8 ms·

An unconditional basic income[1] would speed up a paradigm shift from the current "work or starve" society. Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time

An unconditional basic income[1] would speed up a paradigm shift from the current "work or starve" society. Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

levosmetalo 13y ago
Basic income would be just a step up to the ultimate goal of Star Trek style economy. I guess that having basic income would help cut on those 'bullshit jobs' that don't actually benefit anyone and are just a net negative for the society.
- happyscrappy 13y ago
  What are these bullshit jobs? If cutting them has no effect then there is a profit to be had.
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    Many positions in the public administration fit the pattern.
  - levosmetalo 13y ago
    From the article, those are jobs that "have no benefit for person working", and "have no benefit for the rest of the society". Why we do work them? Because they benefit the small group that is powerful enough to force society to do net negative thing.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Not the author, but there are undoubtedly plenty of stimulus jobs created by the government that could be cut. Smart parking meters (that accept credit cards, and that let you reup time with your phone) for example, could dramatically adjust the number of positions available for meter maids / parking enforcement officers. USPS is probably going to have to shift at some point to... something different. The federal government spends $25 billion maintaining vacant properties, and owns more than 50,000 vacant homes. That probably doesn't equate to job elimination, but there's got to be some kind of opportunity there. Toll booths for toll roads have got to be on the way out, right? I mean, not saying EZ Pass is the best, or most ubiquitous, but we've got speed cameras that map to DMV databases such that if I run a toll, I already get a bill in the mail -- add a new question at the DMV for 'email address' and stop sending paper bills and you've got a business model.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    See Q5 of http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minister_qa.htm http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minis... A hospital with no nurses, doctors or patients only administrative staff.
  - glesica 13y ago
    I see you've never worked in a large organization... ;-) Bullshit jobs are largely jobs that managers create and defend in order to expand their managerial fiefdoms. A manager's influence in an organization comes partially from how many people report to him or her. That's the incentive structure that creates many of the bullshit jobs. There are also interpersonal issues in play. For instance, you or I might walk into a particular company and observe a dozen different processes that could be easily automated with off-the-shelf software but are currently being done by humans. We might say to the manager "Why don't you automate, you're wasting money?!". In some cases, the manager would reply that the people doing those jobs are valued employees, possibly even friends, and automating those processes would put them out of work and thus, the processes are not automated. It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient.
    - npsimons 13y ago
      It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient. I like to point this out to anyone who says "well, a business wouldn't do it if it made them less efficient", eg the case of open floor plans for programmers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280
    - happyscrappy 13y ago
      >It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Operating more efficiently is exactly what is destroying jobs. Middle managers are an easy target but I fail to see how there are enough of them to move the needles.
    - Consultant32452 13y ago
      >It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. I think the purpose of this adage is that businesses operate more efficiently than government entities. Not with perfect efficiency.
  - acomar 13y ago
    It's worse than that -- I've heard stories from friends in government agencies of people who do net-negative work (i.e. they create work for others) and keep their jobs for political/societal/social reasons.
    - drdeadringer 13y ago
      I recall the following: "The factory at the edge of town has two employees -- a Human, and a dog. The Human's job is to feed the dog. The dog's job is to keep the Human away from the machines."
  - ansible 13y ago
    Telemarketers. Door-to-door cable TV sales. Most of the paper-pushers in the USA's medical care system (assuming we go to single payer system as well). A large percentage of retail workers (in the USA we have way more retail space than is really necessary). Most of the mid-level managers in most of the large corporations. Any place that has strict union work-rules is usually overstaffed to my eye. Much of the administration of social services (Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.) in the USA (to all be replaced by that basic living stipend). I can think of more.
yaddayadda 13y ago
"Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes..." or simply refer to us as Sisyphians.
- spbaar 13y ago
  We can only hope that basic income allows them to read more books.
bausson 13y ago
Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull works would requireask for way higher salaries (because you get up at 4AM to collect garbage when you have no other choice, or when you think it really is worth it, and those jobs would still be necessary) The same way, some companies will have huge problems filling the ranks (let's say: food industry, waiter, marts cashiers (or the people filling the mart at night), ... But education industry (and universities) would have to change their methods, because nowadays peoples are willing to commit 100,000's of $ to get a well paying job, this incentive would be gone, the better paying one being the physical labor, with low education requirement. I also wonder if people would go with their lives the same way they do now. I, for one, would get one of those hard, high-paying job straight out of high school for a few year, enough to buy a house and save a bit, then go to university (or self-studying with internet classes, choosing some classes in common with friends) and study whatever I found get my interest. TL;DR: I'm all for Basic Income, mainly because I don't see any long-terme viable alterative, and also because the changes it would bring to society would be really interesting to study.
- Theodores 13y ago
  You mention garbage collection, this is actually an interesting job for those that do it in Reading, UK. Reading has had the benefit of 'negative unemployment', as in more jobs than people, so how do you recruit people to collect the garbage? It actually works out well for some that do it, by starting at '4 a.m.' they finish early afternoon, around about lunch time and can be around when their kids get out of school. They also get paid rather well, as in £40K, which is well above minimum wage. They are also working, whereas chances are that 'Microsoft', 'Vodafone' or any of the other big-brand, knowledge economy employers of the area probably would not employ them. The garbage collector in Reading is quite likely to want to hold onto his/her job as it makes a lot of life possible, even if it does come with the 'stigma' of being in the 'recycling business' (okay, being a bin man!). I must say that the situation in Reading is an anomaly, it may not even exist any more, but five years ago it was a cushy number, I had friends doing it. Compare this situation to collecting the garbage in a rural no-jobs area. Here the job pays minimum wage and nobody sticks at it for very long. There is no benefit in doing it as the money is barely any more than income support and any overtime is swallowed up by tax. Consequently there is a high amount of churn as people give it a go to get off the employment register and prove to the government that they are willing to work, then, one way or another, they jack it in. So how would that work out in a 'basic income' economy in some rural town where there are no jobs? I think it would still work out rather well, even if the pay was £10K after tax + Basic Income. It would make the difference between having a subsistence style existence and one where one could cook nice meals for the kids and buy them all the things they need. Even a holiday could be afforded, subject to budgeting ability.
psaintla 13y ago
It would be interesting to see if having some level of universal basic income and universal healthcare would be far better than having many federal, state and local departments dealing with distribution of a wide array of various government services.
drcode 13y ago
FYI, I created an infographic recently that teaches people all the details they need to know about basic income: http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png
- lotharbot 13y ago
  Milton Friedman was a strong proponent of (a variant of) Basic Income.
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  This system leaves out the "from each according to his ability"[1] part that's the root of totalitarian regimes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
- kemayo 13y ago
  Hardly. Communism is a system in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. (It's more complicated than that, but y'know...) A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. (Again, more complicated really.) But there's nothing wrong with Socialism. It's a bad word in America, for historical reasons, despite being fairly widely implemented within that country.
  - erichocean 13y ago
    > A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. Disagree. Provision of money and "co-operative management" are two separate concepts. You can do either, both, or none.
  - drcode 13y ago
    The concept of Socialism presupposes a powerful state. Both communism and basic income include the notion of income distribution as an antidote to strong government controls. I agree there's nothing inherently "bad" about these ideas, I just wish we wouldn't invent new terms for old ideas, just because the older terms have gotten a (perhaps undeservedly) bad reputation.
tunap 13y ago
How would that work from a free market standpoint? What I mean is, when everyone has a baseline amount of money, the relative scarcity is diminished and the market prices will inflate as the value of money(real & perceived) decreases. I cannot recall the historical character at the moment, but I recall reading of a benevolent king(central or south american?) who give all his subjects generous amounts of gold to the effect that it crashed their economy. Anyone? edit:reword last sentence
- lotharbot 13y ago
  As far as I know, everyone has a baseline amount of money in our society -- it's just that it comes from a lot of disparate sources. Some people get their baseline from a combination of housing vouchers, food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlements; others get their baseline from working 2 McJobs; others have good jobs that provide way beyond the baseline. If the baseline is provided in a more straightforward way (and, presumably, taxes on above-baseline amounts are raised accordingly) there may be very little economic distortion from the present state.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  >What I mean is, when everyone has a baseline amount of money, the relative scarcity is diminished and the market prices will inflate as the value of money(real & perceived) decreases. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"?
  - tunap 13y ago
    I had to Goog it, but I guess you're questioning whether I refer to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism I guess so, I am not an economist. That seems to be the cycle repeated since the dawn of human interactions, however. With scarcity comes demand, market sets price... and the rest of the spiel. A game that has been gamed long before we came along, but yeah, that seems to be how it works historically.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago

levosmetalo 13y ago

Basic income would be just a step up to the ultimate goal of Star Trek style economy. I guess that having basic income would help cut on those 'bullshit jobs' that don't actually benefit anyone and are just a net negative for the society.

happyscrappy 13y ago
What are these bullshit jobs? If cutting them has no effect then there is a profit to be had.
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  Many positions in the public administration fit the pattern.
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  From the article, those are jobs that "have no benefit for person working", and "have no benefit for the rest of the society". Why we do work them? Because they benefit the small group that is powerful enough to force society to do net negative thing.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Not the author, but there are undoubtedly plenty of stimulus jobs created by the government that could be cut. Smart parking meters (that accept credit cards, and that let you reup time with your phone) for example, could dramatically adjust the number of positions available for meter maids / parking enforcement officers. USPS is probably going to have to shift at some point to... something different. The federal government spends $25 billion maintaining vacant properties, and owns more than 50,000 vacant homes. That probably doesn't equate to job elimination, but there's got to be some kind of opportunity there. Toll booths for toll roads have got to be on the way out, right? I mean, not saying EZ Pass is the best, or most ubiquitous, but we've got speed cameras that map to DMV databases such that if I run a toll, I already get a bill in the mail -- add a new question at the DMV for 'email address' and stop sending paper bills and you've got a business model.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  See Q5 of http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minister_qa.htm http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minis... A hospital with no nurses, doctors or patients only administrative staff.
- glesica 13y ago
  I see you've never worked in a large organization... ;-) Bullshit jobs are largely jobs that managers create and defend in order to expand their managerial fiefdoms. A manager's influence in an organization comes partially from how many people report to him or her. That's the incentive structure that creates many of the bullshit jobs. There are also interpersonal issues in play. For instance, you or I might walk into a particular company and observe a dozen different processes that could be easily automated with off-the-shelf software but are currently being done by humans. We might say to the manager "Why don't you automate, you're wasting money?!". In some cases, the manager would reply that the people doing those jobs are valued employees, possibly even friends, and automating those processes would put them out of work and thus, the processes are not automated. It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient.
  - npsimons 13y ago
    It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient. I like to point this out to anyone who says "well, a business wouldn't do it if it made them less efficient", eg the case of open floor plans for programmers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280
  - happyscrappy 13y ago
    >It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Operating more efficiently is exactly what is destroying jobs. Middle managers are an easy target but I fail to see how there are enough of them to move the needles.
  - Consultant32452 13y ago
    >It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. I think the purpose of this adage is that businesses operate more efficiently than government entities. Not with perfect efficiency.
- acomar 13y ago
  It's worse than that -- I've heard stories from friends in government agencies of people who do net-negative work (i.e. they create work for others) and keep their jobs for political/societal/social reasons.
  - drdeadringer 13y ago
    I recall the following: "The factory at the edge of town has two employees -- a Human, and a dog. The Human's job is to feed the dog. The dog's job is to keep the Human away from the machines."
- ansible 13y ago
  Telemarketers. Door-to-door cable TV sales. Most of the paper-pushers in the USA's medical care system (assuming we go to single payer system as well). A large percentage of retail workers (in the USA we have way more retail space than is really necessary). Most of the mid-level managers in most of the large corporations. Any place that has strict union work-rules is usually overstaffed to my eye. Much of the administration of social services (Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.) in the USA (to all be replaced by that basic living stipend). I can think of more.

yaddayadda 13y ago

"Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes..." or simply refer to us as Sisyphians.

spbaar 13y ago
We can only hope that basic income allows them to read more books.

bausson 13y ago

Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull works would requireask for way higher salaries (because you get up at 4AM to collect garbage when you have no other choice, or when you think it really is worth it, and those jobs would still be necessary) The same way, some companies will have huge problems filling the ranks (let's say: food industry, waiter, marts cashiers (or the people filling the mart at night), ... But education industry (and universities) would have to change their methods, because nowadays peoples are willing to commit 100,000's of $ to get a well paying job, this incentive would be gone, the better paying one being the physical labor, with low education requirement. I also wonder if people would go with their lives the same way they do now. I, for one, would get one of those hard, high-paying job straight out of high school for a few year, enough to buy a house and save a bit, then go to university (or self-studying with internet classes, choosing some classes in common with friends) and study whatever I found get my interest. TL;DR: I'm all for Basic Income, mainly because I don't see any long-terme viable alterative, and also because the changes it would bring to society would be really interesting to study.

Theodores 13y ago
You mention garbage collection, this is actually an interesting job for those that do it in Reading, UK. Reading has had the benefit of 'negative unemployment', as in more jobs than people, so how do you recruit people to collect the garbage? It actually works out well for some that do it, by starting at '4 a.m.' they finish early afternoon, around about lunch time and can be around when their kids get out of school. They also get paid rather well, as in £40K, which is well above minimum wage. They are also working, whereas chances are that 'Microsoft', 'Vodafone' or any of the other big-brand, knowledge economy employers of the area probably would not employ them. The garbage collector in Reading is quite likely to want to hold onto his/her job as it makes a lot of life possible, even if it does come with the 'stigma' of being in the 'recycling business' (okay, being a bin man!). I must say that the situation in Reading is an anomaly, it may not even exist any more, but five years ago it was a cushy number, I had friends doing it. Compare this situation to collecting the garbage in a rural no-jobs area. Here the job pays minimum wage and nobody sticks at it for very long. There is no benefit in doing it as the money is barely any more than income support and any overtime is swallowed up by tax. Consequently there is a high amount of churn as people give it a go to get off the employment register and prove to the government that they are willing to work, then, one way or another, they jack it in. So how would that work out in a 'basic income' economy in some rural town where there are no jobs? I think it would still work out rather well, even if the pay was £10K after tax + Basic Income. It would make the difference between having a subsistence style existence and one where one could cook nice meals for the kids and buy them all the things they need. Even a holiday could be afforded, subject to budgeting ability.

psaintla 13y ago

It would be interesting to see if having some level of universal basic income and universal healthcare would be far better than having many federal, state and local departments dealing with distribution of a wide array of various government services.

drcode 13y ago

FYI, I created an infographic recently that teaches people all the details they need to know about basic income: http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png

lotharbot 13y ago
Milton Friedman was a strong proponent of (a variant of) Basic Income.
stefantalpalaru 13y ago
This system leaves out the "from each according to his ability"[1] part that's the root of totalitarian regimes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
kemayo 13y ago
Hardly. Communism is a system in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. (It's more complicated than that, but y'know...) A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. (Again, more complicated really.) But there's nothing wrong with Socialism. It's a bad word in America, for historical reasons, despite being fairly widely implemented within that country.
- erichocean 13y ago
  > A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. Disagree. Provision of money and "co-operative management" are two separate concepts. You can do either, both, or none.
- drcode 13y ago
  The concept of Socialism presupposes a powerful state. Both communism and basic income include the notion of income distribution as an antidote to strong government controls. I agree there's nothing inherently "bad" about these ideas, I just wish we wouldn't invent new terms for old ideas, just because the older terms have gotten a (perhaps undeservedly) bad reputation.

tunap 13y ago

How would that work from a free market standpoint? What I mean is, when everyone has a baseline amount of money, the relative scarcity is diminished and the market prices will inflate as the value of money(real & perceived) decreases. I cannot recall the historical character at the moment, but I recall reading of a benevolent king(central or south american?) who give all his subjects generous amounts of gold to the effect that it crashed their economy. Anyone? edit:reword last sentence

lotharbot 13y ago
As far as I know, everyone has a baseline amount of money in our society -- it's just that it comes from a lot of disparate sources. Some people get their baseline from a combination of housing vouchers, food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlements; others get their baseline from working 2 McJobs; others have good jobs that provide way beyond the baseline. If the baseline is provided in a more straightforward way (and, presumably, taxes on above-baseline amounts are raised accordingly) there may be very little economic distortion from the present state.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
>What I mean is, when everyone has a baseline amount of money, the relative scarcity is diminished and the market prices will inflate as the value of money(real & perceived) decreases. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"?
- tunap 13y ago
  I had to Goog it, but I guess you're questioning whether I refer to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism I guess so, I am not an economist. That seems to be the cycle repeated since the dawn of human interactions, however. With scarcity comes demand, market sets price... and the rest of the spiel. A game that has been gamed long before we came along, but yeah, that seems to be how it works historically.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago