5 ms·

> Unemployed Americans are just unwilling to accept those jobs at a price low enough that people are willing to pay it. I don't understand what's wrong with th

> Unemployed Americans are just unwilling to accept those jobs at a price low enough that people are willing to pay it. I don't understand what's wrong with that. Why shouldn't the price be high to get another person to clean up your detritus? What ill would befall society if everyone but the most brilliant (and ostensibly highly paid) had to clean up after themselves? Or do you feel that only a certain type of person deserves the dignity of being paid well to clean someone else's toilet? If there were a basic income guarantee, then the price might go up for cleaning toilets and other filth--if it already isn't high enough that a BIG wouldn't make a dent. But I think rich people would still find people to do the job if they paid enough regardless, so what's the big deal?

yummyfajitas 13y ago
It's wrong that hardworking middle class/rich people are forced to support people who are unwilling to work to support themselves. If that's acceptable in your value system I won't be able to persuade you otherwise. But I think it's important to be honest about this point.
- legutierr 13y ago
  Well, then I think your argument is entirely a moral one. It's axiomatic that BIG is wrong, because any potential free-rider problem creates an intolerable situation, correct?
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    This entire argument is a moral one. I'm just pointing out that if you value getting people on welfare back to work (which many proponents of Basic Income appear to, given that they argue Basic Income will do this), there are far more straightforward ways of making this happen which still provide income to the people who would be unemployed in the modern economy.
    - legutierr 13y ago
      No, I think there are compelling arguments in favor of basic income that are entirely practical. For instance: * In a capitalist, money-driven economy there are many socially beneficial activities that are not compensated (or are under-compensated), and therefore disincentivized. BIG would allow more people to partake of these activities (for instance, staying home to raise children, caring for elders, performing volunteer work, creating art, receiving an education). * If any social welfare programs are to exist, they are most efficiently delivered through a direct cash transfer, rather than through a means-tested or other qualification-based process, reducing both waste and corruption by eliminating bureaucracy. * If a BIG were high enough, no minimum wage would be necessary to reduce poverty, and it could therefore be eliminated. Thousands if not millions of jobs that do not exist today because of the minimum wage would come into existence. * By ensuring a life-long minimum earnings level for individuals, a whole host of poverty-related social ills could be reduced including crime, addiction, illness and under-education. * As more and more tasks otherwise performed by labor are automated and mechanized, existing social welfare systems, and society itself, will be strained by the needs of formerly-productive workers, as well as their families, who are affected by this transition. If such changes happen fast enough, the economy itself will not be able to adapt in creating new labor opportunities, and more worrying, in replacing their reduced purchasing power. A BIG could make even long-term economic transitions less volatile, in large part by keeping consumption rates stable even in the face of massive and sustained unemployment. Furthermore, it should prove more adaptable to new economic and social circumstances than means-tested and qualification-based social welfare systems.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Your arguments for a BIG apply equally well to a BJG, if not more so. If the basic jobs include socially beneficial activities, BJG provides an even greater incentive for those activities than a BIG. A BJG is also a cash transfer, but with a single qualification process. Show up, do work, get paid. This reduces waste because you gain the product of people's work. With a BIG, Waste = transfers + admin overhead + disincentivized work. With BJG, Waste = transfers + admin overhead + disincentivized work - product of basic jobs. Similarly, the BJG would eliminate poverty and ensure a life-long minimum earning level. As for your hypothetical future where human labor is unnecessary, we'll switch to a BIG when we get there. The preference for a Basic Income over a Basic Job is a moral one - most of the proponents of Basic Income believe people should be able to subsist on the fruits of other's labor if they choose not to work.
- ballard 13y ago
  Unwilling? Unable, unwilling to see their own ability or a mix of both. It's difficult to get their confidence back and escape their own emotional/social prison that they are in. Whether it's something of a choice or an unfortunate situation is arguable, but it's a fact nonetheless.
- jwatte 13y ago
  But the "hard working" middle class should support the society that allows it to exist, no? And society is made up of every person, no?

yummyfajitas 13y ago

It's wrong that hardworking middle class/rich people are forced to support people who are unwilling to work to support themselves. If that's acceptable in your value system I won't be able to persuade you otherwise. But I think it's important to be honest about this point.

legutierr 13y ago
Well, then I think your argument is entirely a moral one. It's axiomatic that BIG is wrong, because any potential free-rider problem creates an intolerable situation, correct?
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  This entire argument is a moral one. I'm just pointing out that if you value getting people on welfare back to work (which many proponents of Basic Income appear to, given that they argue Basic Income will do this), there are far more straightforward ways of making this happen which still provide income to the people who would be unemployed in the modern economy.
  - legutierr 13y ago
    No, I think there are compelling arguments in favor of basic income that are entirely practical. For instance: * In a capitalist, money-driven economy there are many socially beneficial activities that are not compensated (or are under-compensated), and therefore disincentivized. BIG would allow more people to partake of these activities (for instance, staying home to raise children, caring for elders, performing volunteer work, creating art, receiving an education). * If any social welfare programs are to exist, they are most efficiently delivered through a direct cash transfer, rather than through a means-tested or other qualification-based process, reducing both waste and corruption by eliminating bureaucracy. * If a BIG were high enough, no minimum wage would be necessary to reduce poverty, and it could therefore be eliminated. Thousands if not millions of jobs that do not exist today because of the minimum wage would come into existence. * By ensuring a life-long minimum earnings level for individuals, a whole host of poverty-related social ills could be reduced including crime, addiction, illness and under-education. * As more and more tasks otherwise performed by labor are automated and mechanized, existing social welfare systems, and society itself, will be strained by the needs of formerly-productive workers, as well as their families, who are affected by this transition. If such changes happen fast enough, the economy itself will not be able to adapt in creating new labor opportunities, and more worrying, in replacing their reduced purchasing power. A BIG could make even long-term economic transitions less volatile, in large part by keeping consumption rates stable even in the face of massive and sustained unemployment. Furthermore, it should prove more adaptable to new economic and social circumstances than means-tested and qualification-based social welfare systems.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      Your arguments for a BIG apply equally well to a BJG, if not more so. If the basic jobs include socially beneficial activities, BJG provides an even greater incentive for those activities than a BIG. A BJG is also a cash transfer, but with a single qualification process. Show up, do work, get paid. This reduces waste because you gain the product of people's work. With a BIG, Waste = transfers + admin overhead + disincentivized work. With BJG, Waste = transfers + admin overhead + disincentivized work - product of basic jobs. Similarly, the BJG would eliminate poverty and ensure a life-long minimum earning level. As for your hypothetical future where human labor is unnecessary, we'll switch to a BIG when we get there. The preference for a Basic Income over a Basic Job is a moral one - most of the proponents of Basic Income believe people should be able to subsist on the fruits of other's labor if they choose not to work.
ballard 13y ago
Unwilling? Unable, unwilling to see their own ability or a mix of both. It's difficult to get their confidence back and escape their own emotional/social prison that they are in. Whether it's something of a choice or an unfortunate situation is arguable, but it's a fact nonetheless.
jwatte 13y ago
But the "hard working" middle class should support the society that allows it to exist, no? And society is made up of every person, no?