A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:47 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #159

yummyfajitas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just wealthier people who will be worse off - it's everyone. Basic income is known to create a large disincentive for work. In previous experiments (Mincome) labor supply dropped by about 10% - double what happened during the great recession. This means that fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. No matter how much money you give to peop…

Except it's not simple arithmetic, because the normal economy doesn't count - cannot assign - a value to work done for yourself or your family. Someone going out to work and paying a large fraction of their income for child care is counted, whereas someone staying home and looking after their children is not. Only the first has value in an economic sense. Is it the only work that has value in a moral sense?

Post by redsummer » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:48 AM UTC

arximboldi wrote: post #23

amelius wrote: post #5

I'm still wondering about one thing: if everybody has a basic income, then who will be doing the dirty jobs like collecting our waste? Will the price for waste collecting go up? And will there then be a kind of economic "inversion", where the intellectual people prefer to work on interesting stuff at the expense of money, while the "non-intellectual" (need a better word here) people will make all the money doing the…

I don't know if that would actually be the case, but if it were, the question would be: is it actually a bad thing? I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste [1]. In fact, it is normal that as our society gets more educated and the supply of unskilled workers goes down, a lot of hard manual labor will become expensive. This is already the case with mining,…

Post by pessimizer » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:49 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #146

gjm11 wrote: post #99

This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…

It's not just wealthier people who will be worse off - it's everyone. Basic income is known to create a large disincentive for work. In previous experiments (Mincome) labor supply dropped by about 10% - double what happened during the great recession. This means that fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. No matter how much money you give to peop…

Post by wiz21c » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:49 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #152

gjm11 wrote: post #99

This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…

I'm one of the people who supports excluding people under the age of eighteen from basic income.

Post by pessimizer » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:50 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #181

lostcolony wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you finding a drop of 10%? All I can find is "On the whole, the research results were encouraging to those who favour a GAI. The reduction in work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women. These are small effects in absolute terms and they are also smaller than the effects observed in the four US experiments, a result that once again conf…

"The total amount of work hours decreased by only 13%." https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money... Either way, whether it's 13% or 5%, it makes us all poorer. The Namibia experiment is not remotely comparable. That was a) a transfer of wealth from outside the community into it (closer to imperialism than redistribution), b) poverty in Namibia is not remotely like poverty in the US, and c) a big c…