - a job has to cover whatever they receive now, plus child care costs. If you don't have good job prospects, few jobs pay enough to do this. This is the fundamental economic reason that creates "welfare moms". With basic income any job that exceeds the cost of daycare is a net positive.
- JPKab 13y ago
  [Peter, Michael, and Samir are chatting as they hang around the printer] Peter Gibbons: Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic. Samir: So what did you say? Peter Gibbons: I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech. Michael Bolton: No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
- maratd 13y ago
  Well, you can solve the problem very easily. If they don't want to have a j-o-b, you can send them to Siberia. Now everybody wants a job. Of course being productive while at work becomes your next challenge. The travails of communism!
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  This is absurd. People will work, they just won't "work for the man" if they don't want to. They will do things they enjoy. They will be creative. They will play sports. They will volunteer, etc etc. Ask yourself: what would you do with your life if you had nothing to compel you into the daily grind for survival? If your basic needs were guaranteed to be met, what would you want to accomplish? Imagine a world where this were true for everyone. Why would anyone prefer this rat race to that? Just so you can continue to stratify society based on those who "contribute" in ways that have market value?
  - mynewwork 13y ago
    Being a waiter, cook, barista, janitor, retail floor worker, or cashier are all 'working for the man' that few people really enjoy. So restaurants, coffee shops and basically all stores disappear in your proposed only "do things they enjoy" world. Which is good, because no one would work construction, or do plumbing, or review building permits for safety in a basement office in city hall for fun either, so there wouldn't be places for these establishments to exist soon anyway. Society can't function with people only doing things they enjoy.
    - dannypgh 13y ago
      You don't think there is any amount of money you could pay people to do those things for you? If so, I think you're mistaken. This may mean that costs for getting people to do unpleasant things for you will rise. Consider it a correction to the fact that median real wages have been falling for years, if you'd like. If - even with your new basic income - you are having a hard time finding someone to work for you, you'll just have to offer more money. This is preferable to forcing people to work for you out of fear of them dying for want of food or healthcare, in my book. I think you also have a narrow-minded conception of what people can view as fun. I would very much enjoy being a chef, but it doesn't pay as well as my current gig and that's a larger motivator for me in part because of the lack of social net. Robots and automation will continue to do more and more of the total labor that humans need; this provides a constant check against labor prices rising too much. It seems like we would steer our robotics and AI R&D towards replacing jobs that humans really don't want to do [at the amount you're able to pay them]. What's wrong with that?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work? Since jobs will still pay, why would having a small stream of unconditional income equate to "no incentive to work"?
- thedufer 13y ago
  Are companies going to stop paying employees? No, so there's still going to be an incentive to work. Like, say, having more than bare subsistence. I don't know what you're arguing against, but its not what people mean by an unconditional basic income. Maybe you're arguing against pure communism, but that's not what this article is about at all.
- ihateloggingin 13y ago
  The article is assuming that there's no need to create incentives to work. Indeed, that the market will not provide incentives to work, because it won't be needed.
enko 13y ago
This is a really unhelpful comment. Why don't you think for a second next time before rushing out some snarky, superficial nonsense. Of course people would still work, for the same reason you don't still live with your parents - although judging by your response, maybe you do. Are you personally going to be perfectly content with a $10K/yr subsistence allowance? And closing all schools? What are you talking about? The fact is that many countries have something like this anyway, with probably a few more strings attached, and they haven't turned into anything like what you predict. The fact you name-drop "communism" just cements your obvious ignorance.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  Among us highly motivated and educated people who read HN regularly, it seems somewhat foreign that large swaths of the population will revert to just drinking beer, smoking legal weed, playing video games, watching tv, eating McDonalds and living in their RV or subsided apartment and not use birth control. But large swaths of the population already do this.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> large swaths of the population already do this. They do indeed. And why not let them? Most of what they could do with their time is being automated away, and the front-line service industries (restaurants, coffee houses) can only take on so many. Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute? That even without their effort we have wealth in excess and can afford to carry them?
    - danbmil99 13y ago
      > Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute? You are free to support those who can't meaningfully contribute, but where do you get the moral authority to demand that I do so as well, with my own money? Besides the moral argument, isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopulate in relation to those who are "meaningfully contributing", to the point where the ratio is so bad that the system breaks down?
mjfl 13y ago
to the Gulag with you! Coders that work more than 8 hours a week will be banished to the countryside to learn how to live free. It will be former CEOs that clean the toilets as repayment for their debts to the working class.
Nursie 13y ago
>> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life! That's the point. With increasing automation we don't need to work. >> It'll be nice to close all of the school's down and tell kids they can go home, play video games indefinitely, and never have to worry about their future again. You have aspirations for more than a roof over your head and enough to eat though, right? >> Hey boss, fuck you! Why? Because fuck you, that's why! What are you going to do about it? Fire me? Ha! Yeah, if you still want the money we pay you, or you can go back to your subsistence wage. You won't starve on the street but there won't be any fancy vacations either. >> Make sure to tax them high enough to pay for all of my house parties. How are you funding these parties? Your basic income feeds, clothes and houses you, and little else. >> Who wants to volunteer to clean my toilet and mow my lawn? Anyone? Even if I say thank you when you're done? No, those would be jobs you still have to pay money to get done, because they're unpleasant. In fact you'll probably have to pay more for those because they're unpleasant and people don't need the work as badly.
kyllo 13y ago
I've never really heard of anyone proposing a weekly payment from the state, which is enough to live comfortably on I've heard of lots of people proposing a very small guaranteed payment from the state, as in, bare minimum for subsistence-level food and shelter, on the order of $10,000/year. You would not be able to "party every night for life" on such a pension. The idea is that it would lubricate the job market, reducing the costs of employment, by taking some of the social benefits-providing responsibility away from employers and giving it to the government, which arguably should own it. This would encourage entrepreneurship (less scary to quit your job and start your own business if you have a better safety net) and also potentially alleviate homelessness and various other social ills. Those content to never work and do whatever "partying" they can afford on their tiny basic income would also be free to do as they wish, because who wants those people in the workplace anyway? Save the jobs for the people who actually want them, not the people who only need them in order to not starve.
- chiph 13y ago
  I strongly suspect that the Basic Income Guarantee would receive increases in excess of the rate of inflation, as politicians use it to buy votes. I think the $10k/yr figure that was quoted is unrealistic - that would cover food expenses with not much left over for housing costs. Even in a low-cost part of the nation, they'd have to perform work of some kind to earn more.
  - kyllo 13y ago
    I think the $10k/year proposal was per person, not per household. Although that begs the question, at what age should the benefit start? $10k/year is $833/month. $500/month rent and $333/month (about $11/day) for food is pretty basic subsistence for a single person. Yes, you'd have to work if you wanted anything more than basic nutrition and shelter, or wanted to live in a high-cost urban center, but the idea here is just that you shouldn't face homelessness/starvation just because you can't find gainful employment.
    - chiph 13y ago
      If per-person, population of the US is currently about 330 million. Doing the math, that's $3.3 Trillion per year in payments to be made. Social Security expenditures in 2008 were about $615 billion. There are obviously other programs that people qualify for, and I'm specifically excluding Medicare/Medicaid because they're health programs, not living-expense programs. Even so, if the income guarantee program were implemented, expenditures in this arena would go up by about a factor of 4 to 5.
randomdata 13y ago
> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life! Given that a typical developer could earn a basic income in a month or two and then take the rest of the year off, yet almost nobody does, I think we can conclude that it is not as sweet as you think it might be. It might be fun for a week or two, but then it is time to get back to doing something productive.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
>> "Who wants to volunteer to clean my toilet and mow my lawn?" You can't clean your own toilet and mow your own lawn? Especially considering you would have more time to do it with a guaranteed basic income.
- Artistry121 13y ago
  At the right price someone would do it. If BI covers my food, small but comfortable housing and general expenses but not an iPad and you offer me $50 to mow your yard each time. I'll mow your yard all summer for an iPad. The incentive-based, consumer system still works and people will still do mediocre jobs - but they will do them at fair, negotiable wages because they aren't dependent on them.
TeMPOraL 13y ago
> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life! As Nursie said as well, that's the whole fucking point. The fact we don't live like this today is an atrocity. It seems that you don't understand the kind of world we're headed to. Energy abundance + automation = dirt cheap manufacturing. At first mostly by economies of scale, later literally dirt-cheap, as pretty much everything you could imagine can be made from dirt, power and a bit of advanced manufacturing tech we don't yet have but we know how it will work [0]. Energy abundance + automation + ever better software = most service jobs gone, most knowledge jobs disappearning, and people getting quickly optimized out of economy. There is a potential for everything to be free because it doesn't have to cost anything. The only reason we would like that not to happen is some kind of weird stockholm-syndromish love for slavery (i.e. work). Maybe we should stop working on life extension as well because we were meant to work hard and then die. [0] - actually, we have it, but it's not ours and we can't control it yet. But it works. You and I are examples of it. Biology is nothing but an highly advanced tech we haven't master so far.

FreakyT 13y ago

I agree with these concerns; I really can't see how a system like this would possibly work. Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work?

gems 13y ago
I can't tell if you're trolling. I would say most mathematicians and scientists are enthusiasts. Many programmers are also enthusiasts. I don't even have to specify the occupation. All I have to say is that "some people are enthusiasts and would continue to produce anyway".
unclebucknasty 13y ago
I think that's just it. Under our current system, that's what people believe because that's what we've been taught to believe in order to make the system work. But, if we were free from the need to earn income, would we all just curl up and die? Or, would we pursue other interests and make (perhaps even more valuable) contributions to society? In fact, when you look at the financial incentives our society provides, they are frequently misaligned with their net value to society. But, that's another discussion. The author makes the point that even now, much work is done for free and given away (software, music, content creation and information curation, etc.) Then, remember, this is just a basic, livable income. There is still financial incentive for those who desire more. Not having to work to live may be the best thing to ever happen to the planet. :)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pavel_lishin 13y ago
> Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work? A lot of people wouldn't do anything; but they don't do much now, either. Others, however, wouldn't be satisfied with basic survival. I could probably quit my job and move somewhere cheaper and work 10 hours a week and be able to afford basic food and accommodations - but that doesn't equate to a party at my house every night, because the ultra-basic income wouldn't pay for any frills like alcohol, drugs, or entertainment.
Drakim 13y ago
Not that I think this system would work, but people do volunteer without being paid: charity, soup kitchens, etc.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Yeah, but notice that most volunteer work has a special feel-good element to it? Feeding the homeless. Saving lost animals. Helping disadvantaged children. There aren't many volunteer organizations that, to borrow dgallagher's example, mow lawns or rake leaves, and the ones that do, only do it for special places. Perhaps for a monument or a park.
  - pi18n 13y ago
    Obviously people would mow lawns but the price would be higher because they don't have to. If you wanted someone to mow your lawn, you would probably need extra income. Or, since you have more free time, you can now mow it yourself and enjoy it instead of feeling like it's cutting into your only spare 48 hours.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      The point is that volunteer work is not going to grow dramatically and fill the void left by paid work.
      - pi18n 13y ago
        Oh. I'm assuming the same thing, then. The attractive part of basic income for me is that everyone has enough to buy food and housing, so suddenly menial laborers have an iota of bargaining power.
jeffasinger 13y ago
For example, if the basic income was $10k/year, would you feel as though you still had an incentive to work and earn a little more money than that?
imgabe 13y ago
You don't ever do anything - not any one single thing - without a profit motive?
- miguelrochefort 13y ago
  Who does?
  - imgabe 13y ago
    Everyone.
  - lifeformed 13y ago
    Today I drew a picture for fun.
- yaddayadda 13y ago
  "You don't ever do anything - not any one single thing - without a <strike>profit</strike> motive?" [Corrected] There are many non-profit motives, from simple hunger (i.e., when you're hungry you want food, not "profit") to curiosity (e.g., can I build a robot to beat Bill's bot?), from sex-drive (e.g., oh-la-la, she's hot, let me go chat her up and see if there's a "we" in our future) to helping friends and family (e.g., mom's yard has a dead tree in it, and she can't remove it herself, let me get some buddies together to go do it).
  - imgabe 13y ago
    Yes, that's why there's plenty of reasons you would still want to "do things" even if you didn't need to work.
    - ihateloggingin 13y ago
      There's a really odd logic involved here. If people did not have any motivation besides making money, they would not have any desire to _spend_ money.
btilly 13y ago
Do you want to live in poverty? No? There's your incentive! You don't believe that is an incentive? Well do you personally do more than is required to survive in poverty? Could you work less and get by? See, the incentive works on you! Where basic income really helps is with groups like single mothers. Single mothers have a strong disincentive to work - a job has to cover whatever they receive now, plus child care costs. If you don't have good job prospects, few jobs pay enough to do this. This is the fundamental economic reason that creates "welfare moms". With basic income any job that exceeds the cost of daycare is a net positive.
JPKab 13y ago
[Peter, Michael, and Samir are chatting as they hang around the printer] Peter Gibbons: Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic. Samir: So what did you say? Peter Gibbons: I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech. Michael Bolton: No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
maratd 13y ago
Well, you can solve the problem very easily. If they don't want to have a j-o-b, you can send them to Siberia. Now everybody wants a job. Of course being productive while at work becomes your next challenge. The travails of communism!
hackinthebochs 13y ago
This is absurd. People will work, they just won't "work for the man" if they don't want to. They will do things they enjoy. They will be creative. They will play sports. They will volunteer, etc etc. Ask yourself: what would you do with your life if you had nothing to compel you into the daily grind for survival? If your basic needs were guaranteed to be met, what would you want to accomplish? Imagine a world where this were true for everyone. Why would anyone prefer this rat race to that? Just so you can continue to stratify society based on those who "contribute" in ways that have market value?
- mynewwork 13y ago
  Being a waiter, cook, barista, janitor, retail floor worker, or cashier are all 'working for the man' that few people really enjoy. So restaurants, coffee shops and basically all stores disappear in your proposed only "do things they enjoy" world. Which is good, because no one would work construction, or do plumbing, or review building permits for safety in a basement office in city hall for fun either, so there wouldn't be places for these establishments to exist soon anyway. Society can't function with people only doing things they enjoy.
  - dannypgh 13y ago
    You don't think there is any amount of money you could pay people to do those things for you? If so, I think you're mistaken. This may mean that costs for getting people to do unpleasant things for you will rise. Consider it a correction to the fact that median real wages have been falling for years, if you'd like. If - even with your new basic income - you are having a hard time finding someone to work for you, you'll just have to offer more money. This is preferable to forcing people to work for you out of fear of them dying for want of food or healthcare, in my book. I think you also have a narrow-minded conception of what people can view as fun. I would very much enjoy being a chef, but it doesn't pay as well as my current gig and that's a larger motivator for me in part because of the lack of social net. Robots and automation will continue to do more and more of the total labor that humans need; this provides a constant check against labor prices rising too much. It seems like we would steer our robotics and AI R&D towards replacing jobs that humans really don't want to do [at the amount you're able to pay them]. What's wrong with that?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work? Since jobs will still pay, why would having a small stream of unconditional income equate to "no incentive to work"?
thedufer 13y ago
Are companies going to stop paying employees? No, so there's still going to be an incentive to work. Like, say, having more than bare subsistence. I don't know what you're arguing against, but its not what people mean by an unconditional basic income. Maybe you're arguing against pure communism, but that's not what this article is about at all.
ihateloggingin 13y ago
The article is assuming that there's no need to create incentives to work. Indeed, that the market will not provide incentives to work, because it won't be needed.

enko 13y ago

This is a really unhelpful comment. Why don't you think for a second next time before rushing out some snarky, superficial nonsense. Of course people would still work, for the same reason you don't still live with your parents - although judging by your response, maybe you do. Are you personally going to be perfectly content with a $10K/yr subsistence allowance? And closing all schools? What are you talking about? The fact is that many countries have something like this anyway, with probably a few more strings attached, and they haven't turned into anything like what you predict. The fact you name-drop "communism" just cements your obvious ignorance.

mahyarm 13y ago
Among us highly motivated and educated people who read HN regularly, it seems somewhat foreign that large swaths of the population will revert to just drinking beer, smoking legal weed, playing video games, watching tv, eating McDonalds and living in their RV or subsided apartment and not use birth control. But large swaths of the population already do this.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> large swaths of the population already do this. They do indeed. And why not let them? Most of what they could do with their time is being automated away, and the front-line service industries (restaurants, coffee houses) can only take on so many. Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute? That even without their effort we have wealth in excess and can afford to carry them?
  - danbmil99 13y ago
    > Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute? You are free to support those who can't meaningfully contribute, but where do you get the moral authority to demand that I do so as well, with my own money? Besides the moral argument, isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopulate in relation to those who are "meaningfully contributing", to the point where the ratio is so bad that the system breaks down?

mjfl 13y ago

to the Gulag with you! Coders that work more than 8 hours a week will be banished to the countryside to learn how to live free. It will be former CEOs that clean the toilets as repayment for their debts to the working class.

Nursie 13y ago

>> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life! That's the point. With increasing automation we don't need to work. >> It'll be nice to close all of the school's down and tell kids they can go home, play video games indefinitely, and never have to worry about their future again. You have aspirations for more than a roof over your head and enough to eat though, right? >> Hey boss, fuck you! Why? Because fuck you, that's why! What are you going to do about it? Fire me? Ha! Yeah, if you still want the money we pay you, or you can go back to your subsistence wage. You won't starve on the street but there won't be any fancy vacations either. >> Make sure to tax them high enough to pay for all of my house parties. How are you funding these parties? Your basic income feeds, clothes and houses you, and little else. >> Who wants to volunteer to clean my toilet and mow my lawn? Anyone? Even if I say thank you when you're done? No, those would be jobs you still have to pay money to get done, because they're unpleasant. In fact you'll probably have to pay more for those because they're unpleasant and people don't need the work as badly.

kyllo 13y ago

I've never really heard of anyone proposing a weekly payment from the state, which is enough to live comfortably on I've heard of lots of people proposing a very small guaranteed payment from the state, as in, bare minimum for subsistence-level food and shelter, on the order of $10,000/year. You would not be able to "party every night for life" on such a pension. The idea is that it would lubricate the job market, reducing the costs of employment, by taking some of the social benefits-providing responsibility away from employers and giving it to the government, which arguably should own it. This would encourage entrepreneurship (less scary to quit your job and start your own business if you have a better safety net) and also potentially alleviate homelessness and various other social ills. Those content to never work and do whatever "partying" they can afford on their tiny basic income would also be free to do as they wish, because who wants those people in the workplace anyway? Save the jobs for the people who actually want them, not the people who only need them in order to not starve.

chiph 13y ago
I strongly suspect that the Basic Income Guarantee would receive increases in excess of the rate of inflation, as politicians use it to buy votes. I think the $10k/yr figure that was quoted is unrealistic - that would cover food expenses with not much left over for housing costs. Even in a low-cost part of the nation, they'd have to perform work of some kind to earn more.
- kyllo 13y ago
  I think the $10k/year proposal was per person, not per household. Although that begs the question, at what age should the benefit start? $10k/year is $833/month. $500/month rent and $333/month (about $11/day) for food is pretty basic subsistence for a single person. Yes, you'd have to work if you wanted anything more than basic nutrition and shelter, or wanted to live in a high-cost urban center, but the idea here is just that you shouldn't face homelessness/starvation just because you can't find gainful employment.
  - chiph 13y ago
    If per-person, population of the US is currently about 330 million. Doing the math, that's $3.3 Trillion per year in payments to be made. Social Security expenditures in 2008 were about $615 billion. There are obviously other programs that people qualify for, and I'm specifically excluding Medicare/Medicaid because they're health programs, not living-expense programs. Even so, if the income guarantee program were implemented, expenditures in this arena would go up by about a factor of 4 to 5.

randomdata 13y ago

> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life! Given that a typical developer could earn a basic income in a month or two and then take the rest of the year off, yet almost nobody does, I think we can conclude that it is not as sweet as you think it might be. It might be fun for a week or two, but then it is time to get back to doing something productive.

k-mcgrady 13y ago

>> "Who wants to volunteer to clean my toilet and mow my lawn?" You can't clean your own toilet and mow your own lawn? Especially considering you would have more time to do it with a guaranteed basic income.

Artistry121 13y ago
At the right price someone would do it. If BI covers my food, small but comfortable housing and general expenses but not an iPad and you offer me $50 to mow your yard each time. I'll mow your yard all summer for an iPad. The incentive-based, consumer system still works and people will still do mediocre jobs - but they will do them at fair, negotiable wages because they aren't dependent on them.

TeMPOraL 13y ago

> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life! As Nursie said as well, that's the whole fucking point. The fact we don't live like this today is an atrocity. It seems that you don't understand the kind of world we're headed to. Energy abundance + automation = dirt cheap manufacturing. At first mostly by economies of scale, later literally dirt-cheap, as pretty much everything you could imagine can be made from dirt, power and a bit of advanced manufacturing tech we don't yet have but we know how it will work [0]. Energy abundance + automation + ever better software = most service jobs gone, most knowledge jobs disappearning, and people getting quickly optimized out of economy. There is a potential for everything to be free because it doesn't have to cost anything. The only reason we would like that not to happen is some kind of weird stockholm-syndromish love for slavery (i.e. work). Maybe we should stop working on life extension as well because we were meant to work hard and then die. [0] - actually, we have it, but it's not ours and we can't control it yet. But it works. You and I are examples of it. Biology is nothing but an highly advanced tech we haven't master so far.