Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Hey Y'all Let's Talk about Basic Income

QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
Basic income is something I like very much like the idea of. From Wikipedia:
An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen’s income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

This is something that's becoming more a more important to consider as our country develops. The reality is that many people don't need to work as much as they used to. Basic income seeks to ensure that people who aren't working or are only partially employed still get income to live off of. Ideally with no obligations to be met.

This is something I'd love to see implemented one day. We're one of the richest countries in the world so there's no reason anyone shouldn't have enough for the essentials and a bit more. And every time this concept has been tested it's only resulted in that area making more money.

CasualApothe0sisKalnaurCorehealerGennenalyse Rueben
«13456720

Posts

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Working hard has nothing to do with how much money someone makes.

    You're right, but thats irrelevant. You could work hard and make a lot of money or do very little work and make a lot of money. You could also work hard and make little money, or do very little work and also make little money.
    Quid wrote: »
    And their children didn't do any of that work. You're saying one group of people who haven't worked at all for money deserve that money but another group of people who haven't worked for money don't. And you've decided it entirely based on who their parents are.

    You're looking at the money as a "reward". I'm talking about it as a responsibility. When you receive a ton of life changing money, you should be expected to do something great with it. Maybe it gives you the opportunity to create some new venture that improves the world.

    Sure you could also spend all the money on hookers and blow, then you're a pathetic waste and should have been taxed at 100%, but without the ability to predict the future somehow there is no way to do that, so we have to give the benefit of the doubt.

    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    mcdermottAngelHedgieshrykeMillKamarLord_AsmodeusCorehealerGennenalyse Rueben
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    Xaquin
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living, and a lot of it goes to waste because people in poverty don't make enough money to afford it. Putting money in their hands so that they can afford it only makes the economy more efficient.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    QuidNecoKalnaurGennenalyse Rueben
  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies Registered User regular
    Yes hello this is righteous and best today and we're moving toward it becoming necessary

    sig.gif
    Apothe0sisjakobaggerKalnaurMatev
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    The way I see it, democratic socialism is the only option going forward. Capitalism only works if the labor force can keep growing. For the last 300 years, this has been the case. We are reaching a tipping point.

    camo_sig.png
    TL DRNecoAistanLord_AsmodeusGennenalyse RuebenMatev
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    Don't have time to jump into specifics, but here's an article about an experiment in Canada. Might not assuage all issues because it's just one town instead of a national thing, but here ya go:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.

    Knight_mcdermottHefflingMazzyxCalicaMvrckshrykeDarkewolfeTofystedethKamarabotkinEtiowsaLord_AsmodeusNSDFRandApothe0sisCptKemzikbalerbowerjakobaggerSkeithjoshofalltradesJediabiwanCorehealerRhan9Gennenalyse RuebenMrTLicious
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Nbsp on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    What does this mean

    is it nothing

    ShivahnAManFromEarthPLAPowerpuppiesjmcdonaldRedTideShadowfireAresProphetdestroyah87shrykeDarkewolfeKamarEtiowsaLord_AsmodeusApothe0sisbalerbowerjgeisjakobaggerEchofugacityThe DeliveratorEvil MultifariousHachfaceSkeithjoshofalltradesCorehealerRhan9Edith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    jmcdonaldCalicaKamarLord_AsmodeusApothe0sisschussjakobaggerEchofugacitySkeithjoshofalltradesKalnaurCorehealerRhan9Edith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.

    That breaks down after about a generation or two. Great as a patch but hardly something to build a foundation of society on.

  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    like use their incredible advantage and head start to amass even more capital because capital begets capital in a world where labor scarcity is not a controlling factor.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
    wazillaQuidCommander ZoomjmcdonaldJihadJesusAistanCalicaAngelHedgieAresProphetshrykeDarkewolfeVeagleLord_AsmodeusschussKalnaurCorehealerRhan9Edith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist rugged, weathered Registered User regular
    It would probably be necessary as more and more jobs are taken over by computers or robots. Soon all the labor resources will be owned by an elite few, and the rest of the masses won't have the means to survive. I see 7 trillion work-capable people becoming obsolete in the next 100 years.

    Kalnaur
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.

    That breaks down after about a generation or two. Great as a patch but hardly something to build a foundation of society on.

    How do you know basic income breaks down after a generation or two when it's literally only been tested in pilot programs?

    What is your solution for there being more people than jobs?

  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Nbsp on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Mojo_JojoCalicaLord_AsmodeusschussKalnaurEdith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    LanlaornJammers
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.
    Who mops up shit then?

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Lanlaorn
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Arguing about whether people deserve money is silly. People deserve a basic standard of living no matter who they are, the question is how we give it to them.

    Money is a medium of exchange. How much money you hold is a measure of how much of our economic output or economic capital you can purchase in the market.

    If you give a person enough money to meet a basic standard of living, you're giving him the opportunity to purchase that slice of economic output necessary for that standard from the market.

    The government deciding on who gets what and directly giving the person the economic output instead of just giving money wastes a ton of resources on deciding who gets what when as a capitalist society we already have a mechanism for that decision making - the market.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    HefflingCalicaLord_Asmodeus
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned.
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.
    Who mops up shit then?

    People being paid to do so.

    JuliusVeagleLord_AsmodeusGennenalyse Rueben
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    Nbsp on
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    If you give a person enough money to meet a basic standard of living, you're giving him the opportunity to purchase that slice of economic output necessary for that standard from the market.

    It also gives them an opportunity to be completely awful at managing their money.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    AngelHedgieLord_AsmodeusschussKalnaurEdith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned

    This is not a closed loop. It expects a person will eventually begin to earn their own money. What if that doesn't start happening fast enough?

    That's how a great society ends.


    Crippled.

    Nbsp on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned

    This is not a closed loop. It expects a person will eventually begin to earn their own money. What if that doesn't start happening fast enough?

    That's how a great society ends.


    Crippled.

    Those people weren't earning money to begin with. So I'm not really following your logic here.

  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned

    This is not a closed loop. It expects a person will eventually begin to earn their own money. What if that doesn't start happening fast enough?

    That's how a great society ends.


    Crippled.

    Those people weren't earning money to begin with. So I'm not really following your logic here.

    Because now it's the entire government's problem. Not the individual.

    Nbsp on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned

    This is not a closed loop. It expects a person will eventually begin to earn their own money. What if that doesn't start happening fast enough?

    That's how a great society ends.


    Crippled.

    Those people weren't earning money to begin with. So I'm not really following your logic here.

    Because now it's the entire government's problem. Not the individual.

    Taking care of the poor is the government's problem. This is a method of solving that problem that has been proven to work in every test program. Every time it's been implemented the local economy improved. And you've yet to provide actual reasoning as to why you think it wouldn't.

    NocrenPolaritieHefflingJihadJesusAistanCalicaAngelHedgieshrykeKamarVeagleLord_AsmodeusschussjakobaggerfugacitySkeithjoshofalltradesKalnaurCorehealerEdith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned

    This is not a closed loop. It expects a person will eventually begin to earn their own money. What if that doesn't start happening fast enough?

    That's how a great society ends.


    Crippled.

    Those people weren't earning money to begin with. So I'm not really following your logic here.

    Because now it's the entire government's problem. Not the individual.

    Taking care of the poor is the government's problem. This is a method of solving that problem that has been proven to work in every test program. Every time it's been implemented the local economy improved. And you've yet to provide actual reasoning as to why you think it wouldn't.

    It is one of the government's problems.

    That doesn't mean the government should go bankrupt trying to solve it.


    No test program has been run long enough or on a large enough scale to show how eventually basic income breaks down the entire society. I'm considering programming a simulation.

    Nbsp on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    If you give a person enough money to meet a basic standard of living, you're giving him the opportunity to purchase that slice of economic output necessary for that standard from the market.

    It also gives them an opportunity to be completely awful at managing their money.

    People will spend their money on what they need to survive, until they're past the point of worrying about their basic survival.

    To argue against that, is to argue against pretty much every economic study on the impact of welfare programs on the economy ever done in history.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    CalicaLord_AsmodeusRhan9Gennenalyse Rueben
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    From an old [chat] post in which TL DR argues for basic income.
    Consider if we limited it to working-age people (over 18, below retirement). This puts the number at 203M, which works out to about $4 trillion - as you pointed out, this is still an unworkable figure.

    I'm curious about exemptions, or rather individuals who might be currently receiving benefits that could be decreased without causing them a burden. There are about 9M workers on federal disability, for example, accounting for about $260B. Welfare including food stamps, social security, TANF, etc is about $212B. (That same WaPo link says Medicaid for non-elderly non-children is another $228B.)

    Obviously, even $20k mincome isn't going to be enough to replace all disability, food assistance, and especially medical expenses for all of these individuals so it isn't like I can claim to have reduced a $4T expense down to $3.3T

    According to this HuffPo article, mincome was quietly tried in Manitoba for 5 years in the 70's. The benefit was reduced by fifty cents for each dollar of income (from $16k for an individual and $20k for a family of two in 2014 dollars). I'd be concerned that the reduction would disincentivize gaining employment, but I guess in contrast to some programs today when an individual can earn a dollar too much and become disqualified, ending up worse than if they'd stayed home that day, the incremental nature makes it less noticeable and impactful while greatly increasing feasibility. The article is pretty decent and Wikipedia links to some alternate sources saying that the expected drop in income was not seen, averaging one percent for men, three percent for married women, and five percent for unmarried women and a followup study in 2009 "found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating."

    This isn't to say that a more permanent program wouldn't see different effects or that Manitoba is a perfect microcosm of the American workforce, of course. But if we apply the "50 cent reduction for each dollar of income" policy, that $4T first becomes $2.67T as we exclude everyone making over $40k and then some quick napkin math averaging lower-income workers drops it further to $2.1T.

    That's still a lot of money! The question, then, is whether it can be made workable taking into consideration all of the externalities. Some of the things cited in the Manitoba study were reduced ER visits both as a result of workplace accidents and domestic violence, as well as reduced psychiatric visits. The true costs of poverty are really, really hard to pin down. For example, a friend recently had her car towed. She couldn't pay the back parking tickets + the tow and impound fees, and it quickly became more than her car was worth. As a result, she could no longer get to work and had to leave a shitty-but-promising job for a serving job in the city, just to be able to pay rent. Admittedly having done all this research in the time it took me to get home from the gym until now when I feel that my frail and decrepit body is once again able to sustain the energy necessary to fix dinner, this looks feasible if applied smartly and over a number of years.

    Perhaps the elephant in the room is that the GDP may indeed drop and that furthermore it needs to drop. Eternal growth is impossible to sustain, and I'm down to have that conversation if you're interested.

    So the math isn't as bonkers as it might look at first blush, and the reduction of labor supply is focused exactly where you'd hope it would be.

    The 'less people will work' question is somewhat circular, though, since mincome attempts to address the question "How are people to maintain a dignified existence as demand for labor decreases?" Capitalism attempts to answer this with perpetual growth, which is a logical impossibility.

    Mincome can also be interpreted as allowing markets to continue allocating resources while enabling the government to fulfill its obligation to the public welfare. The state could just as easily dispense food and build public housing, but we already have systems in place to innovate, produce, and distribute these things so it is more efficient to just give people a refundable tax credit and let them choose for themselves how to spend it.

    JuliusAresProphet
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I guess I'm crazy, but I'd keep working despite my effective pay being lower because $80k a year is better than $18k.

    I'm probably not alone.

    Having a decent safety net might reduce my stress level though. And while we're at it can we talk about reducing the work week? It's been over a hundred years, might be time.

    TL DRDevoutlyApatheticCalicaJuliusshrykeabotkinVeagleKamarLord_AsmodeusNSDFRandQuidzagdrobApothe0sisschussjakobaggerFoolOnTheHillZomrolonelyahavaSkeithjoshofalltradesKalnaurCorehealerRhan9Edith UpwardsGennenalyse RuebenMatevRhalloTonny
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned

    This is not a closed loop. It expects a person will eventually begin to earn their own money. What if that doesn't start happening fast enough?

    That's how a great society ends.


    Crippled.

    Those people weren't earning money to begin with. So I'm not really following your logic here.

    Because now it's the entire government's problem. Not the individual.

    Taking care of the poor is the government's problem. This is a method of solving that problem that has been proven to work in every test program. Every time it's been implemented the local economy improved. And you've yet to provide actual reasoning as to why you think it wouldn't.

    It is one of the government's problems.

    That doesn't mean the government should go bankrupt trying to solve it.


    No test program has been run long enough or on a large enough scale to show how eventually basic income breaks down the entire society. I'm considering programming a simulation.

    How does it break down society?

    People are not satisfied with the basic standard of living. They will work so that they can live better lives, and give their children a better future, if that work is available and pays enough money to be worth the effort.

    What is does end is abusive employer/employee relationships where the employer works the employee to the bone under the threat of cutting off the income the employee, and possibly the employee's family, needs to survive. Labor actually becomes a fair market instead of one operating under the threat of distitution.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    CalicaKalnaurGennenalyse Rueben
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    For what it's worth, I've yet to see an argument against means-adjusted welfare handouts in the form of cash that didn't boil down to viewing poverty as a moral failing which must be dissuaded by punishing the poor for their circumstances.

    mcdermottQuidwazillaJihadJesusVanguardCalicaJuliustapeslingerAngelHedgieshrykeKamarLord_AsmodeusNSDFRandAlbino BunnyApothe0sisCptKemzikminirhyderjakobaggerFoolOnTheHillEvil MultifariousSkeithJobless AnarchistjoshofalltradesKalnaurRhan9Edith UpwardsGennenalyse RuebenMatevdanx
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Jephery wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    If you give a person enough money to meet a basic standard of living, you're giving him the opportunity to purchase that slice of economic output necessary for that standard from the market.

    It also gives them an opportunity to be completely awful at managing their money.

    People will spend their money on what they need to survive, until they're past the point of worrying about their basic survival.

    People are irrational and not always well educated. Some money will, but not all of it. Money spent wrongly is more damaging than more money spent on the right things.

    Nbsp on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Elvenshae
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    If you give a person enough money to meet a basic standard of living, you're giving him the opportunity to purchase that slice of economic output necessary for that standard from the market.

    It also gives them an opportunity to be completely awful at managing their money.

    People will spend their money on what they need to survive, until they're past the point of worrying about their basic survival.

    People are irrational and not always well educated. Some money will, but not all of it. Money spent wrongly is more damaging than more money spent on the right things.

    No it isn't. If a person spend all the money he needs to survive, then spends the money on random other stuff, that does not hurt anyone.

    The essentials for that person have been met, everything else is a luxury. By definition the luxuries are non-essential, so it doesn't matter who ends up with them.

    What each person considers to be essential will vary from person to person, but at the very least it will consist of food, water, and shelter.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    Edith Upwards
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    I feel like it doesn't matter what they did. The money belongs to someone, and they want to make sure it is given to someone else. It's not really our business whether the child deserves it according to your definition, or mine! It's not our money.

  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Those resources are up for sale on the market.

    Some of those resources are perishable, like food, and some portion of it goes unsold because people don't have the money to buy it.

    If someone is given money to buy that food for themselves because they need it, then everyone wins.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Jephery wrote: »
    How does it break down society?

    People are not satisfied with the basic standard of living. They will work so that they can live better lives, and give their children a better future, if that work is available and pays enough money to be worth the effort.

    Maybe people today. But I'm thinking on a longer timeline. Millennials are already having less kids and spend less on material goods, opting more to have great experiences and memories they can post all over social media and make people jealous. Following generations will be even more like that.

    The rest of your post is getting off topic.

    Nbsp on
Sign In or Register to comment.