4 ms·

So let's assume this was implemented. Some citizens, with their guaranteed basic income, will spend it wisely to cover their needs...as envisioned by proponent

So let's assume this was implemented. Some citizens, with their guaranteed basic income, will spend it wisely to cover their needs...as envisioned by proponents of this approach. Others, however, will waste their income and again find themselves short of what is necessary to cover their needs. What then? Simply increase the amount of basic income awarded, and hope that by throwing more money at the symptoms of poverty, the cause will be addressed? And where does this money come from? Not immediately, of course, but 5-10 years down the road once society has been changed by this policy's implementation? Why would the financial engines of today, which could theoretically fund such an endeavor, continue to run as efficiently in the future?

noenzyme 13y ago
Actually the basic income creates new business models. If you can't take care of yourself you can sign up with a company that takes your basic income and provides 3 hots, a cot and an allowance. Can't image it will be the nicest accomidations but it will be there if you need it...
- bitkrieg 13y ago
  As a side note, businesses, in general, could significantly reduce their labor costs if a BI was in place.
  - redler 13y ago
    This might not work out the way you think. With more money in everyone's pocket, for example, people in subsistence circumstances working minimum-wage second jobs while their children sit alone at home would no longer be compelled as strongly to take or keep such jobs. Some would stick with them, but surely there would be a cohort for whom it's no longer necessary, or who could now afford to be pickier about the nature of that second job. And the movement of this margin, however slightly, in favor of the employee, would place upward pressure on the wages at those types of jobs. There are businesses whose profitability and business model assume a steady supply of takers of these sorts of jobs at the lowest possible wage. How would basic income affect that supply?
    - noenzyme 13y ago
      We would then have come full circle. Robots/AI remove jobs, which causes basic income legislation to take root, which cause people to stop working the jobs the Robots/AI took away in the first place!
conanbatt 13y ago
They will get jobs to supplement their income, if they living expenses are higher than the BI. And if they always spend more, they definitely have the same problem today.
sunir 13y ago
When talking about public policy, it's important to get away from words like "some" and talk about actual statistics, because this will impact real people, not just a philosophical position. If some is 10% of the population, and poverty is resolved for 90% of the population, the system would be much much better than the current system for eliminating poverty. In Canada, we have actual statistics for both Old Age Security and the Mincome experiment. Statistics on OAS (includes stats on the US). http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/elderly-poverty.aspx http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/elderly-po... And quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome "Dr. Evelyn Forget conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals."
pmorici 13y ago
I think in that case you would be justified in telling the irresponsible person tough luck and maybe they would spend it more wisely the next time around. If they die of starvation that's their problem. I have a hard time believing that would be a wide spread problem though.
- pedalpete 13y ago
  Exactly, and it isn't like this is the ONLY form of income. This is meant to subsidize those who are living below the poverty line. If you are living below the poverty line and go out and buy yourself a car you can't afford, guess what, you'll have to sell the car, and you'll have learned your lesson that next year, you can't go waste your BI.
  - marknutter 13y ago
    > This is meant to subsidize those who are living below the poverty line Now that's just silly. If it were meant to subsidize people living below the poverty line it would target people living below the poverty line, not households making over 50k a year who would likely sock away the money or spend it on a bathroom renovation.
hackerboos 13y ago
>Others, however, will waste their income and again find themselves short of what is necessary to cover their needs. You can do this now at least under the UK system.
bittercynic 13y ago
You could limit the damage a person could do to themselves by paying more frequently. In my experience, even very irresponsible people are able to manage weekly paychecks so that they don't starve before the next check arrives. It would be very tough to prevent people from borrowing against their future BI money, though. An irresponsible person could dig themselves quite a hole that way, and lenders would be eager to make that loan.
dllthomas 13y ago
If someone is unable to meet their needs when provided with the resources to do so, they probably have bigger problems (mental illness, substance abuse) that should be themselves addressed. Making sure everyone has access to some resources they can build upon, and making sure everyone is sufficiently well off, are not the same problem. Throwing money at people substantially addresses the former. Some of the latter is likely to remain, and that portion is not likely to be addressed by throwing more money.

noenzyme 13y ago

Actually the basic income creates new business models. If you can't take care of yourself you can sign up with a company that takes your basic income and provides 3 hots, a cot and an allowance. Can't image it will be the nicest accomidations but it will be there if you need it...

bitkrieg 13y ago
As a side note, businesses, in general, could significantly reduce their labor costs if a BI was in place.
- redler 13y ago
  This might not work out the way you think. With more money in everyone's pocket, for example, people in subsistence circumstances working minimum-wage second jobs while their children sit alone at home would no longer be compelled as strongly to take or keep such jobs. Some would stick with them, but surely there would be a cohort for whom it's no longer necessary, or who could now afford to be pickier about the nature of that second job. And the movement of this margin, however slightly, in favor of the employee, would place upward pressure on the wages at those types of jobs. There are businesses whose profitability and business model assume a steady supply of takers of these sorts of jobs at the lowest possible wage. How would basic income affect that supply?
  - noenzyme 13y ago
    We would then have come full circle. Robots/AI remove jobs, which causes basic income legislation to take root, which cause people to stop working the jobs the Robots/AI took away in the first place!

conanbatt 13y ago

They will get jobs to supplement their income, if they living expenses are higher than the BI. And if they always spend more, they definitely have the same problem today.

sunir 13y ago

When talking about public policy, it's important to get away from words like "some" and talk about actual statistics, because this will impact real people, not just a philosophical position. If some is 10% of the population, and poverty is resolved for 90% of the population, the system would be much much better than the current system for eliminating poverty. In Canada, we have actual statistics for both Old Age Security and the Mincome experiment. Statistics on OAS (includes stats on the US). http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/elderly-poverty.aspx http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/elderly-po... And quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome "Dr. Evelyn Forget conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals."

pmorici 13y ago

I think in that case you would be justified in telling the irresponsible person tough luck and maybe they would spend it more wisely the next time around. If they die of starvation that's their problem. I have a hard time believing that would be a wide spread problem though.

pedalpete 13y ago
Exactly, and it isn't like this is the ONLY form of income. This is meant to subsidize those who are living below the poverty line. If you are living below the poverty line and go out and buy yourself a car you can't afford, guess what, you'll have to sell the car, and you'll have learned your lesson that next year, you can't go waste your BI.
- marknutter 13y ago
  > This is meant to subsidize those who are living below the poverty line Now that's just silly. If it were meant to subsidize people living below the poverty line it would target people living below the poverty line, not households making over 50k a year who would likely sock away the money or spend it on a bathroom renovation.

hackerboos 13y ago

>Others, however, will waste their income and again find themselves short of what is necessary to cover their needs. You can do this now at least under the UK system.

bittercynic 13y ago

You could limit the damage a person could do to themselves by paying more frequently. In my experience, even very irresponsible people are able to manage weekly paychecks so that they don't starve before the next check arrives. It would be very tough to prevent people from borrowing against their future BI money, though. An irresponsible person could dig themselves quite a hole that way, and lenders would be eager to make that loan.

dllthomas 13y ago

If someone is unable to meet their needs when provided with the resources to do so, they probably have bigger problems (mental illness, substance abuse) that should be themselves addressed. Making sure everyone has access to some resources they can build upon, and making sure everyone is sufficiently well off, are not the same problem. Throwing money at people substantially addresses the former. Some of the latter is likely to remain, and that portion is not likely to be addressed by throwing more money.