14 ms·

> One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income. I believe this would not be a

> One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income. I believe this would not be a problem in the long run for the following reasons: - A lot of boring low-pay work is unnecessary (dealing with the endless paper trail of over-complicated bureaucracies, lots of things that companies do, like telemarketing, just because it's so cheap, etc. etc.); - A lot of it is necessary, so it would just become more expensive. At some price, people will be willing to do this work despite the basic income. Many people actually enjoy doing meaningful work, be it plumbing or being a doctor. It's the soul-crushing pointless work that is so depressing; - This would then create strong economic pressure to finally use technology for what it's good: automatize labor. No longer would there be the job loss dilemma; - Likewise, this would create strong economic pressure to simplify everything: no more pointless bureaucracy, no more over-complicated taxation schemes that require an army of accountants, much less pointless meetings and other corporate fat, and so on. I'm filled with hope by this idea and honestly believe that it has a chance of working. It's time to step into the next era.

marknutter 13y ago
I see it differently. If people are receiving a basic income their performance at a job becomes much less important. Why care if you do a good job if losing it doesn't really impact you that negatively?
- drewrv 13y ago
  It would impact you negatively, it just won't lead to utter ruin and homelessness.
- samatman 13y ago
  Let's presume you have a job, rather than being freelance or a founder: Would you continue to do well at it if it was, say, 60% of your income rather than all of it?
  - marknutter 13y ago
    I think that the less the job income affected my bottom line, the less I would care about performing well at it. If it was 10% of my income I would care even less. After all, I'd rather be working on my own ideas than someone else's.
    - ricardobeat 13y ago
      If you are a freelancer doing one job a month, each one accounts for less than 10% of your income. Where do you draw the line? Do you do a shitty job for a few of them?
- licnep 13y ago
  I think i read somewhere that money isn't the best motivator to get people to do the best work they can. And in general even with children they say positive enforcement should be preferred to punishment. So maybe someone doing a job cause they want to, to make more money and have a better standard of living, will get the job done better than someone being forced to do it cause otherwise he will be living on the streets. In my experience the main predictor of the quality of a job is weather the person wants to do it, or has to. The job is the same, it's the perception that's different.
- Brashman 13y ago
  Presumably, people would adjust their way of living to incorporate the extra income from their job so losing the job would affect their way of life. Many people today can't "afford" to change to a lower paying job because their use to the lifestyle their current job affords them. For example, leaving industry to do a PhD can be difficult, even though the pay for a PhD student should cover basic expenses.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Because you will still have to compete for desirable jobs. For menial labor, most of it can/will be automated. For undesirable jobs that can't be automated away, employers will have to make the jobs desirable. One way to do that will be to increase the pay, but, that is not the only means for doing so. There are many things employers can do to make employment more desirable that have a low or zero net cost. I'd even argue that some of those things would save money/resources in varying amounts even absent the pressure to do so. One very good and interesting effect that I predict is that individuals whose employment places them in ethical dilemmas will no longer have as much pressure for compliance with potentially unethical demands, since the entirety of their livelihood no longer depends upon compliance.
  - halfninety 13y ago
    He says people will have less motivation to improve performance because they can afford losing the job, you disagree. Then you go on and say that people will have less pressure to comply with unethical demands because they can afford losing the job...
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      Yes, when your sole motivation to work isn't to provide for the necessity of survival, you can use your influence in more egalitarian ways.
- gcb1 13y ago
  hn commenter on job satisfaction threads: I'm motivated by challenges and working with similar minded people, not money. hn commenter on minimum wage threads: everyone work for minimal sustenance.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    hn commenters: Look at all the world problems us tech folks can solve! bay area employees: Look how good we are at pushing ads on people! If you're less concerned about supporting yourself, you can spend time on problems that are important but aren't profitable.
- wpietri 13y ago
  In two words: Maslow's hierarchy. [1] The best places I know have people who are working from higher-layer motivations, and corporate cultures that encourage that by treating people as adults, supporting them, giving them wide latitude to get things done, et cetera. The worse are the opposite. The people there are desperate for money to survive. The corporate cultures are disempowering, controlling, contemptuous. It's commonly thought in the US that these are just two different sorts of people, the high-class creatives who should be given latitude, and the low-class proles who must be controlled like surly teens if they are to get anything done. But that's not true. For example, Toyota's great success comes mainly from treating factory workers with deep respect. [2] And it works here, too. This American Life tells the story [3] of Toyota turning GM's worst plant into one of the best. Same people, just a different culture. So if people are receiving a basic income, jobs will have to shift toward the model that motivates people through the higher end of Maslow's hierarchy. Money will be part of why people show up, but it would not longer be the only reason. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs [2] Liker's Toyota Kata is a great book on this. [3] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n...
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > Why care if you do a good job if losing it doesn't really impact you that negatively? That statement says a lot about how you think; everyone is not like you. Many people take pride in what they do and do it well regardless of compensation, it's not about the money, it's about the fulfillment one gets from a job well done.
  - SnowProblem 13y ago
    Yes in some cases, like software, I agree that positive motivation naturally exists. Negative motivation may also naturally exist. For example, if you enjoy your work, and the work is desirable, you'll be anxious about losing it. However, I wonder whether it's quixotic to think this applies to all types of work. I would love to see a small country like Switzerland incubate this policy.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      It's not about the work, it's about the people. People can take pride in doing things well despite it being boring or menial. Not everyone does shit for effort just because they don't like the task. I've done all kinds of work, from door to door sales to dishwasher to soldier to police officer to irrigating cotton to programming; everywhere I go I've met lazy bums who half ass everything and proud people who do good work regardless of the task, it's the people, not the job.
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    I think this shows you are disconnected from how the world really is outside of fairly small bubble, just being honest. Recognizing reality does not mean that you personally have some fundamental flaw in how to view work.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      My friend, you're in the bubble.
      - 13y ago
malandrew 13y ago
A lot of the necessary boring work could also be done by people who want additional disposable income. They just wouldn't be forced to work full time, instead opting to only work as many hours as is necessary to meet their disposable income needs. On the other hand, I'm wondering what a minimum livable wage does pricewise and scarcity-wise for all goods and services that those on a minimum livable wage earn. There would probably be an upwards inflationary effect on the prices of those goods, countered by economies of scale. This would apply to pretty much all basic expenses except housing, which would largely only go up because you can't make more land in desirable places. If there is a minimum livable wage, I would still imagine that opting to only use it and no other income would still force you to leave city centers where rent is too high to afford. You may still have to worry about losing your job, because the minimum livable wage wouldn't cover your rent or mortgage.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  > This would apply to pretty much all basic expenses except housing, which would largely only go up because you can't make more land in desirable places. You can build up, which most places don't do. What we'd see is fewer houses and more condos/apartments. > You may still have to worry about losing your job, because the minimum livable wage wouldn't cover your rent or mortgage. Yes, but it transitions the effects of this loss to "move somewhere else and have fewer luxuries" not "have no home and be unable to eat", which I think is an improvement.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jordiae 13y ago
+1000
ams6110 13y ago
Converting $33,600 basic income (assuming this goes to every adult, 210 million people) to the entire population (318 million) is about $22,200 per capita. Per capita income in the United States in 2012 was $42,693 [1]. Assuming that would remain unchanged, taxes to fund a basic income of $22,200 that would leave $20,500 per capita. Per-capita state tax collections are already 2,435.11 [2] and federal tax collections are $8,528.22 [3]. Most states have to run a balanced budget but federal revenue only covers about 65% of outlays, so really we're looking at about $13,000 per capita federal spending that eventually needs to be paid for. So subtract $15,435 to cover current outlays. Now we're at about $5,000 left over to pay for everything else: food, clothes, utilities, rent/mortgage, education, and all the other local taxes that fund essential services, e.g. local sales taxes, property taxes, various other fees and excise taxes. Even if you did away with other "safety net" programs such as welfare and food stamps because they are replaced by basic income, there simply isn't enough REAL economic activity in the country to give everyone this kind of basic income. 1. http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
- milesskorpen 13y ago
  Presumably this would replace Social Security and most other forms of welfare (might even replace medicare / medicaid — people would just buy insurance based on the basic income). Given that entitlements are ~60% percentage of federal, this might be easier than you think.
  - bradleyjg 13y ago
    We could also trim down the single biggest welfare program we have:the military-industrial complex. That's close to $5000 per adult by itself. Edit: Back of envelope -- $3800 per adult from cutting MIC spending from $1 trillion to $200B which is still more than any other nation. $4000 per adult from eliminating Social security including disability. $4800 per adult in total health care savings from switching from our crappy system to the UK's. ---- $12,600 per adult Not quite what the Swiss are proposing but $100 more than the federal poverty line. And we get better health outcomes and fewer wars to boot.
oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
I believe similar points are made in Robert Tressell's 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists', in which he debunks a lot of the negativity surrounding socialism and makes very powerful arguments in favour of it. A wonderful book.

marknutter 13y ago

I see it differently. If people are receiving a basic income their performance at a job becomes much less important. Why care if you do a good job if losing it doesn't really impact you that negatively?

drewrv 13y ago
It would impact you negatively, it just won't lead to utter ruin and homelessness.
samatman 13y ago
Let's presume you have a job, rather than being freelance or a founder: Would you continue to do well at it if it was, say, 60% of your income rather than all of it?
- marknutter 13y ago
  I think that the less the job income affected my bottom line, the less I would care about performing well at it. If it was 10% of my income I would care even less. After all, I'd rather be working on my own ideas than someone else's.
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    If you are a freelancer doing one job a month, each one accounts for less than 10% of your income. Where do you draw the line? Do you do a shitty job for a few of them?
licnep 13y ago
I think i read somewhere that money isn't the best motivator to get people to do the best work they can. And in general even with children they say positive enforcement should be preferred to punishment. So maybe someone doing a job cause they want to, to make more money and have a better standard of living, will get the job done better than someone being forced to do it cause otherwise he will be living on the streets. In my experience the main predictor of the quality of a job is weather the person wants to do it, or has to. The job is the same, it's the perception that's different.
Brashman 13y ago
Presumably, people would adjust their way of living to incorporate the extra income from their job so losing the job would affect their way of life. Many people today can't "afford" to change to a lower paying job because their use to the lifestyle their current job affords them. For example, leaving industry to do a PhD can be difficult, even though the pay for a PhD student should cover basic expenses.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Because you will still have to compete for desirable jobs. For menial labor, most of it can/will be automated. For undesirable jobs that can't be automated away, employers will have to make the jobs desirable. One way to do that will be to increase the pay, but, that is not the only means for doing so. There are many things employers can do to make employment more desirable that have a low or zero net cost. I'd even argue that some of those things would save money/resources in varying amounts even absent the pressure to do so. One very good and interesting effect that I predict is that individuals whose employment places them in ethical dilemmas will no longer have as much pressure for compliance with potentially unethical demands, since the entirety of their livelihood no longer depends upon compliance.
- halfninety 13y ago
  He says people will have less motivation to improve performance because they can afford losing the job, you disagree. Then you go on and say that people will have less pressure to comply with unethical demands because they can afford losing the job...
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Yes, when your sole motivation to work isn't to provide for the necessity of survival, you can use your influence in more egalitarian ways.
gcb1 13y ago
hn commenter on job satisfaction threads: I'm motivated by challenges and working with similar minded people, not money. hn commenter on minimum wage threads: everyone work for minimal sustenance.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  hn commenters: Look at all the world problems us tech folks can solve! bay area employees: Look how good we are at pushing ads on people! If you're less concerned about supporting yourself, you can spend time on problems that are important but aren't profitable.
wpietri 13y ago
In two words: Maslow's hierarchy. [1] The best places I know have people who are working from higher-layer motivations, and corporate cultures that encourage that by treating people as adults, supporting them, giving them wide latitude to get things done, et cetera. The worse are the opposite. The people there are desperate for money to survive. The corporate cultures are disempowering, controlling, contemptuous. It's commonly thought in the US that these are just two different sorts of people, the high-class creatives who should be given latitude, and the low-class proles who must be controlled like surly teens if they are to get anything done. But that's not true. For example, Toyota's great success comes mainly from treating factory workers with deep respect. [2] And it works here, too. This American Life tells the story [3] of Toyota turning GM's worst plant into one of the best. Same people, just a different culture. So if people are receiving a basic income, jobs will have to shift toward the model that motivates people through the higher end of Maslow's hierarchy. Money will be part of why people show up, but it would not longer be the only reason. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs [2] Liker's Toyota Kata is a great book on this. [3] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n...
gnaritas 13y ago
> Why care if you do a good job if losing it doesn't really impact you that negatively? That statement says a lot about how you think; everyone is not like you. Many people take pride in what they do and do it well regardless of compensation, it's not about the money, it's about the fulfillment one gets from a job well done.
- SnowProblem 13y ago
  Yes in some cases, like software, I agree that positive motivation naturally exists. Negative motivation may also naturally exist. For example, if you enjoy your work, and the work is desirable, you'll be anxious about losing it. However, I wonder whether it's quixotic to think this applies to all types of work. I would love to see a small country like Switzerland incubate this policy.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    It's not about the work, it's about the people. People can take pride in doing things well despite it being boring or menial. Not everyone does shit for effort just because they don't like the task. I've done all kinds of work, from door to door sales to dishwasher to soldier to police officer to irrigating cotton to programming; everywhere I go I've met lazy bums who half ass everything and proud people who do good work regardless of the task, it's the people, not the job.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  I think this shows you are disconnected from how the world really is outside of fairly small bubble, just being honest. Recognizing reality does not mean that you personally have some fundamental flaw in how to view work.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    My friend, you're in the bubble.
    - 13y ago

malandrew 13y ago

A lot of the necessary boring work could also be done by people who want additional disposable income. They just wouldn't be forced to work full time, instead opting to only work as many hours as is necessary to meet their disposable income needs. On the other hand, I'm wondering what a minimum livable wage does pricewise and scarcity-wise for all goods and services that those on a minimum livable wage earn. There would probably be an upwards inflationary effect on the prices of those goods, countered by economies of scale. This would apply to pretty much all basic expenses except housing, which would largely only go up because you can't make more land in desirable places. If there is a minimum livable wage, I would still imagine that opting to only use it and no other income would still force you to leave city centers where rent is too high to afford. You may still have to worry about losing your job, because the minimum livable wage wouldn't cover your rent or mortgage.

DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
> This would apply to pretty much all basic expenses except housing, which would largely only go up because you can't make more land in desirable places. You can build up, which most places don't do. What we'd see is fewer houses and more condos/apartments. > You may still have to worry about losing your job, because the minimum livable wage wouldn't cover your rent or mortgage. Yes, but it transitions the effects of this loss to "move somewhere else and have fewer luxuries" not "have no home and be unable to eat", which I think is an improvement.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jordiae 13y ago

+1000

ams6110 13y ago

Converting $33,600 basic income (assuming this goes to every adult, 210 million people) to the entire population (318 million) is about $22,200 per capita. Per capita income in the United States in 2012 was $42,693 [1]. Assuming that would remain unchanged, taxes to fund a basic income of $22,200 that would leave $20,500 per capita. Per-capita state tax collections are already 2,435.11 [2] and federal tax collections are $8,528.22 [3]. Most states have to run a balanced budget but federal revenue only covers about 65% of outlays, so really we're looking at about $13,000 per capita federal spending that eventually needs to be paid for. So subtract $15,435 to cover current outlays. Now we're at about $5,000 left over to pay for everything else: food, clothes, utilities, rent/mortgage, education, and all the other local taxes that fund essential services, e.g. local sales taxes, property taxes, various other fees and excise taxes. Even if you did away with other "safety net" programs such as welfare and food stamps because they are replaced by basic income, there simply isn't enough REAL economic activity in the country to give everyone this kind of basic income. 1. http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

milesskorpen 13y ago
Presumably this would replace Social Security and most other forms of welfare (might even replace medicare / medicaid — people would just buy insurance based on the basic income). Given that entitlements are ~60% percentage of federal, this might be easier than you think.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  We could also trim down the single biggest welfare program we have:the military-industrial complex. That's close to $5000 per adult by itself. Edit: Back of envelope -- $3800 per adult from cutting MIC spending from $1 trillion to $200B which is still more than any other nation. $4000 per adult from eliminating Social security including disability. $4800 per adult in total health care savings from switching from our crappy system to the UK's. ---- $12,600 per adult Not quite what the Swiss are proposing but $100 more than the federal poverty line. And we get better health outcomes and fewer wars to boot.

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago

I believe similar points are made in Robert Tressell's 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists', in which he debunks a lot of the negativity surrounding socialism and makes very powerful arguments in favour of it. A wonderful book.