"Basic Income" is a terrible idea

[Chrysia]

so now my "current" earning (for example) stay the same, but im suddenly only "earning" 13k from the work i do instead of 37k.. where is the incentive to work? and why would my employer still continue to pay the previous wage. More than likely they will drive wages down, reducing their and the overall tax bill.

what would be happening in your scenario, is that i would be working 40hours a week, for less than what someone who chooses not to work "earns"

No, no you wouldn't. The UBI pays you, whether you work or not. Everyone gets it. Period.

Your incentive to work is to have money above and beyond the UBI.

[Theodarzna]

fruits of ones labour is always an incentive to work. "well paying" jobs being taken over by automation is an issue in the long run, but not something thats really going to take of for th next 10-20 years. and even then, its easier to support those people that hand out to everyone.

why should i care if others work? because I,as a worker, am directly paying for them not to work. It's why this kind of scheme can never be ran through taxation. you are literally taking money of those who choose to work, to give to those who choose not to. It is beyond acceptable in any reasonable society.

If its funded through other ways, then do w/e. but you cannot expect those who choose to work, to pay insane levels of taxation, to fund those who actively choose not to work. its a surefire way to bankrupt an economy

Then you literally will have your reward, you will have earned money to buy nice fine things. Unless you define "Nice thing" as a place to sleep and food to eat, in which case you idea of nice things is pedestrian and pathetically weak. You already pay for people who don't or cannot work, we warehouse them in prisons, we have to pay for extra security and we have to already pay a great deal in welfare benefits.

There is not enough jobs already and hasn't been for decades and it continues to get worse. You, like me, will live to see the next 10-20 years, best to deal with cancer early rather then delay and dilly daly know?

[Chrysia]

totally different scenario.

there not being enough jobs, vs choosing not to work because you are given a comfy free money cash each year, are very very different things

The UBI is on the table specifically because there aren't enough jobs, and that situation is only going to get worse as automation advances.

[Theodarzna]

Lamenting that people have to work is just about the most childish hippy bullshit flying around the meme-space. The notion that other people are obligated to provide someone with sufficient income to just choose to not work because they don't feel like it is ridiculous.

I lament that people do labor that is essentially pointless. If you can automate most factory production and technically write most workers out of the picture, why are we demanding people compete with an intentionally smaller pool of jobs available?

I mean if you make a shitty game, I will point out its designed poorly. Also don't criticize hippies, that idea was thought up by Chicago Style God and Lord and Savior of the Free Market Hayek, he is the guy who said Basic Income was necessary and one of his stated reasons is the ethical dilemma of choice and coercion.

So you can take that hippy accusation and shove it straight up your ass.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a compelling argument for a safety net for unemployment, not a compelling argument for obviating all need to attempt to find work.

If you have 300 million people but only 20 jobs that can actually support a person, the unemployment insurance becomes defacto Basic Income.

[Endus]

And neither do you. It is far more likely that you are the one who is overestimating the problem than I am the one underestimating it. Japan's unemployment rate is under 5% and we are the automated country on Earth, by far.

Here are some reasons why it's a bad idea:

Decrease motivation to work or receive an education for necessary jobs that cannot be automated. Or it could cause such a flood into these careers that people fight over too few jobs while the rest do nothing.
Just a few reasons why it is a bad idea:

It requires a complete restructuring of taxation, social insurance, social security and pensions.

It will cause a huge flood in immigration.

It causes the rise of a shadow economy.

It will cause inequality by vastly raising price.

It cannot be realistically financed.

Decreased motivation doesn't really happen; see Mincome.

Restructuring those programs isn't a "bad thing", by any means.

It won't cause any major shift in immigration, because 1> you still control immigration, and 2> it's only citizens that get the BI payments.

I have no idea where you got "shadow economy" from.

It won't result in increased prices; there's literally no reason that would happen.

And finally, yes, it can be financed. Mincome was.

This is a compelling argument for a safety net for unemployment, not a compelling argument for obviating all need to attempt to find work.

Not really seeing why not. The idea of a "safety net" is to cover people for a brief period between jobs. If there aren't enough jobs, then you need a more comprehensive support program that's designed to care for the jobless. It's better to design the system for that, from Day 1, rather than design it for another purpose and then shore it up when it threatens to collapse (which is largely what we've got).

Heck, by taking people out of the workforce who don't WANT to work, whether because they're students, or lazy, or whatever, you improve the quality of the average worker by getting only dedicated workers who WANT the jobs, and you turn labor back into a commodity for which there is enough demand that market action can affect "pricing" (wages) again. Having trouble getting people to take your offered jobs? Offer higher pay, or additional benefits. Find a way to make people WANT that job, rather than relying on the fact that people suffering in poverty will feel FORCED to take whatever crap you offer.

[Theodarzna]

The UBI is on the table specifically because there aren't enough jobs, and that situation is only going to get worse as automation advances.

What people are also forgetting is that this UBI would actually create a massive flowering of new businesses and jobs, mainly because people would no longer be tampered by the constraints of needing to actually "make a living." Imagine what you could make and sell, and at whatever price without needing to worry about health care or making rent?

That manuscript of Welsh poetry I have? The History of California manuscript written in three rather obscure languages? I could actually publish them and sell them at a rock bottom price and be fine since It would be mostly profit and I wouldn't need worry about living off that income and that level of marketing. I just need to turn a profit, ANY profit. Think of all the businesses and business people, all the merchants that just don't happen because unfortunately some products can't be sold enough to not just turn a profit but turn a large enough profit to cover living expenses?

[Spectral]

Not really seeing why not. The idea of a "safety net" is to cover people for a brief period between jobs. If there aren't enough jobs, then you need a more comprehensive support program that's designed to care for the jobless. It's better to design the system for that, from Day 1, rather than design it for another purpose and then shore it up when it threatens to collapse (which is largely what we've got).

There's no real evidence that we're threatened with some imminent collapse of employment. This graph doesn't scream "threatened collapse" to me:

I'm sure we'll be making less buggy whips, but that doesn't mean there's nothing for people to do.

Heck, by taking people out of the workforce who don't WANT to work, whether because they're students, or lazy, or whatever, you improve the quality of the average worker by getting only dedicated workers who WANT the jobs, and you turn labor back into a commodity for which there is enough demand that market action can affect "pricing" (wages) again. Having trouble getting people to take your offered jobs? Offer higher pay, or additional benefits. Find a way to make people WANT that job, rather than relying on the fact that people suffering in poverty will feel FORCED to take whatever crap you offer.

Sure. I've stated in the past (although not in this thread) that I support minimum income policies. I think they're a pretty good idea. I don't find the arguments that have been offered earlier in the thread (and that I replied to) particularly compelling. I do have significant concerns about unintended consequences for those that aren't capable of budgeting effectively, but the overall idea's a fine one.

[Theodarzna]

There's no real evidence that we're threatened with some imminent collapse of employment. This graph doesn't scream "threatened collapse" to me:

I'm sure we'll be making less buggy whips, but that doesn't mean there's nothing for people to do.

Sure. I've stated in the past (although not in this thread) that I support minimum income policies. I think they're a pretty good idea. I don't find the arguments that have been offered earlier in the thread (and that I replied to) particularly compelling. I do have significant concerns about unintended consequences for those that aren't capable of budgeting effectively, but the overall idea's a fine one.

How many of those jobs are actually producing anything and how many produce enough to sustain a person or person(s) such as a family?

[Endus]

There's no real evidence that we're threatened with some imminent collapse of employment. This graph doesn't scream "threatened collapse" to me:

I didn't mean "threatened collapse" in the sense that the whole economy would go tits up because of too many unemployed, I meant that the current welfare programs in both Canada and the USA are largely designed to cover brief periods of joblessness, but have been shored up with additional programs and such to account for long-term lack of work. And that we'd probably be better off with systems that were designed to account for such from the get-go. That's it. The only "collapse" I meant to imply was of those systems, trying to handle a load they weren't designed for.

[Spectral]

How many of those jobs are actually producing anything and how many produce enough to sustain a person or person(s) such as a family?

Counting government transfers or not counting government transfers? If we're not counting government transfers, that's going to be an odd standard in the context of this thread. If we are counting transfers, most jobs are sufficient to support a frugal family on two incomes.

I don't really know what you mean by "producing anything". People are rarely paid to produce nothing. The least productive jobs I can think of are extractive professions such as finance and law which both have outsized sectors relative to what's needed to optimize an economy. These obviously pay just fine. Low paying jobs are pretty much always productive.

[Chrysia]

Counting government transfers or not counting government transfers? If we're not counting government transfers, that's going to be an odd standard in the context of this thread. If we are counting transfers, most jobs are sufficient to support a frugal family on two incomes.

I don't really know what you mean by "producing anything". People are rarely paid to produce nothing. The least productive jobs I can think of are extractive professions such as finance and law which both have outsized sectors relative to what's needed to optimize an economy. These obviously pay just fine. Low paying jobs are pretty much always productive.

Another point to your graph, though, would be that a frugal family could, and was expected to, survive on one income in the 1960s. The scenery, as they say, has changed.

[Theodarzna]

Counting government transfers or not counting government transfers? If we're not counting government transfers, that's going to be an odd standard in the context of this thread. If we are counting transfers, most jobs are sufficient to support a frugal family on two incomes.

I don't really know what you mean by "producing anything". People are rarely paid to produce nothing. The least productive jobs I can think of are extractive professions such as finance and law which both have outsized sectors relative to what's needed to optimize an economy. These obviously pay just fine. Low paying jobs are pretty much always productive.

If you count government transfers you are essentially admitting we need UBI, but are okay with simply doing it piece by piece for some inexplicable reason.

As for that "Frugal family." well why have a family when I have to pay someone else to raise it while its birth parents work sometimes multiple jobs and live the austere spartan lifestyle of a Monk on Mount Athos simply to "make it." More over with so few consumers imagine what that does to jobs in this country? Less consumer spending = less jobs, less jobs = less consumer spending.

[klogaroth]

It feels a lot like you're missing the context of that graph and just trying to use a line pointing upwards to prove a point.

What you need to understand is *why* the line is pointing upwards for most of that time, and who is counted in all persons.
I would suggest that a large part of this trend is the increase in working women, as considerably less time is now spent on unpaid work than was in 1960.
In this case technology actually improved employment figures, as people spend less time managing a household than they used to. Something which would not have been counted as employment. If you looked at employment figures from 1960 would the government have included all persons? Would they hell. That would've made it look like nearly half the population was on benefits, when actually nearly half the population was running the households of the other half of the population.

[Mistame]

It doesn't matter if cost of doing it is 10 bucks, a billion or several trillions - if the money circulates properly between mincome recipients, business owners and the government, then it hardly matters how much money are actually changing between hands.

We're already running a deficit with our current revenue. You can't give away what you don't have.

[Chrysia]

We're already running a deficit with our current revenue. You can't give away what you don't have.

And nobody that's proposing a UBI thinks you can do it on current revenue. We've needed additional revenue streams for almost two decades now.

[Spectral]

If you count government transfers you are essentially admitting we need UBI, but are okay with simply doing it piece by piece for some inexplicable reason.

At no point have I argued against government subsidies for the poor. Phrasing this like you've forced me to admit something is absurd - you're just now catching up to the very first thing I wrote in the the thread:

I don't buy that it would work well without a much more paternalistic implementation. Many people are not good decision makers. If a basic income were implemented and replaced SNAP, I do not think it would be long before I was regaled with tales of hungry children and the need to bring SNAP back.

This, of course, isn't inexplicable, you just disagree with it. Welfare's a fine idea and I support it. I'm skeptical of non-directed funds.

As for that "Frugal family." well why have a family when I have to pay someone else to raise it while its birth parents work sometimes multiple jobs and live the austere spartan lifestyle of a Monk on Mount Athos simply to "make it." More over with so few consumers imagine what that does to jobs in this country? Less consumer spending = less jobs, less jobs = less consumer spending.

So much melodrama. Yes, unskilled people that choose to have children will indeed find that they have to live relatively austere lifestyles, suffering such indignities as basic cable instead of HBO. They may even have to resort to such awful indignities as arranging for the grandparents to babysit on occasion. Horrors.

- - - Updated - - -

Another point to your graph, though, would be that a frugal family could, and was expected to, survive on one income in the 1960s. The scenery, as they say, has changed.

Sure. That (along with political preferences) is why we have much higher government transfers as a percentage of GDP now than we did then.

[Endus]

And nobody that's proposing a UBI thinks you can do it on current revenue. We've needed additional revenue streams for almost two decades now.

But if you say the "t" word, people freak the hell out because they might have to pay for what they get. HORROR.

[Direpenguin]

Not all people are the same, and there will not be enough jobs when automation takes full effect, including Artificial Intelligence, which is already being used more and more.

Not everyone is interested in engineering, nor can all people be trained to do high tech jobs.

Hey, good idea. And what happens when all the workers get sick and fucking tired of supporting an ever-increasing number of societal leeches?

But yeah, let's support a system that encourages people to NOT seek personal advancement, and instead rewards developmental stagnation.

- - - Updated - - -

But if you say the "t" word, people freak the hell out because they might have to pay for what they get. HORROR.

I already pay for what I get. What you're talking about is me now also paying, increasingly more, for what someone else gets.

[Spectral]

It feels a lot like you're missing the context of that graph and just trying to use a line pointing upwards to prove a point.

What you need to understand is *why* the line is pointing upwards for most of that time, and who is counted in all persons.
I would suggest that a large part of this trend is the increase in working women, as considerably less time is now spent on unpaid work than was in 1960.
In this case technology actually improved employment figures, as people spend less time managing a household than they used to. Something which would not have been counted as employment. If you looked at employment figures from 1960 would the government have included all persons? Would they hell. That would've made it look like nearly half the population was on benefits, when actually nearly half the population was running the households of the other half of the population.

This is consistent with my point, which is not just "look, it goes up!". My whole point is that technological and cultural shifts have impacts that aren't immediately apparent and many of them don't trend towards disemployment. A good historical example would be that the invention of the power loom didn't result in their being less weavers - on the contrary, the efficiency gains made the product so much cheaper that even with the automation, demand spiked to such an extent that there were more weavers a century after the invention of the power loom than their were at invention. People don't really seem to have a finite demand for things - each invention creates new demands for the newly found "free time" that people have.

- - - Updated - - -

But if you say the "t" word, people freak the hell out because they might have to pay for what they get. HORROR.

Not many people (some, not many) freak out about paying more for what they get. They freak out about their perception (right or wrong) that they'll have a net transfer away from them.

[Mistame]

And nobody that's proposing a UBI thinks you can do it on current revenue. We've needed additional revenue streams for almost two decades now.

I didn't imply they did. I merely responded to a nonsensical reply.