4 ms·

The "evidence" provided was pretty weak, IMO. I think the last option, a basic living allowance, is something we, as a country, are going to have to come to ter

The "evidence" provided was pretty weak, IMO. I think the last option, a basic living allowance, is something we, as a country, are going to have to come to terms with. As manufacturing continues to automate, even the low skill jobs we offshore are at risk. It is unlikely everybody in the nation will be able to find employment as a knowledge worker or a service worker. That is the direction the world is heading, whether we want it to or not, and, even if they can all find employment, it's questionable what percentage of service workers can make sufficient to provide for their needs. I prefer a minimum living stipend for a few reasons: It doesn't treat the poor like they are too stupid or too criminal to manage their own lives and their own money. It allows people the ability to move to more fulfilling (and more lucrative) employment by providing time for training. It protects kids without trying to transition parenting responsibility to the state. In general, it keeps the state out of people's lives, increasing their dignity. Yes, there will still be homeless people. There will be people who squander the money. But there will be many who take advantage of it and build a better life for themselves and all of their posterity. And I prefer to bet on the general desire of people to better themselves. The problem is I don't know how to get there from here.

paulhauggis 12y ago
"The "evidence" provided was pretty weak, IMO. I think the last option, a basic living allowance, is something we, as a country, are going to have to come to terms with" The issue with this is that once you start giving a basic living allowance, more and more people will continue to rely on it over time and the system will eventually collapse. "I prefer a minimum living stipend for a few reasons: It doesn't treat the poor like they are too stupid or too criminal to manage their own lives and their own money." It's not their money, it's money given to them by the tax payers..and I don't agree with you reasoning. If you are getting free money from the government, it means you can't manage your own life. I don't really see how this will change the view on the disadvantaged. "It allows people the ability to move to more fulfilling (and more lucrative) employment by providing time for training." I don't think this would increase anyone's time for training. I know lots of people that are unemployed (and get unemployment). You would think with all of that extra free time, they could finish more projects, learn new skills, or even get training. Unless they are forced, most just think of it as free money and don't appreciate it as much as they would if they earned it themselves. It's the same reason most people can't run a business and why most lottery winners end up losing it all within 5 years. "It protects kids without trying to transition parenting responsibility to the state. In general, it keeps the state out of people's lives, increasing their dignity." It doesn't really keep the state out of your life. It will create entire generations dependent on it. In fact, they will be directly controlling your life since many will start relying on that money to live. "Yes, there will still be homeless people. There will be people who squander the money. But there will be many who take advantage of it and build a better life for themselves and all of their posterity. And I prefer to bet on the general desire of people to better themselves." My issue still is that these costs will only increase over time. The middle class worker will see tax increases and there will be no incentive to get a minimum wage job, because you can just get it from the government. This will also have the added side effect of inflation. The single worst thing you can do for someone disadvantaged is to give them a reason to stay exactly where they are in life (and no incentive to succeed at something more). A basic income does exactly this.
- bsder 12y ago
  > If you are getting free money from the government, it means you can't manage your own life. No particular offense to you, specifically, but this sentiment is something that makes me rage. There are not enough jobs for everybody. We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced. If you were not "talented" enough to be born into a family that was college educated prior to 1980, you were in for a very hard time in the future--through no fault of your own. The biggest predictor of whether you will be poor is whether you were born to poor parents. And, while everybody always mentions immigrants, I would like to point out that we have survivor bias. The immigrants that you know SUCCEEDED. Lots of them got lost along the way. Many of them are still poor--there is a reason they tend to congregate together in specific city sections.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    "We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced." There are lots of jobs that can't even be filled right now. Many jobs have vaporized, but there are also plenty of new positions. With all of the support here for open source, do people even care that jobs have been lost as a result? As an example, my last company probably should have hired 5 developers. Instead, they just hired me and used a free open source product. So you push for open source and new technology, which reduces jobs, and now expect a bailout from the middle class? Maybe we should have a tax paid for by technology and open source companies that have reduced jobs. "If you were not "talented" enough to be born into a family that was college educated prior to 1980, you were in for a very hard time in the future--through no fault of your own" People can still get into a trade..and make good money without going to college..yet all of the stats I've seen show this is not happening. Why? "The biggest predictor of whether you will be poor is whether you were born to poor parents." It really is a parenting problem. My parents never taught me about saving, compound interest, and long-term investments (not just thinking about what I am emotionally feeling now). This doesn't mean I can't learn about these things later in life. I would rather invest in more education (which can teach someone the skills to be successful in many aspects of life) than a basic income, which will potentially make a person dependent on it for their entire life.

paulhauggis 12y ago

"The "evidence" provided was pretty weak, IMO. I think the last option, a basic living allowance, is something we, as a country, are going to have to come to terms with" The issue with this is that once you start giving a basic living allowance, more and more people will continue to rely on it over time and the system will eventually collapse. "I prefer a minimum living stipend for a few reasons: It doesn't treat the poor like they are too stupid or too criminal to manage their own lives and their own money." It's not their money, it's money given to them by the tax payers..and I don't agree with you reasoning. If you are getting free money from the government, it means you can't manage your own life. I don't really see how this will change the view on the disadvantaged. "It allows people the ability to move to more fulfilling (and more lucrative) employment by providing time for training." I don't think this would increase anyone's time for training. I know lots of people that are unemployed (and get unemployment). You would think with all of that extra free time, they could finish more projects, learn new skills, or even get training. Unless they are forced, most just think of it as free money and don't appreciate it as much as they would if they earned it themselves. It's the same reason most people can't run a business and why most lottery winners end up losing it all within 5 years. "It protects kids without trying to transition parenting responsibility to the state. In general, it keeps the state out of people's lives, increasing their dignity." It doesn't really keep the state out of your life. It will create entire generations dependent on it. In fact, they will be directly controlling your life since many will start relying on that money to live. "Yes, there will still be homeless people. There will be people who squander the money. But there will be many who take advantage of it and build a better life for themselves and all of their posterity. And I prefer to bet on the general desire of people to better themselves." My issue still is that these costs will only increase over time. The middle class worker will see tax increases and there will be no incentive to get a minimum wage job, because you can just get it from the government. This will also have the added side effect of inflation. The single worst thing you can do for someone disadvantaged is to give them a reason to stay exactly where they are in life (and no incentive to succeed at something more). A basic income does exactly this.

bsder 12y ago
> If you are getting free money from the government, it means you can't manage your own life. No particular offense to you, specifically, but this sentiment is something that makes me rage. There are not enough jobs for everybody. We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced. If you were not "talented" enough to be born into a family that was college educated prior to 1980, you were in for a very hard time in the future--through no fault of your own. The biggest predictor of whether you will be poor is whether you were born to poor parents. And, while everybody always mentions immigrants, I would like to point out that we have survivor bias. The immigrants that you know SUCCEEDED. Lots of them got lost along the way. Many of them are still poor--there is a reason they tend to congregate together in specific city sections.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  "We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced." There are lots of jobs that can't even be filled right now. Many jobs have vaporized, but there are also plenty of new positions. With all of the support here for open source, do people even care that jobs have been lost as a result? As an example, my last company probably should have hired 5 developers. Instead, they just hired me and used a free open source product. So you push for open source and new technology, which reduces jobs, and now expect a bailout from the middle class? Maybe we should have a tax paid for by technology and open source companies that have reduced jobs. "If you were not "talented" enough to be born into a family that was college educated prior to 1980, you were in for a very hard time in the future--through no fault of your own" People can still get into a trade..and make good money without going to college..yet all of the stats I've seen show this is not happening. Why? "The biggest predictor of whether you will be poor is whether you were born to poor parents." It really is a parenting problem. My parents never taught me about saving, compound interest, and long-term investments (not just thinking about what I am emotionally feeling now). This doesn't mean I can't learn about these things later in life. I would rather invest in more education (which can teach someone the skills to be successful in many aspects of life) than a basic income, which will potentially make a person dependent on it for their entire life.