6 ms·

1. would probably work better in a basic income world because in theory the resulting boom and bust cycle would cause less distress because people would have so

1. would probably work better in a basic income world because in theory the resulting boom and bust cycle would cause less distress because people would have something more to fall back on. Eventually this has to end but in the long run we'll all be dead anyway. 2. is unlikely because no one wants to pay for anything. This whole idea is a very naive scheme to try to solve the obvious problem with welfare that there are large groups of productive people who pay for those who are not. It creates a great deal of anger in the productive group so if you can mitigate that anger then maybe you can continue your welfare schemes. I'm going to guess that this basic income would not entirely replace welfare programs. I find it so interesting that there are so many things being proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy and contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession. Between this and this recent minimum wage increase nonsense it seems like we're hell bent on just saying "To hell with what econ 101 says, this sounds good to me!" I keep hoping that the adults show up and just start ignoring all this and letting everyone know they're being ignored. I suspect that will not happen in this case. It never has before.

thenmar 13y ago
Really? Do you really think everyone on welfare, or even a majority, are just lazy poor people living off the money earned by the glorious, noble, hard-working, libertarian class? Is it really that simple?
- jswinghammer 13y ago
  Of course not. They're just people responding to incentives to make the best choices they can. I don't judge anyone on welfare or not.
  - thenmar 13y ago
    I think this "poor people are dumb animals and if we stopped giving the money they'd go get jobs" attitude is super fucked up.
- baddox 13y ago
  Why did you throw the word "libertarian" in there? It makes absolutely no sense in that context.
  - eropple 13y ago
    It's not an unreasonable adjective to use; the makers/takers dichotomy is a mainstay of popular libertarianism in America.
mhhhm 13y ago
"Between this and this recent minimum wage increase nonsense it seems like we're hell bent on just saying "To hell with what econ 101 says, this sounds good to me!"" There's a reason why economics goes beyond 101. It's a complex issue. The minimum wage should be increased. It should be tied to inflation.
- jswinghammer 13y ago
  Is there an argument there?
  - hedning 13y ago
    As far as I see it. The point is that a big wealth gap is detrimental to a society. Having a good minimum wage is a good way to reduce such a wealth gap.
    - thisosound 13y ago
      Then why not raise it to $30/h? I'm serious. Will those who previously made e.g. $20/h get a $10 raise or will their employer outsource/automate?
  - mhhhm 13y ago
    I've spent my life researching economics. If econ 101 solved all of our problems, I would be out of a job. People who think that way are dangerous. The world isn't black and white. It doesn't sound like you understand that.
    - jswinghammer 13y ago
      No offense but it sounds like we'd better off without you working. If you think minimum wage laws don't harm anyone you're terribly mistaken. They invariably hurt marginal and low skilled workers. The very people you aim to help. Econ 101 is a misnomer of course because economic understanding developed over thousands of years starting with Plato really (however misguided he was on the topic). There is much to learn still but it sounds like you are just looking in the wrong directions.
summerdown2 13y ago
> I find it so interesting that there are so many things being proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy and contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession. Actually, the opposite is true. 1. There are many economists who support the idea of a basic income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Origins 2. Many supporters of basic income are empiricists. Me, for example. I think it's an intriguing idea and that the trials so far have all shown good points. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-new-approach-to-aid-how-a-basic-income-program-saved-a-namibian-village-a-642310.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-new-approach-to-... What the idea needs now is more testing in the field. If I might suggest, this is actually the problem with most of the arguments against basic income. People appear to have very strong beliefs about how the universe works and how economics works that are grounded in philosophic principles of fairness. Phrases like: > This whole idea is a very naive scheme > ... proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy > ... contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession > I keep hoping that the adults show up ... are all emotional reactions not supported by evidence. Economics is, sadly, able to support lots of opinions, many contradictory. The only solution has to be based on real-world evidence from real-world trials. Either we'll find this idea will work or it won't, but I don't think your phrases above are currently strongly evidenced.

thenmar 13y ago

Really? Do you really think everyone on welfare, or even a majority, are just lazy poor people living off the money earned by the glorious, noble, hard-working, libertarian class? Is it really that simple?

jswinghammer 13y ago
Of course not. They're just people responding to incentives to make the best choices they can. I don't judge anyone on welfare or not.
- thenmar 13y ago
  I think this "poor people are dumb animals and if we stopped giving the money they'd go get jobs" attitude is super fucked up.
baddox 13y ago
Why did you throw the word "libertarian" in there? It makes absolutely no sense in that context.
- eropple 13y ago
  It's not an unreasonable adjective to use; the makers/takers dichotomy is a mainstay of popular libertarianism in America.

mhhhm 13y ago

"Between this and this recent minimum wage increase nonsense it seems like we're hell bent on just saying "To hell with what econ 101 says, this sounds good to me!"" There's a reason why economics goes beyond 101. It's a complex issue. The minimum wage should be increased. It should be tied to inflation.

jswinghammer 13y ago
Is there an argument there?
- hedning 13y ago
  As far as I see it. The point is that a big wealth gap is detrimental to a society. Having a good minimum wage is a good way to reduce such a wealth gap.
  - thisosound 13y ago
    Then why not raise it to $30/h? I'm serious. Will those who previously made e.g. $20/h get a $10 raise or will their employer outsource/automate?
- mhhhm 13y ago
  I've spent my life researching economics. If econ 101 solved all of our problems, I would be out of a job. People who think that way are dangerous. The world isn't black and white. It doesn't sound like you understand that.
  - jswinghammer 13y ago
    No offense but it sounds like we'd better off without you working. If you think minimum wage laws don't harm anyone you're terribly mistaken. They invariably hurt marginal and low skilled workers. The very people you aim to help. Econ 101 is a misnomer of course because economic understanding developed over thousands of years starting with Plato really (however misguided he was on the topic). There is much to learn still but it sounds like you are just looking in the wrong directions.

summerdown2 13y ago

> I find it so interesting that there are so many things being proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy and contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession. Actually, the opposite is true. 1. There are many economists who support the idea of a basic income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Origins 2. Many supporters of basic income are empiricists. Me, for example. I think it's an intriguing idea and that the trials so far have all shown good points. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-new-approach-to-aid-how-a-basic-income-program-saved-a-namibian-village-a-642310.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-new-approach-to-... What the idea needs now is more testing in the field. If I might suggest, this is actually the problem with most of the arguments against basic income. People appear to have very strong beliefs about how the universe works and how economics works that are grounded in philosophic principles of fairness. Phrases like: > This whole idea is a very naive scheme > ... proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy > ... contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession > I keep hoping that the adults show up ... are all emotional reactions not supported by evidence. Economics is, sadly, able to support lots of opinions, many contradictory. The only solution has to be based on real-world evidence from real-world trials. Either we'll find this idea will work or it won't, but I don't think your phrases above are currently strongly evidenced.