6 ms·
One thing I like about this policy is it removes all kinds of perverse incentives which currently exist. Some (true) personal examples: a friend of mine is mod
by westicle 13y ago
One thing I like about this policy is it removes all kinds of perverse incentives which currently exist.
Some (true) personal examples: a friend of mine is moderately disabled and lives with his elderly parents. He wants (and they desperately want for him) to be able to live independently in a small apartment so that he can develop coping skills which will serve him when they are no longer around. His parents have the means to help him buy an apartment, but doing so would disqualify him from receiving any disability pension (including free health care).
A colleague of mine once employed a young woman as a secretary/admin assistant. One day her family advised him that they had arranged a marriage for her and as she was no longer living with them she and her new husband would both qualify for unemployment benefits. If my colleague refused to pay her the equivalent of two unemployment benefits (after tax) she would resign. The next week she did.
I used to know a guy who was what I would term chronically unemployable. He had no obvious disability but was seemingly unable to accomplish anything without having his hand held (it was a severe issue, not a joke). As an example, I actually couldn't trust him to fetch a plate from the kitchen. He was unsuited for either technical or menial work because he needed to be instructed down to the barest minutiae. Nice chap otherwise.
He naturally ended up on unemployment benefits and attended fortnightly reporting sessions. He was required to apply for 5 jobs each fortnight which he would be duly rejected from, then report back on his results. I'm convinced that the sheer brutal pointlessness of the process crushed him to the point where he took his own life.
Perhaps a basic income would create other perverse incentives, but it is clear to me that the current system is beyond broken.
- mrab 13y agoIt does not remove "perverse" incentives. Human nature dictates our desires. If we could have everything we ever wanted then there would be no "perverse" incentives. I could have my own amusement park where there would be no lines and I could ride any ride I wanted at any time - not to mention someone would carry me from ride to ride. People will always want more, to achieve more. The "perverse" incentives exist simply because of that fact. If you cannot accept that, you should go live in the woods far away from people and be happy. Life isn't fair, you do what you can to help those less fortunate around you. But, if you think for a second that some sort of "equal" pay will solve our worlds problems you are either ignorant or in denial of our human nature.
- ordinary 13y agoYour post contains no arguments, just a straw man with some accompanying unsubstantiated statements. No one is suggesting that any single measure will solve all the world's problems. But might we not solve one, or two?
- mrab 13y agoFirst of all, nobody's opinions are substantiated. I believe that human nature has not and will not change. By human nature, I'm talking about what drives us to do the things we do. I understand the logic behind BIG. My problem with the _idea_, as it is, is that the idea ignores human nature. If you want to bring an idea to the table, at least be honest about it.
- javert 13y agoI don't see what your point is. Maybe you aren't aware of the meaning of the term "perverse incentive." A "perverse incentive" is when you are incentivized to do something that doesn't make sense. It's not the same thing as "incentive."
- westicle 13y agoI think you fundamentally misunderstood my point. The examples I gave were situations where people did something against their own interests because the current system of welfare provision is broken. Maybe that is inevitable; maybe the system we have is better than any alternative. But ask yourself if a BIG were implemented: Would my friend still live with his elderly parents? Would my colleague's secretary have quit? Would my acquaintance have been forced into a degrading simulation of a job search he would never succeed at?
- nhaehnle 13y agoThe secretary might still have quit anyway - it probably depends on the level of BIG. Ending the pointless simulation of a job search for your acquaintance doesn't require a BIG, and a BIG alone probably doesn't represent the optimum solution either. Those points don't mean that a BIG is bad, but since people tend to only see one side of an issue after they've made up their mind on it (whether rationally or emotionally), I thought I should bring it up.
- nhaehnle 13y agoA colleague of mine once employed a young woman as a secretary/admin assistant. One day her family advised him that they had arranged a marriage for her and as she was no longer living with them she and her new husband would both qualify for unemployment benefits. If my colleague refused to pay her the equivalent of two unemployment benefits (after tax) she would resign. The next week she did. Perhaps we should think of unemployment benefits and minimum wage laws as a subsidy for technological progress, in particular automation and artificial intelligence. Low-wage workers are competition for automation, at least in the early stages when a new technology is just getting off the ground. Remove them, and there is likely to be more demand for technological solutions to do what they used to do. In the long run, everybody wins by giving private enterprise an incentive for more automation.