9 ms·

I believe that basic income would unlock a lot of hidden wealth: 1. Many more people would try their hand at entrepreneurship, and/or re-enter education, if th

by lukifer 13y ago

I believe that basic income would unlock a lot of hidden wealth: 1. Many more people would try their hand at entrepreneurship, and/or re-enter education, if they are freed from the obligation to work to survive. 2. There would be little need for minimum wage laws; unskilled labor can become primarily for earning a little more spending money, or about social roles within a group or community. The incentive for high-end labor would remain. 3. Much more non-profit activity, such as political engagement and volunteer labor, would become feasible (including the immeasurable wealth of more time spent raising children). 4. Let's face it: there are a lot of quasi-useless laborers out there, who are a drag co-efficient on productivity. The people who do the bare minimum to survive contribute more to the economy by staying home. There are deep macroeconomic and budgetary challenges to such a policy, and the socioeconomic effects are hard to predict. It certainly wouldn't be revenue-neutral, though it could be offset by other reductions in the welfare state (not to mention the prison-industrial complex). One way or another, the value and negotiating leverage of human labor is declining. As globalization spreads, domain-specific AI improves, and software continues to "eat the world", this trend will only progress. If we don't want to revert to a world of lords and serfs, basic income is the best way to preserve Adam Smith's humanistic vision of capitalism. And in the Western world, we are damn sure rich enough to afford it.

ctdonath 13y ago
This "I believe in GBI" line rarely is backed up by objective reasoning, and grossly underestimates the percentage who would, if freed from the obligation to work to survive, indulge in whatever non-productive luxuries they can acquire. While certainly many would improve productivity & economy & education should they have the financial liberty to do so, my experience in helping many up tells me most are down for a reason which only they, internally, can change - and won't.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Many businesses make a tidy profit despite a large number of users being non-profitable "free riders" (Dropbox would be the canonical example). My claim is not that every human would be immediately elevated to self-actualization. Obviously, a great many would stay home, drink beer and watch TV. My claim is that civilization as a whole would profit; paying people who contribute nothing is merely a "cost of doing business". (And don't forget: there's still an incentive to work for those who want better beer and bigger TVs.)
  - pdonis 13y ago
    Many businesses make a tidy profit despite a large number of users being non-profitable "free riders" (Dropbox would be the canonical example). Having users be free riders is not the same as having employees be free riders. I doubt Dropbox has any of the latter. (And don't forget: there's still an incentive to work for those who want better beer and bigger TVs.) No, there's an incentive for voters to elect politicians who will continue raising the bar for how much beer and what size TV the basic income should buy you.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      > No, there's an incentive for voters to elect politicians who will continue raising the bar I agree that there is a severe moral hazard here. However, the fact that some citizens currently vote reflexively for lower taxes, while others do not, suggests that a semi-stable equilibrium could be achieved. (This holds even if you look only at middle-class voters with significant tax burdens, rather than just "makers" vs. "takers".)
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I agree that there is a severe moral hazard here. If the moral hazard for BI was as strong as its opponents argue, it wouldn't take so long after the idea first started being advocated for it to be near universally adopted. Since, the argument that with a UBI of $N/mo, the voting masses will always strongly prefer a UBI of $N+1/mo. applies just as much at a N = 0 as at N = 1000.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        The article applies, but presumably zero is a Schelling point. If there's no other specific value that everyone can agree is special, it may be that you would see continual upward movement only after we've made it nonzero.
        dllthomas 13y ago
- gress 13y ago
  > most are down for a reason which only they, internally, can change - and won't Do you know what that reason is? Do they know how to change whatever it is?
- mattmanser 13y ago
  What are we supposed to say to this? You've been so vague that are we supposed to take your expert word or believe you're a close minded snob? What do you do? How do you help? Do you think you're suffering from an anti-'survior' bias where you can only see the ones who continue to fail?
- zacinbusiness 13y ago
  This is the sort of unfortunate reason that many people use in these situations. Why should everyone profit if some people are going to squander it? Why should I pay into global income to pay for a drug addicts habit? The reason is that he may be able to seek actual psychological and social help for his addiction. And even if he doesn't do that, at least he can afford his drugs without having to kill you for it.
- nzp 13y ago
  > This "I believe in GBI" line rarely is backed up by objective reasoning... You haven't really done a stellar job yourself. "My experience tells me" can hardly be used to back something up objectively.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > This "I believe in GBI" line rarely is backed up by objective reasoning, and grossly underestimates the percentage who would, if freed from the obligation to work to survive, indulge in whatever non-productive luxuries they can acquire. This latter claim is frequently made in discussions of basic income, but rarely backed up by objective reasoning.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Not only is it not backed up by objective reasoning, it is contradicted by the experimental evidence we have available.
dredmorbius 13y ago
Agreeing generally with your points, though to add: There would be little need for minimum wage laws Consider turning the concept of minimum wage on its head. As Adam Smith noted: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Ch. VII) A minimum wage law addresses a number of issues, of which welfare is only one: • It assures the future supply of labor. • It levels the field in bargaining between employers and labor (another point Smith addresses in Ch. VII on which I've written before). • It calls out businesses which are operating on an uneconomic basis. • It's not an "arbitrary price control" as some assert, but an acknowledgement of a fundamental economic reality dating to Smith. • In the case of specific firms with positive externalities, exceptions can be made, but these should be recognized as exceptions. More on this: http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1z5vfb/thoughts_on_minimum_wage_enterprise_viability/ http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1z5vfb/thoughts...
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Basic Income addresses all of these points, better.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    My point is making the case for minimum wage, what its economic import really is, and what the background is (Smith is full of surprises, especially if you believe what you've been told about him). In particular, noting that the lack of a minimum wage amounts to a de facto welfare program for noneconomic businesses. I'm not entirely convinced that MW is the way to fly (though I'm mostly convinced of it). And as I said: exceptions can be made, but they should be deliberate. It's one thing for a small mom'n'pop corner or small-town grocery to get a subsidy for providing a local level of services, another for some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world (Walmart, McDonalds) to be subsidized for subverting local economies. The discussion of GMI / basic income or other non-means-tested aid recognizes inherent market failures in numerous directions. That's a longer conversation, and one that I plan to explore. I'm not dismissing it at all.
mathattack 13y ago
I believe that it also would improve the efficiency of the economy, relative to current alternative programs. The only downside is potential inflation.

by lukifer 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago

This "I believe in GBI" line rarely is backed up by objective reasoning, and grossly underestimates the percentage who would, if freed from the obligation to work to survive, indulge in whatever non-productive luxuries they can acquire. While certainly many would improve productivity & economy & education should they have the financial liberty to do so, my experience in helping many up tells me most are down for a reason which only they, internally, can change - and won't.

lukifer 13y ago
Many businesses make a tidy profit despite a large number of users being non-profitable "free riders" (Dropbox would be the canonical example). My claim is not that every human would be immediately elevated to self-actualization. Obviously, a great many would stay home, drink beer and watch TV. My claim is that civilization as a whole would profit; paying people who contribute nothing is merely a "cost of doing business". (And don't forget: there's still an incentive to work for those who want better beer and bigger TVs.)
- pdonis 13y ago
  Many businesses make a tidy profit despite a large number of users being non-profitable "free riders" (Dropbox would be the canonical example). Having users be free riders is not the same as having employees be free riders. I doubt Dropbox has any of the latter. (And don't forget: there's still an incentive to work for those who want better beer and bigger TVs.) No, there's an incentive for voters to elect politicians who will continue raising the bar for how much beer and what size TV the basic income should buy you.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    > No, there's an incentive for voters to elect politicians who will continue raising the bar I agree that there is a severe moral hazard here. However, the fact that some citizens currently vote reflexively for lower taxes, while others do not, suggests that a semi-stable equilibrium could be achieved. (This holds even if you look only at middle-class voters with significant tax burdens, rather than just "makers" vs. "takers".)
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I agree that there is a severe moral hazard here. If the moral hazard for BI was as strong as its opponents argue, it wouldn't take so long after the idea first started being advocated for it to be near universally adopted. Since, the argument that with a UBI of $N/mo, the voting masses will always strongly prefer a UBI of $N+1/mo. applies just as much at a N = 0 as at N = 1000.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        The article applies, but presumably zero is a Schelling point. If there's no other specific value that everyone can agree is special, it may be that you would see continual upward movement only after we've made it nonzero.
        dllthomas 13y ago
gress 13y ago
> most are down for a reason which only they, internally, can change - and won't Do you know what that reason is? Do they know how to change whatever it is?
mattmanser 13y ago
What are we supposed to say to this? You've been so vague that are we supposed to take your expert word or believe you're a close minded snob? What do you do? How do you help? Do you think you're suffering from an anti-'survior' bias where you can only see the ones who continue to fail?
zacinbusiness 13y ago
This is the sort of unfortunate reason that many people use in these situations. Why should everyone profit if some people are going to squander it? Why should I pay into global income to pay for a drug addicts habit? The reason is that he may be able to seek actual psychological and social help for his addiction. And even if he doesn't do that, at least he can afford his drugs without having to kill you for it.
nzp 13y ago
> This "I believe in GBI" line rarely is backed up by objective reasoning... You haven't really done a stellar job yourself. "My experience tells me" can hardly be used to back something up objectively.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> This "I believe in GBI" line rarely is backed up by objective reasoning, and grossly underestimates the percentage who would, if freed from the obligation to work to survive, indulge in whatever non-productive luxuries they can acquire. This latter claim is frequently made in discussions of basic income, but rarely backed up by objective reasoning.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Not only is it not backed up by objective reasoning, it is contradicted by the experimental evidence we have available.

dredmorbius 13y ago

Agreeing generally with your points, though to add: There would be little need for minimum wage laws Consider turning the concept of minimum wage on its head. As Adam Smith noted: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Ch. VII) A minimum wage law addresses a number of issues, of which welfare is only one: • It assures the future supply of labor. • It levels the field in bargaining between employers and labor (another point Smith addresses in Ch. VII on which I've written before). • It calls out businesses which are operating on an uneconomic basis. • It's not an "arbitrary price control" as some assert, but an acknowledgement of a fundamental economic reality dating to Smith. • In the case of specific firms with positive externalities, exceptions can be made, but these should be recognized as exceptions. More on this: http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1z5vfb/thoughts_on_minimum_wage_enterprise_viability/ http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1z5vfb/thoughts...

dllthomas 13y ago
Basic Income addresses all of these points, better.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  My point is making the case for minimum wage, what its economic import really is, and what the background is (Smith is full of surprises, especially if you believe what you've been told about him). In particular, noting that the lack of a minimum wage amounts to a de facto welfare program for noneconomic businesses. I'm not entirely convinced that MW is the way to fly (though I'm mostly convinced of it). And as I said: exceptions can be made, but they should be deliberate. It's one thing for a small mom'n'pop corner or small-town grocery to get a subsidy for providing a local level of services, another for some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world (Walmart, McDonalds) to be subsidized for subverting local economies. The discussion of GMI / basic income or other non-means-tested aid recognizes inherent market failures in numerous directions. That's a longer conversation, and one that I plan to explore. I'm not dismissing it at all.

mathattack 13y ago

I believe that it also would improve the efficiency of the economy, relative to current alternative programs. The only downside is potential inflation.