This article concludes by saying the best form of state intervention is "universal [healthcare] coverage". Why not both? It is only a very small far-right minority of basic income advocates who advocate eliminating the state's role in healthcare. If the argument is simply that enacting basic income will drain the political will to defend or enhance other needed government programs, then it's not so much an argument against basic income as an argument of political priorities. I even agree that universal healthcare is a much more attainable and impactful near term target, but that doesn't mean that basic income is "bullshit".
Enough with Basic Income
41–50 of 214 posts
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#42> You have to fill in many papers, prove that you don’t have sufficient income or any valuable property, go through many humiliating and intrusive controls. If you want to earn (a small amount of) money without working, then you must endure it all. In most cases it is necessary to seek the help of a social worker to carry out the procedure in its entirety. Funny how the article zeroes in on this as a criticism of bas…
Another things I noticed is how it pointed out how France's system of basic income gave people less incentive to work and thus contributed to 10% unemployment. Isn't that also another reason many people advocate for basic income since with all our technological advancement it shouldn't actually be a requirement for everyone to work? Isn't that proof that basic income is having it's desired effect despite what appears…
how France's system of basic income gave people less incentive to work
As a regular reader of mondaynote.com (and so therefore an expert), I have the impression that France has many other obstacles to entrepreneurship. Like their labor laws.
It seems to me that universal basic income, alongside universal health care and other reforms, would greatly reduce the need for stultifying labor laws. More simply, employers could hire and fire as needed.
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have to fill in many papers, prove that you don’t have sufficient income or any valuable property, go through many humiliating and intrusive controls. If you want to earn (a small amount of) money without working, then you must endure it all. In most cases it is necessary to seek the help of a social worker to carry out the procedure in its entirety. This is exactly the reason I want basic income. I want nobody…
And what happens in the very long term? What happens when kids are raised with the attitude that they are guaranteed to survive on basic income? What happens when their number grows? What happens when that large group feels that bare survival doesn't cut it any more and want more? What happens if the numbers actually don't pan out but scared politicians doon't want to give up power and cook the books for decades? Rem…
Your comment made me a bit sad because I read it as "What happens when those who struggle everyday to survive no longer have to?" - I understand your fear of entitlement etc... but I don't think things could get much worse than where we are now. For instance, "affluenza" is an acceptable excuse for killing a person in the US.
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#44"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program" - Roosevelt
A Basic Income program is unrepealable after enough time(say 20 years) has passed. People are terrible at making decisions: They don't save money, they run up their credit cards, they don't invest. A BI program limits the damage that their bad decisions can cause.
Even $800/month would wildly distort decision making. I don't think that a lot of people who've been receiving it their whole life are going to be in a position to function independently if you try to repeal it. There are going to be too many single mothers crying "How will I make my rent?" if you take it away. Even if they otherwise would've managed without it.
A law that's a one-way ratchet requires extraordinary evidence before you even consider it. It doesn't matter if it has a positive expected value, or the models say it will probably work; the risk that it won't deliver on its promises is too high, and we'll be stuck with it forever.
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#45He is spot on with those "ad hominim attacks". Based on what is written on HN people in that group haven't got a clue about politics.
So tell me again why that shouldn't be taken into account when judging their position?
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#46This guy just seems upset that people are offering up a solution to tech-related job loss that isn't with traditional welfare solution proposed by the team he cheers for.
He didn't spent a lot of time offering up specific arguments against basic income, but rather on background, and the primary arguments he has are to me some of the strongest arguments for BI:
1) He worries about division and polarization. Well, BI is the only solution that I'm aware of that draws on support from both the libertarian right (strong support, mostly) and liberal left (many support, but some are suspicious like this guy). No other solution to the jobless future can boast of support from both sides of the political spectrum.
2) Oddly, the quote from Olaf Palme he offers up as a critique of basic income reads to me as strong support:
"An efficient and stable welfare state must be based on universal social programs,
such as health insurance, pensions, and child-support allowances-programs that are directed to all citizens.
Official “poverty lines” or “means-tests” would not have to define “the poor” (which would minimize the need for bureaucratic controls).
At the same time, people in difficult financial circumstances would not have to put up with the degrading classification of “poor.”"
In fact, it's completely unclear to me after reading this whole damn essay why he is so strongly in opposition to the point where he wants people to stop discussing it altogether, other than it's not the favored solution of his team.
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#47FTA "...we have long known that technology destroys jobs..." Should I even bother to continue reading after that? After all, what we actually know is that technology creates jobs, like the ones that I and a large number of people I know have had.
> "Should I even bother to continue reading after that? After all, what we actually know is that technology creates jobs, like the ones that I and a large number of people I know have had."
For an alternative view, I like the horses example in this video...
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#48Basic Income (aka universal welfare) is bullshit because it is authoritarian. It depends on throwing people who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade in prison, where they are confined like captive animals, so that the rest of the population is cowed into handing over the demanded amount. Likewise, the author's arguments for social welfare are bullshit: >There are two reasons why t…
>> "it is authoritarian. It depends on throwing people who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade in prison" If that's what you believe then any tax would meet the criteria and you would have to consider almost every government in the world authoritarian. Is that the case?
Not all taxes demand a share of the currency we receive in private trade. A split rate property tax for example does not require making such a demand. My preference is to replace all taxes with user fees for use of government services and assets (like roads), and a heavy split rate property tax, and compensate property owners for the loss of value in their real estate that this tax shift causes.
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have to fill in many papers, prove that you don’t have sufficient income or any valuable property, go through many humiliating and intrusive controls. If you want to earn (a small amount of) money without working, then you must endure it all. In most cases it is necessary to seek the help of a social worker to carry out the procedure in its entirety. This is exactly the reason I want basic income. I want nobody…
>> It is not like we can't afford it. Have you looked at the US Economy lately? (Jan 2016) Why 2016 keeps getting uglier for US economy - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier... (April 2016) Americans' confidence in economy at 2016 low - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-con... (June 2016) The next recession is already here—and there isn't much the Fed can do - http://ww…
I'm all for a basic income for lower income families
Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now.
Re: Enough with Basic Income
#50Basic Income (aka universal welfare) is bullshit because it is authoritarian. It depends on throwing people who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade in prison, where they are confined like captive animals, so that the rest of the population is cowed into handing over the demanded amount. Likewise, the author's arguments for social welfare are bullshit: >There are two reasons why t…
> That does not explain why we have to resort to state intervention.
Having a country where people fall, through no fault of their own (unless you count their genetics), to such an extent that they live in tents and sewers is enough indication that there's inadequate state protection.