10 ms·

People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create things. The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the gener

by anticon 11y ago

People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create things. The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. (Step outside the startup bubble for a while). Most people are also selfish. The idea that they'll all start doing things to benefit others is a bit far fetched. Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems determined to try it again is beyond me. This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. It's a fantastic way to reward failure and penalise success, and society will suffer because of it. The numbers are also staggering - it just doesn't work mathematically unless you can magic up billions from somewhere each year. Also be under no illusion - if a basic income was implemented, the chances are (Assuming you're better off than the average person) you would have to reduce your quality of life substantially to pay for it.

msvalkon 11y ago
It seems to me you are not entirely objective on this. The studies (also mentioned in this article) seem to contradict your view.
Sir_Substance 11y ago
>The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. I've always felt that this argument against basic minimum income said more about the arguer than society at large. In my experience, everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work.
- anticon 11y ago
  Seriously? Do you not think you're in a bubble of 1%ers? Most people aren't itching to start a company you know... Most want to watch American Idol and do nothing.
  - wubwubwub 11y ago
    Why does everything have to be an extreme at each end of the spectrum? Either starting companies or doing nothing? I'd like to believe, possibly naively, that for a lot of people there would be a middle ground. Spending their time on personal growth, creative pursuits, general fitness and well being. In essence, living well. Just because you're not attempting to start the next social media, it doesn't automatically mean that you have no other interests or internal framework for living.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      There are also a lot of things that can and need to be done for others (as opposed to personal growth, general fitness, etc.) that don't make sense as companies, or that are perverted beyond recognition when exposed to market pressures. Starting a company is one of many ways of doing things useful to the public, but not the only one.
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      Listen bra, if you're not crushing it you ain't worth . Welcome to the hyper-individualist bro culture based around status and money. The self-worth crutches for people with low self-esteem/ huge uncontrollable egos.
    - Loughla 11y ago
      That's exactly what would happen. Many people would transition to part-time jobs to spend time with their families/friends/volunteer or civic organizations they are already involved in. You can see it when an 'Average Joe' gets a windfall. Anecdotal evidence is all I have, but having observed several people inherit money from older relatives who have passed, the general first focus is on creating free time to spend with family and friends. Then they focus on those organizations they are already involved in. Then they focus on fun nonsense like large TV's and dumb cars.
  - merijnv 11y ago
    Who says it has to be a company? How about that guy that wants make music but doesn't have the time to practice due to work. The girl that wants to paint, but is to tired after work. Why does everything have to be about companies and money? Can't you really imagine any useful social, artistic, or other things these "dumb, lazy" people might want to invest their time into? How about just being a stay at home parent and investing more time in their kids? Do you really think society would not improve from any of these things?
- dagw 11y ago
  everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work. For many people that project is to watch their favorite TV shows while eating their favorite ice cream.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    No it isn't. That isn't their personal project. That's all they have the choice of doing. Most people do those things because they're tired after working hard all day for a wage that doesn't give them enough money to do anything but sit in front of the television. If people had the opportunity to work a bit less in their job so they could do something worthwhile and fulfilling in their spare time, most people would take that choice. Just look at people who inherit or win large sums of money - a few of them end up just enjoying themselves, but most use the money to follow a cause that they think is something worthwhile. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true (on a smaller scale) for a minimum income.
    - taki1 11y ago
      Only at 115 - 120 IQ points one starts to be interested in "looking for information on their own". Not to mention things like building stuff on their own. 115-120 IQ is top 10% population. Maybe 20%. You are definitely over estimating general population. It is easy to do so of meeting only the smartest 20% when at university, work, family. I dare you ask McDonald's cashier next time what they want to do in life, or a salesperson in car dealership or retail store. I guarantee you it won't be "save some money to start my own business or build stuff". It will be "win a lottery and retire on tropical island". Don't trust me on my words, go outside your bubble and and run this experiment and let us know the result. Also, don't direct them into an answer, so it is honest. It is not that they need to be punished on purpose, but yes, you need to have a system in place that incentives work and success, otherwise, yes, 80% of the population all they want is "free stuff". Obviously taken from top 20% because, you know, to them it is not like you had some sincere interest in something, or wanted to build something. To them you just got lucky, because to them the whole of humanity just wants to "win a lottery" and retire. As you can't understand and see that there are people in the world who just want to sit, watch TV, and enjoy themselves, the same way they can't see that there are people in the world who sincerely want to build stuff or obtain knowledge, not for money really, but because it is important to us. Go outside your bubble, go visit a few places, and ask people about their long term plans or what they want to do. It won't be about contribution. It will be about consumption.
- verinus 11y ago
  and my take on people arguing for basic minimum income have not understood the human nature. communism was doomed from the beginning as they were removing all incentives to do something useful in the long therm.
  - dtech 11y ago
    There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income). The second doesn't disincentivize working, as you still get increased rewards if you work or work harder. * Unless you are in a position of power of course, then you deserve more.
    - xienze 11y ago
      > and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income). You realize that basic income will just become another campaign promise to secure votes, right? Couple that with "I can barely live on my basic income!" sob stories and we'll quickly find that basic income won't be so "basic" given enough time.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      > There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) Everyone getting exactly the same regardless of merit has nothing to do with communism. So much so that Marx spent a lot of time criticising this idea and tearing it totally apart whenever someone raised it (Critique of the Gotha Programme has a substantial section on this subject).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Human nature is people wanting to reap rewards for their work (that includes having private property). UBI doesn't take away that. Speaking of "removing all incentives to do something useful in the long term", this is what capitalism does today. There aren't many businesses or even people caring about long-term in their lives, because you have to pay your rent next month, you have to be competitive today, you have to reach your company's quarterly goals, etc. Competition makes things inherently short-term. UBI is a way to remove some of the pressure from general population, so you'd have an option to say "fuck it, I'm gonna do something for long-term payoff" and not starve in the process.
halviti 11y ago
Translation: "Society at large has no value, it is up to the strong to take from the many and cull the weak."
beeglebug 11y ago
Communism: "A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community, and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs." Basic Income: "An income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement." I dunno, they sound pretty different to me.
- anticon 11y ago
  So in effect Basic Income is even worse as it doesn't means test recipients. If you're a billionaire, the state is still going to give you money.
  - mkingston 11y ago
    Yes, but the state will take more than it gives from the billionaire. This is actually more bureaucratically efficient than manually means testing every possible recipient.
    - anticon 11y ago
      How would they take more from the billionaire? Means test them? What if they're asset rich, cash poor... or if they have no income? The whole idea is unworkable. It's like it's been dreamed up by a 5 year old.
      - mkingston 11y ago
        In the current system, yes. But at least we do away with one set of means testing. I would actually argue for a flat tax rate in the presence of a basic income. As for "asset rich, cash poor, no income" there are plenty of ideas out there for capital or capital gains taxes.
      - dtech 11y ago
        > How would they take more from the billionaire? We have this obscure system that has been around for a few thousand years to do this. It's called "taxes".
andruby 11y ago
This is not communism. Not at all. Don't confuse socialism with communism.
- afsina 11y ago
  Socialism and Communism are "almost" the same thing.
jon-wood 11y ago
So what if some people decide to use their money to watch TV all day? Its a trade off, in return for some people being able to do things improving society they couldn't have done otherwise, or being able to spend time with their kids rather than work a bullshit job which mostly pays for childcare so they can do their job, we have to put up with a few people having more reality TV to bore us about in the pub. Sounds good to me.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Not to mention all the jobs that are socially destructive and other jobs created to counteract the results of the former.
nabla9 11y ago
Most successful North European countries can implement basic income in cost neutral way. For example, in Finland 560 EUR basic income would not increase overall taxation.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Didn't know this. Do you have any links to find out more about this please?
mkingston 11y ago
What is merit? “What then! Do you think the old practice, that ‘they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can,’ is less iniquitous, when the power has become power of brains instead of fist?” - John Ruskin. Practically, I believe you have an argument (though it may not be correct). But I think it's worth reassessing your moral framework: if there's any correlation between wealth and moral worth I expect that's purely a consequence of an increased ability of those with greater resources to act morally; a lifestyle choice.
belorn 11y ago
With just basic income, how will the majority afford buying a TV or ice cream? Neither of those two products are basic necessities, and ice cream specifically is kind of expensive and would require a job in order to be afforded.
Fuxy 11y ago
> Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems determined to try it again is beyond me. A bit of a stretch there and i should know i was born in a communist country. The reason Communism has failed is because of the lack of checks and balances on power compounded with corruption not because of concepts like this. > This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. Be realistic most rich people are not rich because they are extraordinarily successful it's because they are born rich and there's entire companies with the sole goal of taking advantage of the system (in some cases doing morally wrong things that are technically legal) in order to make rich people get richer. Over the past 5 - 10 years the middle class has been getting poorer while the rich have been getting richer even with the economy collapsing. If you start off rich a lot of doors that are closed for regular people are wide open to you so you don't have to be successful just don't be a fool. I see basic income as more of a equalizer so people who can't afford billion dollar companies and robotics to replace the workers get to eat as well.
- bitJericho 11y ago
  No doubt. Had companies in general not taken advantage of employees nobody would even be considering this option. This is what you get when companies look at the bare minimum they can pay somebody for the work they want.
- goldfeld 11y ago
  The real reason Communism couldn't succeed (not necessarily the reason it failed) is because none of the countries trying it were or are advanced capitalistic economies before the revolution. Imagine a transition into communism in a less-scarcity scenario, where robots generate so much material wealth as to provide it to everyone, and no one HAS to work, and technology married to political science in turn allows more distributed forms of governance by the people for the people. Once you have that, and of course less bigots running the roost, you have a shot, as a society, to completely do away with 'marginalization', since every city and every community will be self-contained and no one will have to do commutes to serve a master. Communism, for all I know, is the alternative to Totalitarism (be it from American corporate overlords or from so called extreme "left") in a future where jobs are no longer to be found lying around. It probably won't be called communism, though. China or Germany (and other smaller european countries) may have a shot, but the US seems destined to be ruled by corporate emperors.
megalodon 11y ago
Are you that scared that it might work? It's a social experiment carried out by the government, not judgement day. Let's see what result it produces before rejecting it.
SCdF 11y ago
> This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. It's a fantastic way to reward failure and penalise success, That implies that being poor is a product of a personal 'failure'. Sometimes it is. From what I understand though, the vast majority of times it's not. Much like the vast majority of wealthy people aren't wealthy because they really worked at it, but because maybe they worked at it and mostly they were given opportunities that the less fortunate weren't.
tonyedgecombe 11y ago
"Communism (Which is what this is), has failed." No it isn't, communism is a form of government, which in theory everybody is equal. Basic income is a variant of welfare / taxes.
JulianMorrison 11y ago
Wrong. The majority isn't lazy, the majority is rebelling, in a passive-aggressive way. Faced with a job that they easily recognize as worthless economic make-work, they do as little of it as they must. Faced with having their mental energy drained down to nearly nothing, they prefer no-effort recreational activities like TV. Basic income will unleash a temporary plague of laziness, as people snatch back control of their own life, raise a middle finger to the world that has hurt them, and seek comfort activities and recuperation. This will continue for a month or two, and then they'll get intolerably antsy for something constructive to do. It's at this point that you'll start to see how much human creativity was stomped upon by "the 9-to-5".
- fwn 11y ago
  Isn't that the atlas shrugged plot, just mirrored?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I've only read summaries, but I don't see the similarities, except in a very general sense, maybe. I'd say it's closer to the ideas defended by the Situationists.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
nshepperd 11y ago
> Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems determined to try it again is beyond me. Isn't communism about central economic planning? Basic income is explicitly capitalist. No-one decides who ought to do what. We just distribute money, and let the market determine what to fund with it.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Exactly. Though because you bring up central planning - I think that we should reconsider this idea. In a technological society, central planning run by supercomputers executing global optimization algorithms doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Historically, central planning failed mostly because there was no way for flesh and blood humans to react fast enough and to optimize well enough (that and usual human corruption). Not to mention we didn't have properly developed optimization theory before the 60s.
- anticon 11y ago
  It's extremely funny how every argument for Basic Income completely ignores the fact you will have to centrally plan how you're going to get all this endless money to give people. You're going to decide where to raise taxes. The other problem is that if implemented, any future elections would boil down to which party is going to raise basic income the most (Bribing the electorate).
mrottenkolber 11y ago
Unless you cite any scientific sources I am going to be blunt here: You are dead wrong. About every point you try to make. Its exactly the other way around. Give people minimum wage with no perspective and they will learn to love the TV. Give people opportunities to be creative and they will flourish. Be under no illusion: the reason why our culture is so fucked up and our common psyche is so damaged is the capitalist system, that robs humankind of its humanity by stripping humankind of its dignity. We are not cheap resources. We have rights.
rorykoehler 11y ago
Communism is something else entirely (C & P from wiki: "is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production, absence of social classes, money, and the state."). Clearly we can see that UBI is not communism by I will take the bait anyways. Every single person I know has a passion they would pursue outside of work. Some of them would be productive for society (startups or SME's) and some would be largely neutral (self-indulging in sports for example) but none would be destructive. Contrasting that to their work lives I have witnessed some of them taking part in activities that are largely destructive to society because it is the only thing that will put food on the table. Surviving at a minimum level of comfort should not be merit based. Living in opulence perhaps but not at bare minimum level. Finally with your last point if society is stabilized through UBI and we leave behind our guilt based protestant work ethic and crime through desperation ridden society I can't see how I would be worse off. I would be able to pursue any project I deemed worthy (even some that are not profitable but would have a profoundly positive impact on society) and not fear financial ruin. The quality of society would improve and therefore the quality of life for everyone also. Your post is heavily emotional but full of glaring factual inaccuracies that reflect on you more than they reflect on society itself.
Altay- 11y ago
I believe you are making yourself upset by arguing from the point of the ideal. Its not a matter of meritocracy vs basic income. Its the current welfare state vs basic income. People like you and I are already paying loads of money to the masses in the form of (from an American perspective) Food Stamps, continued Federal make-work programs (like the USPS/military), Social Security, Disability Insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Just as a freebie example, The US spends ~$3000 per capita on its military. Cut that in half and give everyone $1500/year no strings attached. That alone would relieve a lot of stress for a large percent of Americans.
- laurentoget 11y ago
  Add to this the money you are paying to pay police, prisons, security systems, and insurance to protect yourself against petty crime.
rwmj 11y ago
What you say may or may not be true, but such a sweeping statement about humanity needs to be backed up with facts. Has anyone studied whether people are generally lazy?
kriro 11y ago
I think the basic argument for testing this is that in the future it might very well be the case that only a small portion of society can do "meaningfull work". Think of an AI future or a vastly automated one. Sure one solution is pushing the wages of say a factory worker up so it's enough to sustain them. In reality we'll probably reach a point where lots of manual labor jobs shouldn't rationally be done by humans. It's a very hard problem to solve imo and naive "comperative advantage though" isn't the answer. I mean I can see a ton of reasons against base incomes but I also don't see many good answers for a scenario where say half the currently working population could be "optimized away".
pknight 11y ago
No one's arguing that only a small percentage of people are geared toward pursuing high risk/high cost opportunities. But it's not really relevant to the idea of basic income or an indictment of the majority. The vast majority are happiest when they are doing meaningful work, not by sitting on the couch and eating ice cream while being void of engaging work. This is true for people of all walks of life, the super bright, the super disciplined, the super motivated as well as the other end and everything in between. The concept of basic income would free people to pursue engaging work. Meaningful work does not have to come in the form of trying to cure diseases or build sky scrapers, or start a tech company. Meaningful work is abundant and not limited by the arbitrary limitations created by a material-consumption-based society what was ushered in by the industrial age, which for the the majority has dictated what is economically viable to make a living. Meaningful work can come in the form of volunteering, gardening, looking after elders, helping the environment, creating beautiful neighbourhoods, social support, skilled crafts, the list is endless and not limited to people with above average intelligence or motivation. Right now these types of endeavours are not economically sustaining for people to focus on. Given that technology will drastically cut down the amount of jobs required it is beyond obvious that the current orthodoxy just isn't applicable in tomorrow's world. It is obvious today and it's only get worse tomorrow. Autonomous cars and trucks alone will kill millions of jobs, how do these people find economically viable jobs? Office jobs will decline at an exponential pace, because there will be no economically viable reason to employ people for work that is done more efficiently by software. Given that we can actually sustain billions of people's material needs with most of the work being done by our tools, rather than people, it is complete lunacy to handicap the population by limiting it because the majority won't actually be able to find economically viable work according to yesterday's economy. It is also completely arbitrary. The conditions have changed dramatically and the sooner we adjust the system to fit the new conditions, the better.
pknight 11y ago
And even if your dim view of people is true - that all but a minority of people are so lazy they would all just sit on the couch and do nothing - it would not matter. When our tools are providing all of what the population needs, what is the realist, capitalist, economic argument for employing them?
fsloth 11y ago
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Basic income is a form of income transfer -a practice that is considered civilized and expected of modern nation states in a scale or another. This is not communism. It is to enable stable societies with people who are content and not prone to be recruited for an armed mob for populist causes. Income transfers were implemented as tools to block communism by no one else than the benevolent, friend of the people, Iron-Friggin-Chancelor Bismarck, not because of fairness, but of social stability.
thomnottom 11y ago
> This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. It's a fantastic way to reward failure and penalise success, and society will suffer because of it. Then those people starting companies you mentioned are not interested in creating things; they are interested in making money.
vidarh 11y ago
> The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. I'm sure you can cite evidence of this claim from basic income pilot programs, then? (there has been a few). > Most people are also selfish. The idea that they'll all start doing things to benefit others is a bit far fetched. Here we agree, but it's beside the point as there's a very good reason for them to do things to benefit themselves that will have the side effect of benefiting others: They'll make more money. The point of basic income programs is to create a lower threshold that is predictable, simple to administer and unconditional. It's not to create a ceiling on income. > Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. This is quite comical, because it has nothing to do with communism, and indeed the idea predates socialism by about 300 years. It has over the centuries had supporters spanning large parts of the political spectrum. One of the important aspects of basic income is that it is not particularly ideological in its basic form: There's no implication that the basic income is meant for widespread redistribution, though some proponents wants it to be high enough for that. Many proponents, in fact, specifically makes the argument that done properly it may potentially reduce government expenditure by eliminating a whole host of benefits programs that are expensive to run and hence cut administrative costs. This is an argument often made by liberalists (as in classical liberals by the European definition) for example. In fact, if you were to push for a form of basic income that would be high enough to make it something most people would happily live on if they could otherwise work, it would be fundamentally at odds with Marx ideas of communism. In "Critique of The Gotha Programme" he skewered the idea that communism involved equal pay, by pointing out that this would be extremely unfair: People have different needs. Instead, according to Marx, the goal for a communist society should be from each according to ability, to each according to need - in other words: while a basic income could fit within a communist framework, as the only source of income it would just create different problems: it would overpay people who choose to not contribute even though they are able to, and would underpay people with special needs. This, incidentally is also the reason pretty much no proponents - regardless where they fall on the political spectrum - advocate a basic income that is particularly high. It's called basic income for a reason.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
So you oppose selfishness when the masses do it, but support it when Startup Ubermenschen do it?
s73v3r 11y ago
"People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create things." Most of them are also extremely lucky in that they either don't need things like healthcare, or don't have families. "This is about stealing money from the successful" No, it's not. Those people would not have been successful in the first place if not for the advantages and benefits they had growing up in a first world country.

by anticon 11y ago

msvalkon 11y ago

It seems to me you are not entirely objective on this. The studies (also mentioned in this article) seem to contradict your view.

Sir_Substance 11y ago

>The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. I've always felt that this argument against basic minimum income said more about the arguer than society at large. In my experience, everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work.

anticon 11y ago
Seriously? Do you not think you're in a bubble of 1%ers? Most people aren't itching to start a company you know... Most want to watch American Idol and do nothing.
- wubwubwub 11y ago
  Why does everything have to be an extreme at each end of the spectrum? Either starting companies or doing nothing? I'd like to believe, possibly naively, that for a lot of people there would be a middle ground. Spending their time on personal growth, creative pursuits, general fitness and well being. In essence, living well. Just because you're not attempting to start the next social media, it doesn't automatically mean that you have no other interests or internal framework for living.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    There are also a lot of things that can and need to be done for others (as opposed to personal growth, general fitness, etc.) that don't make sense as companies, or that are perverted beyond recognition when exposed to market pressures. Starting a company is one of many ways of doing things useful to the public, but not the only one.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    Listen bra, if you're not crushing it you ain't worth . Welcome to the hyper-individualist bro culture based around status and money. The self-worth crutches for people with low self-esteem/ huge uncontrollable egos.
  - Loughla 11y ago
    That's exactly what would happen. Many people would transition to part-time jobs to spend time with their families/friends/volunteer or civic organizations they are already involved in. You can see it when an 'Average Joe' gets a windfall. Anecdotal evidence is all I have, but having observed several people inherit money from older relatives who have passed, the general first focus is on creating free time to spend with family and friends. Then they focus on those organizations they are already involved in. Then they focus on fun nonsense like large TV's and dumb cars.
- merijnv 11y ago
  Who says it has to be a company? How about that guy that wants make music but doesn't have the time to practice due to work. The girl that wants to paint, but is to tired after work. Why does everything have to be about companies and money? Can't you really imagine any useful social, artistic, or other things these "dumb, lazy" people might want to invest their time into? How about just being a stay at home parent and investing more time in their kids? Do you really think society would not improve from any of these things?
dagw 11y ago
everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work. For many people that project is to watch their favorite TV shows while eating their favorite ice cream.
- onion2k 11y ago
  No it isn't. That isn't their personal project. That's all they have the choice of doing. Most people do those things because they're tired after working hard all day for a wage that doesn't give them enough money to do anything but sit in front of the television. If people had the opportunity to work a bit less in their job so they could do something worthwhile and fulfilling in their spare time, most people would take that choice. Just look at people who inherit or win large sums of money - a few of them end up just enjoying themselves, but most use the money to follow a cause that they think is something worthwhile. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true (on a smaller scale) for a minimum income.
  - taki1 11y ago
    Only at 115 - 120 IQ points one starts to be interested in "looking for information on their own". Not to mention things like building stuff on their own. 115-120 IQ is top 10% population. Maybe 20%. You are definitely over estimating general population. It is easy to do so of meeting only the smartest 20% when at university, work, family. I dare you ask McDonald's cashier next time what they want to do in life, or a salesperson in car dealership or retail store. I guarantee you it won't be "save some money to start my own business or build stuff". It will be "win a lottery and retire on tropical island". Don't trust me on my words, go outside your bubble and and run this experiment and let us know the result. Also, don't direct them into an answer, so it is honest. It is not that they need to be punished on purpose, but yes, you need to have a system in place that incentives work and success, otherwise, yes, 80% of the population all they want is "free stuff". Obviously taken from top 20% because, you know, to them it is not like you had some sincere interest in something, or wanted to build something. To them you just got lucky, because to them the whole of humanity just wants to "win a lottery" and retire. As you can't understand and see that there are people in the world who just want to sit, watch TV, and enjoy themselves, the same way they can't see that there are people in the world who sincerely want to build stuff or obtain knowledge, not for money really, but because it is important to us. Go outside your bubble, go visit a few places, and ask people about their long term plans or what they want to do. It won't be about contribution. It will be about consumption.
verinus 11y ago
and my take on people arguing for basic minimum income have not understood the human nature. communism was doomed from the beginning as they were removing all incentives to do something useful in the long therm.
- dtech 11y ago
  There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income). The second doesn't disincentivize working, as you still get increased rewards if you work or work harder. * Unless you are in a position of power of course, then you deserve more.
  - xienze 11y ago
    > and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income). You realize that basic income will just become another campaign promise to secure votes, right? Couple that with "I can barely live on my basic income!" sob stories and we'll quickly find that basic income won't be so "basic" given enough time.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) Everyone getting exactly the same regardless of merit has nothing to do with communism. So much so that Marx spent a lot of time criticising this idea and tearing it totally apart whenever someone raised it (Critique of the Gotha Programme has a substantial section on this subject).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Human nature is people wanting to reap rewards for their work (that includes having private property). UBI doesn't take away that. Speaking of "removing all incentives to do something useful in the long term", this is what capitalism does today. There aren't many businesses or even people caring about long-term in their lives, because you have to pay your rent next month, you have to be competitive today, you have to reach your company's quarterly goals, etc. Competition makes things inherently short-term. UBI is a way to remove some of the pressure from general population, so you'd have an option to say "fuck it, I'm gonna do something for long-term payoff" and not starve in the process.

halviti 11y ago

Translation: "Society at large has no value, it is up to the strong to take from the many and cull the weak."

beeglebug 11y ago

Communism: "A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community, and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs." Basic Income: "An income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement." I dunno, they sound pretty different to me.

anticon 11y ago
So in effect Basic Income is even worse as it doesn't means test recipients. If you're a billionaire, the state is still going to give you money.
- mkingston 11y ago
  Yes, but the state will take more than it gives from the billionaire. This is actually more bureaucratically efficient than manually means testing every possible recipient.
  - anticon 11y ago
    How would they take more from the billionaire? Means test them? What if they're asset rich, cash poor... or if they have no income? The whole idea is unworkable. It's like it's been dreamed up by a 5 year old.
    - mkingston 11y ago
      In the current system, yes. But at least we do away with one set of means testing. I would actually argue for a flat tax rate in the presence of a basic income. As for "asset rich, cash poor, no income" there are plenty of ideas out there for capital or capital gains taxes.
    - dtech 11y ago
      > How would they take more from the billionaire? We have this obscure system that has been around for a few thousand years to do this. It's called "taxes".

andruby 11y ago

This is not communism. Not at all. Don't confuse socialism with communism.

afsina 11y ago
Socialism and Communism are "almost" the same thing.

jon-wood 11y ago

So what if some people decide to use their money to watch TV all day? Its a trade off, in return for some people being able to do things improving society they couldn't have done otherwise, or being able to spend time with their kids rather than work a bullshit job which mostly pays for childcare so they can do their job, we have to put up with a few people having more reality TV to bore us about in the pub. Sounds good to me.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Not to mention all the jobs that are socially destructive and other jobs created to counteract the results of the former.

nabla9 11y ago

Most successful North European countries can implement basic income in cost neutral way. For example, in Finland 560 EUR basic income would not increase overall taxation.

rorykoehler 11y ago
Didn't know this. Do you have any links to find out more about this please?

mkingston 11y ago

What is merit? “What then! Do you think the old practice, that ‘they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can,’ is less iniquitous, when the power has become power of brains instead of fist?” - John Ruskin. Practically, I believe you have an argument (though it may not be correct). But I think it's worth reassessing your moral framework: if there's any correlation between wealth and moral worth I expect that's purely a consequence of an increased ability of those with greater resources to act morally; a lifestyle choice.

belorn 11y ago

With just basic income, how will the majority afford buying a TV or ice cream? Neither of those two products are basic necessities, and ice cream specifically is kind of expensive and would require a job in order to be afforded.

Fuxy 11y ago

> Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems determined to try it again is beyond me. A bit of a stretch there and i should know i was born in a communist country. The reason Communism has failed is because of the lack of checks and balances on power compounded with corruption not because of concepts like this. > This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. Be realistic most rich people are not rich because they are extraordinarily successful it's because they are born rich and there's entire companies with the sole goal of taking advantage of the system (in some cases doing morally wrong things that are technically legal) in order to make rich people get richer. Over the past 5 - 10 years the middle class has been getting poorer while the rich have been getting richer even with the economy collapsing. If you start off rich a lot of doors that are closed for regular people are wide open to you so you don't have to be successful just don't be a fool. I see basic income as more of a equalizer so people who can't afford billion dollar companies and robotics to replace the workers get to eat as well.

bitJericho 11y ago
No doubt. Had companies in general not taken advantage of employees nobody would even be considering this option. This is what you get when companies look at the bare minimum they can pay somebody for the work they want.
goldfeld 11y ago
The real reason Communism couldn't succeed (not necessarily the reason it failed) is because none of the countries trying it were or are advanced capitalistic economies before the revolution. Imagine a transition into communism in a less-scarcity scenario, where robots generate so much material wealth as to provide it to everyone, and no one HAS to work, and technology married to political science in turn allows more distributed forms of governance by the people for the people. Once you have that, and of course less bigots running the roost, you have a shot, as a society, to completely do away with 'marginalization', since every city and every community will be self-contained and no one will have to do commutes to serve a master. Communism, for all I know, is the alternative to Totalitarism (be it from American corporate overlords or from so called extreme "left") in a future where jobs are no longer to be found lying around. It probably won't be called communism, though. China or Germany (and other smaller european countries) may have a shot, but the US seems destined to be ruled by corporate emperors.

megalodon 11y ago

Are you that scared that it might work? It's a social experiment carried out by the government, not judgement day. Let's see what result it produces before rejecting it.

SCdF 11y ago

> This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. It's a fantastic way to reward failure and penalise success, That implies that being poor is a product of a personal 'failure'. Sometimes it is. From what I understand though, the vast majority of times it's not. Much like the vast majority of wealthy people aren't wealthy because they really worked at it, but because maybe they worked at it and mostly they were given opportunities that the less fortunate weren't.

tonyedgecombe 11y ago

"Communism (Which is what this is), has failed." No it isn't, communism is a form of government, which in theory everybody is equal. Basic income is a variant of welfare / taxes.

JulianMorrison 11y ago

Wrong. The majority isn't lazy, the majority is rebelling, in a passive-aggressive way. Faced with a job that they easily recognize as worthless economic make-work, they do as little of it as they must. Faced with having their mental energy drained down to nearly nothing, they prefer no-effort recreational activities like TV. Basic income will unleash a temporary plague of laziness, as people snatch back control of their own life, raise a middle finger to the world that has hurt them, and seek comfort activities and recuperation. This will continue for a month or two, and then they'll get intolerably antsy for something constructive to do. It's at this point that you'll start to see how much human creativity was stomped upon by "the 9-to-5".

fwn 11y ago
Isn't that the atlas shrugged plot, just mirrored?
- icebraining 11y ago
  I've only read summaries, but I don't see the similarities, except in a very general sense, maybe. I'd say it's closer to the ideas defended by the Situationists.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

nshepperd 11y ago

> Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems determined to try it again is beyond me. Isn't communism about central economic planning? Basic income is explicitly capitalist. No-one decides who ought to do what. We just distribute money, and let the market determine what to fund with it.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Exactly. Though because you bring up central planning - I think that we should reconsider this idea. In a technological society, central planning run by supercomputers executing global optimization algorithms doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Historically, central planning failed mostly because there was no way for flesh and blood humans to react fast enough and to optimize well enough (that and usual human corruption). Not to mention we didn't have properly developed optimization theory before the 60s.
anticon 11y ago
It's extremely funny how every argument for Basic Income completely ignores the fact you will have to centrally plan how you're going to get all this endless money to give people. You're going to decide where to raise taxes. The other problem is that if implemented, any future elections would boil down to which party is going to raise basic income the most (Bribing the electorate).

mrottenkolber 11y ago

Unless you cite any scientific sources I am going to be blunt here: You are dead wrong. About every point you try to make. Its exactly the other way around. Give people minimum wage with no perspective and they will learn to love the TV. Give people opportunities to be creative and they will flourish. Be under no illusion: the reason why our culture is so fucked up and our common psyche is so damaged is the capitalist system, that robs humankind of its humanity by stripping humankind of its dignity. We are not cheap resources. We have rights.

rorykoehler 11y ago

Communism is something else entirely (C & P from wiki: "is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production, absence of social classes, money, and the state."). Clearly we can see that UBI is not communism by I will take the bait anyways. Every single person I know has a passion they would pursue outside of work. Some of them would be productive for society (startups or SME's) and some would be largely neutral (self-indulging in sports for example) but none would be destructive. Contrasting that to their work lives I have witnessed some of them taking part in activities that are largely destructive to society because it is the only thing that will put food on the table. Surviving at a minimum level of comfort should not be merit based. Living in opulence perhaps but not at bare minimum level. Finally with your last point if society is stabilized through UBI and we leave behind our guilt based protestant work ethic and crime through desperation ridden society I can't see how I would be worse off. I would be able to pursue any project I deemed worthy (even some that are not profitable but would have a profoundly positive impact on society) and not fear financial ruin. The quality of society would improve and therefore the quality of life for everyone also. Your post is heavily emotional but full of glaring factual inaccuracies that reflect on you more than they reflect on society itself.

Altay- 11y ago

I believe you are making yourself upset by arguing from the point of the ideal. Its not a matter of meritocracy vs basic income. Its the current welfare state vs basic income. People like you and I are already paying loads of money to the masses in the form of (from an American perspective) Food Stamps, continued Federal make-work programs (like the USPS/military), Social Security, Disability Insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Just as a freebie example, The US spends ~$3000 per capita on its military. Cut that in half and give everyone $1500/year no strings attached. That alone would relieve a lot of stress for a large percent of Americans.

laurentoget 11y ago
Add to this the money you are paying to pay police, prisons, security systems, and insurance to protect yourself against petty crime.

rwmj 11y ago

What you say may or may not be true, but such a sweeping statement about humanity needs to be backed up with facts. Has anyone studied whether people are generally lazy?

kriro 11y ago

I think the basic argument for testing this is that in the future it might very well be the case that only a small portion of society can do "meaningfull work". Think of an AI future or a vastly automated one. Sure one solution is pushing the wages of say a factory worker up so it's enough to sustain them. In reality we'll probably reach a point where lots of manual labor jobs shouldn't rationally be done by humans. It's a very hard problem to solve imo and naive "comperative advantage though" isn't the answer. I mean I can see a ton of reasons against base incomes but I also don't see many good answers for a scenario where say half the currently working population could be "optimized away".

pknight 11y ago

No one's arguing that only a small percentage of people are geared toward pursuing high risk/high cost opportunities. But it's not really relevant to the idea of basic income or an indictment of the majority. The vast majority are happiest when they are doing meaningful work, not by sitting on the couch and eating ice cream while being void of engaging work. This is true for people of all walks of life, the super bright, the super disciplined, the super motivated as well as the other end and everything in between. The concept of basic income would free people to pursue engaging work. Meaningful work does not have to come in the form of trying to cure diseases or build sky scrapers, or start a tech company. Meaningful work is abundant and not limited by the arbitrary limitations created by a material-consumption-based society what was ushered in by the industrial age, which for the the majority has dictated what is economically viable to make a living. Meaningful work can come in the form of volunteering, gardening, looking after elders, helping the environment, creating beautiful neighbourhoods, social support, skilled crafts, the list is endless and not limited to people with above average intelligence or motivation. Right now these types of endeavours are not economically sustaining for people to focus on. Given that technology will drastically cut down the amount of jobs required it is beyond obvious that the current orthodoxy just isn't applicable in tomorrow's world. It is obvious today and it's only get worse tomorrow. Autonomous cars and trucks alone will kill millions of jobs, how do these people find economically viable jobs? Office jobs will decline at an exponential pace, because there will be no economically viable reason to employ people for work that is done more efficiently by software. Given that we can actually sustain billions of people's material needs with most of the work being done by our tools, rather than people, it is complete lunacy to handicap the population by limiting it because the majority won't actually be able to find economically viable work according to yesterday's economy. It is also completely arbitrary. The conditions have changed dramatically and the sooner we adjust the system to fit the new conditions, the better.

pknight 11y ago

And even if your dim view of people is true - that all but a minority of people are so lazy they would all just sit on the couch and do nothing - it would not matter. When our tools are providing all of what the population needs, what is the realist, capitalist, economic argument for employing them?

fsloth 11y ago

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Basic income is a form of income transfer -a practice that is considered civilized and expected of modern nation states in a scale or another. This is not communism. It is to enable stable societies with people who are content and not prone to be recruited for an armed mob for populist causes. Income transfers were implemented as tools to block communism by no one else than the benevolent, friend of the people, Iron-Friggin-Chancelor Bismarck, not because of fairness, but of social stability.

thomnottom 11y ago

> This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. It's a fantastic way to reward failure and penalise success, and society will suffer because of it. Then those people starting companies you mentioned are not interested in creating things; they are interested in making money.

vidarh 11y ago

> The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. I'm sure you can cite evidence of this claim from basic income pilot programs, then? (there has been a few). > Most people are also selfish. The idea that they'll all start doing things to benefit others is a bit far fetched. Here we agree, but it's beside the point as there's a very good reason for them to do things to benefit themselves that will have the side effect of benefiting others: They'll make more money. The point of basic income programs is to create a lower threshold that is predictable, simple to administer and unconditional. It's not to create a ceiling on income. > Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. This is quite comical, because it has nothing to do with communism, and indeed the idea predates socialism by about 300 years. It has over the centuries had supporters spanning large parts of the political spectrum. One of the important aspects of basic income is that it is not particularly ideological in its basic form: There's no implication that the basic income is meant for widespread redistribution, though some proponents wants it to be high enough for that. Many proponents, in fact, specifically makes the argument that done properly it may potentially reduce government expenditure by eliminating a whole host of benefits programs that are expensive to run and hence cut administrative costs. This is an argument often made by liberalists (as in classical liberals by the European definition) for example. In fact, if you were to push for a form of basic income that would be high enough to make it something most people would happily live on if they could otherwise work, it would be fundamentally at odds with Marx ideas of communism. In "Critique of The Gotha Programme" he skewered the idea that communism involved equal pay, by pointing out that this would be extremely unfair: People have different needs. Instead, according to Marx, the goal for a communist society should be from each according to ability, to each according to need - in other words: while a basic income could fit within a communist framework, as the only source of income it would just create different problems: it would overpay people who choose to not contribute even though they are able to, and would underpay people with special needs. This, incidentally is also the reason pretty much no proponents - regardless where they fall on the political spectrum - advocate a basic income that is particularly high. It's called basic income for a reason.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

So you oppose selfishness when the masses do it, but support it when Startup Ubermenschen do it?

s73v3r 11y ago

"People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create things." Most of them are also extremely lucky in that they either don't need things like healthcare, or don't have families. "This is about stealing money from the successful" No, it's not. Those people would not have been successful in the first place if not for the advantages and benefits they had growing up in a first world country.