Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

basicincomecanada.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 259 posts

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#21

Post by sanxiyn »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

What this seems to say is that people shouldn't starve, but to get food people should demonstrate that they are starving. I am unsure why demonstration is essential, because either way others are still obligated to provide food so that people aren't starving.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#22

Post by erpellan »

pmalynin wrote: post #11
ep103 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the reports I've seen have stated that actually, it works the other way around. That the vast majority of people who go into entrepreneurship only do so if they have money to fall back on, one way or another, should their business fail. So by that logic, basic income should actually significantly increase the likelihood of entrepreneurship, because while mincome will still be low enough that people will want…

I think there was a bit on NPR a few months ago that discussed the idea that having a fallback will make you work and try less exactly for the same reason. I think having the "cornered animal" type of drive goes a long way.

By that logic productivity in all industries could be improved by introducing flogging / periodic executions of lowest performing staff.

What's more likely: someone takes a risk knowing that if they fail their kids won't be homeless, or knowing that if they fail, they will be?

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#23

Post by thescriptkiddie »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

>at least acknowledge that people have to demonstrate need to be the recipients of government handouts

The entire point of universal basic income is that no such need exists, and pretending that it does is the reason that our current system is failing.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#24

Post by moron4hire »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

At least some of the budget would come from realizing reductions in bureaucratic overhead from eliminating the welfare apparatus and costs associated with crime (which poverty is the biggest predictor of).

We also always seem to have enough money to bomb the ever living shit out of brown people in all the far flung regions of the universe, so I don't understand why cost should ever be an issue.

I don't think need is either an important issue. The problem with your last sentence is that it "no right to income" implies "no right to feed one's self", i.e. "no right to live." Do people deserve to starve to death just because they are lazy?

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#25

Post by jedbrown »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

Are states divided into two groups -- the givers and the takers? http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-st...

The sign on your tax return seems much less of a class divide than whether you spend every waking moment trying to afford food and shelter.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#26

Post by pmontra »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

> those who are net recipients of government money, and those who are net contributors

Don't we already have this? Example: people working for the state vs people working in private companies.

> you imply that others are obligated to provide them with that income

I'm not sure that this is a consequence but let's suppose it is. It's already happened in that context for millenia, peacefully at least until everybody agreed that it was a good deal for both parties.

Is basic income a good deal for all parties? There are some experiments running or about to start. We'll see.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#27

Post by yummyfajitas »

It's extremely counterproductive to, as the article puts it, "take the question of the moral quality of the poor off the table."

The fact is that a large amount of poverty is directly correlated with "moral quality". Most poor people in the US (maybe Canada is different?) have low "moral quality", which I define as engaging in behaviors that are likely to keep a person poor. These behaviors include not seeking work [1], substance abuse [2], single motherhood [3] and crime [4] (including crimes with no economic motive such as intimate partner violence).

There are direct causal relationships between all of these behaviors and poverty. Not seeking work will result in not having a job, drug abuse will make you lose your job, and having no job makes you poor. Etc.

Why would we want to take the primary cause of poverty off the table if our goal is to solve it?

It's almost as if this guy's primary goal is to create a vote bank of government dependents rather than reduce poverty.

[1] http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication...

[2] http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2013MHDetTabs... https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/adultsmoking/

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-Marriage... http://www.economics21.org/html/great-gatsby-curve-revisited...

[4] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#28

Post by kasbah »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

You can't put a dollar value on a lot of contributions towards society. For instance artists, for now, need to try and sell their work but a lot of cultural works are not necessarily sell-able.

It also seems to me that, due to our racist and sexist history, there is a massive wage inequality geared towards industries that are dominated by white males. Who is paying for whom here?

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#29

Post by throw2016 »

You only get one life and anything that let's everyone and not just those born to privilege get a shot at doing more than just surviving can only be a good thing.

It may unlock a whole new level of untapped human creativity and potential leading to a happier and perhaps more dynamic and productive society.

There is a risk of focussing on narrower narratives rooted in the current economic context and missing the proverbial woods for the trees. Maybe freed of that bigger ideas can emerge.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#30

Post by k__ »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

> it's going to split the population into two groups

Isn't the point of UBI, that everyone gets the money? Not only those who don't work.

Post reply on HN