12 ms·

Articles like this seem to be among the best ammo to support single-payer healthcare and a basic income for all adult citizens. In addition to shielding worker

Articles like this seem to be among the best ammo to support single-payer healthcare and a basic income for all adult citizens. In addition to shielding workers from harm due to business changes, this would also enable more entrepreneurship since the risk of failure would be much lower for people starting new businesses. Small businesses would also be more enticing to work for, since they wouldn't need to directly provide health insurance and the specter of the business folding wouldn't be as much of a concern.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
I've always wondered if basic income would remove the need for VCs; everyone in your startup is essentially fully funded then (as long as you didn't need to live in an expensive locale) and your only cost is AWS (or whatever infrastructure provider you're running on).
- jonlucc 12y ago
  Or perhaps VCs would shift to more expensive fields like hardware, internet of things types of projects.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Definitely this. They'd move to capital-intensive projects (Tesla, SpaceX, etc).
- sanderjd 12y ago
  It would probably still make sense to sell some equity for the ability to pay your employees a reasonable salary. Basic income isn't meant to be much.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    This effect would be attenuated by the fact that you could pay the equity to employees directly. You are of course correct that for those employees who would rather get a high stable income instead of equity, you would likely need a third-party that was interested in equity alone. But remember that the calculus for stability vs equity would be changed for the employee pool too, so it may simply become the norm to work for equity in a startup.
    - sanderjd 12y ago
      It would definitely change the risk/reward equation, but I think you overestimate how much people value equity vs. living above the poverty line (which is about where basic income would need to be). Or maybe I underestimate it because I don't live in silicon valley. I think basic income would be more exciting for small businesses that aren't attractive to investors, but have similar financial constraints as early-stage startups.
      - wutbrodo 12y ago
        I may be extrapolating the current situation out too far, but I figure that it'll just sharpen the distinction that already exists between startups and big companies. Right now you can go to a big company and make triple, or you can work for a startup because some combination of the risk/responsibility/potential equity payoff makes up for the loss in salary. I was just extending that idea out further; I already know multiple people who have saved a few 100k a couple years out of college and are much, much less motivated by money now (vs the non-monetary payoffs that startups offer). Sure, the pool of engineers who would do so may be small, but that doesn't mean EVERY startup needs to take this route. Either way, it's an interesting thought.
- briandear 12y ago
  Who pays for that basic income? The guy that's working 60 hours at a job he hates because he's trying to be personally responsible. If we had 'basic income' what would be the incentive to work at all? High unemployment is correlated to higher basic income availability. The EU unemployment rate is almost double that if the US. Even progressive Sweeden has an 8% rate. China, incidentally has a 4% rate. Incentives are powerful things and the law of unintended consequences ought to ignored at our own peril.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    The point of basic income is to pay for it with automation and software, not the sweat and blood of someone else. The majority of farming can be automated. Should it not be possible to give food away for nothing then? If trucking/mobility (self driving cars) can provide such a huge benefit to society, why would we not provide it at almost no cost to people? Robotics. Software. Renewable Energy. These three ingredients remove the need to take anything from anyone while providing for everyone. You're still going to need to work to get your latest film or Taylor Swift album if you have moral qualms about IP rights, but we are slowly approaching the age where we have enough energy and the required framework to meet everyone's basic needs without taking from that 60 hour/week fellow. To your point, the unemployment rate SHOULD be high. People do not live to work, they work to live. The sooner we can let everyone have more leisure time and not die from starvation or lack of medical care, the sooner we advance as a people. In closing, think like an engineer. The incentive to work should be, "How can I fix or automate this problem so a human being never needs to work on it again?"
    - ansible 12y ago
      The majority of farming can be automated. The majority of farming already is automated. We've got giant robots that feed us now, they are called tractors. The newest ones have GPS guidance, and literally drive themselves (though they are still required to have a human pilot in the cab). This is a drastically different situation than 100 years ago, with primarily human and animal-powered farming. The main cost is fuel and other chemical inputs, and the mortgage on the land itself.
zo1 12y ago
"a basic income for all adult citizens. [..]shielding workers from harm due to business changes" As I read that, I agree with you... Until I realize you meant that to be provided for by others via taxes. Now, I understand the compulsion to protect everyone in the name of some social good, at the very least the "not as fortune as me-group". But why are we removing the need/worry for individuals to do this for themselves? I say this because I know for a fact that this is achievable for individuals (even poor ones). For a quite-honestly, tiny-fraction of my salary, I get all sorts of income-protection. Due to illness, terminal disease, disability, everything. Add on top of that life-insurance for my family to pay off the loan-amount on the mortgage and have them covered till my child is reasonably on his way to college, if I should leave them early. These aren't some pipe-dream schemes or ideas, they exist. And people can get them, without the need to beg some "noble" politician to give it to them for free in return for votes/power.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  Color me ignorant, but I really have no idea what cheap private income protection you're referring to.
  - zo1 12y ago
    Here's some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_protection_insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_protection_insurance https://www.pps.co.za/pages/faq/INCAPACITY.php https://www.pps.co.za/pages/faq/INCAPACITY.php A government one, even though you pay for it: http://www.sars.gov.za/TaxTypes/UIF/Pages/default.aspx http://www.sars.gov.za/TaxTypes/UIF/Pages/default.aspx Apparently, the US has it as well, though I'm not sure how equivalent to the above it is: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/unemployment-insurance/ http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/unemployment-insurance/
    - sanderjd 12y ago
      Thanks for the links! I'm in the US and, as far as I know, we don't have anything like the policy discussed in your wikipedia link. Unemployment insurance is a good thing (and I'm curious why it didn't show up at all in the original article) but it doesn't help much with the health insurance issue.
frozenport 12y ago
Perhaps instead of more entrepreneurship we would have more books that nobody would ready?
- ivv 12y ago
  Sort of like apps that nobody would download?
  - shetter 12y ago
    Probably we would see better apps overall with people focusing on usefulness and filling gaps instead of restricting themselves to money-making ideas.

toomuchtodo 12y ago

I've always wondered if basic income would remove the need for VCs; everyone in your startup is essentially fully funded then (as long as you didn't need to live in an expensive locale) and your only cost is AWS (or whatever infrastructure provider you're running on).

jonlucc 12y ago
Or perhaps VCs would shift to more expensive fields like hardware, internet of things types of projects.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Definitely this. They'd move to capital-intensive projects (Tesla, SpaceX, etc).
sanderjd 12y ago
It would probably still make sense to sell some equity for the ability to pay your employees a reasonable salary. Basic income isn't meant to be much.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  This effect would be attenuated by the fact that you could pay the equity to employees directly. You are of course correct that for those employees who would rather get a high stable income instead of equity, you would likely need a third-party that was interested in equity alone. But remember that the calculus for stability vs equity would be changed for the employee pool too, so it may simply become the norm to work for equity in a startup.
  - sanderjd 12y ago
    It would definitely change the risk/reward equation, but I think you overestimate how much people value equity vs. living above the poverty line (which is about where basic income would need to be). Or maybe I underestimate it because I don't live in silicon valley. I think basic income would be more exciting for small businesses that aren't attractive to investors, but have similar financial constraints as early-stage startups.
    - wutbrodo 12y ago
      I may be extrapolating the current situation out too far, but I figure that it'll just sharpen the distinction that already exists between startups and big companies. Right now you can go to a big company and make triple, or you can work for a startup because some combination of the risk/responsibility/potential equity payoff makes up for the loss in salary. I was just extending that idea out further; I already know multiple people who have saved a few 100k a couple years out of college and are much, much less motivated by money now (vs the non-monetary payoffs that startups offer). Sure, the pool of engineers who would do so may be small, but that doesn't mean EVERY startup needs to take this route. Either way, it's an interesting thought.
briandear 12y ago
Who pays for that basic income? The guy that's working 60 hours at a job he hates because he's trying to be personally responsible. If we had 'basic income' what would be the incentive to work at all? High unemployment is correlated to higher basic income availability. The EU unemployment rate is almost double that if the US. Even progressive Sweeden has an 8% rate. China, incidentally has a 4% rate. Incentives are powerful things and the law of unintended consequences ought to ignored at our own peril.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  The point of basic income is to pay for it with automation and software, not the sweat and blood of someone else. The majority of farming can be automated. Should it not be possible to give food away for nothing then? If trucking/mobility (self driving cars) can provide such a huge benefit to society, why would we not provide it at almost no cost to people? Robotics. Software. Renewable Energy. These three ingredients remove the need to take anything from anyone while providing for everyone. You're still going to need to work to get your latest film or Taylor Swift album if you have moral qualms about IP rights, but we are slowly approaching the age where we have enough energy and the required framework to meet everyone's basic needs without taking from that 60 hour/week fellow. To your point, the unemployment rate SHOULD be high. People do not live to work, they work to live. The sooner we can let everyone have more leisure time and not die from starvation or lack of medical care, the sooner we advance as a people. In closing, think like an engineer. The incentive to work should be, "How can I fix or automate this problem so a human being never needs to work on it again?"
  - ansible 12y ago
    The majority of farming can be automated. The majority of farming already is automated. We've got giant robots that feed us now, they are called tractors. The newest ones have GPS guidance, and literally drive themselves (though they are still required to have a human pilot in the cab). This is a drastically different situation than 100 years ago, with primarily human and animal-powered farming. The main cost is fuel and other chemical inputs, and the mortgage on the land itself.

zo1 12y ago

"a basic income for all adult citizens. [..]shielding workers from harm due to business changes" As I read that, I agree with you... Until I realize you meant that to be provided for by others via taxes. Now, I understand the compulsion to protect everyone in the name of some social good, at the very least the "not as fortune as me-group". But why are we removing the need/worry for individuals to do this for themselves? I say this because I know for a fact that this is achievable for individuals (even poor ones). For a quite-honestly, tiny-fraction of my salary, I get all sorts of income-protection. Due to illness, terminal disease, disability, everything. Add on top of that life-insurance for my family to pay off the loan-amount on the mortgage and have them covered till my child is reasonably on his way to college, if I should leave them early. These aren't some pipe-dream schemes or ideas, they exist. And people can get them, without the need to beg some "noble" politician to give it to them for free in return for votes/power.

sanderjd 12y ago
Color me ignorant, but I really have no idea what cheap private income protection you're referring to.
- zo1 12y ago
  Here's some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_protection_insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_protection_insurance https://www.pps.co.za/pages/faq/INCAPACITY.php https://www.pps.co.za/pages/faq/INCAPACITY.php A government one, even though you pay for it: http://www.sars.gov.za/TaxTypes/UIF/Pages/default.aspx http://www.sars.gov.za/TaxTypes/UIF/Pages/default.aspx Apparently, the US has it as well, though I'm not sure how equivalent to the above it is: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/unemployment-insurance/ http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/unemployment-insurance/
  - sanderjd 12y ago
    Thanks for the links! I'm in the US and, as far as I know, we don't have anything like the policy discussed in your wikipedia link. Unemployment insurance is a good thing (and I'm curious why it didn't show up at all in the original article) but it doesn't help much with the health insurance issue.

frozenport 12y ago

Perhaps instead of more entrepreneurship we would have more books that nobody would ready?

ivv 12y ago
Sort of like apps that nobody would download?
- shetter 12y ago
  Probably we would see better apps overall with people focusing on usefulness and filling gaps instead of restricting themselves to money-making ideas.