It does show that it won't cause mass unemployment with everyone quitting their jobs, though, which is the most common argument against this idea.
Does the study track hours worked? Because I didn't see that in the data.
I don't know. I think it would have mentioned it if the village had a huge problem with marketplaces only being open 2 hours a day. For some people (like me) one of the reasons to support this is to help people work fewer hours a day while still being able to make ends meet.
If I didn't have to worry about money I'd 100% quit my job and work for a charity. I'd love to do something with meaning instead of clicking icons all day but clicking icons all day pays and helping deserving people who need help doesn't. Go figure.
That's weird, I make money clicking icons all day for charity.
Here's the article again about the project in Namibia and how the white farmers are against it because people should be digging ditches for 20 cent an hour instead. It's a good read and full of annecdotal evidence how individual people's lives improved.
Getting money from an external source is not a proof of concept that a GID generated from the same economy it is funding will cause the desired results.
'"If we give money to people in a poor African village, and take steps to make sure it doesn't end up in the pockets of warlords, conditions improve" isn't exactly a groundbreaking study. It is like saying you have a perpetual motion machine, but upon inspection we see that it is solar-powered.
The economic benefit exceeded the outside input, though, so even if you count the cost as an economic drain they still came out ahead.
Again, this is not exactly new information or a GID only occurrence. When you inject money into a poor population(and actually get it to them), the growth is greater than the amount of money injected.
The corollary is, sucking money out of a population shrinks the economy by more than the amount of money sucked out.
It does show that it won't cause mass unemployment with everyone quitting their jobs, though, which is the most common argument against this idea.
Does the study track hours worked? Because I didn't see that in the data.
I don't know. I think it would have mentioned it if the village had a huge problem with marketplaces only being open 2 hours a day. For some people (like me) one of the reasons to support this is to help people work fewer hours a day while still being able to make ends meet.
It said most of the growth were people becoming self employed, which could mean anything.
The real question i have is, if you pay people to do nothing, does less get done?
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
In 2008, a pilot project with a basic income grant was started in the Namibian village of Omitara by the Namibian Basic Income Grant Coalition.[10][11] After six months the project has been found to significantly reduce child malnutrition and increase school attendance. It was also found to increase the community's income significantly above the actual amount from the grants as it allowed citizens to partake in more productive economic activities.[12][13]
According to those who were interviewed by the newspaper, food alone is not enough to address the plight of the poor and the unemployed. Food is just but one of the many daily basic needs of a human being. To earn food for the work you have done or to get the food for free, only addresses the stomach or hunger needs of the poor.
With food you cannot pay school fees; you cannot pay medical expenses; you cannot buy clothes; you cannot buy groceries, you cannot pay for municipal services; you cannot pay transport related expenses and you are not free to buy what you need.
And that is exactly what the interviewees of the newspaper were expressing. In other words what they were saying is that they need money to be able to meet their other basic needs apart from food.
And that is exactly what the implementation of the N$100 grant has done at Otjivero settlement in the Omitara district. Close to 1000 residents of Otjivero get of unconditional basic cash grant every month, which enables them to purchase whatever they need. The Otjivero project has proven that with the grant, though minimal, people are able to pay school and clinic fees, transport and buy food and clothes.
Some have even managed to save some money. The project has also proven that not only does giving people money restore their dignity, it also makes them more responsible and enables them to positively employ their God-given talents to become innovative.
The uniqueness of Otjivero is that it has mobilised the sharing and solidarity spirit of the entire community, for it is through sharing and solidarity that they are making a difference with a tiny N$80 (the amount was reduced from N$100 to N$80 after the two-year pilot project came to an end at the end of 2009).
The recipients received a 'smart card' which contains the names, ID numbers and the picture of the recipients as well as a microchip
containing the birth date, fingerprints and information on the amount and history of receiving the grant. The system also makes provision for a 'procurator', who is a person appointed by the recipient, who can receive the grant on his/her behalf by means of fingerprint identi-fication, if for some reason the person cannot collect it personally.
...
Since July 2008, the Namibian Post Office (NamPost) is conducting the pay-out of the grant via its Post Office smart card savings account system. Every recipient of the BIG has a saving account with NamPost into which the grant is paid on the 15th of each month. This
system has the advantage of getting every recipient into the formal banking system. This enables the recipients to decide when, where, and how much of the grant should be withdrawn. It avoids the potentially stigmat-ising queueing for the cash pay-out.
Did it uplift the impoverished citizens of Omitara or did it just give them an excuse to lay around all day?
The pilot project aimed to investigate whether the intro-duction of the BIG would result in people choosing not to work, (i.e. withdraw from the labour-force), or whether it would help them find work (by financing their job search), or enable them to start their own businesses (by providing start up money and by increasing the buying power of others in the community).
...
The graph shows a decrease of the number of unemployed people from 60% to 45%. To put it differently: since the introduction of the the BIG, employment rose from 44% to 55% of those aged 15 and above. It is important to note that the actual labour force increased slightly while the labour force participation rate increased as well. The data thus provides evidence that the BIG did not result in people deciding not to work. On the contrary, the BIG facilitated greater labour-market participation and employment.
...
The main source of household income growth was in self-employment... Most small enterprises which emerged following the introduction of the BIG were in retailing, brick-making and the manufacture of clothing. According to the respondents, the BIG was central in providing start-up capital and external demand
So not only could people now afford to start their own businesses, the BIG increased the purchasing power of potential customers in their community.
There were other social benefits as well.
Crime.
According to official information provided by the Omitara police station, 54 crimes were reported between 15 January 2008 (when the BIG was introduced) to end of October 2008 while during the same period a year earlier (15 January to 31 October 2007) 85 crimes were re-ported. The Police statistics therefore reflect a 36.5% drop in overall crime since the introduction of the BIG.
It should be borne in mind that this is so despite a considerable immigration of 27% into the area and an increase in the number of people living there. This could rather have led to an increase in overall crime.
As shown in the figure below, all categories of economic crime fell substantially. The most dramatic fall was in illegal hunting and trespassing, which fell by 95% from 20 reported cases to 1. Stock theft fell by 43% and other theft fell by nearly 20% over the same period.
Change in other (non economic crimes) was statistically insignificant over the period, but still decreased from 28 to 27 cases. The new acting Police Commander who came to Omitara in April 2008 confirmed this trend.
Education.
The kindergarten teacher, Mathilde Ganas, added: “There is a tremendous change [since the introduction of the BIG]. The children come to school clean, on time and well fed. When it is break time we send the children back home to eat and they now come back on time. In the past, when we sent them home, most of them never returned...because the parents did not have food to give them and therefore they could not return back. Before the Basic Income Grant things were really bad and it was difficult to teach the children. Now they concentrate more and pay more attention in class. They are generally happy because they have enough to eat at home.”
The primary schools in Omitara charge a $50 school fee and require school uniforms. Prior to the BIG, these represented major financial obstacles to education. After the BIG, no child had to skip school for lack of a school fee or lack of a uniform. Consequently, dropout rates decreased and matriculation rates increased.
There were also predictable positive effects on hunger and health.
C'mon, Feral. It's not like the US can afford to implement the same level of social programs as such an economic powerhouse as a sub-Saharan African village.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
In 2008, a pilot project with a basic income grant was started in the Namibian village of Omitara by the Namibian Basic Income Grant Coalition.[10][11] After six months the project has been found to significantly reduce child malnutrition and increase school attendance. It was also found to increase the community's income significantly above the actual amount from the grants as it allowed citizens to partake in more productive economic activities.[12][13]
According to those who were interviewed by the newspaper, food alone is not enough to address the plight of the poor and the unemployed. Food is just but one of the many daily basic needs of a human being. To earn food for the work you have done or to get the food for free, only addresses the stomach or hunger needs of the poor.
With food you cannot pay school fees; you cannot pay medical expenses; you cannot buy clothes; you cannot buy groceries, you cannot pay for municipal services; you cannot pay transport related expenses and you are not free to buy what you need.
And that is exactly what the interviewees of the newspaper were expressing. In other words what they were saying is that they need money to be able to meet their other basic needs apart from food.
And that is exactly what the implementation of the N$100 grant has done at Otjivero settlement in the Omitara district. Close to 1000 residents of Otjivero get of unconditional basic cash grant every month, which enables them to purchase whatever they need. The Otjivero project has proven that with the grant, though minimal, people are able to pay school and clinic fees, transport and buy food and clothes.
Some have even managed to save some money. The project has also proven that not only does giving people money restore their dignity, it also makes them more responsible and enables them to positively employ their God-given talents to become innovative.
The uniqueness of Otjivero is that it has mobilised the sharing and solidarity spirit of the entire community, for it is through sharing and solidarity that they are making a difference with a tiny N$80 (the amount was reduced from N$100 to N$80 after the two-year pilot project came to an end at the end of 2009).
The recipients received a 'smart card' which contains the names, ID numbers and the picture of the recipients as well as a microchip
containing the birth date, fingerprints and information on the amount and history of receiving the grant. The system also makes provision for a 'procurator', who is a person appointed by the recipient, who can receive the grant on his/her behalf by means of fingerprint identi-fication, if for some reason the person cannot collect it personally.
...
Since July 2008, the Namibian Post Office (NamPost) is conducting the pay-out of the grant via its Post Office smart card savings account system. Every recipient of the BIG has a saving account with NamPost into which the grant is paid on the 15th of each month. This
system has the advantage of getting every recipient into the formal banking system. This enables the recipients to decide when, where, and how much of the grant should be withdrawn. It avoids the potentially stigmat-ising queueing for the cash pay-out.
Did it uplift the impoverished citizens of Omitara or did it just give them an excuse to lay around all day?
The pilot project aimed to investigate whether the intro-duction of the BIG would result in people choosing not to work, (i.e. withdraw from the labour-force), or whether it would help them find work (by financing their job search), or enable them to start their own businesses (by providing start up money and by increasing the buying power of others in the community).
...
The graph shows a decrease of the number of unemployed people from 60% to 45%. To put it differently: since the introduction of the the BIG, employment rose from 44% to 55% of those aged 15 and above. It is important to note that the actual labour force increased slightly while the labour force participation rate increased as well. The data thus provides evidence that the BIG did not result in people deciding not to work. On the contrary, the BIG facilitated greater labour-market participation and employment.
...
The main source of household income growth was in self-employment... Most small enterprises which emerged following the introduction of the BIG were in retailing, brick-making and the manufacture of clothing. According to the respondents, the BIG was central in providing start-up capital and external demand
So not only could people now afford to start their own businesses, the BIG increased the purchasing power of potential customers in their community.
There were other social benefits as well.
Crime.
According to official information provided by the Omitara police station, 54 crimes were reported between 15 January 2008 (when the BIG was introduced) to end of October 2008 while during the same period a year earlier (15 January to 31 October 2007) 85 crimes were re-ported. The Police statistics therefore reflect a 36.5% drop in overall crime since the introduction of the BIG.
It should be borne in mind that this is so despite a considerable immigration of 27% into the area and an increase in the number of people living there. This could rather have led to an increase in overall crime.
As shown in the figure below, all categories of economic crime fell substantially. The most dramatic fall was in illegal hunting and trespassing, which fell by 95% from 20 reported cases to 1. Stock theft fell by 43% and other theft fell by nearly 20% over the same period.
Change in other (non economic crimes) was statistically insignificant over the period, but still decreased from 28 to 27 cases. The new acting Police Commander who came to Omitara in April 2008 confirmed this trend.
Education.
The kindergarten teacher, Mathilde Ganas, added: “There is a tremendous change [since the introduction of the BIG]. The children come to school clean, on time and well fed. When it is break time we send the children back home to eat and they now come back on time. In the past, when we sent them home, most of them never returned...because the parents did not have food to give them and therefore they could not return back. Before the Basic Income Grant things were really bad and it was difficult to teach the children. Now they concentrate more and pay more attention in class. They are generally happy because they have enough to eat at home.”
The primary schools in Omitara charge a $50 school fee and require school uniforms. Prior to the BIG, these represented major financial obstacles to education. After the BIG, no child had to skip school for lack of a school fee or lack of a uniform. Consequently, dropout rates decreased and matriculation rates increased.
There were also predictable positive effects on hunger and health.
C'mon, Feral. It's not like the US can afford to implement the same level of social programs as such an economic powerhouse as a sub-Saharan African village.
It took me awhile to find it, but I don't think the money came from the African village. Do you see differently?
The real question i have is, if you pay people to do nothing, does less get done?
The PDF linked established a number of positive economic outcomes across the entire community, including increased employment and increased self-employment. That alone makes it unlikely that the aggregate hours worked by the community overall was reduced.
But let's say that there were fewer hours worked overall. Why should we care?
Do you assume that, regardless of larger-scale economic outcomes, fewer hours worked is intrinsically bad?
For instance, if a farmer spent his BIG on an ox and a new yoke and plow and was able to perform as much tilling in 2 hours as he would otherwise do in 8, is that a bad thing?
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.
C'mon, Feral. It's not like the US can afford to implement the same level of social programs as such an economic powerhouse as a sub-Saharan African village.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to reply in earnest.
That reply is: I don't know! The financial feasibility of a BIG in the US isn't really something I'm prepared to defend.
My purpose in posting that link was to specifically counter arguments that a BIG would result in higher unemployment, or in less wealth created, or in otherwise undesirable utilitarian outcomes due to human laziness.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+1
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
[C'mon, Feral. It's not like the US can afford to implement the same level of social programs as such an economic powerhouse as a sub-Saharan African village.
It took me awhile to find it, but I don't think the money came from the African village. Do you see differently?
I assume it actually came from the national government. I was mostly just snarking.
/dons serious hat
I would assume that the economic intricacies of the US would vary from those of both an African village and a single Canadian city in ways such that it's impossible to tell precisely what would happen were that program implemented on a national scale in a powerful economy. But I think it's compelling evidence that it at least wouldn't completely break capitalism, or whatever nightmarish event some people are predicting.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The real question i have is, if you pay people to do nothing, does less get done?
The PDF linked established a number of positive economic outcomes across the entire community, including increased employment and increased self-employment. That alone makes it unlikely that the aggregate hours worked by the community overall was reduced.
But let's say that there were fewer hours worked overall. Why should we care?
Do you assume that, regardless of larger-scale economic outcomes, fewer hours worked is intrinsically bad?
For instance, if a farmer spent his BIG on an ox and a new yoke and plow and was able to perform as much tilling in 2 hours as he would otherwise do in 8, is that a bad thing?
Uh, you missed my question. I wanted to know if less gets done. If you want to argue that getting things done is more important than working hours, then you and I are on the same page.
Uh, you missed my question. I wanted to know if less gets done. If you want to argue that getting things done is more important than working hours, then you and I are on the same page.
Oh, okay, sorry. I'm a bit sensitive to what Solvent called 'the fetishization of work' so I misinterpreted your post.
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.
[C'mon, Feral. It's not like the US can afford to implement the same level of social programs as such an economic powerhouse as a sub-Saharan African village.
It took me awhile to find it, but I don't think the money came from the African village. Do you see differently?
I assume it actually came from the national government. I was mostly just snarking.
/dons serious hat
I would assume that the economic intricacies of the US would vary from those of both an African village and a single Canadian city in ways such that it's impossible to tell precisely what would happen were that program implemented on a national scale in a powerful economy. But I think it's compelling evidence that it at least wouldn't completely break capitalism, or whatever nightmarish event some people are predicting.
From what i understood, it came from foreign aid groups.
I've never thought it would break capitalism, one of the major aspects of capitalism is its resilience and adaptability. I'm just not convinced you won't end up with a drop in total wealth.
I would like to note the difference between paying people for doing nothing and paying people for being people. In the former, the more 'nothing' you do, the more you are paid.
I would like to note the difference between paying people for doing nothing and paying people for being people. In the former, the more 'nothing' you do, the more you are paid.
In addition to what you are doing, you are always doing nothing. I can't do anymore nothing that I am currently doing. I am always producing nothing at my peak nothing production. I doesn't matter if I spend 1 million hours of nothing production or ten seconds, my nothing produced is the same.
I don't really care how much time you spend doing something(or nothing), I care about how much you get done. I've tried to make that clear. Sorry if it is not.
EDIT: Once you start throwing out terms like "more nothing", I think you lose the right to play the "intuitive definition" card.
EDIT: hence the quote marks. I daresay the usual interpretation of being paid to do nothing entails not doing anything in order to receive said pay. Obviously, one can do less or more of whatever that something was.
[C'mon, Feral. It's not like the US can afford to implement the same level of social programs as such an economic powerhouse as a sub-Saharan African village.
It took me awhile to find it, but I don't think the money came from the African village. Do you see differently?
I assume it actually came from the national government. I was mostly just snarking.
/dons serious hat
I would assume that the economic intricacies of the US would vary from those of both an African village and a single Canadian city in ways such that it's impossible to tell precisely what would happen were that program implemented on a national scale in a powerful economy. But I think it's compelling evidence that it at least wouldn't completely break capitalism, or whatever nightmarish event some people are predicting.
I honestly think that is the only way to SAVE capitalism.
I agree. Too much focus on lowest cost has driven out most of the demand for labor. Without demand/supply for labor, you don't have demand for goods and services, if I understand my basic economics properly, right? Or rather, you have demand for goods and services, you just don't have a way to afford it.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So as long as I check in to the government and say I sent in some resumes, I'm kosher with you then?
Yep, fine with me. If someone will actually make that effort I am fine with it. I just can't reconcile the idea of wage just because everyone should have some money regardless of whether or not they need it. Being on Government assistance at least takes an amount of initiative to get going.
But you think they should get a wage regardless of whether or not they need it.
You just want them to fill out a form saying they do for some reason.
So as long as I check in to the government and say I sent in some resumes, I'm kosher with you then?
Yep, fine with me. If someone will actually make that effort I am fine with it. I just can't reconcile the idea of wage just because everyone should have some money regardless of whether or not they need it. Being on Government assistance at least takes an amount of initiative to get going.
But you think they should get a wage regardless of whether or not they need it.
You just want them to fill out a form saying they do for some reason.
I think filling out more forms is something we can all get behind, Quid.
Yeah, currently we're seeing a vicious cycle in the US when it comes to addressing demand. We have business leaders bitching about how they have to cut back on employment because their isn't demand, this has the nasty side effect of reducing demand even more when the people they lay off aren't able to support their former lifestyles. This is one of the reasons why it's better for the government to spend more during a recession instead of cutting, sadly many local governments in the US didn't get the memo on that.
I understand that people don't like freeloaders but they're going to exist in all systems that agree that it's morally wrong to tell people "fuck you, got mine, not go die in the street bum!" You should certainly try to minimize that issue. I currently would love to go back to school and get a four year degree now that I don't have health issues interfering with me doing stuff but I don't have the funds to do that. I'd love to get a job but I'm not have luck with that currently and getting screwed over by health issues has made that even worse because I don't have a good academic record on top of my work history gap. With a BIG, I could skip the step of getting a shitty part time job to fund things and just go back to school. I suspect a great number of people would either go back to school so they could get a high skill job, pick one of those crucial jobs that is needed by not glorified (electrician, plumber, mechanic, teacher, server, coach for kids sports teams, landscaper, carpenter ect) or go into an arts profession.
Now I want to point something that people conveniently ignore on the anti-BIG side, we have many wealthy people who can effectively sit out home paying someone to give them oral sex all day while watching TV and their wealth would still increase from interest alone. First off, most opt to do something because most humans being don't do well lazing about and some of them do some incredibly stupid things to kill time, like shopping for handbags as a hobby. Second, they aren't that different from people who are getting a BIG from the government, the only difference is their money is from wealth that their family accumulated before they hit 18. So the dignity of work kind of rings hallow when we consider that these people do exist.
Honestly, yes, it would need funding but when we factor in reduce crime and people being healthier both physically and mentally, I'm pretty sure that brings the costs done a decent amount. There is also the first point about how this would increase demand or keep it consistent enough that the process could keep going once you get the tax structure in place. we do have like 1% of people who control a majority of the wealth in this country, who wouldn't be terribly inconvenienced if taxes were raised on them given that they have obscene amounts of money just sitting in foreign bank accounts.
One of the questions we should be asking is how much is too much. Is it such a great thing, that the sky is the limit for how much money people can accumulate for dick waving purposes while people want to work starve on the street for lack of money because the pursuit of profit made them obsolete/superfluous? I have to say no and frankly, it kind of disgusts me because I come from a background where being uber rich isn't considered the end all be all because there is more to life than money.
I would like to note the difference between paying people for doing nothing and paying people for being people. In the former, the more 'nothing' you do, the more you are paid.
In addition to what you are doing, you are always doing nothing. I can't do anymore nothing that I am currently doing. I am always producing nothing at my peak nothing production. I doesn't matter if I spend 1 million hours of nothing production or ten seconds, my nothing produced is the same.
You may not like the wording, but it is accurate.
It's not actually accurate. If one is doing something, then one is not doing nothing. So, your first sentence is fallacious.
Your second sentence builds upon that fallacious notion from the first sentence. You are not currently doing nothing if you are doing something.
Third sentence expresses another problem in your thought: one cannot produce nothing. Production always results in a something.
It doesn't make much sense to talk of producing nothing.
One of the questions we should be asking is how much is too much. Is it such a great thing, that the sky is the limit for how much money people can accumulate for dick waving purposes while people want to work starve on the street for lack of money because the pursuit of profit made them obsolete/superfluous? I have to say no and frankly, it kind of disgusts me because I come from a background where being uber rich isn't considered the end all be all because there is more to life than money.
Practically speaking, see how far you get running on these principles. Huey Long, anyone?
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I'm ok with people who can't, i'm not ok with people who won't.
I think allowing a person who is able to contribute to contribute nothing, is not only a waste but utility drain on those who do contribute.
Thought experiment time. Will Hunting is a boy genius who can work as a research physicist solving the world’s most difficult problems, if he so chooses, but he won’t. He’d rather dig ditches, creating so little surplus wealth that he can barely afford to feed himself. But he’s working.
Stoner McGuffin is physically capable of getting a job digging ditches (and not much else). But he won’t. He’d rather sleep under a bridge, and every now and then go in for a hot meal and a bed at a government-run homeless shelter.
Are you OK with the first example but not the second? Why? In both situations those people won’t create as much societal value as they’re able to. They’re both committing the same sins, but one is ‘working’ and one is not.
To get my little Socratic moment out of the way: if you think situation A is probably OK but situation B is not, then the only thing I think you can justify such a position with is a moral dislike of idleness. In both situations these people are not contributing as much as they could for their own reasons.
The moral attachment to work for work’s sake will outlive its usefulness.
If you came away from this thread with the idea that I think it is ok to use skilled labor in an unskilled job, it is likely because you didn't actually read a single thing i posted.
Attributed to Ronya, but it was my quote.
I did read what you posted. And my example was simple, but from your response you seem to indicate that you're not ok with people choosing their employment, which is interesting.
A simple example, so I'm not going to read too deeply into it.
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
As a side note; what about trust fund babies/people who live off of royalties/investment brokers who have a team of people earning money for them so they never have to work? If we're really going all "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" then we should be requiring constant surveillance on rich people to make sure they are being productive or else they don't deserve that paycheck. I'd better see some job applications from those trust fund babies!
Yeah, I realize it's your taxes that pay for people on welfare and that's not the case with rich people (although, at most 9 cents from every tax dollar you spend is going to welfare programs -- sorry about that $50-80/year! You should definitely feel entitled to have some say over which people on welfare programs get your .000005 cents and which people don't) but that's not the point I'm making here. If you see work as the end and not the means, or as a moral good in and of itself, you can't just judge poor people by that metric.
This too. From my point of view, people demanding that people must work (because money for just existing is a horrible thing) must surely be OK with inheritance taxes of 100%. It's no good to inherit money, because you need to work to get money.
I'm always torn on inheritance taxes, because on the one side I think that the person receiving that wealth didn't actually earn it (they just came from the right womb*), but on the other hand I think people should be free to do with (including dispose of) their assets as they choose, and death seems a somewhat arbitrary line to draw and say well after this point you can no longer do that. This thread isn't about inheritance taxes though.
The ideas are related, though, if you read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice, which I recommend to everyone if you can get a hold of it. He suggests that, in a state of nature (as opposed to civilisation), there is sufficient land that everyone born has a natural inheritance of land that they can utilise to live a good life (since so much of the land is unoccupied). Following civilisation, however, everyone born loses this natural inheritance (since the land has all been appropriated in previous generations and then passed down through hereditary title etc.). Since all wealth flows essentially from land and its resources (I'm aware this particular part of the argument is unsound with more modern knowledge), a wealth tax is justified, to enable redistribution to everyone to compensate them for their loss of any natural inheritance.
Take-home point: basic income financed by land tax.
*For similar reasons I support much freer migration than is currently the norm in most countries.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
Uh, i read that. So, in your model, you think there is no force causing the cost of capital to rise, correct?
But every time the question is asked "where does this money come from" the answer is, "Rich people who don't work!". Which to me means, we're gonna tax capital. Which, unless i miss my mark, should raise the cost of capital.
I'm ok with people who can't, i'm not ok with people who won't.
I think allowing a person who is able to contribute to contribute nothing, is not only a waste but utility drain on those who do contribute.
Thought experiment time. Will Hunting is a boy genius who can work as a research physicist solving the world’s most difficult problems, if he so chooses, but he won’t. He’d rather dig ditches, creating so little surplus wealth that he can barely afford to feed himself. But he’s working.
Stoner McGuffin is physically capable of getting a job digging ditches (and not much else). But he won’t. He’d rather sleep under a bridge, and every now and then go in for a hot meal and a bed at a government-run homeless shelter.
Are you OK with the first example but not the second? Why? In both situations those people won’t create as much societal value as they’re able to. They’re both committing the same sins, but one is ‘working’ and one is not.
To get my little Socratic moment out of the way: if you think situation A is probably OK but situation B is not, then the only thing I think you can justify such a position with is a moral dislike of idleness. In both situations these people are not contributing as much as they could for their own reasons.
The moral attachment to work for work’s sake will outlive its usefulness.
If you came away from this thread with the idea that I think it is ok to use skilled labor in an unskilled job, it is likely because you didn't actually read a single thing i posted.
Attributed to Ronya, but it was my quote.
I did read what you posted. And my example was simple, but from your response you seem to indicate that you're not ok with people choosing their employment, which is interesting.
A simple example, so I'm not going to read too deeply into it.
I'm OK with people choosing their employment, but I think people are rational actors for the most part. If you pay a skilled position more, give it more benefits, prestige, and other non-tangibles, skilled workers will choose skilled positions. An economist doesn't remove choice, they incentivize desired outcomes.
What's being ignored here is the fact that a lot of labor that requires a fuckload of skill and/or education does not pay well. I have two examples right here at the ready.
1) Welders. They start out making about $13/hr. Becoming one requires a very intense professional training or apprenticeship. And you get to spend all day working under very hot and uncomfortable conditions. Ironworkers have similar issues. It's like being a hot tar roofer, except you need to be very highly skilled/educated or else the roof will fall apart and you'll lose your $13/hr.! Awesome!
2) Musicians. This one is going to be a little more detailed since I actually am a part-time musician for a church in addition to my full-time job running chemical analyses and finishing up my degree, so this hits a little closer to home. I have lost track of the number of times somebody comes up to me after a show, says "that was awesome", and wants me to come out and perform for free, because I'm letting you do what you like to do, right?! And it's free exposure! If what you really liked to do was work in your garden, and someone told you that you should come out and landscape their property for them because they are totes letting you do what you enjoy, and if you do a good job they'll tell other people how you worked the earth for them for free and man it was awesome, you would laugh right in their stupid face. But musicians get this all the time, and I'm not talking about the terrible ones who practice in their mom's basement for a weekend and then try to score a gig (those people do exist). If you are a very skilled musician (and let's be honest, it's not something that the layman can do -- which puts in squarely into the category of skilled labor for me), your chances of getting picked up by a label or making your own and making enough income to live only off of your music are low, at best. So that leaves you with live music/tips/a cut of the door and merch/album sales to try and get some money.
What's being ignored here is the fact that a lot of labor that requires a fuckload of skill and/or education does not pay well. I have two examples right here at the ready.
1) Welders. They start out making about $13/hr. Becoming one requires a very intense professional training or apprenticeship. And you get to spend all day working under very hot and uncomfortable conditions. Ironworkers have similar issues. It's like being a hot tar roofer, except you need to be very highly skilled/educated or else the roof will fall apart and you'll lose your $13/hr.! Awesome!
There's also a shortage of skilled welders (worldwide), but companies refuse to raise wages! Hurrah!
As a side note; what about trust fund babies/people who live off of royalties/investment brokers who have a team of people earning money for them so they never have to work? If we're really going all "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" then we should be requiring constant surveillance on rich people to make sure they are being productive or else they don't deserve that paycheck. I'd better see some job applications from those trust fund babies!
Yeah, I realize it's your taxes that pay for people on welfare and that's not the case with rich people (although, at most 9 cents from every tax dollar you spend is going to welfare programs -- sorry about that $50-80/year! You should definitely feel entitled to have some say over which people on welfare programs get your .000005 cents and which people don't) but that's not the point I'm making here. If you see work as the end and not the means, or as a moral good in and of itself, you can't just judge poor people by that metric.
This too. From my point of view, people demanding that people must work (because money for just existing is a horrible thing) must surely be OK with inheritance taxes of 100%. It's no good to inherit money, because you need to work to get money.
I'm always torn on inheritance taxes, because on the one side I think that the person receiving that wealth didn't actually earn it (they just came from the right womb*), but on the other hand I think people should be free to do with (including dispose of) their assets as they choose, and death seems a somewhat arbitrary line to draw and say well after this point you can no longer do that. This thread isn't about inheritance taxes though.
The ideas are related, though, if you read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice, which I recommend to everyone if you can get a hold of it. He suggests that, in a state of nature (as opposed to civilisation), there is sufficient land that everyone born has a natural inheritance of land that they can utilise to live a good life (since so much of the land is unoccupied). Following civilisation, however, everyone born loses this natural inheritance (since the land has all been appropriated in previous generations and then passed down through hereditary title etc.). Since all wealth flows essentially from land and its resources (I'm aware this particular part of the argument is unsound with more modern knowledge), a wealth tax is justified, to enable redistribution to everyone to compensate them for their loss of any natural inheritance.
Take-home point: basic income financed by land tax.
*For similar reasons I support much freer migration than is currently the norm in most countries.
Inheritance tax of 100%? Unfair, if one of the things you want to do with your money is provide for the kids, hurrah
Inheritance tax of 0%? Unfair, the money is income, and the capital must be taxed at some point to prevent the emergence of endless family dynasties
So what we need is a fair inheritance tax. Probably at the exact same rate as earned income, but separate from it. So you get all your allowances etc again for the year if you inherit money.
2) Musicians. This one is going to be a little more detailed since I actually am a part-time musician for a church in addition to my full-time job running chemical analyses and finishing up my degree, so this hits a little closer to home. I have lost track of the number of times somebody comes up to me after a show, says "that was awesome", and wants me to come out and perform for free, because I'm letting you do what you like to do, right?! And it's free exposure! If what you really liked to do was work in your garden, and someone told you that you should come out and landscape their property for them because they are totes letting you do what you enjoy, and if you do a good job they'll tell other people how you worked the earth for them for free and man it was awesome, you would laugh right in their stupid face. But musicians get this all the time, and I'm not talking about the terrible ones who practice in their mom's basement for a weekend and then try to score a gig (those people do exist). If you are a very skilled musician (and let's be honest, it's not something that the layman can do -- which puts in squarely into the category of skilled labor for me), your chances of getting picked up by a label or making your own and making enough income to live only off of your music are low, at best. So that leaves you with live music/tips/a cut of the door and merch/album sales to try and get some money.
This is especially common in the IT/art/writing industries. I could make you a millionaire if I had $50 for every time someone asked me to fix their computer or do something for free for them. I hear artists (musicians included) have this the worst though. Because typically it's low paying in general and exposure is the absolute best way to keep doing it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
2) Musicians. This one is going to be a little more detailed since I actually am a part-time musician for a church in addition to my full-time job running chemical analyses and finishing up my degree, so this hits a little closer to home. I have lost track of the number of times somebody comes up to me after a show, says "that was awesome", and wants me to come out and perform for free, because I'm letting you do what you like to do, right?! And it's free exposure! If what you really liked to do was work in your garden, and someone told you that you should come out and landscape their property for them because they are totes letting you do what you enjoy, and if you do a good job they'll tell other people how you worked the earth for them for free and man it was awesome, you would laugh right in their stupid face. But musicians get this all the time, and I'm not talking about the terrible ones who practice in their mom's basement for a weekend and then try to score a gig (those people do exist). If you are a very skilled musician (and let's be honest, it's not something that the layman can do -- which puts in squarely into the category of skilled labor for me), your chances of getting picked up by a label or making your own and making enough income to live only off of your music are low, at best. So that leaves you with live music/tips/a cut of the door and merch/album sales to try and get some money.
This is especially common in the IT/art/writing industries. I could make you a millionaire if I had $50 for every time someone asked me to fix their computer or do something for free for them. I hear artists (musicians included) have this the worst though. Because typically it's low paying in general and exposure is the absolute best way to keep doing it.
Oh, I do IT too, and you're absolutely correct.
"My computer is busted, can you fix it? Because we're best friends."
2) Musicians. This one is going to be a little more detailed since I actually am a part-time musician for a church in addition to my full-time job running chemical analyses and finishing up my degree, so this hits a little closer to home. I have lost track of the number of times somebody comes up to me after a show, says "that was awesome", and wants me to come out and perform for free, because I'm letting you do what you like to do, right?! And it's free exposure! If what you really liked to do was work in your garden, and someone told you that you should come out and landscape their property for them because they are totes letting you do what you enjoy, and if you do a good job they'll tell other people how you worked the earth for them for free and man it was awesome, you would laugh right in their stupid face. But musicians get this all the time, and I'm not talking about the terrible ones who practice in their mom's basement for a weekend and then try to score a gig (those people do exist). If you are a very skilled musician (and let's be honest, it's not something that the layman can do -- which puts in squarely into the category of skilled labor for me), your chances of getting picked up by a label or making your own and making enough income to live only off of your music are low, at best. So that leaves you with live music/tips/a cut of the door and merch/album sales to try and get some money.
This is especially common in the IT/art/writing industries. I could make you a millionaire if I had $50 for every time someone asked me to fix their computer or do something for free for them. I hear artists (musicians included) have this the worst though. Because typically it's low paying in general and exposure is the absolute best way to keep doing it.
I charge 20 bucks, and solve 90% of all problems in under a minute. I LOVE it when people ask me to fix their computer.
Posts
Does the study track hours worked? Because I didn't see that in the data.
I don't know. I think it would have mentioned it if the village had a huge problem with marketplaces only being open 2 hours a day. For some people (like me) one of the reasons to support this is to help people work fewer hours a day while still being able to make ends meet.
Again, this is not exactly new information or a GID only occurrence. When you inject money into a poor population(and actually get it to them), the growth is greater than the amount of money injected.
The corollary is, sucking money out of a population shrinks the economy by more than the amount of money sucked out.
It said most of the growth were people becoming self employed, which could mean anything.
The real question i have is, if you pay people to do nothing, does less get done?
C'mon, Feral. It's not like the US can afford to implement the same level of social programs as such an economic powerhouse as a sub-Saharan African village.
It took me awhile to find it, but I don't think the money came from the African village. Do you see differently?
The PDF linked established a number of positive economic outcomes across the entire community, including increased employment and increased self-employment. That alone makes it unlikely that the aggregate hours worked by the community overall was reduced.
But let's say that there were fewer hours worked overall. Why should we care?
Do you assume that, regardless of larger-scale economic outcomes, fewer hours worked is intrinsically bad?
For instance, if a farmer spent his BIG on an ox and a new yoke and plow and was able to perform as much tilling in 2 hours as he would otherwise do in 8, is that a bad thing?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to reply in earnest.
That reply is: I don't know! The financial feasibility of a BIG in the US isn't really something I'm prepared to defend.
My purpose in posting that link was to specifically counter arguments that a BIG would result in higher unemployment, or in less wealth created, or in otherwise undesirable utilitarian outcomes due to human laziness.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I assume it actually came from the national government. I was mostly just snarking.
/dons serious hat
I would assume that the economic intricacies of the US would vary from those of both an African village and a single Canadian city in ways such that it's impossible to tell precisely what would happen were that program implemented on a national scale in a powerful economy. But I think it's compelling evidence that it at least wouldn't completely break capitalism, or whatever nightmarish event some people are predicting.
Uh, you missed my question. I wanted to know if less gets done. If you want to argue that getting things done is more important than working hours, then you and I are on the same page.
Oh, okay, sorry. I'm a bit sensitive to what Solvent called 'the fetishization of work' so I misinterpreted your post.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
From what i understood, it came from foreign aid groups.
I've never thought it would break capitalism, one of the major aspects of capitalism is its resilience and adaptability. I'm just not convinced you won't end up with a drop in total wealth.
In addition to what you are doing, you are always doing nothing. I can't do anymore nothing that I am currently doing. I am always producing nothing at my peak nothing production. I doesn't matter if I spend 1 million hours of nothing production or ten seconds, my nothing produced is the same.
You may not like the wording, but it is accurate.
EDIT: Once you start throwing out terms like "more nothing", I think you lose the right to play the "intuitive definition" card.
I did reply to your question on page 5.
EDIT: hence the quote marks. I daresay the usual interpretation of being paid to do nothing entails not doing anything in order to receive said pay. Obviously, one can do less or more of whatever that something was.
The more nothing you say, the more agrees you get.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I honestly think that is the only way to SAVE capitalism.
But you think they should get a wage regardless of whether or not they need it.
You just want them to fill out a form saying they do for some reason.
I think filling out more forms is something we can all get behind, Quid.
I understand that people don't like freeloaders but they're going to exist in all systems that agree that it's morally wrong to tell people "fuck you, got mine, not go die in the street bum!" You should certainly try to minimize that issue. I currently would love to go back to school and get a four year degree now that I don't have health issues interfering with me doing stuff but I don't have the funds to do that. I'd love to get a job but I'm not have luck with that currently and getting screwed over by health issues has made that even worse because I don't have a good academic record on top of my work history gap. With a BIG, I could skip the step of getting a shitty part time job to fund things and just go back to school. I suspect a great number of people would either go back to school so they could get a high skill job, pick one of those crucial jobs that is needed by not glorified (electrician, plumber, mechanic, teacher, server, coach for kids sports teams, landscaper, carpenter ect) or go into an arts profession.
Now I want to point something that people conveniently ignore on the anti-BIG side, we have many wealthy people who can effectively sit out home paying someone to give them oral sex all day while watching TV and their wealth would still increase from interest alone. First off, most opt to do something because most humans being don't do well lazing about and some of them do some incredibly stupid things to kill time, like shopping for handbags as a hobby. Second, they aren't that different from people who are getting a BIG from the government, the only difference is their money is from wealth that their family accumulated before they hit 18. So the dignity of work kind of rings hallow when we consider that these people do exist.
Honestly, yes, it would need funding but when we factor in reduce crime and people being healthier both physically and mentally, I'm pretty sure that brings the costs done a decent amount. There is also the first point about how this would increase demand or keep it consistent enough that the process could keep going once you get the tax structure in place. we do have like 1% of people who control a majority of the wealth in this country, who wouldn't be terribly inconvenienced if taxes were raised on them given that they have obscene amounts of money just sitting in foreign bank accounts.
One of the questions we should be asking is how much is too much. Is it such a great thing, that the sky is the limit for how much money people can accumulate for dick waving purposes while people want to work starve on the street for lack of money because the pursuit of profit made them obsolete/superfluous? I have to say no and frankly, it kind of disgusts me because I come from a background where being uber rich isn't considered the end all be all because there is more to life than money.
It's not actually accurate. If one is doing something, then one is not doing nothing. So, your first sentence is fallacious.
Your second sentence builds upon that fallacious notion from the first sentence. You are not currently doing nothing if you are doing something.
Third sentence expresses another problem in your thought: one cannot produce nothing. Production always results in a something.
It doesn't make much sense to talk of producing nothing.
_J_, you're a philosophy major. You should have plenty of experience in producing nothing.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And yet I have all these somethings. I have no nothings!
Practically speaking, see how far you get running on these principles. Huey Long, anyone?
Attributed to Ronya, but it was my quote.
I did read what you posted. And my example was simple, but from your response you seem to indicate that you're not ok with people choosing their employment, which is interesting.
A simple example, so I'm not going to read too deeply into it.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
This too. From my point of view, people demanding that people must work (because money for just existing is a horrible thing) must surely be OK with inheritance taxes of 100%. It's no good to inherit money, because you need to work to get money.
I'm always torn on inheritance taxes, because on the one side I think that the person receiving that wealth didn't actually earn it (they just came from the right womb*), but on the other hand I think people should be free to do with (including dispose of) their assets as they choose, and death seems a somewhat arbitrary line to draw and say well after this point you can no longer do that. This thread isn't about inheritance taxes though.
The ideas are related, though, if you read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice, which I recommend to everyone if you can get a hold of it. He suggests that, in a state of nature (as opposed to civilisation), there is sufficient land that everyone born has a natural inheritance of land that they can utilise to live a good life (since so much of the land is unoccupied). Following civilisation, however, everyone born loses this natural inheritance (since the land has all been appropriated in previous generations and then passed down through hereditary title etc.). Since all wealth flows essentially from land and its resources (I'm aware this particular part of the argument is unsound with more modern knowledge), a wealth tax is justified, to enable redistribution to everyone to compensate them for their loss of any natural inheritance.
Take-home point: basic income financed by land tax.
*For similar reasons I support much freer migration than is currently the norm in most countries.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
only philosophical somethings can be simultaneously nothings
its the basis of philosophical prostitution
Uh, i read that. So, in your model, you think there is no force causing the cost of capital to rise, correct?
But every time the question is asked "where does this money come from" the answer is, "Rich people who don't work!". Which to me means, we're gonna tax capital. Which, unless i miss my mark, should raise the cost of capital.
So, to your answer I say. Huh?
I'm OK with people choosing their employment, but I think people are rational actors for the most part. If you pay a skilled position more, give it more benefits, prestige, and other non-tangibles, skilled workers will choose skilled positions. An economist doesn't remove choice, they incentivize desired outcomes.
1) Welders. They start out making about $13/hr. Becoming one requires a very intense professional training or apprenticeship. And you get to spend all day working under very hot and uncomfortable conditions. Ironworkers have similar issues. It's like being a hot tar roofer, except you need to be very highly skilled/educated or else the roof will fall apart and you'll lose your $13/hr.! Awesome!
2) Musicians. This one is going to be a little more detailed since I actually am a part-time musician for a church in addition to my full-time job running chemical analyses and finishing up my degree, so this hits a little closer to home. I have lost track of the number of times somebody comes up to me after a show, says "that was awesome", and wants me to come out and perform for free, because I'm letting you do what you like to do, right?! And it's free exposure! If what you really liked to do was work in your garden, and someone told you that you should come out and landscape their property for them because they are totes letting you do what you enjoy, and if you do a good job they'll tell other people how you worked the earth for them for free and man it was awesome, you would laugh right in their stupid face. But musicians get this all the time, and I'm not talking about the terrible ones who practice in their mom's basement for a weekend and then try to score a gig (those people do exist). If you are a very skilled musician (and let's be honest, it's not something that the layman can do -- which puts in squarely into the category of skilled labor for me), your chances of getting picked up by a label or making your own and making enough income to live only off of your music are low, at best. So that leaves you with live music/tips/a cut of the door and merch/album sales to try and get some money.
There's also a shortage of skilled welders (worldwide), but companies refuse to raise wages! Hurrah!
Inheritance tax of 100%? Unfair, if one of the things you want to do with your money is provide for the kids, hurrah
Inheritance tax of 0%? Unfair, the money is income, and the capital must be taxed at some point to prevent the emergence of endless family dynasties
So what we need is a fair inheritance tax. Probably at the exact same rate as earned income, but separate from it. So you get all your allowances etc again for the year if you inherit money.
This is especially common in the IT/art/writing industries. I could make you a millionaire if I had $50 for every time someone asked me to fix their computer or do something for free for them. I hear artists (musicians included) have this the worst though. Because typically it's low paying in general and exposure is the absolute best way to keep doing it.
Oh, I do IT too, and you're absolutely correct.
"My computer is busted, can you fix it? Because we're best friends."
"I just met you last week."
I charge 20 bucks, and solve 90% of all problems in under a minute. I LOVE it when people ask me to fix their computer.