6 ms·

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.