6 ms·

This is why we should support basic-income or minimum-income. Then NO ONE is left out to starve, ever. People would still get jobs to get MORE money, because p

This is why we should support basic-income or minimum-income. Then NO ONE is left out to starve, ever. People would still get jobs to get MORE money, because people always want more, but you could eliminate minimum/living wage laws, so the marginal cost of production at jobs that people enjoyed could actually go down, while at the same time more people would have money to spend. The transition is the hard part.

_yosefk 12y ago
People always want more money, but they won't necessarily want to work for it. Is there any evidence for a sufficient willingness to work under a basic income arrangement to keep the economy going?
- reverius42 12y ago
  I don't see why everyone needs to work in order to keep the economy going. Suppose in the future we've managed to completely and fully automate all the work that was done by humans in 2014. Shouldn't we be able to maintain the standard of living of 2014 indefinitely, with no human "work" to speak of? (Assuming, of course, that our standard of living in 2014 is sustainable to begin with.)
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >Is there any evidence for a sufficient willingness to work under a basic income arrangement to keep the economy going? No actual experiment with basic income has, to my knowledge, ever shown a double-digit percentage reduction in total work hours.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  On the other hand, several countries have 20%+ unemployment rates and it's not like Mad Max, society keeps functioning.
  - SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
    ...with the addition of occasional riots, and eventually (typically) a revolution of one kind or another. I prefer the kind of "functioning" where no one is starving. You see violent and other crime drop quickly as a society's quality of life improves, so even if I'm one of the ones "on top", my own QoL is better not having to worry as much about someone stealing things from me.
- MereInterest 12y ago
  Evidence? Sure. How about a direct test? It was found that, even with all basic needs covered, output decreased for only two segments of the population. Teenagers in school, and new mothers. Everyone else coninued working because (1) having more disposable income is nice and (2) it gets boring otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
  - dlss 12y ago
    I would imagine people experiencing family emergencies, depression, etc would also pause work. If you haven't seen the effects of unconditional cash grants for charity, I think that makes for similarly surprising reading: http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cash-transfers http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas... :)
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Look at all makers of various trades - from open source software developers to hardware hackers to artists and craftsmen; there's a lot of people who are very productive doing things for free, and for whom having to earn money is only an annoying distraction - something you have to do to have food and shelter, so that you can do things that you actually care about. I'm not arguing that everyone is like that - but from one can see today, I don't think humans in general are lazy and need to be forced to work.

_yosefk 12y ago

People always want more money, but they won't necessarily want to work for it. Is there any evidence for a sufficient willingness to work under a basic income arrangement to keep the economy going?

reverius42 12y ago
I don't see why everyone needs to work in order to keep the economy going. Suppose in the future we've managed to completely and fully automate all the work that was done by humans in 2014. Shouldn't we be able to maintain the standard of living of 2014 indefinitely, with no human "work" to speak of? (Assuming, of course, that our standard of living in 2014 is sustainable to begin with.)
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>Is there any evidence for a sufficient willingness to work under a basic income arrangement to keep the economy going? No actual experiment with basic income has, to my knowledge, ever shown a double-digit percentage reduction in total work hours.
JetSpiegel 12y ago
On the other hand, several countries have 20%+ unemployment rates and it's not like Mad Max, society keeps functioning.
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  ...with the addition of occasional riots, and eventually (typically) a revolution of one kind or another. I prefer the kind of "functioning" where no one is starving. You see violent and other crime drop quickly as a society's quality of life improves, so even if I'm one of the ones "on top", my own QoL is better not having to worry as much about someone stealing things from me.
MereInterest 12y ago
Evidence? Sure. How about a direct test? It was found that, even with all basic needs covered, output decreased for only two segments of the population. Teenagers in school, and new mothers. Everyone else coninued working because (1) having more disposable income is nice and (2) it gets boring otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
- dlss 12y ago
  I would imagine people experiencing family emergencies, depression, etc would also pause work. If you haven't seen the effects of unconditional cash grants for charity, I think that makes for similarly surprising reading: http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cash-transfers http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas... :)
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Look at all makers of various trades - from open source software developers to hardware hackers to artists and craftsmen; there's a lot of people who are very productive doing things for free, and for whom having to earn money is only an annoying distraction - something you have to do to have food and shelter, so that you can do things that you actually care about. I'm not arguing that everyone is like that - but from one can see today, I don't think humans in general are lazy and need to be forced to work.