5 ms·

"When you have a safety net in place, people will take more risks. That probably is true of the economic arena as well." I think the difference is that the sam

"When you have a safety net in place, people will take more risks. That probably is true of the economic arena as well." I think the difference is that the same company that is going to take the risk will also be restricted when it comes to income they are earning (more taxes), and any other rules that are in place that will directly effect growth. Look at countries like Sweden and Denmark: large safety nets and you would think everyone would start a company, but it's just not the case. The requirements for employees make it so you need lots of money to even manage HR (hiring and firing is a court case). Many safety nets also create a culture where risk is seen as a bad thing and less people will want start companies. This can also be seen in places like Sweden and Denmark. "People say that having a guaranteed income will turn everyone into a slacker and destroy the economy" Will it turn everyone into a slacker? no. However, I know so many people that went on unemployment and had no motivation to even be bothered to look for a job. If this happened in my small, circle of friends, I can just imagine the effects of essentially free money at a much larger scale. All of these predictions are looking at what's happening now. We need to predict what will happen when 2 or 3 generations of people have access to this basic income. When more and more people are getting basic income and less people are working (which I predict will happen over time as more people figure out the system), where does the money come from to support everyone?

marcosdumay 12y ago
> The requirements for employees make it so you need lots of money to even manage HR (hiring and firing is a court case). Yet, the best feature about universal income is that it's simple and has low overhead. If you are successfull you'll get taxed -> taxes go to the people, equaly distributed. No extra administration staff, no means investigation, no extra court cases. > However, I know so many people that went on unemployment and had no motivation to even be bothered to look for a job. How much of this was because those people had a living income, and how much is because they'd lose money if they got a job?
prostoalex 12y ago
> Look at countries like Sweden and Denmark: large safety nets and you would think everyone would start a company, but it's just not the case. Precisely, Alaska for years had payouts from its oil fund going to the residents. Combined with cheap housing the residents are quite content with the status quo http://www.gallup.com/poll/181547/alaska-leads-states-first-time.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/181547/alaska-leads-states-first-... Still waiting for that wave of innovation to come out of Alaska and hit the world.
Frondo 12y ago
Just as a counterpoint in the "group of friends" pool of data--I know several people in the last few years who went on unemployment. Not one sat around doing nothing. One started a whole new business (and is on the verge of hiring an employee, go job creators!), one joined up with a startup, one went to work in the nonprofit sector, and the few others looked for jobs until they found them. So..to me, free money seems like a real net positive. It lets people maintain a quality of life while they go on to do bigger and better things.
auxym 12y ago
>Where does the money come from to support everyone? In the context of an article on the mechanization of everything, the answer would be that economic value would be created largely automatically by computers and machines. In a capitalist state, these means of production are owned by private parties and presumably taxed by the government who would then redistribute a basic income. Presumably, corporate tax rates will have to be boosted a lot to compensate for the almost complete loss of income and payroll tax.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  That's the scary part. Planned economies at the national and corporate level don't work out so great, IMO. Imagine your life being managed by the same type of process that manages facilities at the Fortune 500 or big government bureaucracy. Yuck.
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    Scarier than having to participate in Hunger Games style competition because no one can afford food?
api 12y ago
The problem with Sweden and Denmark is regulatory complexity. To maximize entrepreneurship you want a social safety net and a simplified regulatory regime. The ideal would probably be a simple basic income and few other interferences.
- Excavator 12y ago
  Based on my own experience and others, being dependent on social security is the most stressful and time consuming work you can have thanks to the heavy dose of bureaucracy involved. There are also rules against what you can do in the meanwhile, such as not being allowed education.
  - api 12y ago
    That's just a stupid implementation of a welfare state.
- prostoalex 12y ago
  And what was the reason for introducing such regulatory complexity?

marcosdumay 12y ago

> The requirements for employees make it so you need lots of money to even manage HR (hiring and firing is a court case). Yet, the best feature about universal income is that it's simple and has low overhead. If you are successfull you'll get taxed -> taxes go to the people, equaly distributed. No extra administration staff, no means investigation, no extra court cases. > However, I know so many people that went on unemployment and had no motivation to even be bothered to look for a job. How much of this was because those people had a living income, and how much is because they'd lose money if they got a job?

prostoalex 12y ago

> Look at countries like Sweden and Denmark: large safety nets and you would think everyone would start a company, but it's just not the case. Precisely, Alaska for years had payouts from its oil fund going to the residents. Combined with cheap housing the residents are quite content with the status quo http://www.gallup.com/poll/181547/alaska-leads-states-first-time.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/181547/alaska-leads-states-first-... Still waiting for that wave of innovation to come out of Alaska and hit the world.

Frondo 12y ago

Just as a counterpoint in the "group of friends" pool of data--I know several people in the last few years who went on unemployment. Not one sat around doing nothing. One started a whole new business (and is on the verge of hiring an employee, go job creators!), one joined up with a startup, one went to work in the nonprofit sector, and the few others looked for jobs until they found them. So..to me, free money seems like a real net positive. It lets people maintain a quality of life while they go on to do bigger and better things.

auxym 12y ago

>Where does the money come from to support everyone? In the context of an article on the mechanization of everything, the answer would be that economic value would be created largely automatically by computers and machines. In a capitalist state, these means of production are owned by private parties and presumably taxed by the government who would then redistribute a basic income. Presumably, corporate tax rates will have to be boosted a lot to compensate for the almost complete loss of income and payroll tax.

Spooky23 12y ago
That's the scary part. Planned economies at the national and corporate level don't work out so great, IMO. Imagine your life being managed by the same type of process that manages facilities at the Fortune 500 or big government bureaucracy. Yuck.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Scarier than having to participate in Hunger Games style competition because no one can afford food?

api 12y ago

The problem with Sweden and Denmark is regulatory complexity. To maximize entrepreneurship you want a social safety net and a simplified regulatory regime. The ideal would probably be a simple basic income and few other interferences.

Excavator 12y ago
Based on my own experience and others, being dependent on social security is the most stressful and time consuming work you can have thanks to the heavy dose of bureaucracy involved. There are also rules against what you can do in the meanwhile, such as not being allowed education.
- api 12y ago
  That's just a stupid implementation of a welfare state.
prostoalex 12y ago
And what was the reason for introducing such regulatory complexity?