The Canadian Mincome Experiment of 1974-79(huffingtonpost.ca)
huffingtonpost.ca
The Canadian Mincome Experiment of 1974-79
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business
97 comments
Right, I personally find it exhausting how this experiment keeps getting raised up as the gold standard for basic income policy. Mincome is a terrible data point for basic income advocates.
> A needs based system results in fear of losing what little you have. Low income housing in extremely desirable areas works in similar manner and traps people, instead of incentivizing them to seek higher paid employment because that higher pay will make them not qualified for the subsidy, yet not able to afford the area.
Ding ding ding! Mincome is not much different than a restructured welfare program, not a basic income program. At best it's a Partial Basic Income scheme, which is more or less what we have as welfare/benefits today.
Basic Income programs guarantee a minimum standard of living, which Mincome did not. Mincome guaranteed a below poverty level standard of living, which then required people to continue working. It's just like getting a few dollars per hour raise. If this happened for everybody in the economy, it'd just be called inflation and standards of living would remain about the same after adjustment.
To put Mincome into perspective, the amount it paid is about what you get from Social Security (in the U.S.) without retirement savings or investment plans. Ask any retired person living on a fixed income of solely Social Security income how they get on.
Island economics are poor predictors for global economic effects. And any workable UBI scheme has to assume two things:
1) Most of the workforce would drop out and enjoy the minimal, but completely free standard of living it affords them.
2) Labor (which provides the input capital for the UBI scheme) thus becomes punitive. Each person working is supporting multiple people who aren't. Rational actors won't do that (exacerbating #1 above), so to get anybody working, there has to be a forcing mechanism to get them into the labor pool.
> A needs based system results in fear of losing what little you have. Low income housing in extremely desirable areas works in similar manner and traps people, instead of incentivizing them to seek higher paid employment because that higher pay will make them not qualified for the subsidy, yet not able to afford the area.
Ding ding ding! Mincome is not much different than a restructured welfare program, not a basic income program. At best it's a Partial Basic Income scheme, which is more or less what we have as welfare/benefits today.
Basic Income programs guarantee a minimum standard of living, which Mincome did not. Mincome guaranteed a below poverty level standard of living, which then required people to continue working. It's just like getting a few dollars per hour raise. If this happened for everybody in the economy, it'd just be called inflation and standards of living would remain about the same after adjustment.
To put Mincome into perspective, the amount it paid is about what you get from Social Security (in the U.S.) without retirement savings or investment plans. Ask any retired person living on a fixed income of solely Social Security income how they get on.
Island economics are poor predictors for global economic effects. And any workable UBI scheme has to assume two things:
1) Most of the workforce would drop out and enjoy the minimal, but completely free standard of living it affords them.
2) Labor (which provides the input capital for the UBI scheme) thus becomes punitive. Each person working is supporting multiple people who aren't. Rational actors won't do that (exacerbating #1 above), so to get anybody working, there has to be a forcing mechanism to get them into the labor pool.
Your first assumption is a needlessly pessimistic view of the quality/quantity of intrinsic motivation in most people. By the same token something like "most people would drop out and enjoy the freedom of pursuing their passions, working on what they enjoy and spurring smaller scale local economies etc" might be equally naively optimistic, but I don't think the truth is at either extreme.
Is intrinsic motivation something everyone is born with? Or does it need to be learned and reinforced with positive outcomes?
One potential problem is that people may never really develop an intrinsic motivation to work if they aren't given a push early on. Basic Income may eliminate that first push, which I think is crucial.
Let's say you are 16. If you get a job, the expectations are low and your needs are low, so you take the first thing to come along. That puts you in a mild discomfort that encourages you to seek better opportunities as they come along, and you are likely to develop a strong intrinsically a motivated work ethic.
With Basic Income, your needs are already met, so it's easy to rationalize it away and just say you'll get a job after you graduate from college. By then, the expectations are much higher and your needs are much higher, so you hold out for a better job that may never come because you have no experience. So, you just stay in your comfort zone forever.
One potential problem is that people may never really develop an intrinsic motivation to work if they aren't given a push early on. Basic Income may eliminate that first push, which I think is crucial.
Let's say you are 16. If you get a job, the expectations are low and your needs are low, so you take the first thing to come along. That puts you in a mild discomfort that encourages you to seek better opportunities as they come along, and you are likely to develop a strong intrinsically a motivated work ethic.
With Basic Income, your needs are already met, so it's easy to rationalize it away and just say you'll get a job after you graduate from college. By then, the expectations are much higher and your needs are much higher, so you hold out for a better job that may never come because you have no experience. So, you just stay in your comfort zone forever.
>Is intrinsic motivation something everyone is born with? Or does it need to be learned and reinforced with positive outcomes?
Um... If it needs to be reinforced, then it is extrinsic motivation. That's pretty much the definition of 'extrinsic'.
>people may never really develop an intrinsic motivation to work
What is 'work?' Aren't most people happy to sit around socializing? Aren't people happy to sit around posting their thoughts on online forums? Why isn't this work? It produces value.
>So, you just stay in your comfort zone forever.
I guess suffering is what makes life great, then? What is the goal here, if not to let people be comfortable forever? What is the point of having a discussion when you throw out the basic premise?
I could make a very strong argument that regularly beating one's children is the best way to raise them, and rationalize all day long with statistics and claims about how reward and punishment are obvious common-sense drives for human behavior. But at the end of the day, it's those beaten children who make the world a worse place, so what good does it really do? If the goal is to have a world where children aren't being beaten, then surely beating children is not a reliable way to achieve that.
So what is the problem your argument is trying to solve?
Um... If it needs to be reinforced, then it is extrinsic motivation. That's pretty much the definition of 'extrinsic'.
>people may never really develop an intrinsic motivation to work
What is 'work?' Aren't most people happy to sit around socializing? Aren't people happy to sit around posting their thoughts on online forums? Why isn't this work? It produces value.
>So, you just stay in your comfort zone forever.
I guess suffering is what makes life great, then? What is the goal here, if not to let people be comfortable forever? What is the point of having a discussion when you throw out the basic premise?
I could make a very strong argument that regularly beating one's children is the best way to raise them, and rationalize all day long with statistics and claims about how reward and punishment are obvious common-sense drives for human behavior. But at the end of the day, it's those beaten children who make the world a worse place, so what good does it really do? If the goal is to have a world where children aren't being beaten, then surely beating children is not a reliable way to achieve that.
So what is the problem your argument is trying to solve?
Exactly, this conversation is about extrinsic factors. It's a widely held belief that experiences of financial need drive some people to succeed financially. In my view, this is a personal question for every individual and not that useful of a generalization.
I've been struggling with this question myself in terms of how do I pass my drive on to my future kids. A good deal of my drive comes from the experience of growing up in a collapsing country (90s Russia), but I can't really tell what part of it is the fear of not having enough again and which part of the drive is because I love what I do (and given the option to re-do my career, I'd still take the same profession in a heartbeat). The idealist in me wants to think that love for my work is greater, but the realist thinks it's at best equal parts...
With BI, fear won't be as much of a driver, but we are still not talking about "a Ferrari in every garage" kind of BI. It's human nature to always want more. I trust that this nature will prove the "kick".
I've been struggling with this question myself in terms of how do I pass my drive on to my future kids. A good deal of my drive comes from the experience of growing up in a collapsing country (90s Russia), but I can't really tell what part of it is the fear of not having enough again and which part of the drive is because I love what I do (and given the option to re-do my career, I'd still take the same profession in a heartbeat). The idealist in me wants to think that love for my work is greater, but the realist thinks it's at best equal parts...
With BI, fear won't be as much of a driver, but we are still not talking about "a Ferrari in every garage" kind of BI. It's human nature to always want more. I trust that this nature will prove the "kick".
This is a little rambly, but...
The fact that it wasn't unqualified is hugely important.
I think you're not too far off in knock-on effects if we implement too high a basic income, and for the record I think the Swiss proposal runs significant risk of being too high (although I welcome the experiment). I think, however, that a basic income should be enough to live, but not enough to live comfortably without savings, another source of income, or cooperation.
One thing to bear in mind, regarding poverty levels, is that there's a tremendous difference between having $X while working 60 hours a week, and having $X while putting that same effort into living better.
The fact that it wasn't unqualified is hugely important.
I think you're not too far off in knock-on effects if we implement too high a basic income, and for the record I think the Swiss proposal runs significant risk of being too high (although I welcome the experiment). I think, however, that a basic income should be enough to live, but not enough to live comfortably without savings, another source of income, or cooperation.
One thing to bear in mind, regarding poverty levels, is that there's a tremendous difference between having $X while working 60 hours a week, and having $X while putting that same effort into living better.
> I think, however, that a basic income should be enough to live, but not enough to live comfortably without savings, another source of income, or cooperation.
So here's the heart of the BI argument:
Define "comfortably"
Why is your definition correct?
> without savings
Why bother? I'm already earning a living doing nothing?
I don't need to save anything, more money will come. I don't need to worry about retirement, more money will come when I'm too old to work.
I'm going to just throw this out there, I'm guessing if I'm getting UBI I'm probably getting free healthcare. So I don't need to save for that.
Outside of a grand assumption that UBI will somehow propel everybody to the top of Maslow's Hierarchy and enough people will just somehow "self actualize" (despite all evidence to the contrary) and continue to work and support all the lazy layabouts living off the dole, what exactly is the reason I or anybody receiving the UBI would bother working?
So here's the heart of the BI argument:
Define "comfortably"
Why is your definition correct?
> without savings
Why bother? I'm already earning a living doing nothing?
I don't need to save anything, more money will come. I don't need to worry about retirement, more money will come when I'm too old to work.
I'm going to just throw this out there, I'm guessing if I'm getting UBI I'm probably getting free healthcare. So I don't need to save for that.
Outside of a grand assumption that UBI will somehow propel everybody to the top of Maslow's Hierarchy and enough people will just somehow "self actualize" (despite all evidence to the contrary) and continue to work and support all the lazy layabouts living off the dole, what exactly is the reason I or anybody receiving the UBI would bother working?
The sad situation is that most American's don't have nearly enough saved for retirement and most never will. That's why social security actually exists and it's not that great for those that end-up depending solely on that type of income. Essentially, we already have the situation you described without any of the other benefits BI would bring. Here's another HuffPo article that has some very disturbing figures on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/die-than-retire-poo....
If the given individual is ok with the standard of living BI offers, there is no need to do extra work. That's kind of the point. On the flip side, if the person wants more luxuries or spending power, he or she will stay in the workforce, either working part-time or full-time.
The amount of work and effort a person will need to exert will depend on how much better than the base he or she wants to live. BI will undoubtedly result in some inflation, but if managed properly, will prevent poverty as we know it today. Of course poverty in US today is nothing like poverty in the middle ages Europe, so one day people will look at living on BI alone as living in poverty. It's all in degrees of better or worse.
The benefit of BI is that people no longer live in fear of their world collapsing completely if they lose their employment. Today in US, for most people if you lose employment you also lose healthcare. Obamacare is still not there to truly act as a safety net. (Speaking from family member experience.) With BI, the unemployment rate becomes a lot less important, because so long as the capital streams are flowing and proper taxation is in place, consumption won't collapse beyond the minimum level afforded by BI.
In the end, I still believe people will continue to work regardless of BI. Some will drop-out, but enough will stay. It's about empowering personal choice.
If the given individual is ok with the standard of living BI offers, there is no need to do extra work. That's kind of the point. On the flip side, if the person wants more luxuries or spending power, he or she will stay in the workforce, either working part-time or full-time.
The amount of work and effort a person will need to exert will depend on how much better than the base he or she wants to live. BI will undoubtedly result in some inflation, but if managed properly, will prevent poverty as we know it today. Of course poverty in US today is nothing like poverty in the middle ages Europe, so one day people will look at living on BI alone as living in poverty. It's all in degrees of better or worse.
The benefit of BI is that people no longer live in fear of their world collapsing completely if they lose their employment. Today in US, for most people if you lose employment you also lose healthcare. Obamacare is still not there to truly act as a safety net. (Speaking from family member experience.) With BI, the unemployment rate becomes a lot less important, because so long as the capital streams are flowing and proper taxation is in place, consumption won't collapse beyond the minimum level afforded by BI.
In the end, I still believe people will continue to work regardless of BI. Some will drop-out, but enough will stay. It's about empowering personal choice.
What you and every other BI advocate simply ignores (I don't even know why I'm wasting my breath on this) is that people who remain in the labor pool will not necessarily realize benefits from staying in the pool. Increasingly, they will be supporting more and more people who choose not to join the pool. The percentage of money they earn that they actually get to keep will grow less and less because more of it is going out to pay for people who aren't working. Eventually, a rational actor in the labor pool will ask themselves, "why bother?", and will drop out as well. It's a vicious cycle, not a virtuous one.
A working person in a universal BI scheme is not earning BI + a normal job earnings, they're earning BI + job earning - cost to provide BI for non-productive people.
It's that simple and BI advocacy circles continue to refuse to produce an economic model that even acknowledges this simple truism let alone demonstrates how efficient the remaining workers need to be to both cover their increasingly non-working fellows and gain any benefits worth working for.
More likely, and what usually happens in schemes where earned labor value earned is separated from labor input is that laborers become disincentivized. People who wish to work would simply stop working in the formal economy and maximize value capture by working in an underground economy. This creates a negative feedback cycle as fewer and fewer people take part in the formal economy (where the government can capture and redistribute their production to people who aren't).
This rapidly bankrupts the scheme and turns labor into a punitive action by the state. "We need workers producing capturable value, therefore you must work" and the point of BI is quickly lost.
BI advocates are unable to demonstrate why this isn't simply true and why every single time labor is disentangled from incentives the system goes bankrupt except with the vaguest possible handwaivy nonsense and pronouncements that it simply won't happen under their particular version of the scheme because of no particular reasons at all except for wishes and dreams.
And then Mincome is usually brought up somewhere.
BI models must account for labor drop-out, must account for how this disincentives the remaining labor pool and reduces value capture within the labor pool. "Empowering personal choice" is not a valid model.
"Some will drop-out, but enough will stay." is not a model. How many, what percent? Why that percent? What's the impact of various drop-out rates on various actor models? How much does production need to increase on the remaining labor pool to maintain equilibrium? Is that achievable? What happens to purchasing power when most products become effectively free? What about maintaining growth at x,y and z percentages? If new money supply is introduced to compensate, what impact does this have on inflation? What's the delta from the best-case model to the worst-case? How are both of those extreme models justified by observed and predicted actor behavior? What compensation levers does the government have to incentivize labor participation? What's the degree of input in each and the known and/or expected outcomes? How does each lever's outputs change the previous questions output?
I've never even seen so much as an Excel spreadsheet that models the simplest question I've put here. What happens when drop-out is 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 70%? Is the proposed BI scheme sustainable? Why or why not? What happens in an unsustainable system? Can unsustainable systems be "fixed" and brought back into sustainability? By what means? What happens if there's not full local/national/regional/global participation? How does the scheme compensate for imperfect participation? Has this compensation plan been modeled and tested under previously identified circumstances? If the system becomes unsustainable, what does failure look like? Can hard failures be corrected? How do we adjust to bring unskilled out-of-labor-pool people back into the labor pool in the event of a lack of sustainment and eventual failure?
The modeling isn't hard, it's just tedious and it has to be done or BI will continue to be the butt of economic jokes. BI needs a body of real thought behind it, not hand-waivy well wishing. It needs a cumulative and unimpeachable story to show that it really is a better idea than the ideas we're working off of now. But BI doesn't offer any of that. It offers wishes and naive hopeful dreams of a global population suddenly achieving self-actualization all at once. It's a nice picture, but anybody can write any sort of Utopian fantasy fiction that makes any sort of crazy idea sound workable.
Here's one: - We all need underwear
- Let's all make underwear
- I've solved supply-demand issues, monetary imbalance, underwear shortages and brought about a golden utopia for all time.
The numbers must work out. Math cannot be fudged by our personal feelings. I've seen HVAC system with better planning documents than any BI scheme.
It's absolutely exhausting to keep explaining this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8794247
A working person in a universal BI scheme is not earning BI + a normal job earnings, they're earning BI + job earning - cost to provide BI for non-productive people.
It's that simple and BI advocacy circles continue to refuse to produce an economic model that even acknowledges this simple truism let alone demonstrates how efficient the remaining workers need to be to both cover their increasingly non-working fellows and gain any benefits worth working for.
More likely, and what usually happens in schemes where earned labor value earned is separated from labor input is that laborers become disincentivized. People who wish to work would simply stop working in the formal economy and maximize value capture by working in an underground economy. This creates a negative feedback cycle as fewer and fewer people take part in the formal economy (where the government can capture and redistribute their production to people who aren't).
This rapidly bankrupts the scheme and turns labor into a punitive action by the state. "We need workers producing capturable value, therefore you must work" and the point of BI is quickly lost.
BI advocates are unable to demonstrate why this isn't simply true and why every single time labor is disentangled from incentives the system goes bankrupt except with the vaguest possible handwaivy nonsense and pronouncements that it simply won't happen under their particular version of the scheme because of no particular reasons at all except for wishes and dreams.
And then Mincome is usually brought up somewhere.
BI models must account for labor drop-out, must account for how this disincentives the remaining labor pool and reduces value capture within the labor pool. "Empowering personal choice" is not a valid model.
"Some will drop-out, but enough will stay." is not a model. How many, what percent? Why that percent? What's the impact of various drop-out rates on various actor models? How much does production need to increase on the remaining labor pool to maintain equilibrium? Is that achievable? What happens to purchasing power when most products become effectively free? What about maintaining growth at x,y and z percentages? If new money supply is introduced to compensate, what impact does this have on inflation? What's the delta from the best-case model to the worst-case? How are both of those extreme models justified by observed and predicted actor behavior? What compensation levers does the government have to incentivize labor participation? What's the degree of input in each and the known and/or expected outcomes? How does each lever's outputs change the previous questions output?
I've never even seen so much as an Excel spreadsheet that models the simplest question I've put here. What happens when drop-out is 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 70%? Is the proposed BI scheme sustainable? Why or why not? What happens in an unsustainable system? Can unsustainable systems be "fixed" and brought back into sustainability? By what means? What happens if there's not full local/national/regional/global participation? How does the scheme compensate for imperfect participation? Has this compensation plan been modeled and tested under previously identified circumstances? If the system becomes unsustainable, what does failure look like? Can hard failures be corrected? How do we adjust to bring unskilled out-of-labor-pool people back into the labor pool in the event of a lack of sustainment and eventual failure?
The modeling isn't hard, it's just tedious and it has to be done or BI will continue to be the butt of economic jokes. BI needs a body of real thought behind it, not hand-waivy well wishing. It needs a cumulative and unimpeachable story to show that it really is a better idea than the ideas we're working off of now. But BI doesn't offer any of that. It offers wishes and naive hopeful dreams of a global population suddenly achieving self-actualization all at once. It's a nice picture, but anybody can write any sort of Utopian fantasy fiction that makes any sort of crazy idea sound workable.
Here's one: - We all need underwear
- Let's all make underwear
- I've solved supply-demand issues, monetary imbalance, underwear shortages and brought about a golden utopia for all time.
The numbers must work out. Math cannot be fudged by our personal feelings. I've seen HVAC system with better planning documents than any BI scheme.
It's absolutely exhausting to keep explaining this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8794247
'Increasingly, they will be supporting more and more people who choose not to join the pool. The percentage of money they earn that they actually get to keep will grow less and less because more of it is going out to pay for people who aren't working. Eventually, a rational actor in the labor pool will ask themselves, "why bother?", and will drop out as well. It's a vicious cycle, not a virtuous one.'
There are two things this misses:
1) Some of the funding for BI may come from taxation of land or capital (in the economic factors of production sense), not just labor.
2) Inflation. As people leave the labor pool, it gets more expensive to make things. As the dollar buys less, the basic income buys less, and there is more pressure for people to get working again.
"Inflation adjusted BI drawn exclusively from tax on labor" seems to be what you've considered, but it also seems to be a particularly difficult position in the space of possible policies.
There are two things this misses:
1) Some of the funding for BI may come from taxation of land or capital (in the economic factors of production sense), not just labor.
2) Inflation. As people leave the labor pool, it gets more expensive to make things. As the dollar buys less, the basic income buys less, and there is more pressure for people to get working again.
"Inflation adjusted BI drawn exclusively from tax on labor" seems to be what you've considered, but it also seems to be a particularly difficult position in the space of possible policies.
I attempted it once, more as a lead in to a monte carlo tutorial than anything else. The results were not particularly favorable to a BI.
https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/basic_income_vs_basi...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6725096
The response from most of the BI supporters was approximately what you'd expect.
https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/basic_income_vs_basi...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6725096
The response from most of the BI supporters was approximately what you'd expect.
Write an essay about it. You seem to understand it well enough to explain, and care enough to keep explaining in spite of how exhausting it is. You practically wrote half of the essay with that comment alone.
Sort out all arguments against BI to focus the discussion and you could be onto something.
Sort out all arguments against BI to focus the discussion and you could be onto something.
What you wrote here sounds like you skimmed my post for things to argue with, rather than actually reading my post. It's far enough off point I'm not going to bother responding to it. I know you can do better - I've seen it.
I'm supposing you're taking umbrage at my ignoring your point about conditional vs. unconditional BI?
Not at all.
What set me off the most is "But why bother [saving]?" The entire point of the passage from which you drew the reference to saving to recommend keeping the BI low enough to preserve enough of a benefit from working or having saved. Obviously, people would bother if they want that benefit in the future without working, and if people choose not to save that doesn't actually undermine anything I said.
What set me off the most is "But why bother [saving]?" The entire point of the passage from which you drew the reference to saving to recommend keeping the BI low enough to preserve enough of a benefit from working or having saved. Obviously, people would bother if they want that benefit in the future without working, and if people choose not to save that doesn't actually undermine anything I said.
I'm sorry, I'm having a brain fart, are you saying that people would save as a mechanism to ensure the BI stay low?
I'm not sure people in aggregate think that abstractly. Though I will say there's lots of evidence that people's personal microeconomic decisions are impacted by macroeconomic conditions so...
I'm not sure people in aggregate think that abstractly. Though I will say there's lots of evidence that people's personal microeconomic decisions are impacted by macroeconomic conditions so...
That's still not what I'm trying to say, no... Look at how I referenced saving. I said that BI should stay low, and that a comfortable life should be derived from "BI plus something" - with drawing down savings being one possibility. What motivates working people to save, in that context, is the hope of maintaining a higher standard of living in the future when they work less (or on something unpaid) or in the face of adversity. We probably shouldn't expect people receiving only the BI to be saving much - I don't know how that factors into the broader scheme of things, but it doesn't seem to have much impact on anything I was talking about.
In terms of a mechanism (beyond advocacy) for keeping BI sufficiently low: I'd propose (tentatively) pegging inflation adjustment to targeted inflation rather than actual inflation. If the BI is high enough that more people stop working than we can afford, wages and prices will rise and the real BI will fall.
In terms of a mechanism (beyond advocacy) for keeping BI sufficiently low: I'd propose (tentatively) pegging inflation adjustment to targeted inflation rather than actual inflation. If the BI is high enough that more people stop working than we can afford, wages and prices will rise and the real BI will fall.
Sorry, didn't mean to be extraordinarily dense.
I think the counter argument is the present state of things. It's not too terribly hard to do small things, none of which are secret, to improve your value and demand higher pay: go to school, get certifications, build up experience, ask for more money, better financial management, etc.
Yet still most people in low-end jobs don't do these things. Anecdotally, I have very frustrating conversations with my own family members and several close friends, who never made it out of being poor, and simply refuse to follow advice on how to improve their lot, then endlessly call me up to complain about how they don't have money. A few of them have even had extraordinary opportunities come up to go to school for free or otherwise improve their situation and simply choose not to do it.
When I think of poor outcomes from BI schemes, I think of my family and friends, who simply would stop working, but wouldn't put their time to other productive or value growing opportunities. Or would continue working as is, but BI would simply be an inflation driver and would result in less effective income from their labor.
I think the counter argument is the present state of things. It's not too terribly hard to do small things, none of which are secret, to improve your value and demand higher pay: go to school, get certifications, build up experience, ask for more money, better financial management, etc.
Yet still most people in low-end jobs don't do these things. Anecdotally, I have very frustrating conversations with my own family members and several close friends, who never made it out of being poor, and simply refuse to follow advice on how to improve their lot, then endlessly call me up to complain about how they don't have money. A few of them have even had extraordinary opportunities come up to go to school for free or otherwise improve their situation and simply choose not to do it.
When I think of poor outcomes from BI schemes, I think of my family and friends, who simply would stop working, but wouldn't put their time to other productive or value growing opportunities. Or would continue working as is, but BI would simply be an inflation driver and would result in less effective income from their labor.
I think we probably need to start talking about actual numbers. Over time and on much reflection, I've come to believe (with low to middling confidence) that the optimal value presently falls somewhere between $6k and $15k/yr. In that range, I expect more people to stop working second jobs or overtime than to stop working at all.
"It's not too terribly hard to do small things, none of which are secret, to improve your value and demand higher pay: go to school, get certifications, build up experience, ask for more money, better financial management, etc."
It's harder when you're drained from working and stressed from tight budgets.
I certainly don't pretend that everyone will always make the best decisions, but BI at a sensible level makes it easier not harder.
"It's not too terribly hard to do small things, none of which are secret, to improve your value and demand higher pay: go to school, get certifications, build up experience, ask for more money, better financial management, etc."
It's harder when you're drained from working and stressed from tight budgets.
I certainly don't pretend that everyone will always make the best decisions, but BI at a sensible level makes it easier not harder.
There's no empirical evidence I know of that suggests that a decent but minimal income stops people working. Certain demographics work like this, often in a limited way. But it's by no means a given across working populations as a whole.
That's pretty much the point of basic income. It isn't just about eliminating obvious avoidable and medieval horrors like poverty - it's about restructuring the job market so workers can provide a useful contribution they have some passion for, instead of being forced into drudge work that doesn't pay their bills or provide for retirement, never mind provide them with an outlet for their passion.
The conservative belief that if you don't aggressively the poor for their poverty they won't work[1], is an outrageous relic of the middle ages and has no place in the 21st century.
[1} Hardly hyperbole by the way, as the UK's Tories have proved again over their most recent term.
That's pretty much the point of basic income. It isn't just about eliminating obvious avoidable and medieval horrors like poverty - it's about restructuring the job market so workers can provide a useful contribution they have some passion for, instead of being forced into drudge work that doesn't pay their bills or provide for retirement, never mind provide them with an outlet for their passion.
The conservative belief that if you don't aggressively the poor for their poverty they won't work[1], is an outrageous relic of the middle ages and has no place in the 21st century.
[1} Hardly hyperbole by the way, as the UK's Tories have proved again over their most recent term.
I don't know that we disagree, depending on how you're using "but minimal". My recollection is that in the case of Mincome specifically, you did see a reduction of hours worked amongst working mothers, and I expect this would generalize to "people with better things to do" - which is not a bad thing.
"if you don't aggressively the poor for their poverty"
I think you left out a word. Am I right in assuming "punish"?
"if you don't aggressively the poor for their poverty"
I think you left out a word. Am I right in assuming "punish"?
If you count lost benefits, the working poor can have marginal tax rates in some instances over 100%.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/opinion/mccaffery-marginal-tax...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/opinion/mccaffery-marginal-tax...
One potential side effect of a minimum income is to make the U.S. (or any country implementing it), even more immigrant hostile. These programs usually only consider the effects in a vacuum, not with respect to much larger population that wants to get in. Either immigration needs to be restricted, or you have a "lower" non citizen class that doesn't get these benefits from the beginning (ironically perpetuating more inequality). Milton Friedman discussed this fundamental contention between welfare and free immigration, and it's coveted a little here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE .
The idea of unconditional payment is interesting, and I'm almost on board, but...
1. Is it tax free? If not then it's not equal right?
2. How do you avoid it simply translating into inflation / lower dollar?
3. Does it save money elsewhere to pay for itself, or are taxes increased?
1. Is it tax free? If not then it's not equal right?
2. How do you avoid it simply translating into inflation / lower dollar?
3. Does it save money elsewhere to pay for itself, or are taxes increased?
Some money would be saved by eliminating the current welfare system and replacing it with UBI.
Most suggestions involve increased taxes.
Yes, although generally up to at least mid middle class, the basic income would offset the increased taxes, so you would end up with at least as much take-home. High-income earners would most likely end up paying more though. (I would argue that the societal benefits would be well worth it.)
Regarding 1, I'm not 100% clear on what you mean.
Typically the money would not itself be taxed. It would offset taxes and, for those making enough money, could take the form of a tax credit.
Hopefully that covers your question.
Typically the money would not itself be taxed. It would offset taxes and, for those making enough money, could take the form of a tax credit.
Hopefully that covers your question.
Your point about housing is spot-on.
I'm not sure I understand how an unconditional payment achieves any more desirable objectives than an EITC-style negative income tax. Under a negative income tax, a marginal increase in income still results in a marginal increase in take home pay; you can't get penalized by earning more, so the policy preserves the incentive for people to earn more. To me, this seems preferable to an unconditional payment because you're focusing all of the dispersed money on people who need it.
I'm not sure I understand how an unconditional payment achieves any more desirable objectives than an EITC-style negative income tax. Under a negative income tax, a marginal increase in income still results in a marginal increase in take home pay; you can't get penalized by earning more, so the policy preserves the incentive for people to earn more. To me, this seems preferable to an unconditional payment because you're focusing all of the dispersed money on people who need it.
Or, to speak about economic efficiency: you are focusing money on people who will spend it. Doesn't do a lot of good to sit in a rich person's bank account, but if you get the money moving, that's job creation at it's most basic.
Money does not sit in a bank account, it gets loaned out to others and spent.
That's why banks offer "free checking" and other incentives to give them money.
That's why banks offer "free checking" and other incentives to give them money.
Not only that, but 10x or more money is loaned out or invested than is actually in the accounts. That's why we have financial crises.
you're wrong. rich people are assholes who swim in vaults of money like Scrooge McDuck. poor people are kind and noble and deserve everything they want because they want it.
or so I'm gathering from all the class warfare stories today. not sure why that's happening though.
or so I'm gathering from all the class warfare stories today. not sure why that's happening though.
I know. It's such a trial being rich. I wish it was somehow possible for someone wealthy to find their way into poverty, so they could enjoy the social prestige and admiration that is the birthright of the poor.
Thank God there are noble folk - like your good self - who will stand up for the interests of those who need it least!
Thank God there are noble folk - like your good self - who will stand up for the interests of those who need it least!
An unconditional basic income funded by income taxation amounts to the same thing as a negative income tax (i.e., an income tax system with the possibility of negative taxation). The two are precisely equivalent.
See also this article from last year:
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money...
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money...
Would prices not rise so much that the constant factor of the basic income pretty much becomes the new 0?
I think Milton Friedman's series of videos had a nurse (?) who embodied this exact catch-22.
Not shocking because this is HuffPo, but this isn't a good article, and I suspect it's because Mincome (minimum income) did not really provably work (I'm not saying it didn't work, I'm saying there isn't data showing it did).
The article is filled with anecdotes of people who appreciated having extra money given to them by the government (shocking). The only time it actually get's close to examining the big picture is here:
In 2011, Forget released a paper distilling how Mincome affected people’s health using census data. She found overall hospitalization rates (for accidents, injuries, and mental health diagnoses) dropped in the group who received basic income supplements.
AFAICT it did not examine whether or not this made the Mincome project "worth it."
So there's nothing here really, or maybe there is, but not in this article.
The article is filled with anecdotes of people who appreciated having extra money given to them by the government (shocking). The only time it actually get's close to examining the big picture is here:
In 2011, Forget released a paper distilling how Mincome affected people’s health using census data. She found overall hospitalization rates (for accidents, injuries, and mental health diagnoses) dropped in the group who received basic income supplements.
AFAICT it did not examine whether or not this made the Mincome project "worth it."
So there's nothing here really, or maybe there is, but not in this article.
This seems to come up now and again, so there is actually many articles about this topic floating around. Wikipedia has a pretty good overview [1, 2], for something little more in-depth check out the University of Manitoba's TOWN WITH NO POVERTY report [3], even Al Jazeera actually has a nice piece with interview from several recipients [4]. If you search Google there is countless good pieces about this experiment [5, 6, ..].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_Annual_Income
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
[3] http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20%282%29.pd...
[4] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/26/dauphin-cana...
[5] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-povert...
[6] http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/dauphins...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_Annual_Income
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
[3] http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20%282%29.pd...
[4] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/26/dauphin-cana...
[5] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-povert...
[6] http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/dauphins...
That's kind of the OP's point though: these articles, including the academic one, are all rich in anecdotes and poor in anything resembling hard analysis. We learn that people are warmly nostalgic bout experiments which gave their community more money from outside, that Dauphin residents saw improvements to their general health relative to other areas, which admittedly may have been helped by a relatively new hospital, and that withdrawals from the labour market were small, though people knew the programme was a temporary experiment, the payments weren't that big and labour market conditions were very different then. Major hypothesized downsides to universal BI such as effects on local inflation (of housing costs in particular) weren't recorded as part of the original study.
I've always found it strange that Hacker News, a site populated by mathematically-inclined people responsible for all kinds of ingenious micro-optimizations to maximise customer lifetime value by market segment or optimise the ads displayed to demographic X, has so much love for the idea that the optimal formula for distributing benefits intended to tackle poverty is as simple as $WELFARE_BUDGET / $POPULATION_SIZE. Especially based on evidence as thin as these articles
I've always found it strange that Hacker News, a site populated by mathematically-inclined people responsible for all kinds of ingenious micro-optimizations to maximise customer lifetime value by market segment or optimise the ads displayed to demographic X, has so much love for the idea that the optimal formula for distributing benefits intended to tackle poverty is as simple as $WELFARE_BUDGET / $POPULATION_SIZE. Especially based on evidence as thin as these articles
Woah, wait a second - I hadn't thought of it until I read your "move money from outside", but it sounds like a fundamental part of this scheme that it was financed from outside the region it took place in. IMHO, that makes it basically worthless for any kind of analysis on doing this on a national scale.
Getting a ton of money from an outside source dumped into a region will pretty much always improve things for people there. That hardly seems worth analyzing. Exactly what you do with that money is a minor detail compared to the fact that it's coming in from the outside. This allows them to completely ignore the essential factor of how to go about taxing the population to get the money to give to those deemed in need, and what the impacts of those taxes and the mincome scheme as a whole will have on the mindset of people in the region.
Getting a ton of money from an outside source dumped into a region will pretty much always improve things for people there. That hardly seems worth analyzing. Exactly what you do with that money is a minor detail compared to the fact that it's coming in from the outside. This allows them to completely ignore the essential factor of how to go about taxing the population to get the money to give to those deemed in need, and what the impacts of those taxes and the mincome scheme as a whole will have on the mindset of people in the region.
> Getting a ton of money from an outside source dumped into a region will pretty much always improve things for people there. That hardly seems worth analyzing.
Does it not? Your statement is completely wrong so it may well be worth analysing. Google "Dutch Disease" for an example. Check out the "McCrone Report" for ways to avoid this happening.
Does it not? Your statement is completely wrong so it may well be worth analysing. Google "Dutch Disease" for an example. Check out the "McCrone Report" for ways to avoid this happening.
I agree; this was a pretty disappointing article. It doesn't add much information beyond just the bare fact of pointing out that the Mincome experiment took place, colored with some anecdotes. Even the short Wikipedia article is more informative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
There is something here: that basic income has been tried. I wasn't aware of that, and although there's precious little conclusion to be drawn it is important to know that it has happened.
That's my point: it hasn't been tried. It was "tried" in a hyper localized economy, temporarily, without proper data being recorded. For all intents and purposes we still know nothing.
I've noticed the number of articles on "mincome" or "basic income" ramping up quite a bit in places like reddit, and to a lesser extent on HN. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but are there groups actively trying to get this idea out on social media, hence all of the articles that I'm seeing? It may be that the idea is gaining organic momentum, on top of that, but I've been wondering about this of late.
Maybe a bit of both? With income disparity growing, technology supplanting many "blue-collar" jobs, poverty not really being tackled effectively, it's natural for folks to think about alternative means of sustaining our economy.
You'll also notice that nobody advocating it has even the slightest whiff of an economic model that makes it work. In UBI schemes, money is treated like an endless well of fairy dust that can be sprinkled all over the population and magic will happen. Numbers are thrown out all over the place and realistic actor models on the micro and macro economic levels are never provided.
When challenged, they all point to Mincome, which wasn't a UBI experiment, as some kind of evidence. And the evidence from Mincome (when you read the writeup) is that it didn't work very well from the point of a UBI scheme, it achieved approximately zero of the proposed benefits of UBI.
But you know, reading and math are hard I guess.
When challenged, they all point to Mincome, which wasn't a UBI experiment, as some kind of evidence. And the evidence from Mincome (when you read the writeup) is that it didn't work very well from the point of a UBI scheme, it achieved approximately zero of the proposed benefits of UBI.
But you know, reading and math are hard I guess.
> money is treated like an endless well of fairy dust that can be sprinkled all over the population and magic will happen
Money is an artificial resource meant to create a level of indirection between the buyer and the seller. The amount of money in circulation at a certain point in time does not explain why some people eat better than others. If you want to argue against UBI on the basis that resources are too scarce to be enough for all of us, you need to talk about the actual resources.
On the agricultural side, we have overproduction in Europe and in Italy the cultivated terrain is smaller every year.
Money is an artificial resource meant to create a level of indirection between the buyer and the seller. The amount of money in circulation at a certain point in time does not explain why some people eat better than others. If you want to argue against UBI on the basis that resources are too scarce to be enough for all of us, you need to talk about the actual resources.
On the agricultural side, we have overproduction in Europe and in Italy the cultivated terrain is smaller every year.
I'm wondering who will be sponsoring / supporting this mincome? Won't it be coming out of government taxes - and thus a higher tax rate?
No. The welfare system is incredibly expensive to operate! I mean, in terms of the administrative overhead, the armies of bureaucrats, etc. Scrap all that, make a simple, unconditional payment - nothing to administer, no fraud to investigate, and it becomes very affordable - without raising taxes either.
But it won't work in the real world, because it will be too easy to buy votes by promising more and more. This basic income needs to be fixed at a level of bare subsistence only. Like here in the UK we have a problem with government housing now - I don't begrudge anyone a roof over their heads, but it has morphed into, with at least one spare bedroom, in the area of you choosing for life even if you no longer need it, etc. Thats not fair on the people paying for it, and it's not fair on the people on the waiting list.
But it won't work in the real world, because it will be too easy to buy votes by promising more and more. This basic income needs to be fixed at a level of bare subsistence only. Like here in the UK we have a problem with government housing now - I don't begrudge anyone a roof over their heads, but it has morphed into, with at least one spare bedroom, in the area of you choosing for life even if you no longer need it, etc. Thats not fair on the people paying for it, and it's not fair on the people on the waiting list.
> No. The welfare system is incredibly expensive to operate! I mean, in terms of the administrative overhead, the armies of bureaucrats, etc. Scrap all that, make a simple, unconditional payment - nothing to administer, no fraud to investigate, and it becomes very affordable - without raising taxes either.
That's laughably naïve. I live in San Francisco. I have experience interacting with more than my fair share of homeless people. So let me ask you this: what happens when a person deliberately decides to be homeless? Do you just let him suffer on the streets? Or do you offer him shelter and food?
The point is: you will still need the welfare services. Things like Child Protective Services, emergency rooms, homeless shelters, etc. etc. So all that UBI does is add an additional $20K/year of taxes on top of what we already pay.
People in this country are opposed to universal health insurance, despite the fact that the beneficiaries actually pay into it. What makes you think that they will agree to just cutting $1.5K checks every month to every person?
And then: what happens to the immigrants? People will come streaming across the border in droves when word spreads that they can get 1000s of dollars per year for nothing in America! We can't even control the border now; imagine what'll happen then.
That's laughably naïve. I live in San Francisco. I have experience interacting with more than my fair share of homeless people. So let me ask you this: what happens when a person deliberately decides to be homeless? Do you just let him suffer on the streets? Or do you offer him shelter and food?
The point is: you will still need the welfare services. Things like Child Protective Services, emergency rooms, homeless shelters, etc. etc. So all that UBI does is add an additional $20K/year of taxes on top of what we already pay.
People in this country are opposed to universal health insurance, despite the fact that the beneficiaries actually pay into it. What makes you think that they will agree to just cutting $1.5K checks every month to every person?
And then: what happens to the immigrants? People will come streaming across the border in droves when word spreads that they can get 1000s of dollars per year for nothing in America! We can't even control the border now; imagine what'll happen then.
*
That's laughably naïve. I live in San Francisco. I have experience interacting with more than my fair share of homeless people. So let me ask you this: what happens when a person deliberately decides to be homeless? Do you just let him suffer on the streets? Or do you offer him shelter and food?*
Deliberately decides? Well in that case I would say that he has made his bed, let him sleep in it.
Deliberately decides? Well in that case I would say that he has made his bed, let him sleep in it.
> People in this country are opposed to universal health insurance
The highest hopes to see something implemented in our lifetime come from more civilized countries: Switzerland, Germany and Austria.
The highest hopes to see something implemented in our lifetime come from more civilized countries: Switzerland, Germany and Austria.
Taxes are at historic lows, we should raise taxes regardless because infrastructure is crumbling nationwide.
I also rarely even see back of a napkin calculations on how much money will be given away, what will be the source of the money, etc.
If you see one that doesn't account for labor dropout under a UBI scheme, ignore it. It won't be a realistic model.
So you keep claiming, but actual trials of mincome/BI/whatever haven't shown a significant dropout of labour. Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
sigh this is absolutely exhausting
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793466
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793453
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793466
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793453
I read those comments. They're exactly what I meant by "you keep claiming this". Claiming it's so is not evidence. Perhaps you missed that in your weariness.
My question stands: Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
My question stands: Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
You can read the Mincome reports yourself. They aren't exactly glowing and most of the reported effects are well within the margin for error in the measurements.
BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form because it requires everybody on the planet to do it at the same time. The closest we have are economic analogs. For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy, the people who've stopped working don't exactly spend this new free-time self-actualizing themselves into discovering cures for cancer or unifying the fundamental forces of the universe.
If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1. If you aren't aware of these cases on your own, but willing to promote nonsense like UBI, you're just being willfully ignorant of history and basic economics.
No amount of handwaivery and ignoring poor outcomes based on this or that technicality or goal post move will make cause and effect bend towards making these schemes work.
So here's your test: find somebody who's working poor, offer to put them up in your house and feed and clothe them no strings attached. How long before they self-actualize into a high-paid white-collar degree? Repeat this experiment 10,000 times. How many people, given this options, would rather just sit at home all day and surf the internet/watch TV/gossip vs. going out and challenging themselves into a better life?
I don't have to answer this, BI advocates do. And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations. This has never been done and anything outside of this is hand waivy nonsense built on fairy dreams.
BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form because it requires everybody on the planet to do it at the same time. The closest we have are economic analogs. For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy, the people who've stopped working don't exactly spend this new free-time self-actualizing themselves into discovering cures for cancer or unifying the fundamental forces of the universe.
If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1. If you aren't aware of these cases on your own, but willing to promote nonsense like UBI, you're just being willfully ignorant of history and basic economics.
No amount of handwaivery and ignoring poor outcomes based on this or that technicality or goal post move will make cause and effect bend towards making these schemes work.
So here's your test: find somebody who's working poor, offer to put them up in your house and feed and clothe them no strings attached. How long before they self-actualize into a high-paid white-collar degree? Repeat this experiment 10,000 times. How many people, given this options, would rather just sit at home all day and surf the internet/watch TV/gossip vs. going out and challenging themselves into a better life?
I don't have to answer this, BI advocates do. And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations. This has never been done and anything outside of this is hand waivy nonsense built on fairy dreams.
> You can read the Mincome reports yourself.
I have. And the Namibian ones. And the Indian ones. None of them saw a significant dropoff in labour.
> For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy
Like Norway, you mean?
> If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1.
How will a history book help me if "BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form"?
> And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations.
These were "real-world" situations. They actually occurred in the real world. That's generally considered more "real-world" than economic models are.
I think I'll stop here. I'm starting to get too amused with this conversation.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
I have. And the Namibian ones. And the Indian ones. None of them saw a significant dropoff in labour.
> For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy
Like Norway, you mean?
> If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1.
How will a history book help me if "BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form"?
> And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations.
These were "real-world" situations. They actually occurred in the real world. That's generally considered more "real-world" than economic models are.
I think I'll stop here. I'm starting to get too amused with this conversation.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
The Mincome studies don't show a labor dropoff, and that's because Mincome was not a BI program. If you didn't work and tried to live off of Mincome, you'd live at about 1/2 poverty level income. Basically you'd starve or freeze to death.
What Mincome did show was negligible effects in almost all other areas, it neither showed significant increases or decreases in almost any measurable area. The reason Mincome was dropped as a program was that it was expensive and virtually worthless. It wasn't worth doing because it doesn't provide any positive benefits.
Please please please, if you do anything, don't cherry pick favorable studies and read all of them with critical thinking. Read the unfavorable ones and read the favorable ones and figure out what they aren't saying.
Have a great Christmas and New Year as well!
What Mincome did show was negligible effects in almost all other areas, it neither showed significant increases or decreases in almost any measurable area. The reason Mincome was dropped as a program was that it was expensive and virtually worthless. It wasn't worth doing because it doesn't provide any positive benefits.
Please please please, if you do anything, don't cherry pick favorable studies and read all of them with critical thinking. Read the unfavorable ones and read the favorable ones and figure out what they aren't saying.
Have a great Christmas and New Year as well!
The Wikipedia article seems to disagree with you:
"Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education."
If you know better, please fix the article.
"Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education."
If you know better, please fix the article.
I'm not going to fight with WP. Read the reports yourself and look at the statistical differences plus or minus.
It's mostly irrelevant since Mincome is not the model any present xBI scheme is working off of.
It's mostly irrelevant since Mincome is not the model any present xBI scheme is working off of.
When you say "Indian ones" do you mean the experiments with distributing casino revenues unconditionally amongst a Native American tribe, or something that happened in India that I missed.
Not trying to nitpick labels, just want to be clear as to the referents.
Not trying to nitpick labels, just want to be clear as to the referents.
I meant in the country India. I didn't even think about the Native American situation, though now I consider it, it does seem to illustrate the dangers of making payments that are socially exclusive (similar to the problems Australia has faced with its aboriginal people).
I think the following links has more details on India, but I've not read through it as it's late on Christmas Eve for me and I'm worried about collapsing the Santa wave-function so I won't get any presents!
http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-t...
I think the following links has more details on India, but I've not read through it as it's late on Christmas Eve for me and I'm worried about collapsing the Santa wave-function so I won't get any presents!
http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-t...
The Native American case I was thinking of seems to be this one:
http://www.demos.org/blog/1/19/14/cherokee-tribes-basic-inco...
"Children who were moved out of poverty by the UBI saw their behavioral problems decline by 40 percent. Minor crimes declined. On-time high school graduation rates increased. Children who started receiving the UBI earlier in life had better mental health in early adulthood than those who started receiving it later in life. In particular, they were 33% less likely to develop substance abuse or psychiatric problems."
http://www.demos.org/blog/1/19/14/cherokee-tribes-basic-inco...
"Children who were moved out of poverty by the UBI saw their behavioral problems decline by 40 percent. Minor crimes declined. On-time high school graduation rates increased. Children who started receiving the UBI earlier in life had better mental health in early adulthood than those who started receiving it later in life. In particular, they were 33% less likely to develop substance abuse or psychiatric problems."
I don't seem able to reply to your last comment. Sorry I haven't done very well with your comments; it's not been through deliberate ignorance, just lack of time. I hadn't been previously aware of UBI in Native American tribes and had thought you were referring to social problems and welfare.
I will have a read over the link you provided when I have more time. Thanks for letting me know about it.
I will have a read over the link you provided when I have more time. Thanks for letting me know about it.
"I don't seem able to reply to your last comment."
There's a delay before you can reply, and I think it might grow with depth...
"Sorry I haven't done very well with your comments; it's not been through deliberate ignorance, just lack of time."
No worries.
"I hadn't been previously aware of UBI in Native American tribes and had thought you were referring to social problems and welfare."
Gotcha.
"I will have a read over the link you provided when I have more time. Thanks for letting me know about it."
Of course! And I fully understand you having better things to do right now - Merry Christmas :)
There's a delay before you can reply, and I think it might grow with depth...
"Sorry I haven't done very well with your comments; it's not been through deliberate ignorance, just lack of time."
No worries.
"I hadn't been previously aware of UBI in Native American tribes and had thought you were referring to social problems and welfare."
Gotcha.
"I will have a read over the link you provided when I have more time. Thanks for letting me know about it."
Of course! And I fully understand you having better things to do right now - Merry Christmas :)
> You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes.
Exactly. Look at the Gulf states like Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The locals don't do much work; all of the real work is done by expats.
Exactly. Look at the Gulf states like Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The locals don't do much work; all of the real work is done by expats.
Labor dropout is more likely to be higher under current welfare schemes than a basic income, because of the high marginal tax rates present under the current system vs BI.
I knocked one together for the UK, if it helps. But it is 'back of napkin'. There are all sorts of details you'd want to fill out. Here:
[There were requests for "back of a napkin" calculations, so I've done some for the UK. To convert to USD, just add 50%, as a rough measure.]
tl;dr - About £80 a week seems roughly achievable as a starting point.
Firstly, I'd like to say I prefer thinking of this as a "Citizen's Dividend" rather than a "Basic Income", as the latter suggests it's useless if it doesn't cover a persons cost of living. I think even a small start is better than nothing, and it can be increased up to become a Basic Income in time. I'll refer to it as BI (Basic Income) here though. So, let's see what we've got...
The UK government spends £732 billion. If we subtract £222 billion for Social Protection (we're replacing all of it with our BI), we get £510 billion required. If we add up all government income except Income Tax - Business Rates, Excise, etc - we get £481 billion.
That leaves us a shortfall of £29 billion. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume that reductions in crime, the increase in VAT revenue, better health, etc are going to cover that. Let's call it close enough for government work. At the end of the day, we currently borrow £84 billion anyway, so at worst I've slashed the deficit :-)
Income Tax brings in £167 billion. UK population I'm going to take at 60 million. So, as a starting point, that gives us a BI of £2,783 annually, or £54 ($80) a week. Well, that's not a bad start! Let's consider what it means for actual people. Thus far:
Who loves me: - Right-wingers. I've eliminated (or vastly reduced) the deficit, effectively increased the income tax allowance by £2,783 and given them this amount in cash, while reducing welfare payments to lazy, single-mother immigrants. I should be head of the Conservative party.
- Most people on Job Seekers Allowance (unemployment benefit). While I've cut the amount they actually get, I've also cut out all the paperwork, visits to the job centre, taking money off them if they happen to earn something that week, etc etc. Money without the hassle.
- Low wage workers. This is a big boost above Working Tax Credit and is hassle free (you don't lose it by earning more). It also allows some degree of security in the event of losing their job.
Who hates me: - Left-wingers. While I've helped some low paid workers, I've also slashed benefits, there's no housing support...in short I've cut welfare while giving more money to wealthy people. I should be head of the Conservative party.
- People who're claiming several benefits. People who're on sickness benefit. Basically, all the folk who've had their income reduced below a living wage.
- Pensioners. The state pension has been cut significantly (and illegally).
Ok, I think I need to balance it a bit more. I'm going to reduce the Income Tax allowance from £10,000 (current) to £6,000. This should balance out at the end. I'm going to assume this increases income tax revenue by 25% (I've no idea if this is remotely close. If anyone can be bothered finding out, please let me know). More controversially, I'm also going to increase income tax by 25%, so the basic rate is now 25% rather than 20%.
That should give me a total revenue increase of 50% from Income Tax which gives me a BI of £4,175 annually or £80 ($120) per week.
And I think I'll leave it there. We'd need to borrow (or cut spending elsewhere) to make up other shortfalls (such as pension payments), but as long as it's less than £50 billion we still come out ahead. It might be more natural to cut the payment to £70 for everyone in order to free up some cash for other payments. In the real world, you wouldn't exclusively reserve Income Tax to one specific spending area anyway, but it makes things simple enough to get a rough measure.
[There were requests for "back of a napkin" calculations, so I've done some for the UK. To convert to USD, just add 50%, as a rough measure.]
tl;dr - About £80 a week seems roughly achievable as a starting point.
Firstly, I'd like to say I prefer thinking of this as a "Citizen's Dividend" rather than a "Basic Income", as the latter suggests it's useless if it doesn't cover a persons cost of living. I think even a small start is better than nothing, and it can be increased up to become a Basic Income in time. I'll refer to it as BI (Basic Income) here though. So, let's see what we've got...
The UK government spends £732 billion. If we subtract £222 billion for Social Protection (we're replacing all of it with our BI), we get £510 billion required. If we add up all government income except Income Tax - Business Rates, Excise, etc - we get £481 billion.
That leaves us a shortfall of £29 billion. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume that reductions in crime, the increase in VAT revenue, better health, etc are going to cover that. Let's call it close enough for government work. At the end of the day, we currently borrow £84 billion anyway, so at worst I've slashed the deficit :-)
Income Tax brings in £167 billion. UK population I'm going to take at 60 million. So, as a starting point, that gives us a BI of £2,783 annually, or £54 ($80) a week. Well, that's not a bad start! Let's consider what it means for actual people. Thus far:
Who loves me: - Right-wingers. I've eliminated (or vastly reduced) the deficit, effectively increased the income tax allowance by £2,783 and given them this amount in cash, while reducing welfare payments to lazy, single-mother immigrants. I should be head of the Conservative party.
- Most people on Job Seekers Allowance (unemployment benefit). While I've cut the amount they actually get, I've also cut out all the paperwork, visits to the job centre, taking money off them if they happen to earn something that week, etc etc. Money without the hassle.
- Low wage workers. This is a big boost above Working Tax Credit and is hassle free (you don't lose it by earning more). It also allows some degree of security in the event of losing their job.
Who hates me: - Left-wingers. While I've helped some low paid workers, I've also slashed benefits, there's no housing support...in short I've cut welfare while giving more money to wealthy people. I should be head of the Conservative party.
- People who're claiming several benefits. People who're on sickness benefit. Basically, all the folk who've had their income reduced below a living wage.
- Pensioners. The state pension has been cut significantly (and illegally).
Ok, I think I need to balance it a bit more. I'm going to reduce the Income Tax allowance from £10,000 (current) to £6,000. This should balance out at the end. I'm going to assume this increases income tax revenue by 25% (I've no idea if this is remotely close. If anyone can be bothered finding out, please let me know). More controversially, I'm also going to increase income tax by 25%, so the basic rate is now 25% rather than 20%.
That should give me a total revenue increase of 50% from Income Tax which gives me a BI of £4,175 annually or £80 ($120) per week.
And I think I'll leave it there. We'd need to borrow (or cut spending elsewhere) to make up other shortfalls (such as pension payments), but as long as it's less than £50 billion we still come out ahead. It might be more natural to cut the payment to £70 for everyone in order to free up some cash for other payments. In the real world, you wouldn't exclusively reserve Income Tax to one specific spending area anyway, but it makes things simple enough to get a rough measure.
"If we subtract £222 billion for Social Protection (we're replacing all of it with our BI)"
I think that's a fallacy with all these calculations. You can't just disband Social Services/Protection. You'll still need to take care of the kids whose parents drink all the basic income at the local pub or blow it at the casinos. And you'll need to take care of the parents and other reckless people as well. We won't just let them starve on the streets because they spent the money on cigarettes and booze.
I think that's a fallacy with all these calculations. You can't just disband Social Services/Protection. You'll still need to take care of the kids whose parents drink all the basic income at the local pub or blow it at the casinos. And you'll need to take care of the parents and other reckless people as well. We won't just let them starve on the streets because they spent the money on cigarettes and booze.
> I think that's a fallacy with all these calculations.
All what calculations?! The whole point of me bothering to come up with these figures was that there were multiple comments that no-one had bothered to do even a simple sketch of what it would cost. I did.
If you've got better figures, then show them. Better still, find out what the essentials are on Social Services/Protection and include them. I'd be happy to include your amendments for the next time this topic is discussed. Consider it an open source comment :)
All what calculations?! The whole point of me bothering to come up with these figures was that there were multiple comments that no-one had bothered to do even a simple sketch of what it would cost. I did.
If you've got better figures, then show them. Better still, find out what the essentials are on Social Services/Protection and include them. I'd be happy to include your amendments for the next time this topic is discussed. Consider it an open source comment :)
Sorry - I wasn't targeting your specific sketch. I was just trying to refute the basic idea that lots of people make when they state that we'll pay for the Basic Income program by re-allocating all the funding that is currently used for social services and use it for basic income payments. My point is that you can't do this. You'll still need a large "safety net" and associated government organization for reasons stated above and more.
Fair enough. I suppose it doesn't take too much work to add another couple of paragraphs. What about:
"Having increased the BI up to £80, I'm now going to cut it again, down to £60 a week. This is to cover pensioners, people claiming benefits which are currently in excess of £60 and support for vulnerable children (not child benefit: that's paid as BI for the child).
I'm assuming that 20% of people fall into one of the above categories, so cutting £20 off the BI gives us £140 a week to help these people. This is more than the current basic state pension (£113.50/week) so that's a fairly big increase. I don't want to complicate the calculations any further, so the small number of people who require more than this will have to be paid out of the £50 billion we haven't borrowed."
How's that?
"Having increased the BI up to £80, I'm now going to cut it again, down to £60 a week. This is to cover pensioners, people claiming benefits which are currently in excess of £60 and support for vulnerable children (not child benefit: that's paid as BI for the child).
I'm assuming that 20% of people fall into one of the above categories, so cutting £20 off the BI gives us £140 a week to help these people. This is more than the current basic state pension (£113.50/week) so that's a fairly big increase. I don't want to complicate the calculations any further, so the small number of people who require more than this will have to be paid out of the £50 billion we haven't borrowed."
How's that?
Not necessarily. Wouldn't a minimum income plan also mean the end of other welfare plans?
It's likely mostly due to the positive feedback loop. I've become interested in the idea of a basic income from reading stories via HN, and I posted this because (which I agree it isn't really a test of basic income) it is related, and I hadn't heard about it before.
There may be a good case to be made for a minimum basic income (portmanteaus notwithstanding), but one is not to be found in this article.
A basic income without accounting for the Law of Rent cannot create any sustainable solution. That is why a Citizen's Dividend, funded by a Land Value Tax, is necessary.
For those unversed in economic theory, care to explain why a basic income--analogous to the one presented in the article or otherwise--is not a sustainable solution?
The concern is, on the whole, those receiving & relying on a basic income find a right to the fruits of the labors of others, without any incentive toward their own productivity. Many people find that with a little care, they can live nicely on little - and if that little is just given to them, then they can occupy their time just fine with mundane leisure (eating, mating, entertaining) and ongoing demand for more. Why contribute to national productivity when idleness is encouraged & funded?
Many will contend that having the basics covered will encourage the poor to be more productive by not limiting their efforts to mere existence (a la "might one take time to learn programming if not obligated to a 16-hour-a-day job just to pay rent & buy food?"). Many contend this is absurd, as those not inclined toward productivity are not going to become inclined without any reason to. Reality is a complex mix of these, the overall expectation being grounded in one's faith (or lack thereof) in human productivity sans motivation.
Basic income also risks devaluing money. The purpose of currency is representation of value; if someone is not creating value, their money has no value to represent. Money taken from someone and given to others (taxation for BI distribution) gives workers nothing in exchange for their efforts; money received for zero productivity may be squandered a la "easy come, easy go". Concern is akin to minimum wage: a gallon of gas will always be worth about 20 minutes of clerking at a gas station, regardless of the number placed upon the currency used to pay for the work and buy the gas. Basic income would skew low-number pricing: higher prices may continue to represent greater value accurately, but pricing of mundane goods/services would inflate as those purchasing have done nothing to acquire the currency buying them.
Basic needs have a cost to fulfill. Making it easy to fulfill those needs without social contribution reduces overall societal productivity, rewarding idleness and punishing productivity, lowering national GDP. Requiring people to work (true welfare cases aside) encourages productivity, including in work people would rather not do but for need to provide for one's own basic needs.
Reverse question is worth asking: how can basic income possibly be sustainable?
Many will contend that having the basics covered will encourage the poor to be more productive by not limiting their efforts to mere existence (a la "might one take time to learn programming if not obligated to a 16-hour-a-day job just to pay rent & buy food?"). Many contend this is absurd, as those not inclined toward productivity are not going to become inclined without any reason to. Reality is a complex mix of these, the overall expectation being grounded in one's faith (or lack thereof) in human productivity sans motivation.
Basic income also risks devaluing money. The purpose of currency is representation of value; if someone is not creating value, their money has no value to represent. Money taken from someone and given to others (taxation for BI distribution) gives workers nothing in exchange for their efforts; money received for zero productivity may be squandered a la "easy come, easy go". Concern is akin to minimum wage: a gallon of gas will always be worth about 20 minutes of clerking at a gas station, regardless of the number placed upon the currency used to pay for the work and buy the gas. Basic income would skew low-number pricing: higher prices may continue to represent greater value accurately, but pricing of mundane goods/services would inflate as those purchasing have done nothing to acquire the currency buying them.
Basic needs have a cost to fulfill. Making it easy to fulfill those needs without social contribution reduces overall societal productivity, rewarding idleness and punishing productivity, lowering national GDP. Requiring people to work (true welfare cases aside) encourages productivity, including in work people would rather not do but for need to provide for one's own basic needs.
Reverse question is worth asking: how can basic income possibly be sustainable?
I think you need to look at the fact that a lot of people are considering BI solely because of expected advances in automation.
If we're looking at a situation where a vast, vast amount of the value created in the economy is pumped in by a handful of players who own large automated factories and most knowledge-work that we know today is done by specialized AI, then we might be in trouble on the jobs front.
So I think what a lot of people are looking at is a situation where for the average person, there is no job for them in the greater industry - the engineering and technically skilled folks required to build and maintain the machinery might be a fraction of what is required now.
So the marginal contribution of low-skilled Joe Blow is going to be very low or zero.
Now, getting to this situation without mitigating it would probably lead to violence, etc, so this line of reasoning has lead a lot of people into looking at BI.
While I think you have a very valid point, I think that setting up the right carrots and sticks inside a BI system to ensure that the right amount of development occurs is something that can be done.
One of the major effects of simply giving the poor a regular source money is reducing their cognitive load. In the past, it was seen that this stress would encourage the poor to keep working, as it was seen that poverty is caused by lack of motivation.
Today we know that this just screws them over worse. Stress inhibits brain development and constant lack of security decreases motivation to try and improve the situation. Opportunity costs make most prospects look impossible, and an awful lot of people simply don't have the time to stop and figure out what they should do.
So let's get rid of that yolk and see what happens when we give everybody a secure environment to develop themselves. I think it's worth going through the effort of figuring out how to arrange the carrots and sticks to make it work. Don't you?
If we're looking at a situation where a vast, vast amount of the value created in the economy is pumped in by a handful of players who own large automated factories and most knowledge-work that we know today is done by specialized AI, then we might be in trouble on the jobs front.
So I think what a lot of people are looking at is a situation where for the average person, there is no job for them in the greater industry - the engineering and technically skilled folks required to build and maintain the machinery might be a fraction of what is required now.
So the marginal contribution of low-skilled Joe Blow is going to be very low or zero.
Now, getting to this situation without mitigating it would probably lead to violence, etc, so this line of reasoning has lead a lot of people into looking at BI.
While I think you have a very valid point, I think that setting up the right carrots and sticks inside a BI system to ensure that the right amount of development occurs is something that can be done.
One of the major effects of simply giving the poor a regular source money is reducing their cognitive load. In the past, it was seen that this stress would encourage the poor to keep working, as it was seen that poverty is caused by lack of motivation.
Today we know that this just screws them over worse. Stress inhibits brain development and constant lack of security decreases motivation to try and improve the situation. Opportunity costs make most prospects look impossible, and an awful lot of people simply don't have the time to stop and figure out what they should do.
So let's get rid of that yolk and see what happens when we give everybody a secure environment to develop themselves. I think it's worth going through the effort of figuring out how to arrange the carrots and sticks to make it work. Don't you?
The counter to this is that people will be encouraged to contribute to things that do not make them a living like editing Wikipedia, contributing to open source software, gardening, politics, volunteering, etc. because they can do whatever they want without getting paid for it.
The benefit of basic income is that it does in fact incentivize you to work because you do get more money if you work part time, as opposed to current programs that decrease your benefits quickly as you get more and more hours.
But even if we assume people work less with BI, but live happier lives, what is the goal?
The benefit of basic income is that it does in fact incentivize you to work because you do get more money if you work part time, as opposed to current programs that decrease your benefits quickly as you get more and more hours.
But even if we assume people work less with BI, but live happier lives, what is the goal?
> Many people find that with a little care, they can live nicely on little
I believe this is the crux of your argument, and I would say that it is a postulate that cannot be assumed. If the "basic income" were $1k, few people would find they could live on it and thus the motivation to work would remain. On the other hand, who would work if they received $1 million per year? What if it's somewhere in the middle? I would argue that the incentive for work would remain if the benefit only brought people up to the poverty line.
Who wants to at live at the poverty line? $20k for a family of 4 affords very little luxury.
> Basic income also risks devaluing money
Do foodstamps make food significantly more expensive for everybody? What is the percentage of all food revenue bought with food stamps?
If 14% of US citizens live below the poverty line, the vast amount of GDP, productivity, taxes and whatever else you want to measure are generated above that line.
I've heard some arguments that a flat livable wage, without eligibility requirements beyond income would obviate the need and overhead for a whole slew of expensive social programs, including social security, welfare, food stamps, and the minimum wage.
Then there are small scale experiments like the one in the original article, though limited in actionable data did not produce behaviors like you described.
So, to answer your question, it can be sustainable because it can replace some expensive and hard-to-administer social programs with a relatively easier to distribute system. There are tangible incentives to earn more than "basic" income, and training to do so becomes easier. Lastly, the bulk of GDP and the tax base are generated by those far above the poverty line.
I believe this is the crux of your argument, and I would say that it is a postulate that cannot be assumed. If the "basic income" were $1k, few people would find they could live on it and thus the motivation to work would remain. On the other hand, who would work if they received $1 million per year? What if it's somewhere in the middle? I would argue that the incentive for work would remain if the benefit only brought people up to the poverty line.
Who wants to at live at the poverty line? $20k for a family of 4 affords very little luxury.
> Basic income also risks devaluing money
Do foodstamps make food significantly more expensive for everybody? What is the percentage of all food revenue bought with food stamps?
If 14% of US citizens live below the poverty line, the vast amount of GDP, productivity, taxes and whatever else you want to measure are generated above that line.
I've heard some arguments that a flat livable wage, without eligibility requirements beyond income would obviate the need and overhead for a whole slew of expensive social programs, including social security, welfare, food stamps, and the minimum wage.
Then there are small scale experiments like the one in the original article, though limited in actionable data did not produce behaviors like you described.
So, to answer your question, it can be sustainable because it can replace some expensive and hard-to-administer social programs with a relatively easier to distribute system. There are tangible incentives to earn more than "basic" income, and training to do so becomes easier. Lastly, the bulk of GDP and the tax base are generated by those far above the poverty line.
As I mentioned elsewhere, it's worth noting that $20k/yr goes a lot further when you're working 60hrs/wk at stretching it than when you're working 60hrs/wk at making it.
I don't mean this to play any particular role on either side of the debate - I'm not sure of all the ramifications - I just think it's probably an important point.
I don't mean this to play any particular role on either side of the debate - I'm not sure of all the ramifications - I just think it's probably an important point.
"The concern is, on the whole, those receiving & relying on a basic income find a right to the fruits of the labors of others, without any incentive toward their own productivity."
Capitalist states were founded by theft and bloodshed, as if this is an argument. It's all trying to make people conform to some ideology when the words "incentive" and "prodictivity" and "other peoples labor" have no real definition, it's just vague mumbo jumbo. If you really meant that then that would mean many historical injustices would have to be undone (aka the capitalist states theft of property from the natives).
Albert einstein:
"The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future."
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
Capitalist states were founded by theft and bloodshed, as if this is an argument. It's all trying to make people conform to some ideology when the words "incentive" and "prodictivity" and "other peoples labor" have no real definition, it's just vague mumbo jumbo. If you really meant that then that would mean many historical injustices would have to be undone (aka the capitalist states theft of property from the natives).
Albert einstein:
"The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future."
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
I posted an article about a guaranteed basic income a bit more than a year ago,[1] and my posting of the article was prompted by noticing that other Hacker News participants had commented about such policies before, followed by my reading some articles that summarized Charles Murray's book about a guaranteed basic income. Ideologically, Murray would probably be even more in favor of no government welfare payments at all (but ask him directly for his current view), but when he wrote his book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,[2] Murray's basic argument was that governments are already spending billions and billions of dollars derived from taxpayers for means-tested welfare programs or other income transfer programs that are more complicated administratively than a guaranteed basic income, and a nationwide guaranteed basic income covers everyone at less administrative expense.
Murray's book goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and suggests some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.
Murray's own summary of his argument[3] and reviews of his book[4] may inform the discussion here. Big public policy proposals are not easy to discuss, but the big public policy proposal of a guaranteed basic income for all is a response to existing policy of supposedly targeted social welfare programs that are just about equally expensive in the benefits they provide, but much more costly to administer.
As a matter of personal opinion, I am still thinking about whether or not a basic income guarantee is a good idea, but I definitely want to figure out if spending no more in total for social welfare by directly transferring cash to all citizens would simplify administration of welfare programs and allow more individual choice about how to use the money.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309882
[2] http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236
[3] http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf
[4] http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...
http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296
Murray's book goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and suggests some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.
Murray's own summary of his argument[3] and reviews of his book[4] may inform the discussion here. Big public policy proposals are not easy to discuss, but the big public policy proposal of a guaranteed basic income for all is a response to existing policy of supposedly targeted social welfare programs that are just about equally expensive in the benefits they provide, but much more costly to administer.
As a matter of personal opinion, I am still thinking about whether or not a basic income guarantee is a good idea, but I definitely want to figure out if spending no more in total for social welfare by directly transferring cash to all citizens would simplify administration of welfare programs and allow more individual choice about how to use the money.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309882
[2] http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236
[3] http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf
[4] http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...
http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296
A basic income guaranteed as long as you stay on birth control makes sense to me. Start paying a small amount at puberty. As soon as you have a child you lose access to it until your children are adults. This will work for men once we have reversible sterilization.
This would solve so many problems in this world.
This would solve so many problems in this world.
Honest question, what problems do you think this would solve?
Is it that you don't want people to have children until they are financially capable of supporting them?
It is indeed a grave responsibility to provide for one's offspring while they are still in the brood. But the upside of the situation, even in the unfortunate circumstance where one cannot make such financial provision, is no less than the creation of a brand new, fully conscious member of the human species, capable of experiencing the full wonder and surprise of being, who otherwise would have no chance of ever existing at all.
Furthermore, and here I risk delving into platitudes, children are quite literally the future of society. The continued production of children at a healthy clip is absolutely essential to the continuation of all the things we, as humans, value highest.
Hence it seems deranged to me to be so afraid of any monetary hardship that one should seek to positively disincentivize childbearing with such a broad and punitive measure. You are tampering with processes of infinite value and you do so at infinite risk.
As a smaller, more concrete objection, what about those who are initially of sound bank account, but then fall into hardship sometime after they've commenced in their procreative endeavours? Are they to be punished as well? In light of this possibility, why not take the opposite tack, and instead reward every new human life with a large gift to help pay for the cost of the upbringing?
Is it that you don't want people to have children until they are financially capable of supporting them?
It is indeed a grave responsibility to provide for one's offspring while they are still in the brood. But the upside of the situation, even in the unfortunate circumstance where one cannot make such financial provision, is no less than the creation of a brand new, fully conscious member of the human species, capable of experiencing the full wonder and surprise of being, who otherwise would have no chance of ever existing at all.
Furthermore, and here I risk delving into platitudes, children are quite literally the future of society. The continued production of children at a healthy clip is absolutely essential to the continuation of all the things we, as humans, value highest.
Hence it seems deranged to me to be so afraid of any monetary hardship that one should seek to positively disincentivize childbearing with such a broad and punitive measure. You are tampering with processes of infinite value and you do so at infinite risk.
As a smaller, more concrete objection, what about those who are initially of sound bank account, but then fall into hardship sometime after they've commenced in their procreative endeavours? Are they to be punished as well? In light of this possibility, why not take the opposite tack, and instead reward every new human life with a large gift to help pay for the cost of the upbringing?
The Swiss referendum called for unconditional payment. To me, the unconditional nature is the preserving factor that incentivizes people to earn more, while knowing they are protected. A needs based system results in fear of losing what little you have. Low income housing in extremely desirable areas works in similar manner and traps people, instead of incentivizing them to seek higher paid employment because that higher pay will make them not qualified for the subsidy, yet not able to afford the area.