7 ms·

Unfortunately, there is actual experimental evidence to the contrary. Some of the Arabian Emirates have cash payments to their ethnically Arabian citizens that

Unfortunately, there is actual experimental evidence to the contrary. Some of the Arabian Emirates have cash payments to their ethnically Arabian citizens that are practically equivalent to a high basic income. In those cases, all the "dirty" labor is done by legal/illegal immigrants that are not eligible for said basic income and thus willing to work for much less. IMO this is the central problem with the idea of a basic income. Either it has to be so low that it is on the "just don't starve" level (thus making it unattractive compared to any job), or you have to lock your borders, shutting down migration.

derefr 13y ago
What happens if you take the implicitly-assumed-to-be-ridiculous third option, and give every visitor a green card and a basic income voucher when they cross the border? Then you don't have any illegal immigrants, just lots and lots and lots of citizens. (Don't just reply with the obviously-bad first-order effect on the country receiving the immigrants; remember that bad things would also be happening to the labor pools of all countries without this policy.)
- jre 13y ago
  I think you raise an interesting point on the second-order effects, but that is only relevant if a big country introduces basic income. In the case of Switzerland, I think the first-order effect greatly exceeds any other effect on the neighbouring countries's labor pools. Because Switzerland is freaking small (7 million people - the size of a big european city) and is surrounded by large countries (Germany, France, Italy). So let's say you get 2 millions people from each of the 3 large countries, that's 6 million people. For the large countries, this isn't such a big loss. But for Switzerland, it's almost doubling the population, which is going to be a huge problem in term of finance, housing, transports, etc...
  - derefr 13y ago
    Sure. I actually meant to ask the "if a big country does it" version, because that's what makes Basic Income an interesting macroeconomic policy. If the US did this (and the US definitely has the room--both geographically and otherwise--to absorb way more than 6 million people), what do you think would happen?
- rayiner 13y ago
  Lots and lots of poor, uneducated, unacculturated citizens, and Switzerland quickly turns into Bangladesh. Brilliant idea!
  - _random_ 13y ago
    LOL, you just described UK. Multiculturalism doesn't work - it has been tested here.
    - alextingle 13y ago
      I wish we could deport racists.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        I'm confused, are you accusing the idea that multiculturalism doesn't work as being racist? There is ample evidence that it in fact doesn't work: that an underclass is inevitable and that status applied to an entire culture is immensely damaging.
        alextingle 13y ago
        The idea that there is a "poor, uneducated, unacculturate" immigrant underclass in the UK is a racist lie. Recently arrived immigrants often find themselves at a disadvantage, but 2nd & 3rd generation communities are often wealthier, and better educated than "natives". Five or ten years ago, I would have told you that this kind of politicised bigotry was entirely outside the British mainstream... only practised by a tiny, shabby fringe. These days, I'm dismayed to admit that the BNP and their UKIP mini-me's have managed to spread their filthy ideas much more widely.
        Camillo 13y ago
        I'm not really familiar with the situation in the UK. My very vague understanding is that the native Britons are so bad, with their chavs and yobs and twelve-year-old moms, that no group of immigrants, no matter how poor or uneducated, could make things worse. [1] However, it seems to me that you feel so strongly about the issue that, even if immigration did create big social problems that wouldn't otherwise exist, you still would be accusing anyone who pointed that out of being racist. Basically, "that's racist" is not the conclusion of your argument, but rather the premise, and you're using it as a thought-terminating cliché. Or at least that's my impression as an uninvolved observer, even though I'm more sympathetic to your position. [1: I hope the British hackers don't get too offended, that was largely tongue-in-cheek.]
- nine_k 13y ago
  It's wise that you wrote "a basic income _voucher_" and not just "basic income". There could be not enough tax money for that. A great influx of immigrants lured by the "basic income for everyone" concept will most probably greatly lower economic efficiency. This is not because the immigrants would be lazy; this is because they would mostly lack appropriate education, work qualifications, knowledge of the language, and the general culture fit. They'd have hard time becoming as productive as an average American even if they all wanted to. Of course, the government would be able to print enough money to keep the nominal basic income sum the same — but not the standard of living. Switzerland, a country with great and deep-ingrained work ethics, could consider such an experiment for _its citizens_. Doing this for any strangers that care to show up is another thing entirely.
Systemic33 13y ago
It's funny you should mention that last part, because that's exactly the situation in Denmark. We have in my opinion a waaay too high basic income, and there is a growing problem, with people who'd rather live on governement payouts, than get a job. And the nationalists are getting anxious about immigration, so there is a populist party that is against immigration, that is getting bigger and bigger support. It is overall a shitty situation.
- rmchugh 13y ago
  The problem is not that people would rather live on government payouts, none of the unemployed people I know here want to be unemployed. The problem is that there are not jobs for their skillsets. The solution to this is retraining rather than cutting benefits. There are also people with mental health issues, substance abuse issues etc, but that is another issue. In terms of immigration, I think the bigger problem is the Danish labour movement's structural inability to organise migrant workers. This prevents these workers from raising their wages through collective bargaining, thus preserving their comparative advantage over Danish workers. Compare this to the situation in Norway where the construction workers have successfully organised migrant workers, leading to no comparable fall in income for Norwegian workers.
  - Systemic33 13y ago
    Google "lazy robert", and you'll find lots of articles on a case that highlights the problem in Denmark. It is pretty straight forward problem; there isn't an incentive to pick the low (but mind you still sufficient) paying jobs. When the only job you can get is at a McDonald's, and you get more from not working at all, there is a serious problem. For anyone in the US; In Denmark, there is practically no jobs that pay so little, as to be insufficient for keeping a humane standard. And anyone who argues otherwise, simply doesn't know how it is outside Denmark.
    - rmchugh 13y ago
      Actually, you're wrong. According to this article (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_minimum_wage_and_the_danis.php?page=all http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_minimum_wage_and_the_danis....) "The average full-time equivalent McDonald’s employee in Denmark makes about $45,000 a year in total compensation." If you are on bistand (Danish unemployment benefit) you get about $22,894 per year (https://www.borger.dk/Sider/Kontanthjaelp.aspx https://www.borger.dk/Sider/Kontanthjaelp.aspx). Obviously the figure is higher if you are on dagpenge (unemployment insurance), but this is not directly comparable to the dole since it is partly financed by workers through AKasse membership. As regards Doven Robert, I'm well aware of his case, but one lazy punk with a talent for self-promotion is not representative of unemployed people in general. This is the intellectual habit that leads people to say, "but it was cold today, therefore there is no such thing as global warming!".
ThomPete 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
crntaylor 13y ago
That isn't experimental evidence to the contrary at all, because the unpleasant jobs are done by people who don't have access to the government-mandated minimum income!
- prostoalex 13y ago
  It's evidence in the sense that proponents of basic income always describe shiny future where all the low-skilled work done by robots forgetting that other countries with no such basic income still exist.
walshemj 13y ago
see the recent news articles about the "guest" workers in Quatar from Nepal some truly shocking abuses.
vbuterin 13y ago
> In those cases, all the "dirty" labor is done by legal/illegal immigrants that are not eligible for said basic income and thus willing to work for much less. So the introduction of a basic income would make demand for illegal immigrant labor increase. By standard economics, this means that the price of illegal immigrant labor would increase, so even the illegal immigrants would benefit. Sounds like a win/win to me.

derefr 13y ago

What happens if you take the implicitly-assumed-to-be-ridiculous third option, and give every visitor a green card and a basic income voucher when they cross the border? Then you don't have any illegal immigrants, just lots and lots and lots of citizens. (Don't just reply with the obviously-bad first-order effect on the country receiving the immigrants; remember that bad things would also be happening to the labor pools of all countries without this policy.)

jre 13y ago
I think you raise an interesting point on the second-order effects, but that is only relevant if a big country introduces basic income. In the case of Switzerland, I think the first-order effect greatly exceeds any other effect on the neighbouring countries's labor pools. Because Switzerland is freaking small (7 million people - the size of a big european city) and is surrounded by large countries (Germany, France, Italy). So let's say you get 2 millions people from each of the 3 large countries, that's 6 million people. For the large countries, this isn't such a big loss. But for Switzerland, it's almost doubling the population, which is going to be a huge problem in term of finance, housing, transports, etc...
- derefr 13y ago
  Sure. I actually meant to ask the "if a big country does it" version, because that's what makes Basic Income an interesting macroeconomic policy. If the US did this (and the US definitely has the room--both geographically and otherwise--to absorb way more than 6 million people), what do you think would happen?
rayiner 13y ago
Lots and lots of poor, uneducated, unacculturated citizens, and Switzerland quickly turns into Bangladesh. Brilliant idea!
- _random_ 13y ago
  LOL, you just described UK. Multiculturalism doesn't work - it has been tested here.
  - alextingle 13y ago
    I wish we could deport racists.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      I'm confused, are you accusing the idea that multiculturalism doesn't work as being racist? There is ample evidence that it in fact doesn't work: that an underclass is inevitable and that status applied to an entire culture is immensely damaging.
      - alextingle 13y ago
        The idea that there is a "poor, uneducated, unacculturate" immigrant underclass in the UK is a racist lie. Recently arrived immigrants often find themselves at a disadvantage, but 2nd & 3rd generation communities are often wealthier, and better educated than "natives". Five or ten years ago, I would have told you that this kind of politicised bigotry was entirely outside the British mainstream... only practised by a tiny, shabby fringe. These days, I'm dismayed to admit that the BNP and their UKIP mini-me's have managed to spread their filthy ideas much more widely.
        Camillo 13y ago
        I'm not really familiar with the situation in the UK. My very vague understanding is that the native Britons are so bad, with their chavs and yobs and twelve-year-old moms, that no group of immigrants, no matter how poor or uneducated, could make things worse. [1] However, it seems to me that you feel so strongly about the issue that, even if immigration did create big social problems that wouldn't otherwise exist, you still would be accusing anyone who pointed that out of being racist. Basically, "that's racist" is not the conclusion of your argument, but rather the premise, and you're using it as a thought-terminating cliché. Or at least that's my impression as an uninvolved observer, even though I'm more sympathetic to your position. [1: I hope the British hackers don't get too offended, that was largely tongue-in-cheek.]
nine_k 13y ago
It's wise that you wrote "a basic income _voucher_" and not just "basic income". There could be not enough tax money for that. A great influx of immigrants lured by the "basic income for everyone" concept will most probably greatly lower economic efficiency. This is not because the immigrants would be lazy; this is because they would mostly lack appropriate education, work qualifications, knowledge of the language, and the general culture fit. They'd have hard time becoming as productive as an average American even if they all wanted to. Of course, the government would be able to print enough money to keep the nominal basic income sum the same — but not the standard of living. Switzerland, a country with great and deep-ingrained work ethics, could consider such an experiment for _its citizens_. Doing this for any strangers that care to show up is another thing entirely.

Systemic33 13y ago

It's funny you should mention that last part, because that's exactly the situation in Denmark. We have in my opinion a waaay too high basic income, and there is a growing problem, with people who'd rather live on governement payouts, than get a job. And the nationalists are getting anxious about immigration, so there is a populist party that is against immigration, that is getting bigger and bigger support. It is overall a shitty situation.

rmchugh 13y ago
The problem is not that people would rather live on government payouts, none of the unemployed people I know here want to be unemployed. The problem is that there are not jobs for their skillsets. The solution to this is retraining rather than cutting benefits. There are also people with mental health issues, substance abuse issues etc, but that is another issue. In terms of immigration, I think the bigger problem is the Danish labour movement's structural inability to organise migrant workers. This prevents these workers from raising their wages through collective bargaining, thus preserving their comparative advantage over Danish workers. Compare this to the situation in Norway where the construction workers have successfully organised migrant workers, leading to no comparable fall in income for Norwegian workers.
- Systemic33 13y ago
  Google "lazy robert", and you'll find lots of articles on a case that highlights the problem in Denmark. It is pretty straight forward problem; there isn't an incentive to pick the low (but mind you still sufficient) paying jobs. When the only job you can get is at a McDonald's, and you get more from not working at all, there is a serious problem. For anyone in the US; In Denmark, there is practically no jobs that pay so little, as to be insufficient for keeping a humane standard. And anyone who argues otherwise, simply doesn't know how it is outside Denmark.
  - rmchugh 13y ago
    Actually, you're wrong. According to this article (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_minimum_wage_and_the_danis.php?page=all http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_minimum_wage_and_the_danis....) "The average full-time equivalent McDonald’s employee in Denmark makes about $45,000 a year in total compensation." If you are on bistand (Danish unemployment benefit) you get about $22,894 per year (https://www.borger.dk/Sider/Kontanthjaelp.aspx https://www.borger.dk/Sider/Kontanthjaelp.aspx). Obviously the figure is higher if you are on dagpenge (unemployment insurance), but this is not directly comparable to the dole since it is partly financed by workers through AKasse membership. As regards Doven Robert, I'm well aware of his case, but one lazy punk with a talent for self-promotion is not representative of unemployed people in general. This is the intellectual habit that leads people to say, "but it was cold today, therefore there is no such thing as global warming!".

ThomPete 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

crntaylor 13y ago

That isn't experimental evidence to the contrary at all, because the unpleasant jobs are done by people who don't have access to the government-mandated minimum income!

prostoalex 13y ago
It's evidence in the sense that proponents of basic income always describe shiny future where all the low-skilled work done by robots forgetting that other countries with no such basic income still exist.

walshemj 13y ago

see the recent news articles about the "guest" workers in Quatar from Nepal some truly shocking abuses.

vbuterin 13y ago

> In those cases, all the "dirty" labor is done by legal/illegal immigrants that are not eligible for said basic income and thus willing to work for much less. So the introduction of a basic income would make demand for illegal immigrant labor increase. By standard economics, this means that the price of illegal immigrant labor would increase, so even the illegal immigrants would benefit. Sounds like a win/win to me.