The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
Do you honestly believe that people are on welfare just because they're lazy? If you do then yes, like PIH said, that's extremely prejudiced classist thinking.
with that I'm going to go take a break from this thread.
I'm not advocating my position. I'm just saying that is the most brute-force way of getting rid of welfare abusers - by taking away their candy completely, along with taking away the welfare of every actually needy person. But this is seriously, the entitlement thread, part 2.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I would argue that there's always going to be an incentive to work, even if it doesn't pay at all. People like to work, they like to brag about how important their job is, and people with no job are regarded as the dregs of society.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
He is right though in stating that the social shame of unemployment is sufficient to guarantee that most will not sit idly on government cheese.
Of course. But the people who aren't ashamed to sit on their ass and watch TV all day are probably heavily clustered in the demographic of people who would qualify for the $10,000 handout (assuming there is some means testing).
Throwing money at that demographic doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. Other than increasing income for liquor store owners, maybe.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
Lime, lime, lime. There's a reason many lower class (male youth in particular) would rather work for sub-minimum wage as a gang member, than work at McDonald's.
As much as I detest the book, you should read that chapter of Freakanomics again. The gang members were asking the researchers for help in securing jobs as janitors and such.
The reason the poor have an issue with work is the poverty trap, full stop. If we didn't fucking punish them for working, they would-be happy to.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
I disagree not just with the moral character of this statement, but with the factual content. Elimination of welfare doesn't necessarily mean everybody works - some poor people will turn to criminality, while some rich people will slack on inherited money, and some people will end up in a downward spiral of poverty until they're rendered unable to work.
A well-designed welfare system would prevent a lot of criminality, and prevent such downward spirals. If combined with education programs, it's entirely reasonable to state that a society with an efficient welfare system would be overall more productive per capita than one without.
Of course I believe and agree with your statements. But what efficient way can be devised that prevents criminality? That locates and can differentiate between honest and dishonest intent?
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
I disagree not just with the moral character of this statement, but with the factual content. Elimination of welfare doesn't necessarily mean everybody works - some poor people will turn to criminality, while some rich people will slack on inherited money, and some people will end up in a downward spiral of poverty until they're rendered unable to work.
A well-designed welfare system would prevent a lot of criminality, and prevent such downward spirals. If combined with education programs, it's entirely reasonable to state that a society with an efficient welfare system would be overall more productive per capita than one without.
I would argue that there's always going to be an incentive to work, even if it doesn't pay at all. People like to work, they like to brag about how important their job is, and people with no job are regarded as the dregs of society.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
He is right though in stating that the social shame of unemployment is sufficient to guarantee that most will not sit idly on government cheese.
Of course. But the people who aren't ashamed to sit on their ass and watch TV all day are probably heavily clustered in the demographic of people who would qualify for the $10,000 handout (assuming there is some means testing).
Throwing money at that demographic doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. Other than increasing income for liquor store owners, maybe.
Throwing money in this case being monetary entitlments that go beyond the very basic of what is needed to live and not including unemployment and SS etc....
"work is slavery" is a political anarchist position with a rich and fascinating history.
The position is, to me, understandable and admirable. Work, for most people, involves Marxist alienation, life-shortening stress, physical trauma (even office jobs!) and massive time loss. It dominates and defines people's lives because it is necessary to continue their survival and what enjoyment they have of life, but most people hate their job or grimly tolerate it.
However, the anarchist position also seems either naive or premature. Every single society has had to work. Sure, a tribe grubbing for their own food isn't alienated from the products of their own labour, but they're also running on way less calories, or spending massive amounts of time just to subsist.
Market economy, industry, and service/knowledge economies grant us a higher standard of living and more free time, more opportunities for enjoyment of life, on average. It's still a horribly unfair system, one based on exploitation and one which constantly struggles with inequality, but work is still a necessary evil.
Incentive to work is a tough nut to crack without appealing to self interest like our society does. OG communism and anarchist proposals depend on a will to work that simply doesn't seem to exist - an idealist picture of people working for its own sake. I don't think this is a viable social system. We are not that good.
Instead I think the recognition that 1) work is largely suffering, and 2) we should mitigate that suffering - that would go a long way. I'm a pretty far-left socialist, but I think this is a situation where we have to suck it up.
Work is largely suffering? I mean work can suck but it has a lot of social benefits too, and if your work really sucks that much just lower your standard of living and not work as much.
In the US we haven't seen great climbs in productivity, hence a slow wage rate growth. However if you go look at China it has been experiencing some strong wage rate growth due to it's increased productivity.
Destruction of savings rate would come from this absurd redistribution of income that would normally be going into capital, but after the redistribution would likely go into consumption as the lower income generally have a much lower savings rate.
China also suffers from absolutely awful employment mobility, a fucking massive perpetual lower class, and a regime driven to promote growth before all else, including human rights.
I mean, it's better than Mao, and has its positive points, but I wouldn't hold it up as a shining example of how awesome the free market is, not yet anyway.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
Lime, lime, lime. There's a reason many lower class (male youth in particular) would rather work for sub-minimum wage as a gang member, than work at McDonald's.
As much as I detest the book, you should read that chapter of Freakanomics again. The gang members were asking the researchers for help in securing jobs as janitors and such.
The reason the poor have an issue with work is the poverty trap, full stop. If we didn't fucking punish them for working, they would-be happy to.
I read the studies before Freakonomics came out, so I'm familiar with what you're discussing. On some level we even agree. I'm very concerned about poverty trap incentive effects. I differ with you in that I don't think it's the only reason many poor have an issue with working. But the effect is there and let's not make it any bigger.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
I disagree not just with the moral character of this statement, but with the factual content. Elimination of welfare doesn't necessarily mean everybody works - some poor people will turn to criminality, while some rich people will slack on inherited money, and some people will end up in a downward spiral of poverty until they're rendered unable to work.
A well-designed welfare system would prevent a lot of criminality, and prevent such downward spirals. If combined with education programs, it's entirely reasonable to state that a society with an efficient welfare system would be overall more productive per capita than one without.
This is a very good way to summarize my position
It's a great position, and I really hope that America someday can achieve it. But how realistic is it? How can you design a system that efficiently roots out and correctly labels intent when it comes to welfare? It's just so logistically frustrating that by default I have to agree with our current welfare system. I will gladly take some slackers if it means the actually needy benefit, because hell, it's not like we're not wasting a ton of money on other random shit anyway.
And I still must repeat, the most *brute-force* way to deal with people taking advantage of the system is to get rid of the system entirely. That doesn't make it the *right* way to deal with it. Nor is it to completely ignore the slackers (can we use the term Moochers? So Objectivist I love it) and give everyone a $10000 cash payout.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Incentive to work is a tough nut to crack without appealing to self interest like our society does. OG communism and anarchist proposals depend on a will to work that simply doesn't seem to exist - an idealist picture of people working for its own sake. I don't think this is a viable social system. We are not that good.
Instead I think the recognition that 1) work is largely suffering, and 2) we should mitigate that suffering - that would go a long way. I'm a pretty far-left socialist, but I think this is a situation where we have to suck it up.
I agree with your ideas. Particularly your last paragraph.
However, I do think that a willingness to work is pretty common among human beings. I don't think we're intrinsically lazy. There's a lot of evidence that meaningful work in general is good for people's mental and physical health.
What I think is more accurately the case is that, a lot of the time, the work that pays isn't meaningful while the work that's meaningful doesn't pay. We're seeing a rise in volunteering, for instance - although, paradoxically, the regions worst hit by the recession see the slimmest increases in volunteer rates.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
Knowing and working with a lot of low-income people every day I can pretty confidently say this is not only extremely wrong but extremely classist.
The problem is that if you are a poor kid from the hood and talk like it people are going to take one look at you and hire whitey mcwhiteyson instead because they think exactly like what you just posted.
Small clarification: I don't think this behavior is unique to the lower class. That's just what we happen to discuss at the moment.
It's still gooseshit. Again, the poverty trap is what has so dysfunctionally altered views of work among the lower classes, not your imagined bullshit about the morality of the poor.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
I disagree not just with the moral character of this statement, but with the factual content. Elimination of welfare doesn't necessarily mean everybody works - some poor people will turn to criminality, while some rich people will slack on inherited money, and some people will end up in a downward spiral of poverty until they're rendered unable to work.
A well-designed welfare system would prevent a lot of criminality, and prevent such downward spirals. If combined with education programs, it's entirely reasonable to state that a society with an efficient welfare system would be overall more productive per capita than one without.
This is a very good way to summarize my position
You guys are working on the assumption that people get into crime because they don't have other options. For sake of argument we can say that the options presented to them are utility maximizing for them the way crime is, but do you really think that a strong welfare system will eliminate crime? Sure it will as there is going to be an income and substitution effect due to a basic allowance, but which of those effects dominate depend on the person.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
I would extend our current welfare services to be universally accessible to anyone who wants them, ensure that they at the very least provide a means for someone with no measure of employment the ability to live (even if it is spartanly), and couple them with government funded education programs that can assist in ensuring a decent career.
Provide all this with a large amount of decriminalization of drug use (or at least comprehensive rehabilitation programs) and adjust the amount dispensed per family size and I think you can go a long way to achieving my aims.
Lets end corn subsidies and see what happens to Mcdonalds.
is anything on their menu not 85% corn syrup
Quite possibly the corn syrup used to fry the fries with.
Let's end all subsidies.
Welfare for people is an idea I don't hate. Welfare for businesses is completely unacceptable.
Under american business law a corporation is generally considered the same legal entity as a person, and as such has the same legal rights and duties.
Welfare isn't a right.
That and anyone using corporate personhood to justify their argument is a goose.
It's more accurate to say that though government in the US has no obligation to provide welfare of any sort, if it does do so you can't be denied such welfare without due process of law.
But if Congress decided to defund every welfare program tomorrow, people on welfare would have no legal recourse.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It's still gooseshit. Again, the poverty trap is what has so dysfunctionally altered views of work among the lower classes, not your imagined bullshit about the morality of the poor.
Again, I think it's both. (and the morality bit is not unique to the poor).
I don't think many would agree that the poverty trap is the only reason.
In the US we haven't seen great climbs in productivity, hence a slow wage rate growth. However if you go look at China it has been experiencing some strong wage rate growth due to it's increased productivity.
Destruction of savings rate would come from this absurd redistribution of income that would normally be going into capital, but after the redistribution would likely go into consumption as the lower income generally have a much lower savings rate.
China also suffers from absolutely awful employment mobility, a fucking massive perpetual lower class, and a regime driven to promote growth before all else, including human rights.
I mean, it's better than Mao, and has its positive points, but I wouldn't hold it up as a shining example of how awesome the free market is, not yet anyway.
I was commenting on the rise of real wages and it's relationship to productivity.
You guys are working on the assumption that people get into crime because they don't have other options. For sake of argument we can say that the options presented to them are utility maximizing for them the way crime is, but do you really think that a strong welfare system will eliminate crime? Sure it will as there is going to be an income and substitution effect due to a basic allowance, but which of those effects dominate depend on the person.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
Actually, crime pays for shit. Being a low-level drug dealer pays less than minimum wage, and the income is unreliable. And, of course, the job is extremely high risk.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Like enc0re says, this is all in the numbers at this point. I only took up to intermediate econ and finance so I wouldn't be able to grasp the intricacies of balancing the budget, but someday hopefully someone else can finally figure it out.
And then America can finally start legalizing weed, bro
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
You guys are working on the assumption that people get into crime because they don't have other options. For sake of argument we can say that the options presented to them are utility maximizing for them the way crime is, but do you really think that a strong welfare system will eliminate crime? Sure it will as there is going to be an income and substitution effect due to a basic allowance, but which of those effects dominate depend on the person.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
Actually, crime pays for shit. Being a low-level drug dealer pays less than minimum wage, and the income is unreliable. And, of course, the job is extremely high risk.
There is a tournament pay scheme though which people are willing to put up with the shitty times in hope to win. If you were referencing that chapter in Freakonmics.
Lets end corn subsidies and see what happens to Mcdonalds.
is anything on their menu not 85% corn syrup
Quite possibly the corn syrup used to fry the fries with.
Let's end all subsidies.
Welfare for people is an idea I don't hate. Welfare for businesses is completely unacceptable.
Under american business law a corporation is generally considered the same legal entity as a person, and as such has the same legal rights and duties.
Welfare isn't a right.
That and anyone using corporate personhood to justify their argument is a goose.
It's more accurate to say that though government in the US has no obligation to provide welfare of any sort, if it does do so you can't be denied such welfare without due process of law.
But if Congress decided to defund every welfare program tomorrow, people on welfare would have no legal recourse.
Of course. Most of us view it as a moral obligation and just the kind of thing a good government is made for.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
You watch too many movies. Your average "career criminal" isn't Scarface or whateverthefuck, he lives like shit and probably makes about as much a minimum wage job would pay.
The crime income problem is the following. If there's any means-test on the GBI, you're subsidizing crime income over legal work income to the tune of the marginal phase out rate. As always, when you subsidize an activity, you will get more of it.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
You watch too many movies. Your average "career criminal" isn't Scarface or whateverthefuck, he lives like shit and probably makes about as much a minimum wage job would pay.
There are side benefits, though. Sadly, in some communities the drug dealer on the corner has a higher status than the guy working an honest minimum-wage job.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
You watch too many movies. Your average "career criminal" isn't Scarface or whateverthefuck, he lives like shit and probably makes about as much a minimum wage job would pay.
There are side benefits, though. Sadly, in some communities the drug dealer on the corner has a higher status than the guy working an honest minimum-wage job.
I don't think that is necessarily an argument against an expansion of welfare, not that you are saying that.
I don't think that is necessarily an argument against an expansion of welfare, not that you are saying that.
It's an argument for why our current negative income tax has a phase in. It requires you to have an honest job to pull in the negative income tax. If you take that part out (i.e. no phase-in), you're subsidizing crime.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
You watch too many movies. Your average "career criminal" isn't Scarface or whateverthefuck, he lives like shit and probably makes about as much a minimum wage job would pay.
Can we stop using the ghetto drug dealer as an example of all criminal activity?
There are side benefits, though. Sadly, in some communities the drug dealer on the corner has a higher status than the guy working an honest minimum-wage job.
Again, this a fucking stupid cliche that's not actually true. Drug dealers have higher respect among other drug dealers. Most people just want them to go away and make the neighborhood a better place.
Shockingly, there are families and kids and old people in the ghetto who just want to get on with their fucking lives. In fact, they are the majority.
I don't think that is necessarily an argument against an expansion of welfare, not that you are saying that.
It's an argument for why our current negative income tax has a phase in. It requires you to have an honest job to pull in the negative income tax. If you take that part out (i.e. no phase-in), you're subsidizing crime.
But then what happens to people who cannot get a job?
I've advocated a basic income on this forum before, so I think I should say something.
The typical definition of "basic income" is, essentially, a welfare payment made to people for existing. You earn the basic income regardless of whether you work. This sometimes varies but this is the form most commonly bandied about, and it's the form which political parties and economists have settled on, so I'll go with it.
The central economic motivation is this: zero marginal tax rate on low income earners, while still retaining elements of the welfare state. Feral mentioned negative income taxes, which Milton Friedman also supported, and we have elements of it in the Earned Income Tax Credit. But the problem with negative tax rates is that they imply extremely steep marginal tax rates - a low income earner choosing whether to earn another dollar will lose much of it to steadily withdrawn welfare benefits/tax credits. At existing tax rates, it is possible for a low income earner to lose more than a dollar, thus deterring any incremental promotion at all.
But if we just hand people a check regardless of what they earn - a non-means-tested payout - then every successive dollar earned is a dollar, until the earner earns so much they start paying lots of income tax. A given individual may receive the same amount in welfare but yet, due to the shift in marginal incentives, work (and earn) considerably more, out of a personal desire for greater earnings.
This has a number of appealing side-effects, too. Because every dollar badly spent is a dollar that could have gone to a better cause - because the supply of tax revenue is, you know, a binding constraint for political and economic reasons - we generally do want to ration the provision of many public services - to ensure the spending goes to the most needy. For example, healthcare.
But rationing through bureaucracy is inefficient, often arbitrary, and demeaning to those forced to slog through it; self-rationing through the price mechanism is much faster but it requires that people have some income. We don't want to deny healthcare to people without means. A guaranteed income permits publicly-funded healthcare to demand some level of co-payment; even if the co-pay is a fraction of the actual cost and most of it is subsidized anyway, the difference between zero cost and $tiny on human behavior is enormous. Presently real-life hospitals try to charge a cost of $tiny by instead hassling you via phone calls and making vague threats of legal action that the hospital can't actually carry out; optimistically we might be able to reduce some of this.
Furthermore, a modestly high basic income allows us to discard some other more suspect ways of ensuring a livable income, like the minimum wage (which is a tax paid almost entirely by low-income earners, very little by employers, and definitely not by 'the rich' - this cannot be repeated enough. If you find yourself starting to babble about subsidized wage slavery, please find your nearest EC10 textbook and rap yourself on the head with it, for I cannot do so over the Internet).
So that's the theory. As for whether it is a good idea in practice... I'm going to be disappointing and emphasise that enc0re got the core question right: what, exactly, are the numbers proposed here? Pi-r8's $10,000 p.a. is certainly too high for a non-means-tested basic income. A means-tested version giving it just to people with low incomes falls back into "omg marginal tax rate" problems and is basically just proposing a bigger EITC anyway and is still improbably large for existing revenue levels to meet. We could raise taxes, of course, but frankly the difficulty there is raising taxes in a way which minimally distorts growth and is still politically acceptable (I mentioned the difficulty in the OP). Finding ways to spend revenue is easy. Raising revenue is hard. So let's not get too enthusiastic about yet another good way to spend revenue, unless we're so enthusiastic we know what part of existing spending we're willing to sacrifice for it.
Incidentally, Green Party USA currently advocates $26,000 p.a. for a family of four. Their combined platform is a mite unrealistic, though, but it gives us a ballpark figure to argue over.
A last point. To dispose of some, um, misconceptions: Eddy and Loklar, you may have heard of Milton Friedman's dictum, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, yes? He was pretty much right on that. So both of you can stop worrying about fiscally-driven inflation now. What are you, Keynesians?
Well the big problem I see is that all of the real, literal, needs have already been filled. What do you need, exactly? You need food, shelter, medicine, and some clothes to stay warm. That's it. You don't need anything else. All of those things are produced by huge, multi-national organisations, which an independant startup can't possibly compete with. And the same problem exists with the indirect needs- stuff like cars, and computers, stuff which isn't strictly necessary but helps a lot with everything in modern society- you can't do that yourself. There's a small number of people who produce enough to go around, for everyone. We don't need anyone else producing those things.
When people go in to business for themselves, what they do is produce luxuries. Stuff like handmade crafts, or paintings, or computer games, or a coffee shop, or a restaurant- all that stuff is fun, and I enjoy it, but we don't really need it. And they're all competing with each other- people only have a small amount of excess income to spend on luxuries like that. In order for a new startup like that to succeed, another small business has to lose money. Those small businesses would be more pleasant if they weren't trying to cut each others' throat to stay alive.
edit- there is another way to run the economy. There's a small group of people with effectively infinite income to spend on luxuries- the super rich. We can all start small businesses that service their every desire. That's pretty much the way the US economy is headed right now - a small group of oligarchs, and their servants. I just really don't want to go down that road.
is amazingly straight out of 1920s Progressivism, right down to the proclamations of the ascendancy of the faceless assembly line, the desire to rationalize competition, and the confidence that all material wants had been satisfied by the technology of the day. Unfortunately, there is a good reason 1940s Progressivism replaced 1920s Progressivism, and that is because the latter was a terrible idea, and mostly wrong about its empirical predictions.
There are side benefits, though. Sadly, in some communities the drug dealer on the corner has a higher status than the guy working an honest minimum-wage job.
Again, this a fucking stupid cliche that's not actually true. Drug dealers have higher respect among other drug dealers. Most people just want them to go away and make the neighborhood a better place.
Shockingly, there are families and kids and old people in the ghetto who just want to get on with their fucking lives. In fact, they are the majority.
and other members of the decision-makers peer group. They don't give a shit what the families or old people on the block think. Status, especially criminal status, is primarily a peer group thing.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
You watch too many movies. Your average "career criminal" isn't Scarface or whateverthefuck, he lives like shit and probably makes about as much a minimum wage job would pay.
Can we stop using the ghetto drug dealer as an example of all criminal activity?
I thought we were talking about the options available to poor people, but sure we can discuss whether or not Bernie Madoff could have gotten a job at McDonalds instead of running a Ponzi scheme.
I'm using the example of ghetto drug dealer because that's the most relevent one. Which example would you prefer?
*edit* enc0re, if the community in question is simply the drug-dealing community, I really don't see how it's relavent to this topic, since that's true for all criminal classes (unless there's a class I'm unaware of that doesn't contain criminals).
In this case, wouldn't this change in fiscal policy necessitate a change in monetary policy? I mean they would literally be printing $10,000 for every person in America, unless they somehow manage to divert a magical and impossibly huge revenue stream from elsewhere into this budget.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Only way I could get behind a GBI is if it were unconditional. (i.e. NOT a negative income tax like is being advocated here.) However, I cannot get behind a GBI as high as $10K then.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
You watch too many movies. Your average "career criminal" isn't Scarface or whateverthefuck, he lives like shit and probably makes about as much a minimum wage job would pay.
Can we stop using the ghetto drug dealer as an example of all criminal activity?
I thought we were talking about the options available to poor people, but sure we can discuss whether or not Bernie Madoff could have gotten a job at McDonalds instead of running a Ponzi scheme.
I'm using the example of ghetto drug dealer because that's the most relevent one. Which example would you prefer?
The most relevant to what? That a basic income would push them away from a life of crime? Not recognizing how drug prices would go up due to lack of currency scarcity? Increasing the payouts to crime that is most prominent in lower economic areas?
A basic income could lower or increase crime for the lowest earning members of society, I don't know any model that you could use to point to which way it would go.
Posts
That and anyone using corporate personhood to justify their argument is a goose.
I'm not advocating my position. I'm just saying that is the most brute-force way of getting rid of welfare abusers - by taking away their candy completely, along with taking away the welfare of every actually needy person. But this is seriously, the entitlement thread, part 2.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Throwing money at that demographic doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. Other than increasing income for liquor store owners, maybe.
Rigorous Scholarship
As much as I detest the book, you should read that chapter of Freakanomics again. The gang members were asking the researchers for help in securing jobs as janitors and such.
The reason the poor have an issue with work is the poverty trap, full stop. If we didn't fucking punish them for working, they would-be happy to.
Of course I believe and agree with your statements. But what efficient way can be devised that prevents criminality? That locates and can differentiate between honest and dishonest intent?
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
This is a very good way to summarize my position
Throwing money in this case being monetary entitlments that go beyond the very basic of what is needed to live and not including unemployment and SS etc....
Work is largely suffering? I mean work can suck but it has a lot of social benefits too, and if your work really sucks that much just lower your standard of living and not work as much.
China also suffers from absolutely awful employment mobility, a fucking massive perpetual lower class, and a regime driven to promote growth before all else, including human rights.
I mean, it's better than Mao, and has its positive points, but I wouldn't hold it up as a shining example of how awesome the free market is, not yet anyway.
I read the studies before Freakonomics came out, so I'm familiar with what you're discussing. On some level we even agree. I'm very concerned about poverty trap incentive effects. I differ with you in that I don't think it's the only reason many poor have an issue with working. But the effect is there and let's not make it any bigger.
It's a great position, and I really hope that America someday can achieve it. But how realistic is it? How can you design a system that efficiently roots out and correctly labels intent when it comes to welfare? It's just so logistically frustrating that by default I have to agree with our current welfare system. I will gladly take some slackers if it means the actually needy benefit, because hell, it's not like we're not wasting a ton of money on other random shit anyway.
And I still must repeat, the most *brute-force* way to deal with people taking advantage of the system is to get rid of the system entirely. That doesn't make it the *right* way to deal with it. Nor is it to completely ignore the slackers (can we use the term Moochers? So Objectivist I love it) and give everyone a $10000 cash payout.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I agree with your ideas. Particularly your last paragraph.
However, I do think that a willingness to work is pretty common among human beings. I don't think we're intrinsically lazy. There's a lot of evidence that meaningful work in general is good for people's mental and physical health.
What I think is more accurately the case is that, a lot of the time, the work that pays isn't meaningful while the work that's meaningful doesn't pay. We're seeing a rise in volunteering, for instance - although, paradoxically, the regions worst hit by the recession see the slimmest increases in volunteer rates.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
It's still gooseshit. Again, the poverty trap is what has so dysfunctionally altered views of work among the lower classes, not your imagined bullshit about the morality of the poor.
You guys are working on the assumption that people get into crime because they don't have other options. For sake of argument we can say that the options presented to them are utility maximizing for them the way crime is, but do you really think that a strong welfare system will eliminate crime? Sure it will as there is going to be an income and substitution effect due to a basic allowance, but which of those effects dominate depend on the person.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
I would extend our current welfare services to be universally accessible to anyone who wants them, ensure that they at the very least provide a means for someone with no measure of employment the ability to live (even if it is spartanly), and couple them with government funded education programs that can assist in ensuring a decent career.
Provide all this with a large amount of decriminalization of drug use (or at least comprehensive rehabilitation programs) and adjust the amount dispensed per family size and I think you can go a long way to achieving my aims.
But if Congress decided to defund every welfare program tomorrow, people on welfare would have no legal recourse.
Rigorous Scholarship
Again, I think it's both. (and the morality bit is not unique to the poor).
I don't think many would agree that the poverty trap is the only reason.
I was commenting on the rise of real wages and it's relationship to productivity.
Actually, crime pays for shit. Being a low-level drug dealer pays less than minimum wage, and the income is unreliable. And, of course, the job is extremely high risk.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And then America can finally start legalizing weed, bro
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
There is a tournament pay scheme though which people are willing to put up with the shitty times in hope to win. If you were referencing that chapter in Freakonmics.
Of course. Most of us view it as a moral obligation and just the kind of thing a good government is made for.
You watch too many movies. Your average "career criminal" isn't Scarface or whateverthefuck, he lives like shit and probably makes about as much a minimum wage job would pay.
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't think that is necessarily an argument against an expansion of welfare, not that you are saying that.
It's an argument for why our current negative income tax has a phase in. It requires you to have an honest job to pull in the negative income tax. If you take that part out (i.e. no phase-in), you're subsidizing crime.
Can we stop using the ghetto drug dealer as an example of all criminal activity?
Again, this a fucking stupid cliche that's not actually true. Drug dealers have higher respect among other drug dealers. Most people just want them to go away and make the neighborhood a better place.
Shockingly, there are families and kids and old people in the ghetto who just want to get on with their fucking lives. In fact, they are the majority.
But then what happens to people who cannot get a job?
This is who I am primarily concerned about here.
The typical definition of "basic income" is, essentially, a welfare payment made to people for existing. You earn the basic income regardless of whether you work. This sometimes varies but this is the form most commonly bandied about, and it's the form which political parties and economists have settled on, so I'll go with it.
The central economic motivation is this: zero marginal tax rate on low income earners, while still retaining elements of the welfare state. Feral mentioned negative income taxes, which Milton Friedman also supported, and we have elements of it in the Earned Income Tax Credit. But the problem with negative tax rates is that they imply extremely steep marginal tax rates - a low income earner choosing whether to earn another dollar will lose much of it to steadily withdrawn welfare benefits/tax credits. At existing tax rates, it is possible for a low income earner to lose more than a dollar, thus deterring any incremental promotion at all.
But if we just hand people a check regardless of what they earn - a non-means-tested payout - then every successive dollar earned is a dollar, until the earner earns so much they start paying lots of income tax. A given individual may receive the same amount in welfare but yet, due to the shift in marginal incentives, work (and earn) considerably more, out of a personal desire for greater earnings.
This has a number of appealing side-effects, too. Because every dollar badly spent is a dollar that could have gone to a better cause - because the supply of tax revenue is, you know, a binding constraint for political and economic reasons - we generally do want to ration the provision of many public services - to ensure the spending goes to the most needy. For example, healthcare.
But rationing through bureaucracy is inefficient, often arbitrary, and demeaning to those forced to slog through it; self-rationing through the price mechanism is much faster but it requires that people have some income. We don't want to deny healthcare to people without means. A guaranteed income permits publicly-funded healthcare to demand some level of co-payment; even if the co-pay is a fraction of the actual cost and most of it is subsidized anyway, the difference between zero cost and $tiny on human behavior is enormous. Presently real-life hospitals try to charge a cost of $tiny by instead hassling you via phone calls and making vague threats of legal action that the hospital can't actually carry out; optimistically we might be able to reduce some of this.
Furthermore, a modestly high basic income allows us to discard some other more suspect ways of ensuring a livable income, like the minimum wage (which is a tax paid almost entirely by low-income earners, very little by employers, and definitely not by 'the rich' - this cannot be repeated enough. If you find yourself starting to babble about subsidized wage slavery, please find your nearest EC10 textbook and rap yourself on the head with it, for I cannot do so over the Internet).
So that's the theory. As for whether it is a good idea in practice... I'm going to be disappointing and emphasise that enc0re got the core question right: what, exactly, are the numbers proposed here? Pi-r8's $10,000 p.a. is certainly too high for a non-means-tested basic income. A means-tested version giving it just to people with low incomes falls back into "omg marginal tax rate" problems and is basically just proposing a bigger EITC anyway and is still improbably large for existing revenue levels to meet. We could raise taxes, of course, but frankly the difficulty there is raising taxes in a way which minimally distorts growth and is still politically acceptable (I mentioned the difficulty in the OP). Finding ways to spend revenue is easy. Raising revenue is hard. So let's not get too enthusiastic about yet another good way to spend revenue, unless we're so enthusiastic we know what part of existing spending we're willing to sacrifice for it.
Incidentally, Green Party USA currently advocates $26,000 p.a. for a family of four. Their combined platform is a mite unrealistic, though, but it gives us a ballpark figure to argue over.
A last point. To dispose of some, um, misconceptions: Eddy and Loklar, you may have heard of Milton Friedman's dictum, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, yes? He was pretty much right on that. So both of you can stop worrying about fiscally-driven inflation now. What are you, Keynesians?
And this:
is amazingly straight out of 1920s Progressivism, right down to the proclamations of the ascendancy of the faceless assembly line, the desire to rationalize competition, and the confidence that all material wants had been satisfied by the technology of the day. Unfortunately, there is a good reason 1940s Progressivism replaced 1920s Progressivism, and that is because the latter was a terrible idea, and mostly wrong about its empirical predictions.
and other members of the decision-makers peer group. They don't give a shit what the families or old people on the block think. Status, especially criminal status, is primarily a peer group thing.
I thought we were talking about the options available to poor people, but sure we can discuss whether or not Bernie Madoff could have gotten a job at McDonalds instead of running a Ponzi scheme.
I'm using the example of ghetto drug dealer because that's the most relevent one. Which example would you prefer?
*edit* enc0re, if the community in question is simply the drug-dealing community, I really don't see how it's relavent to this topic, since that's true for all criminal classes (unless there's a class I'm unaware of that doesn't contain criminals).
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Only way I could get behind a GBI is if it were unconditional. (i.e. NOT a negative income tax like is being advocated here.) However, I cannot get behind a GBI as high as $10K then.
The most relevant to what? That a basic income would push them away from a life of crime? Not recognizing how drug prices would go up due to lack of currency scarcity? Increasing the payouts to crime that is most prominent in lower economic areas?
A basic income could lower or increase crime for the lowest earning members of society, I don't know any model that you could use to point to which way it would go.