7 ms·
Basic income will probably result in even more antagonism towards immigrants. As Milton Friedman said, "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a
by tolmasky 11y ago
Basic income will probably result in even more antagonism towards immigrants. As Milton Friedman said, "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state".
I feel immigration to the US is too restrictive as it is, let alone what it would become if it meant giving everyone a paycheck. You basically have these options:
1. Restrict immigration (perhaps you are OK with this, I am not. I feel immigration is one of the fundamental things that helped this country succeed, and that we should be moving to make it MORE open, not less).
2. Allow immigration but not offer basic income until you are a citizen. Now you have a classist system. If you were born in the US you are part of the citizen caste, that is guaranteed income from taxes (a nobility if you will), if you were born outside the borders you must work for your income here. Sure, eventually you could be "admitted", but it seems weird that an 18 year old would be allowed to do whatever he wants but someone just entering the country with three kids would be forced to work.
3. Offer basic income to everyone that comes in, have no restriction, and default immediately.
If you think Americans are xenophobic now, just wait to see their attitudes if basic income ever passes.
- Florin_Andrei 11y agoGood points there. I feel this is a bit too early for basic income. That change will come to pass naturally when society will be able to continue to exist and function normally even if almost nobody will work. That would require some pretty hefty advancements in AI and robotics. Basically, I don't see struggle-free basic income without the robots doing all the work for us.
- digikata 11y agoBasic Income won't come naturally, look at how difficult a 40 hour week / 8hr day was to bring into existence. Basically, widespread strikes were required. The baseline productivity of the world is already sufficient for basic income, and/or increased leisure vs work weeks - the only thing that advanced automation might to in the future is make the disconnect between historical economic assumptions and modern productivity unavoidable from a political standpoint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
- facetube 11y agoFWIW, a lot of US public assistance programs (including TANF) already have minimum-length-of-residency and work credit requirements for people who aren't US citizens: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-public-benefits-can-green-card-holder-receive.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-public-benefits-...
- shkkmo 11y agoI think option 2 is the obvious solution. You offer basic income to your citizens and provide a rational process for acquiring citizenship that allows the naturalization of individuals who have contributed value to the country. We already have many different rules and obligations for citizens and I don't see this as a problem. Our currently problematic means of allowing naturalization is much more of an issue. I do think that basic income needs to introduced gradually and needs to be paired with reductions in the minimum wage. This reduction in the bottom range of wages will make more jobs economically viable (Since they have to produce less value to make a profit beyond the cost of the wages). It makes immigration less attractive to people earning the bottom range of wages without leaving our working poor in the lurch. This combined with the provision of basic income to citizens makes citizens more able to compete for low income jobs since they are being subsidized.
- seanp2k2 11y ago+1 on not restricting immigration; if you've ever worked in Silicon Valley, you know how much of the work here gets done by immigrants. >"If you think Americans are xenophobic now, just wait to see their attitudes if basic income ever passes." I unfortunately agree with this.