3 ms·

The connection is in the "why". Why do website switch to an ad-based revenue model ? (and so, against their initial will). Because the people running it needs m

by Buetol 11y ago

The connection is in the "why". Why do website switch to an ad-based revenue model ? (and so, against their initial will). Because the people running it needs money. If you have a basic income, it's easier for people to run websites for free without ads.

kjdal2001 11y ago
I would guess that the cost of running the business is higher than their personal expenses. Whatever the benefits of basic income, the idea isn't to subsidize a business.
- Buetol 11y ago
  The operating cost of running a website today is cheap enough to not even worry about it IMHO (5$/month for a basic server)
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
I still don't get this line of thinking. Most basic income levels are just above poverty level. And, so, if a web page is run by someone making a basic income and showing no ads, that person will only ever stay at that level. They would still need to show ads or something to make more money. They are already doing this. I just don't see this as a valid argument for basic income. It is fodder for basic income opponents is what it is.
- Buetol 11y ago
  If the basic income is at a comfortable level, then most people won't look to make more money, I think, but improve the things they have. And this is the whole debate I think, are people hungry for the money even with a comfortable income or with a sufficient income they are not gonna look to earn more ?
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    I don't agree with this at all. People will always want bigger TVs and fancier cars.
    - Buetol 11y ago
      And this is the basic assumption that we disagree on.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If you have a basic income, it's easier for people to run websites for free without ads. Not that true, in any basic income that is sustainable in the near term. Basic income doesn't change the fact that time and effort dedicated to maintaining a website has an opportunity cost in terms of the fact that that time and effort could be used for paid labor (or devoted to actively managing one's capital, etc.), and that time with the skill necessary necessary to maintain a quality website has substantial market value. We might be able to afford basic income that replaces means-tested poverty support programs and on its own provides an income that mitigates poverty somewhat (but doesn't eliminate it) in the near term, but we certainly aren't going to be able maintain one at a level where most people aren't strongly motivated to seek additional income in the market.

by Buetol 11y ago

kjdal2001 11y ago

I would guess that the cost of running the business is higher than their personal expenses. Whatever the benefits of basic income, the idea isn't to subsidize a business.

Buetol 11y ago
The operating cost of running a website today is cheap enough to not even worry about it IMHO (5$/month for a basic server)

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

I still don't get this line of thinking. Most basic income levels are just above poverty level. And, so, if a web page is run by someone making a basic income and showing no ads, that person will only ever stay at that level. They would still need to show ads or something to make more money. They are already doing this. I just don't see this as a valid argument for basic income. It is fodder for basic income opponents is what it is.

Buetol 11y ago
If the basic income is at a comfortable level, then most people won't look to make more money, I think, but improve the things they have. And this is the whole debate I think, are people hungry for the money even with a comfortable income or with a sufficient income they are not gonna look to earn more ?
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  I don't agree with this at all. People will always want bigger TVs and fancier cars.
  - Buetol 11y ago
    And this is the basic assumption that we disagree on.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If you have a basic income, it's easier for people to run websites for free without ads. Not that true, in any basic income that is sustainable in the near term. Basic income doesn't change the fact that time and effort dedicated to maintaining a website has an opportunity cost in terms of the fact that that time and effort could be used for paid labor (or devoted to actively managing one's capital, etc.), and that time with the skill necessary necessary to maintain a quality website has substantial market value. We might be able to afford basic income that replaces means-tested poverty support programs and on its own provides an income that mitigates poverty somewhat (but doesn't eliminate it) in the near term, but we certainly aren't going to be able maintain one at a level where most people aren't strongly motivated to seek additional income in the market.