4 ms·

My first reaction was "hell no". My second was "there would at least be one and only one number to vote on and administer in this area of government" My third

by johnnyg 13y ago

My first reaction was "hell no". My second was "there would at least be one and only one number to vote on and administer in this area of government" My third "oh...wait, you can't live on 3k anyway. The rest of the machinery would have to stay and this would be in addition. Worse, next year its 3.5k, and then next 4k..." So my counter is this: Will it work if we give everyone 30k a year? Because that would actually simplify and change things. Anything less and this isn't a serious proposal.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Our family income amounts to ~$4800 per person per annum. So you're proposing a 6 times income increase (we're in the UK). I think $3k is probably just enough to live on in the UK and it's generally accepted that the cost of living here is greater, certainly it would be enough if one weren't spending ~50% of their income on a mortgage. We run a car too (£1.30/l for petrol), if we weren't working we wouldn't need the car and we'd be able to get an allotment to supplement our food supply. I consider us to be quite well off yet, of course, relatively poor. We don't qualify for free school meals so apparently there are a lot (400,000 children in England alone do qualify) of people worse off than us and still surviving. $30k per year sounds like it would be a massive disincentive to seek a wage, whether that would also amount to a large population who don't work or not is anyone's guess really (but I'd say yes).
- johnnyg 13y ago
  Hrm. Maybe I misunderstood the proposal, which I consider radical, and took a wrong turn. I'm working back from median household income in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_US_household_income.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_US_household_incom... I think the proposal's underpinnings are "lets pay everyone enough to live on, shrink all the complexity down to one number so we can all understand and impact what that one number is, and hope that those who produce for love of the game do so to an extent that allows us to keep the system running". Basically communism with a uber-capitalist kicker (slogan proposal: "Musk's gonna Musk"). From your comments, it sounds like you'd think that if we put 30k more per person on the table, the incentive to work would go away, and the poor are needed to work so it would break the system. Well, I believe we've already crossed this line with current entitlements and programs and there's already an advantage to not working. This is a far right alt source so read it carefully and do your own thinking (could say the same for CNBC though!): http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-ho... In conclusion: 1. 3k is just another entitlement added onto a haze of entitlements. 2. The value would be a single number. We're giving it away inefficiently now, why not clean that part up and hope democracy/the light of day will bring a moderation to it. Likely not, but better than what is. 3. 30k would be a better number if all other entitlement of any kind were truly going away and we were going to truly play it strait up. 4. If I'm wrong on this and the number after cutting everything else off is really 8k or 10k or whatever, I'm still fairly skeptical we could pay for it. 5. I've focused a lot of my life on not being poor-ish like we were when I was a kid. I think I'm pretty disconnected from what that word really means, and intentionally so, but thanks for the reality check anyway. If you'd go into more detail, I'd read it. Specifically, say you were poor but wanted to make something, would the amount of money you'd need increase and by how much?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Currently there's more of an advantage to not working then there would be under BI. There is currently less of an advantage to working a little, because we cut off benefits.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    I agree that the primary advantage to the state is in rationalising the complex system of benefits and payments down to a single system of assessment. It strikes me that the disincentive to work can possibly be countered by employing on a limited-time basis those seeking the "benefit" in what would otherwise be uneconomic work. Litter picking is a classic example; sorting recyclables is probably a similar thing. Basically anything to act as a token contribution to the community. >Specifically, say you were poor but wanted to make something, would the amount of money you'd need increase and by how much? // Certainly. We run a location-based business and want to move it to address a larger market but the cost of moving is prohibitive. Similarly I've a couple of inventions I'd like to work up; one of which I'd need access to a decent workshop and a couple of months [proper] income to spend on testing and prototype development. On a slightly different tack there are educational opportunities that my kids are missing out on which require finance - they're low level costs but still out of reach. (Example, we do basic [chemistry|physics] experiments at home, a bit more money would enhance them considerably).
dllthomas 13y ago
Here's how it fixes things. Would it work out this way? Who knows... $3k is a sizeable chunk (~25%) of what someone makes in a year at minimum wage. Some people working two minimum wage jobs are able to cut their hours. This decreases the supply of labor. Meanwhile, those making little enough that any increase on taxes leaves the BI system handing them net surplus are better able to meet their needs, realizing some additional demand - some of which will be demand for labor. This raises wages and lowers unemployment. Would it fix everything 100%? Probably not. The question is whether it's an improvement, and whether that improvement is worth the costs and the risks. I don't know that it would be, but it seems close enough to be "a serious proposal". Personally, based on personal back-of-the-envelope guestimates, I've been thinking something closer to $6k makes more sense. But the hypothesis that the optimal value for BI is positive is stronger than that it falls at any particular amount.

by johnnyg 13y ago

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

Our family income amounts to ~$4800 per person per annum. So you're proposing a 6 times income increase (we're in the UK). I think $3k is probably just enough to live on in the UK and it's generally accepted that the cost of living here is greater, certainly it would be enough if one weren't spending ~50% of their income on a mortgage. We run a car too (£1.30/l for petrol), if we weren't working we wouldn't need the car and we'd be able to get an allotment to supplement our food supply. I consider us to be quite well off yet, of course, relatively poor. We don't qualify for free school meals so apparently there are a lot (400,000 children in England alone do qualify) of people worse off than us and still surviving. $30k per year sounds like it would be a massive disincentive to seek a wage, whether that would also amount to a large population who don't work or not is anyone's guess really (but I'd say yes).

johnnyg 13y ago
Hrm. Maybe I misunderstood the proposal, which I consider radical, and took a wrong turn. I'm working back from median household income in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_US_household_income.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_US_household_incom... I think the proposal's underpinnings are "lets pay everyone enough to live on, shrink all the complexity down to one number so we can all understand and impact what that one number is, and hope that those who produce for love of the game do so to an extent that allows us to keep the system running". Basically communism with a uber-capitalist kicker (slogan proposal: "Musk's gonna Musk"). From your comments, it sounds like you'd think that if we put 30k more per person on the table, the incentive to work would go away, and the poor are needed to work so it would break the system. Well, I believe we've already crossed this line with current entitlements and programs and there's already an advantage to not working. This is a far right alt source so read it carefully and do your own thinking (could say the same for CNBC though!): http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-ho... In conclusion: 1. 3k is just another entitlement added onto a haze of entitlements. 2. The value would be a single number. We're giving it away inefficiently now, why not clean that part up and hope democracy/the light of day will bring a moderation to it. Likely not, but better than what is. 3. 30k would be a better number if all other entitlement of any kind were truly going away and we were going to truly play it strait up. 4. If I'm wrong on this and the number after cutting everything else off is really 8k or 10k or whatever, I'm still fairly skeptical we could pay for it. 5. I've focused a lot of my life on not being poor-ish like we were when I was a kid. I think I'm pretty disconnected from what that word really means, and intentionally so, but thanks for the reality check anyway. If you'd go into more detail, I'd read it. Specifically, say you were poor but wanted to make something, would the amount of money you'd need increase and by how much?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Currently there's more of an advantage to not working then there would be under BI. There is currently less of an advantage to working a little, because we cut off benefits.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  I agree that the primary advantage to the state is in rationalising the complex system of benefits and payments down to a single system of assessment. It strikes me that the disincentive to work can possibly be countered by employing on a limited-time basis those seeking the "benefit" in what would otherwise be uneconomic work. Litter picking is a classic example; sorting recyclables is probably a similar thing. Basically anything to act as a token contribution to the community. >Specifically, say you were poor but wanted to make something, would the amount of money you'd need increase and by how much? // Certainly. We run a location-based business and want to move it to address a larger market but the cost of moving is prohibitive. Similarly I've a couple of inventions I'd like to work up; one of which I'd need access to a decent workshop and a couple of months [proper] income to spend on testing and prototype development. On a slightly different tack there are educational opportunities that my kids are missing out on which require finance - they're low level costs but still out of reach. (Example, we do basic [chemistry|physics] experiments at home, a bit more money would enhance them considerably).

dllthomas 13y ago

Here's how it fixes things. Would it work out this way? Who knows... $3k is a sizeable chunk (~25%) of what someone makes in a year at minimum wage. Some people working two minimum wage jobs are able to cut their hours. This decreases the supply of labor. Meanwhile, those making little enough that any increase on taxes leaves the BI system handing them net surplus are better able to meet their needs, realizing some additional demand - some of which will be demand for labor. This raises wages and lowers unemployment. Would it fix everything 100%? Probably not. The question is whether it's an improvement, and whether that improvement is worth the costs and the risks. I don't know that it would be, but it seems close enough to be "a serious proposal". Personally, based on personal back-of-the-envelope guestimates, I've been thinking something closer to $6k makes more sense. But the hypothesis that the optimal value for BI is positive is stronger than that it falls at any particular amount.