5 ms·

> The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes This is the idea behind a basic income. Some experiments are also finding

by mason55 11y ago

> The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes This is the idea behind a basic income. Some experiments are also finding it cheaper to just give people houses than to continue to run homeless outreach programs.

swombat 11y ago
It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the population working in jobs they hate but need to survive. Imagine a world where everyone is working on something they've chosen to do, which they can feel passionate about (and yes, I do believe people can feel passionate about any job that has a useful purpose, including picking up trash, cleaning the streets, and all those other currently low-status jobs). The moral side is equally important, though. We live in a society where we don't need everyone to work, not even close. A great many people today work in jobs whose only purpose is to exist as jobs, which don't actually have a net benefit to society other than keeping people out of unemployment. Many others are unable to contribute to society because their skills are not in demand, thanks to automation, outsourcing, etc. Those people are currently made to feel morally guilty for not working, their self-worth as human beings is attacked, debased. This is fundamentally wrong, and is the major challenge of our generation: transforming from a society that liberally distributes shame to people who are not in a position to work for money, to a society that accepts that paid work is just one of the activities a human being might partake in in their life, and neither necessary nor the highest. If we fail at this challenge, the cost will be unrest, perhaps revolution, probably a regression in the progress of mankind. We have a tough few decades ahead.
- wslh 11y ago
  I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution. Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".
  - eru 11y ago
    How about basic income and abolishing any minimum wage? (And other barriers to low income employment.)
    - pessimizer 11y ago
      Basic income creates a de facto minimum wage by setting a wage for a complete lack of labor. I'd think any other minimum wage would be redundant.
      - eru 11y ago
        A welfare system that abruptly stops paying out when you've got a job sets a de facto minimum wage. A basic income doesn't prevent you from working for a small amount of money. (And people might even elect to do that, if the job has other good sides.)
  - tonyedgecombe 11y ago
    Not working and not having your basic needs met is probably worse though.
  - polymatter 11y ago
    I'd be interested to hear any other potential solutions. Seems to me the choice is either: a) basic income, or b) all the unemployed who can not get a job in the new economy are given a government job. The work in the job doesn't matter, as long as it provides a fig leaf to allow the government to give them the money they desperately need to live. If its not entirely clear, I think that these non-jobs are are an unfair and incredibly expensive way of giving out benefits. The richer would be better off with a basic income (free money! smaller more efficient government meaning taxing the rich less!). The poor would be better off with a basic income (no social workers or benefit admins judging you! future is predictable so able to start investing for the future!). Its only annoying for those of us in the middle, those who will not benefit much from a basic income (because it won't be a huge amount of money, our taxes are unlikely to decrease) but will also not see much benefit from it (I probably already had a safety net in terms of friends and family, and the basic income will be too small to support the lifestyle I am used to anyway).
- heedspin 11y ago
  Instead of basic income, what if "basic needs" were all free: Food, shelter, healthcare, and recreation. Money would only be free for people who work. Money gives the freedom to do consume goods that are not free. Sigh. And now to tear down my own thought. Maybe "free basic needs" works (psychologically) for everyone reading HN. But I'm afraid it could destroy a percentage of the population. If someone has no fundamental drive to work, what happens to him/her when work is unnecessary? Hunger is a pretty good motivator. Maybe working any job is better than not working at all (i.e., better for our our mental state). I guess what I'm saying is this: once we meet everyone's basic needs and remove desperation, we still have the problems inherent to idleness. Crap, let's move to Switzerland...
  - catbird 11y ago
    I don't understand all these posts worrying about "What would a person do without a job." What do retired people do? What do kids do during summer vacation? They live a relaxing and enjoyable life, spending time with friends and family, and pursuing their interests. Sounds good to me!
    - swombat 11y ago
      Some people who retire die of it. Being told by society that you are no longer useful can kill. Obviously, that's not true of most people, but it does happen. However, I do think the main reason it happens is also because it is accompanied by the ambient message that those who don't work are worthless, drains on society. If not working was more accepted, the death rate of retirement would likely be much lower.
  - xenadu02 11y ago
    >If someone has no fundamental drive to work, The research shows this is an extremely tiny portion of the population. The vast majority of people will find some kind of productive enterprise. It seems paradoxical but giving homeless people free housing with no strings attached tends to end with them getting a job and rejoining society. They almost never just lay around all day doing nothing. It's one of the last great Victorian lies still infecting us today.
Sammi 11y ago
I like the idea of basic income, but this does not necessarily need to be basic income. Basic income is a small regular payment to every adult no matter if they have a job or not. A system where you just pay those that don't have a job a minor income would be enough to stop desperate people from doing desperate things. The reason it makes sense is because the consequences of these desperate acts are more expensive than the payment to stop them from happening
- eru 11y ago
  Oh, but you need to think a bit further about incentives. Ideally, you don't want people to lose the small but regular employment the moment they pick up a (possibly unsteady!) job.

by mason55 11y ago

swombat 11y ago

It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the population working in jobs they hate but need to survive. Imagine a world where everyone is working on something they've chosen to do, which they can feel passionate about (and yes, I do believe people can feel passionate about any job that has a useful purpose, including picking up trash, cleaning the streets, and all those other currently low-status jobs). The moral side is equally important, though. We live in a society where we don't need everyone to work, not even close. A great many people today work in jobs whose only purpose is to exist as jobs, which don't actually have a net benefit to society other than keeping people out of unemployment. Many others are unable to contribute to society because their skills are not in demand, thanks to automation, outsourcing, etc. Those people are currently made to feel morally guilty for not working, their self-worth as human beings is attacked, debased. This is fundamentally wrong, and is the major challenge of our generation: transforming from a society that liberally distributes shame to people who are not in a position to work for money, to a society that accepts that paid work is just one of the activities a human being might partake in in their life, and neither necessary nor the highest. If we fail at this challenge, the cost will be unrest, perhaps revolution, probably a regression in the progress of mankind. We have a tough few decades ahead.

wslh 11y ago
I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution. Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".
- eru 11y ago
  How about basic income and abolishing any minimum wage? (And other barriers to low income employment.)
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    Basic income creates a de facto minimum wage by setting a wage for a complete lack of labor. I'd think any other minimum wage would be redundant.
    - eru 11y ago
      A welfare system that abruptly stops paying out when you've got a job sets a de facto minimum wage. A basic income doesn't prevent you from working for a small amount of money. (And people might even elect to do that, if the job has other good sides.)
- tonyedgecombe 11y ago
  Not working and not having your basic needs met is probably worse though.
- polymatter 11y ago
  I'd be interested to hear any other potential solutions. Seems to me the choice is either: a) basic income, or b) all the unemployed who can not get a job in the new economy are given a government job. The work in the job doesn't matter, as long as it provides a fig leaf to allow the government to give them the money they desperately need to live. If its not entirely clear, I think that these non-jobs are are an unfair and incredibly expensive way of giving out benefits. The richer would be better off with a basic income (free money! smaller more efficient government meaning taxing the rich less!). The poor would be better off with a basic income (no social workers or benefit admins judging you! future is predictable so able to start investing for the future!). Its only annoying for those of us in the middle, those who will not benefit much from a basic income (because it won't be a huge amount of money, our taxes are unlikely to decrease) but will also not see much benefit from it (I probably already had a safety net in terms of friends and family, and the basic income will be too small to support the lifestyle I am used to anyway).
heedspin 11y ago
Instead of basic income, what if "basic needs" were all free: Food, shelter, healthcare, and recreation. Money would only be free for people who work. Money gives the freedom to do consume goods that are not free. Sigh. And now to tear down my own thought. Maybe "free basic needs" works (psychologically) for everyone reading HN. But I'm afraid it could destroy a percentage of the population. If someone has no fundamental drive to work, what happens to him/her when work is unnecessary? Hunger is a pretty good motivator. Maybe working any job is better than not working at all (i.e., better for our our mental state). I guess what I'm saying is this: once we meet everyone's basic needs and remove desperation, we still have the problems inherent to idleness. Crap, let's move to Switzerland...
- catbird 11y ago
  I don't understand all these posts worrying about "What would a person do without a job." What do retired people do? What do kids do during summer vacation? They live a relaxing and enjoyable life, spending time with friends and family, and pursuing their interests. Sounds good to me!
  - swombat 11y ago
    Some people who retire die of it. Being told by society that you are no longer useful can kill. Obviously, that's not true of most people, but it does happen. However, I do think the main reason it happens is also because it is accompanied by the ambient message that those who don't work are worthless, drains on society. If not working was more accepted, the death rate of retirement would likely be much lower.
- xenadu02 11y ago
  >If someone has no fundamental drive to work, The research shows this is an extremely tiny portion of the population. The vast majority of people will find some kind of productive enterprise. It seems paradoxical but giving homeless people free housing with no strings attached tends to end with them getting a job and rejoining society. They almost never just lay around all day doing nothing. It's one of the last great Victorian lies still infecting us today.

Sammi 11y ago

I like the idea of basic income, but this does not necessarily need to be basic income. Basic income is a small regular payment to every adult no matter if they have a job or not. A system where you just pay those that don't have a job a minor income would be enough to stop desperate people from doing desperate things. The reason it makes sense is because the consequences of these desperate acts are more expensive than the payment to stop them from happening

eru 11y ago
Oh, but you need to think a bit further about incentives. Ideally, you don't want people to lose the small but regular employment the moment they pick up a (possibly unsteady!) job.