3 ms·

>The administrative cost in giving money in status quo benefit programs is tied up in means-testing, use-enforcement, behavior-testing, etc. -- making sure that

>The administrative cost in giving money in status quo benefit programs is tied up in means-testing, use-enforcement, behavior-testing, etc. -- making sure that all the variable inputs that control who gets which benefits, how much of those benefits they get, and how those benefits can be used. That's the whole problem unconditional basic income solves. It's also a problem solved by a job guarantee. There is no need to create elaborate tests to see if the welfare job seeker is really looking for work. If they want a job, the state can provide it. If they don't want a job, no welfare. With basic income or a job guarantee you will still need additional welfare (and means testing) for the disabled simply because they require more resources than a regular unemployed joe and really cannot work. Those means testing things would crop up again even if you created a basic income tomorrow because the protestant work ethic so deeply embedded in our culture would create a political imperative for it to happen. Politicians would get to work corrupting it straight away.

Matumio 12y ago
I think the main benefit of an unconditional basic income, however small, is exactly to help us getting over the worst of protestant work ethic. Do we really need to make existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the government thinks they should be doing? If something really needs to be done, you can increase the pay until somebody does it.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >I think the main benefit of an unconditional basic income, however small, is exactly to help us getting over the worst of protestant work ethic. Well, that presents you with a chicken/egg situation because for it to have any hope of becoming reality you will need to convince everybody (the majority of Americans) who believe that everybody should pull their weight. >Do we really need to make existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the government thinks they should be doing? Do we need to? No. Do I agree with you? Yes. But, most people think that it is a moral imperative that you should have to work for a living and we live in a kind of Democracy, so... Until that part of our culture changes to accommodate we won't get basic income. At the moment we're making existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the private sector (i.e. democratically unaccountable 1%) thinks that should be doing. All I'm saying is that the government should provide decent jobs so that the 1% have to compete with the government and provide better jobs than they currently do.

Matumio 12y ago

I think the main benefit of an unconditional basic income, however small, is exactly to help us getting over the worst of protestant work ethic. Do we really need to make existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the government thinks they should be doing? If something really needs to be done, you can increase the pay until somebody does it.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>I think the main benefit of an unconditional basic income, however small, is exactly to help us getting over the worst of protestant work ethic. Well, that presents you with a chicken/egg situation because for it to have any hope of becoming reality you will need to convince everybody (the majority of Americans) who believe that everybody should pull their weight. >Do we really need to make existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the government thinks they should be doing? Do we need to? No. Do I agree with you? Yes. But, most people think that it is a moral imperative that you should have to work for a living and we live in a kind of Democracy, so... Until that part of our culture changes to accommodate we won't get basic income. At the moment we're making existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the private sector (i.e. democratically unaccountable 1%) thinks that should be doing. All I'm saying is that the government should provide decent jobs so that the 1% have to compete with the government and provide better jobs than they currently do.