3 ms·

For those unversed in economic theory, care to explain why a basic income--analogous to the one presented in the article or otherwise--is not a sustainable solu

by 16bytes 12y ago

For those unversed in economic theory, care to explain why a basic income--analogous to the one presented in the article or otherwise--is not a sustainable solution?

ctdonath 12y ago
The concern is, on the whole, those receiving & relying on a basic income find a right to the fruits of the labors of others, without any incentive toward their own productivity. Many people find that with a little care, they can live nicely on little - and if that little is just given to them, then they can occupy their time just fine with mundane leisure (eating, mating, entertaining) and ongoing demand for more. Why contribute to national productivity when idleness is encouraged & funded? Many will contend that having the basics covered will encourage the poor to be more productive by not limiting their efforts to mere existence (a la "might one take time to learn programming if not obligated to a 16-hour-a-day job just to pay rent & buy food?"). Many contend this is absurd, as those not inclined toward productivity are not going to become inclined without any reason to. Reality is a complex mix of these, the overall expectation being grounded in one's faith (or lack thereof) in human productivity sans motivation. Basic income also risks devaluing money. The purpose of currency is representation of value; if someone is not creating value, their money has no value to represent. Money taken from someone and given to others (taxation for BI distribution) gives workers nothing in exchange for their efforts; money received for zero productivity may be squandered a la "easy come, easy go". Concern is akin to minimum wage: a gallon of gas will always be worth about 20 minutes of clerking at a gas station, regardless of the number placed upon the currency used to pay for the work and buy the gas. Basic income would skew low-number pricing: higher prices may continue to represent greater value accurately, but pricing of mundane goods/services would inflate as those purchasing have done nothing to acquire the currency buying them. Basic needs have a cost to fulfill. Making it easy to fulfill those needs without social contribution reduces overall societal productivity, rewarding idleness and punishing productivity, lowering national GDP. Requiring people to work (true welfare cases aside) encourages productivity, including in work people would rather not do but for need to provide for one's own basic needs. Reverse question is worth asking: how can basic income possibly be sustainable?
- iopq 12y ago
  The counter to this is that people will be encouraged to contribute to things that do not make them a living like editing Wikipedia, contributing to open source software, gardening, politics, volunteering, etc. because they can do whatever they want without getting paid for it. The benefit of basic income is that it does in fact incentivize you to work because you do get more money if you work part time, as opposed to current programs that decrease your benefits quickly as you get more and more hours. But even if we assume people work less with BI, but live happier lives, what is the goal?
- anextio 12y ago
  I think you need to look at the fact that a lot of people are considering BI solely because of expected advances in automation. If we're looking at a situation where a vast, vast amount of the value created in the economy is pumped in by a handful of players who own large automated factories and most knowledge-work that we know today is done by specialized AI, then we might be in trouble on the jobs front. So I think what a lot of people are looking at is a situation where for the average person, there is no job for them in the greater industry - the engineering and technically skilled folks required to build and maintain the machinery might be a fraction of what is required now. So the marginal contribution of low-skilled Joe Blow is going to be very low or zero. Now, getting to this situation without mitigating it would probably lead to violence, etc, so this line of reasoning has lead a lot of people into looking at BI. While I think you have a very valid point, I think that setting up the right carrots and sticks inside a BI system to ensure that the right amount of development occurs is something that can be done. One of the major effects of simply giving the poor a regular source money is reducing their cognitive load. In the past, it was seen that this stress would encourage the poor to keep working, as it was seen that poverty is caused by lack of motivation. Today we know that this just screws them over worse. Stress inhibits brain development and constant lack of security decreases motivation to try and improve the situation. Opportunity costs make most prospects look impossible, and an awful lot of people simply don't have the time to stop and figure out what they should do. So let's get rid of that yolk and see what happens when we give everybody a secure environment to develop themselves. I think it's worth going through the effort of figuring out how to arrange the carrots and sticks to make it work. Don't you?
- 12y ago

by 16bytes 12y ago

For those unversed in economic theory, care to explain why a basic income--analogous to the one presented in the article or otherwise--is not a sustainable solution?

ctdonath 12y ago

The concern is, on the whole, those receiving & relying on a basic income find a right to the fruits of the labors of others, without any incentive toward their own productivity. Many people find that with a little care, they can live nicely on little - and if that little is just given to them, then they can occupy their time just fine with mundane leisure (eating, mating, entertaining) and ongoing demand for more. Why contribute to national productivity when idleness is encouraged & funded? Many will contend that having the basics covered will encourage the poor to be more productive by not limiting their efforts to mere existence (a la "might one take time to learn programming if not obligated to a 16-hour-a-day job just to pay rent & buy food?"). Many contend this is absurd, as those not inclined toward productivity are not going to become inclined without any reason to. Reality is a complex mix of these, the overall expectation being grounded in one's faith (or lack thereof) in human productivity sans motivation. Basic income also risks devaluing money. The purpose of currency is representation of value; if someone is not creating value, their money has no value to represent. Money taken from someone and given to others (taxation for BI distribution) gives workers nothing in exchange for their efforts; money received for zero productivity may be squandered a la "easy come, easy go". Concern is akin to minimum wage: a gallon of gas will always be worth about 20 minutes of clerking at a gas station, regardless of the number placed upon the currency used to pay for the work and buy the gas. Basic income would skew low-number pricing: higher prices may continue to represent greater value accurately, but pricing of mundane goods/services would inflate as those purchasing have done nothing to acquire the currency buying them. Basic needs have a cost to fulfill. Making it easy to fulfill those needs without social contribution reduces overall societal productivity, rewarding idleness and punishing productivity, lowering national GDP. Requiring people to work (true welfare cases aside) encourages productivity, including in work people would rather not do but for need to provide for one's own basic needs. Reverse question is worth asking: how can basic income possibly be sustainable?

iopq 12y ago
The counter to this is that people will be encouraged to contribute to things that do not make them a living like editing Wikipedia, contributing to open source software, gardening, politics, volunteering, etc. because they can do whatever they want without getting paid for it. The benefit of basic income is that it does in fact incentivize you to work because you do get more money if you work part time, as opposed to current programs that decrease your benefits quickly as you get more and more hours. But even if we assume people work less with BI, but live happier lives, what is the goal?
anextio 12y ago
I think you need to look at the fact that a lot of people are considering BI solely because of expected advances in automation. If we're looking at a situation where a vast, vast amount of the value created in the economy is pumped in by a handful of players who own large automated factories and most knowledge-work that we know today is done by specialized AI, then we might be in trouble on the jobs front. So I think what a lot of people are looking at is a situation where for the average person, there is no job for them in the greater industry - the engineering and technically skilled folks required to build and maintain the machinery might be a fraction of what is required now. So the marginal contribution of low-skilled Joe Blow is going to be very low or zero. Now, getting to this situation without mitigating it would probably lead to violence, etc, so this line of reasoning has lead a lot of people into looking at BI. While I think you have a very valid point, I think that setting up the right carrots and sticks inside a BI system to ensure that the right amount of development occurs is something that can be done. One of the major effects of simply giving the poor a regular source money is reducing their cognitive load. In the past, it was seen that this stress would encourage the poor to keep working, as it was seen that poverty is caused by lack of motivation. Today we know that this just screws them over worse. Stress inhibits brain development and constant lack of security decreases motivation to try and improve the situation. Opportunity costs make most prospects look impossible, and an awful lot of people simply don't have the time to stop and figure out what they should do. So let's get rid of that yolk and see what happens when we give everybody a secure environment to develop themselves. I think it's worth going through the effort of figuring out how to arrange the carrots and sticks to make it work. Don't you?
12y ago