Uber for Welfare

Why? BI does not increase money supply, it takes from the rich and gives to the poor. An increase in the money supply is the only thing pretty much guaranteed to increase inflation.

BI will definitely have localized effects on prices. It may increase money velocity, which could cause inflation. However, that's not "without question", and almost definitely wouldn't "put us in the same position as before"

If a person chooses to be toxic to those around them, why is that a behavior that should result in us giving them money?

Lets make this concrete. Consider a racist who chooses to be an asshole to every non-white person around them, and who also lives in a very diverse area such as Silicon Valley or NYC (and refuses to move to a very white area). They are also sexist to all the women who choose to work outside the home as well. Their voluntarily chosen behavior patterns leave them unemployable.

Why is this person deserving of free money taken from productive people of color who choose to pleasantly work for the benefit of others?

(I have of course chosen this person to be as offensive to left wing sensibilities as possible.)

In regards to your first sentence. Surely you don't believe that every person who can be employed can find work.

I do actually believe vastly more people could be working than currently are, because I used to live in India and I saw vastly higher labor utilization. There are a huge number of jobs that simply don't get done in the US.

E.g., I have a maid clean my flat twice a month, but I'd like it done twice a week (or daily, like most Indian professionals do). However, labor is simply too scarce in the US for that to be reasonable. Perhaps some of those welfare recipients who are "great to be around" can find me and help me out, should we implement the author's proposal.

However, if such a proposal only puts half the people on welfare back to work, that's still a good outcome.

So what?

If we were to impose some cap on income (say $1B/year) would it suddenly be "exploitative" to charge any income tax? If not, then this argument is a red herring.

Would you say that it is overall a value positive transaction?

Yes.

Of course, your analogy is silly - a better comparison would be a resort near the desert which charges $2.50 for a bottle of water. All anyone is proposing is that welfare people get a job that pays the same rates that the workers supporting them get paid.

Not immediately, but eventually. Also depends greatly on the person. Plenty of people making 100k+ work paycheck to paycheck, and will be in the exact position a poor person would be in (relying on credit, missing payments) immediately after losing their work. Put simply, I'm calling you on this: most people in this forum do work under threat of either losing housing/food or relying on some safety net without a job. I make really good money, and without work I'd probably be screwed in a year or two, assuming I'm willing to borrow heavily first.

> Are they just better human beings than the poor who must be threatened in order to create value? Or have we built enough capital of one type or another to make the transaction of our time and effort and application of our capital worth it? An improvement of our lot?

None of the above. Working for food, shelter, and transportation, just like everyone else.

> If all of us more fortunate creatures were told that we'd never turn a profit for our efforts, how many of us would put in that effort? I would wager not many (a situation that plagued most of those socialist systems you mentioned). The poor are put in a situation where they are asked to work but never profit. They must work to limit their loss. They must work to merely not die.

Once again, calling you on this. Unlike the socialist systems, in our system even the poor can accumulate savings and wealth, albeit at a slower rate. After I graduated school, I lived cheaply enough that I could have accumulated savings on a McDonald's wage, if I had needed to. It's all a matter of personal choices, fiscal discipline, and fiscal education. Maybe we should focus on adding appropriate personal finance education to school curriculum as a way to help people get away from the cycle of debt.

> It is little wonder that we have people that prefer welfare and don't do much to better their position because the alternative is to spend their time and effort pushing for -- nothing.

I've seen people making 100k+ spend so foolishly that they are effectively 'pushing for nothing' (zero or negative net assets). I've seen people making 20k/ea spend so wisely that they can buy a house, a car, have a child, and save. Hardly 'nothing.'

> What I would push for is not Socialism -- which is where everybody owns the means of production which is dragging everyone down into that same pitiable state of never being able harvest your own profit for your own efforts -- but merely giving the poor a guarantee that they will not die or be in pain -- enough food, housing, medical care to live.

Hey, if I could have all of those things guaranteed, even I might consider sitting around exercising my (low-cost) hobbies all day. Not beneficial to society. Also, guaranteeing those things to one class of people means threatening another with imprisonment if they don't remit a significant portion of their income to that class -- are you OK with that?

> Those that need their labor will then have to entice them to work. They have to look at how much their labor is worth to them and try and pay them based on how much profit they can wring from the value they can create -- like lawyers are paid, engineers, management, skilled workers, professionals...literally everyone else.

Trust me, professionals are only partially paid based on the profit they generate. Yes, if they were not generating profit their jobs would be eliminated, just like many lower paid jobs are automated when faced with forced wage increases. However, their salaries are set as a function of labor demand vs. labor supply, just like everyone else's. I teach SW development classes at a local college as a side-job, and I can tell you that people struggle with professional programs vs. other majors. My wife is completing a second degree, an associates in Nursing. She has commented repeatedly how she's had to work way harder to get this nursing degree than her 4-year bachelors, which was not a hard science degree (these days, nursing definitely is a hard science degree). These fields have high pay because the number of people willing and able to get into them is low, and the demand for them is high.

> It's not crazy, it is how 3/4s of the population in the US conducts business. It is just an extension of that strong bargaining position in the free market to those in danger of having to work for less than their time is worth for no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die. It may mean that I have to take it on a bit of faith, but I trust that 1/4 at the bottom will work to better their position just like the rest of us if given the chance. I don't think we're any better, when it comes down to it.

For the reasons stated above, I disagree with the proposition that a lack of a social safety net that doesn't require work as a precondition puts them in a position with "no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die." Asking them to do work to receive benefits (as long as we don't specify what work we're asking them to do) is not asking them to work for less than they're worth, it is actually asking them to work for exactly what their labor is worth, with the added benefit of a bonus above that value being taken from another person and given to them in the form of a social safety net.

Actually, now that I think about it, since they're receiving this benefit, we're asking them to work for more than their labor is worth, and it's actually the person paying for the benefit that we're asking to work for less than they're worth ... and we're asking the person paying for this benefit to do it under the threat of imprisonment if they decide not to pay.