The indignity of no work(economist.com)
economist.com
The indignity of no work
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/02/social-norms
257 comments
The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money.
Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs. The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would have to be so high to support UBI that the costs would dwarf what people could afford.
As these services collapse so to will higher paying ones; lets see a doctor get up early to wash the floors of her practice since she can't afford to hire a cleaning staff and still charge patients a reasonable rate.
Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs. The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would have to be so high to support UBI that the costs would dwarf what people could afford.
As these services collapse so to will higher paying ones; lets see a doctor get up early to wash the floors of her practice since she can't afford to hire a cleaning staff and still charge patients a reasonable rate.
The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi.
That's untrue. Switzerland is having a national referendum on whether to offer one, and stipends from oil or casino money, while not enough to live on at this point, already exist in a few places. You may be correct that there's not enough money to give everyone enough to live on, but it's far from sci-fi.
(There is plenty of money in the world, it's just tied up in things like insane finance industry salaries, or $500k/yr/person for imprisonment, etc.)
And historically? People looked after their own menial tasks, where they were small enough, and where the tasks were too big for individuals (like roads, or building a town hall) the community got together and did it.
That's untrue. Switzerland is having a national referendum on whether to offer one, and stipends from oil or casino money, while not enough to live on at this point, already exist in a few places. You may be correct that there's not enough money to give everyone enough to live on, but it's far from sci-fi.
(There is plenty of money in the world, it's just tied up in things like insane finance industry salaries, or $500k/yr/person for imprisonment, etc.)
And historically? People looked after their own menial tasks, where they were small enough, and where the tasks were too big for individuals (like roads, or building a town hall) the community got together and did it.
In switzerland it was voted down because it doesn't make economic sense. Look at the numbers, they don't work.
So what? Do the Medicare numbers work for anyone? Health insurance in the USA is the worst in the world and costs more than anyone's else. USA citizens still use it and actively fight any substantial towards a more rational scheme that will offer more and cost less (ultimately). This as the basic income, is not about math - it's about politics.
NOTE: I don't mean politics in the negative sense, I mean it in the sense of ones beliefs/experiences/political-stance/etc.
NOTE: I don't mean politics in the negative sense, I mean it in the sense of ones beliefs/experiences/political-stance/etc.
> So what?
He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere, and any money a government has at its disposal comes from: 1) extortion (ie. taxation), 2) printing, 3) borrowing.
Those are the three options, and none of them are a sustainable way to fund UBI, because the amount of money needed is so massive. You can't get something from nothing, and everyone can't get something from everyone else.
He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere, and any money a government has at its disposal comes from: 1) extortion (ie. taxation), 2) printing, 3) borrowing.
Those are the three options, and none of them are a sustainable way to fund UBI, because the amount of money needed is so massive. You can't get something from nothing, and everyone can't get something from everyone else.
> He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility.
I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. I believe it is, only a real world example will convince me and Switzerland IMHO is the perfect country to run this experiment.
The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. I believe it is, only a real world example will convince me and Switzerland IMHO is the perfect country to run this experiment.
The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
> I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries.
It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences.
> The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now.
No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay.
It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences.
> The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now.
No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay.
"True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now."
If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? At some point you may resort to violence (or have someone else do it on your behalf), so, that's extortion right? I would say no, because we have collectively agreed that property rights should usually be enforced - the mere fact that I possess your laptop doesn't mean it is rightfully mine. Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations. Asking for something that in someone's possession but that they don't actually have right to is not what extortion is.
If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? At some point you may resort to violence (or have someone else do it on your behalf), so, that's extortion right? I would say no, because we have collectively agreed that property rights should usually be enforced - the mere fact that I possess your laptop doesn't mean it is rightfully mine. Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations. Asking for something that in someone's possession but that they don't actually have right to is not what extortion is.
> If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return?
Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property. But if I tell you I'm going to hurt you if you don't give me your laptop, that is extortion.
> Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations.
"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).
Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that each will eat five of the hottest chilis in the world. Does that mean the remaining one has to eat them too, because they have "collectively decided" to eat chilis, or does he have the right not to participate?
Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property. But if I tell you I'm going to hurt you if you don't give me your laptop, that is extortion.
> Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations.
"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).
Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that each will eat five of the hottest chilis in the world. Does that mean the remaining one has to eat them too, because they have "collectively decided" to eat chilis, or does he have the right not to participate?
Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that murder is wrong and should be punished. Does that mean the remaining one has to accept that murder is wrong, because they have "collectively decided" that murder is wrong, or does he have the right to commit murder?
Of course, the 9 people in the room have a sound and reasonable argument that murder is wrong (perhaps their argument is "it infringes the rights of others"), just as, we may presume, the nine chili-eaters have a sound and reasonable argument they must all eat the five hottest chilis. But in each instance, the tenth individual began from different premises and did not arrive at their conclusion (maybe he is an Incan time traveler and human sacrifice is part of his religious beliefs, and he does not see that there is any objective basis for human rights.)
Enforced collective agreement and societal norms are necessary for society to exists whether you like and agree to it or not. If that makes you a slave, then all of mankind has been enslaved from the dawn of time save the loners in the wilderness.
One of the libertarian's "collective agreements" is that every individual has certain rights.
Of course, the 9 people in the room have a sound and reasonable argument that murder is wrong (perhaps their argument is "it infringes the rights of others"), just as, we may presume, the nine chili-eaters have a sound and reasonable argument they must all eat the five hottest chilis. But in each instance, the tenth individual began from different premises and did not arrive at their conclusion (maybe he is an Incan time traveler and human sacrifice is part of his religious beliefs, and he does not see that there is any objective basis for human rights.)
Enforced collective agreement and societal norms are necessary for society to exists whether you like and agree to it or not. If that makes you a slave, then all of mankind has been enslaved from the dawn of time save the loners in the wilderness.
One of the libertarian's "collective agreements" is that every individual has certain rights.
> Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that murder is wrong and should be punished. Does that mean the remaining one has to accept that murder is wrong, because they have "collectively decided" that murder is wrong, or does he have the right to commit murder?
You're doing a pretty good job at sophistry, but since you happened to use the word "right", I'd point out that decisions don't affect rights.
Compare these two ideas:
Consider for example:
What's the rationale for this claim?
Furthermore, is it moral for your average Sicilian neighbourhood mafia to extort people? -If not, why is it alright for governments to extort people? Does the end justify the means? -What if the Sicilian mafia wants to feed a few poor people with the money they extort from you? -Would that make their extortion alright?
What if the mafia say they need your money to maintain peace in the neighbourhood? You see, without the mafia's protection services, people would be killing each other left and right, and we just can't have that, can we? -Extorting you is necessary for the common good then, wouldn't you agree?
You're doing a pretty good job at sophistry, but since you happened to use the word "right", I'd point out that decisions don't affect rights.
Compare these two ideas:
1) No one wants to be killed, and therefore, we can
reasonably consider killing someone forbidden.
2) The nine of us want to eat shit, and therefore,
we can reasonably conclude that you must eat shit
too, regardless of whether you want to or not.
Consider for example:
1) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward?
2) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward,
even though there's someone right in front of you,
and you'd have to trample over him to move forward?
What's the rationale for this claim?
Furthermore, is it moral for your average Sicilian neighbourhood mafia to extort people? -If not, why is it alright for governments to extort people? Does the end justify the means? -What if the Sicilian mafia wants to feed a few poor people with the money they extort from you? -Would that make their extortion alright?
What if the mafia say they need your money to maintain peace in the neighbourhood? You see, without the mafia's protection services, people would be killing each other left and right, and we just can't have that, can we? -Extorting you is necessary for the common good then, wouldn't you agree?
"Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property."
Yes, that's my point. But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
'"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).'
I disagree. Yes, we are all individuals. Yes, we all have the same rights. But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
Yes, that's my point. But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
'"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).'
I disagree. Yes, we are all individuals. Yes, we all have the same rights. But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
>> If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return?
..
> Yes, that's my point.
Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point.
> But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.
> But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people.
Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it. They'd do that because they'd both want to move on with their lives instead of wasting time, energy and effort on ultimately pointless bickering.
Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point.
> But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.
> But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people.
Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it. They'd do that because they'd both want to move on with their lives instead of wasting time, energy and effort on ultimately pointless bickering.
> No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay.
I agree with the rest of your points, but not necessarily with this one. Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that.
I agree with the rest of your points, but not necessarily with this one. Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that.
> Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that.
If it were genuinely voluntary, they could just stop any time they wanted to, without any negative consequences. We all know they can't - they'll be forcefully hauled into jail, and their property will be confiscated.
If it were genuinely voluntary, they could just stop any time they wanted to, without any negative consequences. We all know they can't - they'll be forcefully hauled into jail, and their property will be confiscated.
Sure, but my point was that that's not the main reason; they genuinely want to pay for some of the stuff that comes out of taxes (like police, firefighters, public schools and roads). The point is this: if you don't want to stop paying taxes, why does it matter that you can't? (to some people it matters, but to many it doesn't)
>> Many people do pay taxes voluntarily
You claimed people pay taxes voluntarily, but that is incorrect. Even if some people don't mind paying them now, they can't stop either. Your willingness to pay them is separate from whether you have a choice.
You claimed people pay taxes voluntarily, but that is incorrect. Even if some people don't mind paying them now, they can't stop either. Your willingness to pay them is separate from whether you have a choice.
> The money […] has to come from somewhere
Not necessarily. Money can be printed out of thin air. It is printed out of thin air right now, mostly by private banks (I know they're not technically printing money, but Fractional Reserve Banking and other shenanigans have the same practical effects).
Of course, once you're explicit about printing money, you need to be careful about inflation. But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour.
But in this era of massive unemployment, it looks like labour isn't the bottleneck.
Not necessarily. Money can be printed out of thin air. It is printed out of thin air right now, mostly by private banks (I know they're not technically printing money, but Fractional Reserve Banking and other shenanigans have the same practical effects).
Of course, once you're explicit about printing money, you need to be careful about inflation. But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour.
But in this era of massive unemployment, it looks like labour isn't the bottleneck.
Money are used as a replacement of resources. By printing money out of thin air you make the same amount of money signify less amount of resources. This is very profitable to those who print money and very unprofitable for those who holds these money but need resources instead. So printing money is just a redistributive program that takes resources from savers. In severe form, from anybody having money, even for a short term (this is called hyperinflation). So when we're talking about "money has to come from somewhere", we're of course talking about resources, "printing money" is just a sneaky way to extract resources from those who delayed their consumption of resources they produced, foolishly trusting the government to preserve their value by exchanging them for a government-controlled money. And these resources are not infinite, they are scarce. Moreover, if you start extracting a lot of resources from those foolish people, they start noticing and no longer entrust their savings to the government that takes too much from them. And then the government finds itself with a lot of people who were promised non-scarce money but don't have any resources to back them up. And you can't eat money, so situation becomes sour pretty quickly at that point.
> And these resources are not infinite, they are scarce.
This is the crux right here.
The government no longer providers you money as BI. It provides you with the right to housing (build up), the right to energy (one person can only use so many KwHs/day), the right to worldwide communications (I think we can all agree the price of moving bits is going to continue to fall), the right to food, and the right to transportation (electric self-driving vehicles).
With enough wind, solar, nuclear power, with self driving cars, with automated manufacturing and farming, you don't need money. You simply provide for your citizens their basic essentials. The people who want to work, will. The people who don't aren't a burden, because robots don't resent.
This is the crux right here.
The government no longer providers you money as BI. It provides you with the right to housing (build up), the right to energy (one person can only use so many KwHs/day), the right to worldwide communications (I think we can all agree the price of moving bits is going to continue to fall), the right to food, and the right to transportation (electric self-driving vehicles).
With enough wind, solar, nuclear power, with self driving cars, with automated manufacturing and farming, you don't need money. You simply provide for your citizens their basic essentials. The people who want to work, will. The people who don't aren't a burden, because robots don't resent.
Yeah, in a fairy land where resources are non-scarce and are conjured by the government from nothing, it would work fairly well. I've been taught about this is the soviet school, where they explained me the communism is right around the corner and it would look exactly like that. In the real world, meanwhile, everything consumed has to be produced, and if you want power, cars, manufacturing and farming, somebody has to manufacture and farm it. So for you to get it for free means somebody has to produce it and then either gift it to you or you will take it away by force. Last time I checked giving away cars wasn't that popular (if I'm wrong please tell me where I can pick up my free Tesla) so I guess you'd have to take these cars by force. Why would then the manufacturers keep producing them is a mystery to me.
You are working under a set of extremely strong assumptions, which happen to be true right now: (1) Humans have to do most menial tasks. (2) Most people will cling to all their possessions, never giving them away for free. (3) We don't have the resources to give everyone decent housing, transportation, energy, food, and communication.
(1) Automation is on its way, and will continue to eat jobs. It won't be possible to create as much jobs as technology is taking away. Take self driving cars for instance: soon there will be no bus driver, no truck driver, no taxi driver. Some of them will work in control centres and "supervise" 50 vehicles at once, but that still means many people who will need another job. People will have free time, whether they want it or not.
(2) This is a cultural problem. I guess much of it will go away once we solve (3)
(3) is less costly than it sounds. We just need to be rational about crop management (which is currently insane, thanks to globalization), the use of technology, urbanisation… It's a huge problem, but not an unsolvable one. We will need the political will to do it though, and that won't happen until western countries become democracies[1].
[1]: Current western countries are not run by the people. They are run by elected elites, which happen to represent the interests of the businesses —the only special interest that is not called such. Therefore, current western countries are not democracies. They're plutocracies. Now, I think this is most true in the US, and less true in some European countries.
(1) Automation is on its way, and will continue to eat jobs. It won't be possible to create as much jobs as technology is taking away. Take self driving cars for instance: soon there will be no bus driver, no truck driver, no taxi driver. Some of them will work in control centres and "supervise" 50 vehicles at once, but that still means many people who will need another job. People will have free time, whether they want it or not.
(2) This is a cultural problem. I guess much of it will go away once we solve (3)
(3) is less costly than it sounds. We just need to be rational about crop management (which is currently insane, thanks to globalization), the use of technology, urbanisation… It's a huge problem, but not an unsolvable one. We will need the political will to do it though, and that won't happen until western countries become democracies[1].
[1]: Current western countries are not run by the people. They are run by elected elites, which happen to represent the interests of the businesses —the only special interest that is not called such. Therefore, current western countries are not democracies. They're plutocracies. Now, I think this is most true in the US, and less true in some European countries.
(1) We've heard this song since invention of the steam engine. Yes, dozens of horse-based and carriage-based professions disappeared due to shifts in technology. Yes, US whaling industry, once fifth largest in the economy, is no more. Yes, water-bearers, ice- and kerosene-sellers are not that common anymore, since running water, refrigeration and electric light became commonplace. But somehow there are hundreds of other professions and occupations, unheard of in the age of horse and carriage, that were created instead. There is always something to do. And always will be.
(2) Yes, of course, people will start giving away their possessions really soon now. As soon as there will be communism, which is right around the corner. I'll believe it when somebody gifts me a yacht and a beachfront house somewhere in Mediterranean. BTW, how exactly you would have your magic robots make everybody their own beachfront house in the Mediterranean?
(3) Yeah right. We just need a set of magic technologies which would do something that was never done and nobody has any remotest idea how to do it, and every attempt in the past to do it ended up in spectacular and very bloody disaster. Technology is not magic, it can do a lot but it can not change human nature and it can not produce everything out of nothing for free.
(4) Businesses are people. You're just trying to dehumanize them because these people stand in line of your agenda. While you are glad to describe how people would gift you their possessions and work for you for free, you still realize fat chance they will. So you just say - well, those not true people, those are "elites" and "businesses" and "special interests" (as if anybody but people can have interests!) and as soon as we disenfranchise them and take power to the real people - abundance and happiness will ensue. Too bad this all was already tried a hundred years ago. With exactly the same words and exactly the same promises. The result was and always will be - blood, hunger, suffering, misery and death.
(2) Yes, of course, people will start giving away their possessions really soon now. As soon as there will be communism, which is right around the corner. I'll believe it when somebody gifts me a yacht and a beachfront house somewhere in Mediterranean. BTW, how exactly you would have your magic robots make everybody their own beachfront house in the Mediterranean?
(3) Yeah right. We just need a set of magic technologies which would do something that was never done and nobody has any remotest idea how to do it, and every attempt in the past to do it ended up in spectacular and very bloody disaster. Technology is not magic, it can do a lot but it can not change human nature and it can not produce everything out of nothing for free.
(4) Businesses are people. You're just trying to dehumanize them because these people stand in line of your agenda. While you are glad to describe how people would gift you their possessions and work for you for free, you still realize fat chance they will. So you just say - well, those not true people, those are "elites" and "businesses" and "special interests" (as if anybody but people can have interests!) and as soon as we disenfranchise them and take power to the real people - abundance and happiness will ensue. Too bad this all was already tried a hundred years ago. With exactly the same words and exactly the same promises. The result was and always will be - blood, hunger, suffering, misery and death.
I did list printing as one of the three way a government acquires money, and as "smsm42" explained, it's not a sustainable way to fund anything, let alone the massive expenditures required for UBI.
> But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour.
Money is a representation of value - you've had to earn it somehow (unless you're the government ofc). In other words, money represents labour/resources/services etc, and those are scarce even if our fiat currencies can be created out of thin air seemingly without any limit.
The point here is, again, that you can't get something from nothing. If a government wants to implement UBI, it can't just distribute grains of sand to everyone - it has to be something valuable and useable as a means of exchange, and that places limits on what the government can feasibly do.
> But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour.
Money is a representation of value - you've had to earn it somehow (unless you're the government ofc). In other words, money represents labour/resources/services etc, and those are scarce even if our fiat currencies can be created out of thin air seemingly without any limit.
The point here is, again, that you can't get something from nothing. If a government wants to implement UBI, it can't just distribute grains of sand to everyone - it has to be something valuable and useable as a means of exchange, and that places limits on what the government can feasibly do.
> it's not a sustainable way to fund anything, let alone the massive expenditures required for UBI.
I'm open-minded but not convinced that printing money for UBI is an awful idea.
Printing money and sharing it out equally results in inflation, very likely, which affects people with existing wealth/savings more. The result is that money is very effectively redistributed, in a way which the existing income-based taxation system is unable to. Isn't that exactly the goal?
I'm open-minded but not convinced that printing money for UBI is an awful idea.
Printing money and sharing it out equally results in inflation, very likely, which affects people with existing wealth/savings more. The result is that money is very effectively redistributed, in a way which the existing income-based taxation system is unable to. Isn't that exactly the goal?
It is, but you have to be careful not to overdo it.
Also, I wasn't only advocating printing money by the state. I was also suggesting we stop banks from printing money as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-reserve_banking Monetary policy is too important to let private special interests control it.
Also, the current way of dealing with money, even for a state, is to think in terms of budget, deficits… while it should instead think in terms of money supply. The state would then increase the money supply through various spending, and decrease through taxes. Deficit would be zero by definition. Only inflation would remain. (My guess: inflation should probably be kept between 3% and 10% per year. It should definitely not be null.)
Monetary policy influences all other policies, because you do need a budget to do anything. (A budget in resources and manpower, but money is too convenient to do away with.)
My point is, money is too important to let a few powerful, not-even-elected entities control it.
Also, I wasn't only advocating printing money by the state. I was also suggesting we stop banks from printing money as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-reserve_banking Monetary policy is too important to let private special interests control it.
Also, the current way of dealing with money, even for a state, is to think in terms of budget, deficits… while it should instead think in terms of money supply. The state would then increase the money supply through various spending, and decrease through taxes. Deficit would be zero by definition. Only inflation would remain. (My guess: inflation should probably be kept between 3% and 10% per year. It should definitely not be null.)
Monetary policy influences all other policies, because you do need a budget to do anything. (A budget in resources and manpower, but money is too convenient to do away with.)
My point is, money is too important to let a few powerful, not-even-elected entities control it.
Has it in fact been voted on? Last I had heard it hadn't even been scheduled for a vote, and a search isn't turning up any updates. Give a citation, or stop making shit up.
As it happens, I'm also skeptical of the numbers working out in the Swiss proposal, but they're crazy high.
As it happens, I'm also skeptical of the numbers working out in the Swiss proposal, but they're crazy high.
What numbers, specifically? You didn't cite any and there haven't been many real-world studies or experiments to produce data on the costs/results of a basic income program. Something this complicated isn't going to be accurately modeled by a couple economists purely using estimates...
Caveat: Not a professional analysis, and not the OP.
There's 248 million people ages 16 and older in the US, of which 63% are in the labor force[1]. So 156 million people are available for work (not all of whom are employed).
Total population is about 330 million.
If each of them were to get a basic monthly stipend (this is everyone, including infants) of $1200, that's $396 billion per month in payments.
Per working individual, that's a tax burden of $2538 per month. And that's just for this program - there's also the rest of government to pay for. Military, roads, police + fire protection, and so on. This also assumes that the basic stipend replaces all other existing entitlement and welfare programs. Which isn't likely, because politics.
Yes, the working individual will also receive a stipend payment, reducing their net tax burden to $1338. But for an hourly employee, that comes out to about $8.35 per hour worked that goes to tax. Even with the new $10.10 minimum wage proposal, that leaves them just $1.75/hr as incentive to work, vs. just staying home and living off the stipend.
[1] http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...
There's 248 million people ages 16 and older in the US, of which 63% are in the labor force[1]. So 156 million people are available for work (not all of whom are employed).
Total population is about 330 million.
If each of them were to get a basic monthly stipend (this is everyone, including infants) of $1200, that's $396 billion per month in payments.
Per working individual, that's a tax burden of $2538 per month. And that's just for this program - there's also the rest of government to pay for. Military, roads, police + fire protection, and so on. This also assumes that the basic stipend replaces all other existing entitlement and welfare programs. Which isn't likely, because politics.
Yes, the working individual will also receive a stipend payment, reducing their net tax burden to $1338. But for an hourly employee, that comes out to about $8.35 per hour worked that goes to tax. Even with the new $10.10 minimum wage proposal, that leaves them just $1.75/hr as incentive to work, vs. just staying home and living off the stipend.
[1] http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...
Note also if you living on the dole, you get free housing, free healthcare, free phone, free childcare services, free education, etc. etc. All of which you'd have to pay for if you were stupid enough to work. So actual initiatives are even worse. Even now, welfare already pays more, if benefits are counted, than a minimum-wage job:
Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.[1]
In fact, in 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states, including California, as well as the District of Columbia, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, or more than 2.75 times the minimum wage.[2]
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-wel...
[2] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare
Of course, there are incentives to work still, but $1200/month and accompanying tax raise may kill them for many more people than now.
Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.[1]
In fact, in 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states, including California, as well as the District of Columbia, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, or more than 2.75 times the minimum wage.[2]
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-wel...
[2] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare
Of course, there are incentives to work still, but $1200/month and accompanying tax raise may kill them for many more people than now.
Of course, a sufficiently high ABI would have welfare gotten rid of: no more free housing, schooling, nothing: just live with your ABI.
To really calculate the cost of ABI, you need to subtract the cost of welfare.
To really calculate the cost of ABI, you need to subtract the cost of welfare.
That won't work. If it worked, we woudn't need free housing, schooling etc right now - giving people money would be much easier. The problem is that money is fungible - if you give people money instead of free housing, they'd just by some crap on it and then will come back to you and complain they have nowhere to live, and you're back to square one. That's why there are so many non-monetary benefits - because you can't sell free schooling and buy beer or fancy shoes or a lottery ticket on it. Some benefits - like free phones - can be sold, and they are actively abused and sold.
"The problem is that money is fungible - if you give people money instead of free housing, they'd just by some crap on it and then will come back to you and complain they have nowhere to live, and you're back to square one."
That's the fear that leads to all the specific help, but the experiments with unconditional cash show that is not what happens.
That's the fear that leads to all the specific help, but the experiments with unconditional cash show that is not what happens.
So far I've seen all the experiments conducted in remote places with extremely poor people having no experience with welfare state. What I'd like is to see something like that somewhere in Chicago. I.e. remove all fringe benefits, monetize them and convert to cash payments, and see how that goes. I suspect the result would be much different.
You've missed several relevant studies.
First, the Mincome experiment in Manitoba (confusingly, while "Minimum Income" is something different than "Basic Income", the experiment did test "Basic Income"), which ran for five years in the 1970s and found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
Second, there was a case in London recently where a large lump sum was given to each of 13 long-term homeless men.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-t...
Third, unconditional income on an Indian reservation (derived from Casino profits) showed a substantial improvement in the welfare of children from poor families:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/what-happens...
You can absolutely find nits to pick about all of these, but they are not "remote places with extremely poor people having no experience with the welfare state". I'd love to see an experiment conducted in Chicago or wherever else, but if people in all of the above, diverse situations (some of whom certainly have experience with a welfare state) behave one way it starts to be perverse to expect something different for an arbitrary new group of people (which isn't to say we couldn't be surprised or shouldn't do more research, to a point).
First, the Mincome experiment in Manitoba (confusingly, while "Minimum Income" is something different than "Basic Income", the experiment did test "Basic Income"), which ran for five years in the 1970s and found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
Second, there was a case in London recently where a large lump sum was given to each of 13 long-term homeless men.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-t...
Third, unconditional income on an Indian reservation (derived from Casino profits) showed a substantial improvement in the welfare of children from poor families:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/what-happens...
You can absolutely find nits to pick about all of these, but they are not "remote places with extremely poor people having no experience with the welfare state". I'd love to see an experiment conducted in Chicago or wherever else, but if people in all of the above, diverse situations (some of whom certainly have experience with a welfare state) behave one way it starts to be perverse to expect something different for an arbitrary new group of people (which isn't to say we couldn't be surprised or shouldn't do more research, to a point).
Your math assumes we're paying for it with an employment-contingent head-tax, which would be totally crazypants. Most income is earned by high earners, most earners are not high earners.
From another perspective, the total income of US persons in 2010 was over $12 trillion/year[1]. People are currently paying a total of $899 billion in federal income tax. Assuming we distribute the burden evenly per dollar earned, assuming incentive to work is linear in dollars, and assuming there are no other effects we would see incentive to work drop by something a little over one third. This leaves dramatically more incentive than the above numbers would indicate. For the record, though, $14k/yr is about twice the BI level that I personally (tentatively) favor.
[1] https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm
[2] https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4363
[1] https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm
[2] https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4363
There is ~$45 trillion in the world[0]
There is ~7 billion people.
That gives ~$6500/person. That seems reasonable. Given if you distributed all money evenly worldwide the profit motive would disappear and things would be bought and sold at cost.
But yes, I've gone waaay into sci-fi.
But, back in the real world, Australia basically has one. So you're full of shit.[1]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
[1] http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-service...
That gives ~$6500/person. That seems reasonable. Given if you distributed all money evenly worldwide the profit motive would disappear and things would be bought and sold at cost.
But yes, I've gone waaay into sci-fi.
But, back in the real world, Australia basically has one. So you're full of shit.[1]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
[1] http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-service...
An Australian here - there is absolutely no universal basic income in Australia.
We have a nurturing social safety net and it provides some minimal payments for those who are experiencing hardship. These payments are temporary and a meant to help individuals survive while they get up on their feet again. The selection criteria is quite forgiving because the system is setup to err on the side of overpayments rather than risking people in genuine need to go homeless. Therefore, there are a small group people who take advantage of the system, but it is not designed to be anything like a universal basic income.
We have a nurturing social safety net and it provides some minimal payments for those who are experiencing hardship. These payments are temporary and a meant to help individuals survive while they get up on their feet again. The selection criteria is quite forgiving because the system is setup to err on the side of overpayments rather than risking people in genuine need to go homeless. Therefore, there are a small group people who take advantage of the system, but it is not designed to be anything like a universal basic income.
I think you misunderstand australian system. It is identical to a universal basic income, but it has been built with efficiency in mind (much like ALL of Australia's welfare systems).
A basic income of ~$10k/year is provided to everyone (who needs it, i.e the unemployed). Depending on what kind of other needs (rent, children, school, etc) other benefits are available as well. It is not temporary, and you can live on it for your whole life if 10k/year is enough for you.
It was designed EXACTLY to be like a universal basic income, it has only (in the last 15 years) been eroded to a "temporary unemployment" scheme in peoples minds.
So you may be an Australian, but you seem to lack the knowledge of your own welfare system.
Tell me, if it isn't a universal basic income, then who is not 'eligible' for it? (Excluding people who already earn more than the basic income of course).
A basic income of ~$10k/year is provided to everyone (who needs it, i.e the unemployed). Depending on what kind of other needs (rent, children, school, etc) other benefits are available as well. It is not temporary, and you can live on it for your whole life if 10k/year is enough for you.
It was designed EXACTLY to be like a universal basic income, it has only (in the last 15 years) been eroded to a "temporary unemployment" scheme in peoples minds.
So you may be an Australian, but you seem to lack the knowledge of your own welfare system.
Tell me, if it isn't a universal basic income, then who is not 'eligible' for it? (Excluding people who already earn more than the basic income of course).
> Tell me, if it isn't a universal basic income, then who is not 'eligible' for it? (Excluding people who already earn more than the basic income of course).
A UBI means everyone gets it, regardless of their other income. What you describe sounds is a means-tested minimum income support, not an unconditional basic income. UBI proponents oppose income-based means-testing for a number of reasons, including both additional administrative complexity and the fact that income-based means-testing reduces the incentive to productive work by creating an range in which additional outside income has reduced or no impact on total income, whereas with UBI no such range exists.
A UBI means everyone gets it, regardless of their other income. What you describe sounds is a means-tested minimum income support, not an unconditional basic income. UBI proponents oppose income-based means-testing for a number of reasons, including both additional administrative complexity and the fact that income-based means-testing reduces the incentive to productive work by creating an range in which additional outside income has reduced or no impact on total income, whereas with UBI no such range exists.
So everyone earning at least 10k isn't ubi, because the government isn't supplying it to everyone, you'd prefer a tax and redistribution? (Because that's easier to administer).
Australia's productivity is evidence that "reduced incentive to work" is FUD not fact.
Australia's productivity is evidence that "reduced incentive to work" is FUD not fact.
Okay, now I am 100% that you're just trolling indiscriminately. There have been at least a couple real-world experiments done, have you even had the decency to look it up on Google?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=basic+income+experiment
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=basic+income+experiment
He's not trolling. Really it doesn't work and the math is simple. There are ~310M Americans. To give them even 10k each per year that's 3.1 Trillion which is more that the US gov't collected in taxes last year.
Warning: back of the envelope calculations ahead
You're forgetting the fact that a basic income would obviate all means-based welfare programs, unemployment insurance, social security, etc; this means 2.3 TRILLION dollars (1.03T from means-based welfare programs and 1.3T from SS) in savings. Also, it would be enormously strange if we gave a full basic income to every infant, toddler, child and teen in the United States. It seems pretty obvious that kids would count as an adjustment to your received basic income that's <100% of an entire additional basic income. For comparison, a single-person household on average gets $200/mo in food stamps and a family of four gets $500/mo, which works out to children costing 1/4th as much as an adult (and note that food stamps are more sensitive to additional children than housing costs are). The percentage of the population that's below 18 is somewhere around ~25%, so depending on the multiplier that takes ~$600B off of the cost. This means that the actual incremental cost of the program would be roughly $200B(with the weak-link assumption here being the multiplier of a child's cost). This is obviously a large sum of money, but considering the scope of such a program, a revenue increase of that magnitude would honestly be relatively trivial. This is particularly the case when you realize that if you raise tax rates just enough to cancel out the basic income for, say, upper-middle class or higher, you end up with no net tax increase for anyone and an additional bump in revenue (equivalent to a reduction in cost from limiting the basic income to everyone below a given income level, without the administrative hassle of means-testing).
I'm not saying the math WILL definitely work out, because I don't know what the basic-income figure would actually be (especially given C-o-L differences), but there's enough extreme inaccuracies in the bound you're giving that it's not really useful.
You're forgetting the fact that a basic income would obviate all means-based welfare programs, unemployment insurance, social security, etc; this means 2.3 TRILLION dollars (1.03T from means-based welfare programs and 1.3T from SS) in savings. Also, it would be enormously strange if we gave a full basic income to every infant, toddler, child and teen in the United States. It seems pretty obvious that kids would count as an adjustment to your received basic income that's <100% of an entire additional basic income. For comparison, a single-person household on average gets $200/mo in food stamps and a family of four gets $500/mo, which works out to children costing 1/4th as much as an adult (and note that food stamps are more sensitive to additional children than housing costs are). The percentage of the population that's below 18 is somewhere around ~25%, so depending on the multiplier that takes ~$600B off of the cost. This means that the actual incremental cost of the program would be roughly $200B(with the weak-link assumption here being the multiplier of a child's cost). This is obviously a large sum of money, but considering the scope of such a program, a revenue increase of that magnitude would honestly be relatively trivial. This is particularly the case when you realize that if you raise tax rates just enough to cancel out the basic income for, say, upper-middle class or higher, you end up with no net tax increase for anyone and an additional bump in revenue (equivalent to a reduction in cost from limiting the basic income to everyone below a given income level, without the administrative hassle of means-testing).
I'm not saying the math WILL definitely work out, because I don't know what the basic-income figure would actually be (especially given C-o-L differences), but there's enough extreme inaccuracies in the bound you're giving that it's not really useful.
Social Security pays the retired 10s of Ks per year so they can live comfortably after paying into the system for their entire career.
You think we should get rid of that in favor of a basic income of ~10k for everyone? That's going to suck pretty bad for the retired.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion if you do think that but the vast vast vast majority of Americans are going to disagree with you.
You think we should get rid of that in favor of a basic income of ~10k for everyone? That's going to suck pretty bad for the retired.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion if you do think that but the vast vast vast majority of Americans are going to disagree with you.
Do you have a source for that? According to the social security administration, the average monthly payout is about 1100/mo.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
Even if social security was completely removed for a basic income of 10k (I'll clarify again that I'm not endorsing that figure as a blanket basic income), it would be a cut of a couple thousand a year, not a cut of more than 10k as you claim. Hell you could even keep all the net SS+basic income payouts the same and social security costs would drop to 1/5th of what they are now, saving over a trillion dollars.
Also, That was like, one third of one fourth of my post. The fact that your estimate was way way off (far from "simple math") is barely changed by excluding social security.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
Even if social security was completely removed for a basic income of 10k (I'll clarify again that I'm not endorsing that figure as a blanket basic income), it would be a cut of a couple thousand a year, not a cut of more than 10k as you claim. Hell you could even keep all the net SS+basic income payouts the same and social security costs would drop to 1/5th of what they are now, saving over a trillion dollars.
Also, That was like, one third of one fourth of my post. The fact that your estimate was way way off (far from "simple math") is barely changed by excluding social security.
> That was like, one third of one fourth of my post.
The importance of different pieces of your post shouldn't be measured in word count, but in dollars. I picked the part that matters the most (by far) from this perspective.
The importance of different pieces of your post shouldn't be measured in word count, but in dollars. I picked the part that matters the most (by far) from this perspective.
Sure, my phrasing seemed to minimize the importance of SS in terms of dollar amt, but the fact remains that even with the most dramatic cut possible to SS (i.e. "completely replace it"), the SS cuts amount to less than half of the savings in costs (i.e. the error in your simple math claiming to show why it's mathematically impossible). Once you include the revenue increase I mentioned (the one that works out to a tax burden that's no higher for anyone because it just cancels out the basic income for certain income tax tiers), SS cuts become even further below 50% of the cost-savings I mentioned.
I'll assume that you don't actually disagree with my original comment from the fact that you're resorting to picking successively more microscopic nits.
I'll assume that you don't actually disagree with my original comment from the fact that you're resorting to picking successively more microscopic nits.
In addition to SS there is medicare which costs a fortune and many other programs such ones that fund community centers, affordable housing, etc.
Requirements could help make the math work. For example, only adult citizens with no income may participate in the program.
[deleted]
Sure, but we already have that.
not really. i'm unemployed and don't qualify for any financial aid that i'm aware of. Thank goodness for my family taking me in, or i'd definitely be homeless.
Small-scale experimentation on the effects on a small subset of recipients is not quite the same as understanding how it would affect the entire economy of a nation.
(apologies for the harsh tone, I was tired and grumpy)
No, Basic Income hasn't been voted on yet in Switzerland. You're probably thinking of the 1:12 pay scale referendum.
And yes, the numbers do work. You just need relatively high tax rates (>= 50%) to support the Basic Income -- but no higher than already exist in many European countries.
And yes, the numbers do work. You just need relatively high tax rates (>= 50%) to support the Basic Income -- but no higher than already exist in many European countries.
Well, only kinda. For example here in the UK we could scrap our welfare system and give every man, woman and child in the country £3000/year no questions asked no strings attached, for what the welfare system costs now.
A family of 4 could live on £12000/year not luxuriously but with the basics, somewhere like Wales. A single person could not live on £3000/year in London.
A family of 4 could live on £12000/year not luxuriously but with the basics, somewhere like Wales. A single person could not live on £3000/year in London.
Why should anyone be subsidized to live in London? Let them live someplace cheap, or work to cover their expenses for living in an expensive place.
I agree, but that isn't the "spirit" of basic income.
I think it is in the spirit of basic income.
Basic income allows people to better choose their own destiny. I can move from London to Wales, or move from Wales to London, knowing in both cases that I'll at least have a basic income to cover moving costs and minimum expenses while I set myself up.
That nets me a different quality of life in each place, exactly as it should. Choosing to live in London means you share the resources with a much higher population density and take the (many) positive and negative consequences of that.
You still need to work, but you have more freedom to negotiate; at least, you have gained a decent Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) - if things go horribly wrong you can still move to Wales :)
Basic income allows people to better choose their own destiny. I can move from London to Wales, or move from Wales to London, knowing in both cases that I'll at least have a basic income to cover moving costs and minimum expenses while I set myself up.
That nets me a different quality of life in each place, exactly as it should. Choosing to live in London means you share the resources with a much higher population density and take the (many) positive and negative consequences of that.
You still need to work, but you have more freedom to negotiate; at least, you have gained a decent Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) - if things go horribly wrong you can still move to Wales :)
I'm with Ronald here - I think that's very much in the spirit of basic income. Everyone has some resources available to them, and it's up to them how they spend it, but it's up to the market how much various things cost (including things like living in London).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_Unit...
Greater London, bigger than the next ~7 largest urban areas in the UK put together. A lot of infrastructure would need rebuilding if 10% of the UK population were going to quickly up and move to the remote hills and North Wales towns.
Greater London, bigger than the next ~7 largest urban areas in the UK put together. A lot of infrastructure would need rebuilding if 10% of the UK population were going to quickly up and move to the remote hills and North Wales towns.
Which would mean jobs... but I don't think all of the unemployed need to move for it to be a worthwhile change. If people (with savings or familiar support) drop out of the workforce to pursue other interests (possibly still productive, like start-ups), that leaves more jobs free for those needing them to make ends meet on top of the BI.
And just how far would £3000 go if you had anything at all serious remember that US guy who had to pay $50k for a one night stay appendix removal.
I am talking about welfare not healthcare - different budgets.
Um no its not NI pays for both benefits JSA (social security for non uk people) etc and the NHS.
If you think National Insurance pays for those directly (it doesn't), you're the reason we've been fooled into paying a second income tax.
Umm, no NI is not hypothecated.
Welfare and healthcare are run by different govt departments.
Welfare and healthcare are run by different govt departments.
They still are paid from the same source though.
A large pot of general taxation, yes. That is how it works in the UK. Arguably NI should be a wholly separate system that only funds the NHS and state pensions, and be run as a real insurance system, but it's not and converting it is next to impossible.
But my point stands: I'm not including the NHS budget in mine, for this.
But my point stands: I'm not including the NHS budget in mine, for this.
No. It does not mean no one will ever work as a dishwasher/etc. It just means that the market rate for dishwashers/etc. will be higher. This would be due to the supply curve for labor shifting.
Certainly, some businesses will not be able to hire as many (or any) dishwashers/etc, but those that they do hire will have to be paid more. But that is a natural extension of decreasing the supply of labor.
The higher price that businesses will pay for labor will also push them to invest in capital (automation).
Certainly, some businesses will not be able to hire as many (or any) dishwashers/etc, but those that they do hire will have to be paid more. But that is a natural extension of decreasing the supply of labor.
The higher price that businesses will pay for labor will also push them to invest in capital (automation).
But it's getting to the point where dishwashing might not even be available as a job.
Right now, that's not the case yet. But it's not hard to imagine a future where it is. Many menial jobs are getting automated and it's just getting worse and worse.
Soon, we will have to do something about it. These protests and revolutions are spreading like the plague. And social unrest is bad for everyone, including business. One day, it will become a necessity.
Just look at countries like Japan and Korea. Too many over-qualified people and not enough jobs. People are hired to do menial task like tearing tickets out of machines and handing it to people in a car. Suicide in these countries are skyrocketing because of hyper-competition.
In the rest of the world, these people don't commit suicide, they just gather into a big crowd and start protesting, violently.
There is definitely enough money to make work. The goverment just has to be smarter about allocating its budget.
Right now, that's not the case yet. But it's not hard to imagine a future where it is. Many menial jobs are getting automated and it's just getting worse and worse.
Soon, we will have to do something about it. These protests and revolutions are spreading like the plague. And social unrest is bad for everyone, including business. One day, it will become a necessity.
Just look at countries like Japan and Korea. Too many over-qualified people and not enough jobs. People are hired to do menial task like tearing tickets out of machines and handing it to people in a car. Suicide in these countries are skyrocketing because of hyper-competition.
In the rest of the world, these people don't commit suicide, they just gather into a big crowd and start protesting, violently.
There is definitely enough money to make work. The goverment just has to be smarter about allocating its budget.
> In the rest of the world, these people don't commit suicide, they just gather into a big crowd and start protesting, violently.
In the Eastern Europe protests (Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey), people are protesting political corruption and abuse of authority, not poverty (in fact, I'll go as far as to say that many of the protesters are well-off middle class people, not the starving poor).
In the Eastern Europe protests (Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey), people are protesting political corruption and abuse of authority, not poverty (in fact, I'll go as far as to say that many of the protesters are well-off middle class people, not the starving poor).
Aren't you just backing up the claim (a claim I don't disagree with) that a UBI would work?
You still have to find the money to pay that universal basic income.
IIRC, the idea is to get that money by taxing capital and making it cheaper to hire people. As you indicate, getting it by taxing labor leads businesses to automate away labor, making it even harder to get that money from taxes on labor.
Think of it: that $5 an hour job currently costs a company $10 an hour or so. Without taxes on labor, they could pay $7 for a win-win situation. Even paying $5 would still be win-win, as the employee would have his basic income plus the $5 an hour.
IIRC, the idea is to get that money by taxing capital and making it cheaper to hire people. As you indicate, getting it by taxing labor leads businesses to automate away labor, making it even harder to get that money from taxes on labor.
Think of it: that $5 an hour job currently costs a company $10 an hour or so. Without taxes on labor, they could pay $7 for a win-win situation. Even paying $5 would still be win-win, as the employee would have his basic income plus the $5 an hour.
Have you considered taxing both capital AND labor?
The U.S. currently spends about 2.3 trillion dollars on social welfare every year. That's around $9,500 per adult per year, a pretty good starting point (and cheaper to administer since you aren't means testing and can collapse all of those other programs into one).
Combined with small tax increases or a cut in some of the U.S.'s other massive expenditure programs (i.e. the military), we can pretty easily afford to pay every adult U.S. citizen above the poverty level to do nothing.
Combined with small tax increases or a cut in some of the U.S.'s other massive expenditure programs (i.e. the military), we can pretty easily afford to pay every adult U.S. citizen above the poverty level to do nothing.
Indeed, I think a basic income should probably fall around $6-$8k/yr. It's not enough to live comfortably (especially on your own), but plenty enough to build on.
Ya I've actually had several years here in Idaho where I was able to survive on about $6,000 per year, which was $250 for my half of the rent on a 2 BR apartment plus food and gas. Of course that didn't count my $300/mo student loan payment and $1000/mo credit card payment due to a failed business venture. Debts have accounted for about two thirds of my monthly expenses after college.
BUT, and I only realized this recently, my education has allowed me to live largely outside the traditional workplace. I've worked just under 9 years out of the 18 since I turned 18, with the longest jobless stretches lasting about 3 years. My last office job ended 1 year ago and I've become so busy with online contracting that I don't plan on going back.
So I know that it can be frustrating to hear about fortunes being made by startups and entrepreneurs, but it’s helped me to step back and not look at the money. The vast majority of people have no or nearly no wealth (in the form of assets that provide income). They only have cash flow, and most of that money is wasted on things they don’t need. When you look at the people who really are living on a fixed income below the poverty level, remarkably, they treat it as an asset (like a retirement account), using the disbursements to pay for necessities. So a person on $10,000 per year welfare has the equivalent net worth of something like half a million dollars when you consider taxes. It’s no wonder that they don’t want to give it up for a regular job. And this really, really pisses fiscal conservatives off to no end, because they only see the world through the lens of means testing.
To get to the point, my education has provided me the lifestyle of someone with the equivalent wealth of the government having to shell out half a million dollars. That’s a fantastic return on investment for an ~$80,000 four year degree. If fiscal conservatives were serious about reforming welfare, they would be open to the idea of extending public education four more years to cover college. They would also be open to something that will probably always be unfathomable to them, that money and quality of life can be independent variables.
BUT, and I only realized this recently, my education has allowed me to live largely outside the traditional workplace. I've worked just under 9 years out of the 18 since I turned 18, with the longest jobless stretches lasting about 3 years. My last office job ended 1 year ago and I've become so busy with online contracting that I don't plan on going back.
So I know that it can be frustrating to hear about fortunes being made by startups and entrepreneurs, but it’s helped me to step back and not look at the money. The vast majority of people have no or nearly no wealth (in the form of assets that provide income). They only have cash flow, and most of that money is wasted on things they don’t need. When you look at the people who really are living on a fixed income below the poverty level, remarkably, they treat it as an asset (like a retirement account), using the disbursements to pay for necessities. So a person on $10,000 per year welfare has the equivalent net worth of something like half a million dollars when you consider taxes. It’s no wonder that they don’t want to give it up for a regular job. And this really, really pisses fiscal conservatives off to no end, because they only see the world through the lens of means testing.
To get to the point, my education has provided me the lifestyle of someone with the equivalent wealth of the government having to shell out half a million dollars. That’s a fantastic return on investment for an ~$80,000 four year degree. If fiscal conservatives were serious about reforming welfare, they would be open to the idea of extending public education four more years to cover college. They would also be open to something that will probably always be unfathomable to them, that money and quality of life can be independent variables.
Cutting social security benefits that pay the retired 10s of Ks per year in order to give everyone, most of whom are by no means poor, 9.5k/yr absolutely is sci fi level crazy talk.
You get it back as tax from the non-poor so you don't actually spend the money. Though if they have a bad year or decide to start a business, or write a novel they are assured that I'll be there for them.
AngrySkillzz proposed funding BI by eliminating other programs (including Social Security). You're saying we don't eliminate those programs and instead fund BI by raising taxes?
I'm sure you can find a basic introduction to the idea you're arguing against somewhere on the web but basically, instead of giving money to the poor and needy, you give it to everyone and those that earn a little give some of it back in tax, at some point you earn enough to give it all back. Those in the latter group cost you nothing, even though you've "given" them x thousand dollars, so dividing (or multiplying) a dollar figure by population isn't accurate.
Oh, so your BI is means tested.
OK ya, what you're arguing for and what most of the other folks around here are arguing for isn't the same thing.
It's a little messy but we already pretty much have what you're talking about with a patchwork of unemployment benefits, welfare, medicaid and various forms of disability insurance.
OK ya, what you're arguing for and what most of the other folks around here are arguing for isn't the same thing.
It's a little messy but we already pretty much have what you're talking about with a patchwork of unemployment benefits, welfare, medicaid and various forms of disability insurance.
Means-testing is a wash on average, though: you keep the taxes of higher-income people lower, but then don't give them the cash payment. This works out better for very wealthy people (since tax rates are typically percentage-based, while the payout is a fixed number), but worse for lower-middle-class people, who get means-tested out of the payout but don't make enough to get much tax savings. There's some cross-over point where it's exactly a wash. Under the basic income system the idea is not to means-test it, because means-testing disincentivizes working (you lose your benefit once you make "too much" in other income), and instead just net it out with tax rates above a certain level. So at the crossover point you get a $10k BI but you pay $10k more taxes; below that you come out ahead, and above that you're behind. The current welfare system has the same general properties, but is much more bureaucratic and has more of a "cliff" where you lose the benefit, instead of it just slowly being eaten away by marginal tax rates.
OK sure, but if you're going to that, and not eliminate (or reduce) any current gov't programs then you have to raise taxes. If you want't to give, say 10k to each american that's 3.1 Trillion dollars which is more than the US gov't raised in taxes last year.
The math doesn't work.
The math doesn't work.
Well, yeah, you'd raise taxes, to the point where it nets out on average. You raise everyone's taxes by $10k on average, and give everyone $10k. At the average income it's a wash. At the low end people were already getting welfare and not paying much in taxes, so it's a wash for them too. At the lower-middle-class to middle-class level it reduces the disincentive to work and makes people better off. The only people who really lose out are at the very top, people who make so much money that any percentage-based increase would swamp the fixed gains (which is why, I would guess, they oppose it).
Washing dishes is so incredibly dumb. What should have been done long ago is standardising plates, cups and cutlery and creating integrated dish cabinet/washer that can wash those standardised items and store them.
The fact that in 2014 we still rely on manual work to wash the dishes is a disgrace perpetrated by oversupply of cheap human work.
The fact that in 2014 we still rely on manual work to wash the dishes is a disgrace perpetrated by oversupply of cheap human work.
You can't standardize consumer goods. Non-standardized goods will instantly acquire a prestige premium and all your hard work on all that labor-saving tooling will go out the window in a matter of years.
You can still have prestige mount for you flat screen tv but bulk of the market will go with standardised one. It's hard to standardise things that don't interoperate with anything else but when there is some interface with other object there's trend toward standardisation.
Plates to large to fit in a dishwasher or that can't be washed or microwaved didn't acquire prestige premium as far as I know.
Plates to large to fit in a dishwasher or that can't be washed or microwaved didn't acquire prestige premium as far as I know.
> Washing dishes is so incredibly dumb. What should have been done long ago is standardising plates, cups and cutlery and creating integrated dish cabinet/washer that can wash those standardised items and store them. The fact that in 2014 we still rely on manual work to wash the dishes is a disgrace perpetrated by oversupply of cheap human work.
And what, exactly, do you propose that we do about this "oversupply of cheap human work"? If we simply ignore it, there'll be hell to pay. The old saying, idle hands are the devil's workshop, is based on millennia of human experience.
Suppose that all the dishwashers in the U.S. were suddenly to find themselves both (1) out of a job, and (2) as a result, unable to earn enough money to feed themselves and their families.
Now consider that for some of these people, retraining them to seek out and hold other jobs might not be much of an option. There are some people who, for whatever reason, simply can't learn the necessary skills / behaviors / motivations. (If you're inclined to scorn that notion, or such people, consider how little we really know about human learning abilities and motivation; such people are more common than you perhaps imagine.)
Are our unemployed dishwashers going to sit around passively and accept their fate, watching their families do without while they see others around them prospering? Not bloody likely --- they're going to try to do something about it. And some percentage of them are going to make trouble, e.g., by robbing or cheating others, dealing drugs, rioting, etc.
From a purely-pragmatic perspective, if we want to keep our vaunted social order intact, then we're going to have to figure out how to keep people (A) occupied in reasonable contentment, and (B) reasonably-well fed, -clothed, -housed, etc. This is a brute fact, which we can like or not, but which we disregard at our peril.
And what, exactly, do you propose that we do about this "oversupply of cheap human work"? If we simply ignore it, there'll be hell to pay. The old saying, idle hands are the devil's workshop, is based on millennia of human experience.
Suppose that all the dishwashers in the U.S. were suddenly to find themselves both (1) out of a job, and (2) as a result, unable to earn enough money to feed themselves and their families.
Now consider that for some of these people, retraining them to seek out and hold other jobs might not be much of an option. There are some people who, for whatever reason, simply can't learn the necessary skills / behaviors / motivations. (If you're inclined to scorn that notion, or such people, consider how little we really know about human learning abilities and motivation; such people are more common than you perhaps imagine.)
Are our unemployed dishwashers going to sit around passively and accept their fate, watching their families do without while they see others around them prospering? Not bloody likely --- they're going to try to do something about it. And some percentage of them are going to make trouble, e.g., by robbing or cheating others, dealing drugs, rioting, etc.
From a purely-pragmatic perspective, if we want to keep our vaunted social order intact, then we're going to have to figure out how to keep people (A) occupied in reasonable contentment, and (B) reasonably-well fed, -clothed, -housed, etc. This is a brute fact, which we can like or not, but which we disregard at our peril.
> were suddenly to find themselves both (1) out of a job, and (2) as a result, unable to earn enough money to feed themselves and their familie.
That's only true if you give things to people only on condition that they do something, anything, useful, harmful, obsolete, whatever you can call a job.
Food is cheap, housing can be cheap if it gets detangled from financial speculation and protected against rent seeking behavior. That's not excessive burden to keep all the people fed, clothed and housed and even entertained at minimum standard without making them do stuff.
Only obstacle is the mental one. Hate towards freeloaders, that makes people pretend they do useful things and makes other people create schemes that help to pretend.
People hate the idea that young father could get food or other things for free. He should be given at least a pretend job where he can simulate doing useful stuff away from his growing up kids.
Interestingly people don't mind the freeloading descendants of rich people. They didn't contribute themselves but their ancestors contributed so much. Unlike the ancestors of young poor father. He should be severely scorned for any of his attempts at freeloading.
That's only true if you give things to people only on condition that they do something, anything, useful, harmful, obsolete, whatever you can call a job.
Food is cheap, housing can be cheap if it gets detangled from financial speculation and protected against rent seeking behavior. That's not excessive burden to keep all the people fed, clothed and housed and even entertained at minimum standard without making them do stuff.
Only obstacle is the mental one. Hate towards freeloaders, that makes people pretend they do useful things and makes other people create schemes that help to pretend.
People hate the idea that young father could get food or other things for free. He should be given at least a pretend job where he can simulate doing useful stuff away from his growing up kids.
Interestingly people don't mind the freeloading descendants of rich people. They didn't contribute themselves but their ancestors contributed so much. Unlike the ancestors of young poor father. He should be severely scorned for any of his attempts at freeloading.
"The fact that in 2014 we still rely on manual work to stack dishes in washer cabinets is a disgrace perpetrated by oversupply of cheap human work."
Less sarcastically, automating that part of dirty dishes would not solve the whole problem of dirty dishes, would directly cost a lot and would make life more boring (standardized dishes!).
Less sarcastically, automating that part of dirty dishes would not solve the whole problem of dirty dishes, would directly cost a lot and would make life more boring (standardized dishes!).
> would directly cost a lot
Not sure what you have in mind. Standardised thing would still be hand washable if you can't afford machine that washes and stores them.
About your ironic remark... I'm not sure if you consider current state of dish washing technology an optimum that we need not to progress any further from, or that you are perfectly happy at the current pace of the progress of dish-washing technology. I don't. And if we already had washer cabinets, I'd be wondering why they can't be integrated into a table or why we can't have mobile robots to collect the plates. Although I wouldn't call lack of robots a disgrace because robots are hard. I believe combining washer with cabinet is not and it doesn't exist mostly because of silly cultural thing called "but my plates would be boring then" and "what would humans do with all additional free time"?
Not sure what you have in mind. Standardised thing would still be hand washable if you can't afford machine that washes and stores them.
About your ironic remark... I'm not sure if you consider current state of dish washing technology an optimum that we need not to progress any further from, or that you are perfectly happy at the current pace of the progress of dish-washing technology. I don't. And if we already had washer cabinets, I'd be wondering why they can't be integrated into a table or why we can't have mobile robots to collect the plates. Although I wouldn't call lack of robots a disgrace because robots are hard. I believe combining washer with cabinet is not and it doesn't exist mostly because of silly cultural thing called "but my plates would be boring then" and "what would humans do with all additional free time"?
[deleted]
>Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs.
Absolutely disagree.
Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean that undesirable jobs (such as the ones you describe) will have to increase pay and conditions to correctly reflect the job's undesirability. To me, that's an awesome result!
In the specific case of being a doctor: it's possible (but unlikely) that desirable jobs such as doctors may have to take a relative paycut to cover other expenses.
I don't see that as the worst thing. Doctors deserve to be paid according to their skill, yes, but at the moment have entrance requirements which are disproportionate to the job at hand. This effectively limits a desirable career to the already-privileged and means the system is not necessarily accurate at identifying the most skilled candidates. If poor, skilled people are more securely able to fund themselves through medical school, that would also be great!
Absolutely disagree.
Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean that undesirable jobs (such as the ones you describe) will have to increase pay and conditions to correctly reflect the job's undesirability. To me, that's an awesome result!
In the specific case of being a doctor: it's possible (but unlikely) that desirable jobs such as doctors may have to take a relative paycut to cover other expenses.
I don't see that as the worst thing. Doctors deserve to be paid according to their skill, yes, but at the moment have entrance requirements which are disproportionate to the job at hand. This effectively limits a desirable career to the already-privileged and means the system is not necessarily accurate at identifying the most skilled candidates. If poor, skilled people are more securely able to fund themselves through medical school, that would also be great!
> Doctors deserve to be paid according to their skill, yes, but at the moment have entrance requirements which are disproportionate to the job at hand.
I'm not a doctor, but sometimes I wonder if it's easier than it seems. It's not hard to diagnose the basic and obvious stuff and do good work by only addressing the basics. Repeating something like that doesn't take talent, but you do have to make sure you actually know it and the best way to do that is to have an external authority on the matter.
Sometimes I also wonder how much work has gone into keeping MDs an exclusive club by national societies and the gatekeeper schools for no other reason than to maintain exclusivity and prestige (and money). Do the requirements have studies to back them up, or did a council just decide with an informed opinion? Both are respectable, but I'm still suspicious there's artificial supply limiting going on.
Apart from that, you'd have to rewire America's litigious tendencies and opportunities, or else a flood of new doctors would make malpractice insurance skyrocket. That'll change the 'worth it' formula for sure.
I'm not a doctor, but sometimes I wonder if it's easier than it seems. It's not hard to diagnose the basic and obvious stuff and do good work by only addressing the basics. Repeating something like that doesn't take talent, but you do have to make sure you actually know it and the best way to do that is to have an external authority on the matter.
Sometimes I also wonder how much work has gone into keeping MDs an exclusive club by national societies and the gatekeeper schools for no other reason than to maintain exclusivity and prestige (and money). Do the requirements have studies to back them up, or did a council just decide with an informed opinion? Both are respectable, but I'm still suspicious there's artificial supply limiting going on.
Apart from that, you'd have to rewire America's litigious tendencies and opportunities, or else a flood of new doctors would make malpractice insurance skyrocket. That'll change the 'worth it' formula for sure.
> I'm not a doctor, but sometimes I wonder if it's easier than it seems. It's not hard to diagnose the basic and obvious stuff and do good work by only addressing the basics. Repeating something like that doesn't take talent, but you do have to make sure you actually know it and the best way to do that is to have an external authority on the matter.
I'm also not a doctor, but I imagine that large part of doctor's paycheck is for staying alert when treating a hundredth patient with "obvious" cold/indigestion symptoms, which are actually masqueraded symptoms of a serious disease.
I'm also not a doctor, but I imagine that large part of doctor's paycheck is for staying alert when treating a hundredth patient with "obvious" cold/indigestion symptoms, which are actually masqueraded symptoms of a serious disease.
Perhaps, but zero of the paycheck is for knowing the theory of organic chemistry.
"Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever..."
Unless they want more money, of course. Hands up everyone who might want more money than the minimum needed to survive.
Unless they want more money, of course. Hands up everyone who might want more money than the minimum needed to survive.
This is where the theory collides unpleasantly with the real world. The "minimum needed to survive" will be ratcheted up by every politician courting votes, and the people will happily play along.
F'rinstance I don't begrudge anyone a roof over their heads, but right now in the UK it is causing an enormous political storm trying to roll back "... with a spare bedroom or two, in the postcode of your choosing" getting tacked onto this basic right somewhere along the line.
F'rinstance I don't begrudge anyone a roof over their heads, but right now in the UK it is causing an enormous political storm trying to roll back "... with a spare bedroom or two, in the postcode of your choosing" getting tacked onto this basic right somewhere along the line.
You agree with the principle; you're just arguing over where to draw the line. That argument will always exist.
There just isn't that much money.
There's as much money as the regulator of the currency cares to create. Money is fungible.
Money isn't real wealth, and you cannot create more resources than you have simply by creating new wealth tokens. However, if what's ailing you is that the exchange tokens aren't equitably distributed, that does turn out to be a problem that can be addressed, directly, by creating and distributing more money.
The incentive effects are an interesting case to contemplate, but the more I think about it, the more that chasing revenue-generating opportunities of themselves seems to be more a part of the problem than of the solution.
There's as much money as the regulator of the currency cares to create. Money is fungible.
Money isn't real wealth, and you cannot create more resources than you have simply by creating new wealth tokens. However, if what's ailing you is that the exchange tokens aren't equitably distributed, that does turn out to be a problem that can be addressed, directly, by creating and distributing more money.
The incentive effects are an interesting case to contemplate, but the more I think about it, the more that chasing revenue-generating opportunities of themselves seems to be more a part of the problem than of the solution.
> The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money.
Sorry, but that last part is utterly dumb. There is enough of everything for everyone, money is just one of the abstractions we built for convenience's sake. Most of these abstractions for power have gone out of hand, but I assure you that there exists a theoretical parallel universe where basic income is implemented at a global scale.
Sorry, but that last part is utterly dumb. There is enough of everything for everyone, money is just one of the abstractions we built for convenience's sake. Most of these abstractions for power have gone out of hand, but I assure you that there exists a theoretical parallel universe where basic income is implemented at a global scale.
No, post-scarcity is what is dumb. Some things just are scarce. Let's say we agree a basic human right that everyone gets a house. Who decides who gets houses on the beach?
You can actually see this in practice if you visit Cuba. In Havana there are 3 families living in one apartment with cardboard over the windows for normal people, and there are gorgeous ex-Colonial villas with landscaped gardens, where well-connected Party types live.
You can actually see this in practice if you visit Cuba. In Havana there are 3 families living in one apartment with cardboard over the windows for normal people, and there are gorgeous ex-Colonial villas with landscaped gardens, where well-connected Party types live.
>In Havana there are 3 families living in one apartment with cardboard over the windows for normal people, and there are gorgeous ex-Colonial villas with landscaped gardens, where well-connected Party types live.
And how is that different from the US? Besides "party types" being Ivy Leaguers and silver-spoon fed people?
And how is that different from the US? Besides "party types" being Ivy Leaguers and silver-spoon fed people?
Because the US doesn't even claim to adhere to any notions of egalitarianism.
No, but it has a claim to the "american dream" of hard work ending with success, a white picket fence and the like.
Whereas in real life you see people working their ass off all their lives still working at Walmarts at their 70s, while heirs, privileged slobs and frauds who haven't actually worked a day in their lives are living the dream...
Whereas in real life you see people working their ass off all their lives still working at Walmarts at their 70s, while heirs, privileged slobs and frauds who haven't actually worked a day in their lives are living the dream...
> There is enough of everything for everyone
Citation for this fact?
Citation for this fact?
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/re_potential.html
Total estimated energy potential for renewables in the US (wind/solar/biomass/etc) is 481800 TWh. The US used 25,776 Twh of energy in 2010. That's a lot of renewable energy. With that much renewable energy, you can desal all the water you want. You could even replenish aquifers by condensing water out of the air when power is cheap (at night, when the wind is blowing hard).
We have enough land for food production, which is for the most part automated (http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html ; "There are over 313,000,000 people living in the United States. Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation (and about 2% actually live on farms). In 2007, only 45% of farmers claimed farming as their principal occupation and a similar number of farmers claiming some other principal occupation. The number of farms in the U.S. stands at about 2.2 million."). As we continue to automate farming, we'll be able to feed more people with less effort. Ergo, there is enough food for everyone.
So, let me run through this:
* Energy * Water * Food * Communications infrastructure
Ahh! Transportation! I missed that. Self-driving electric cars fit the bill. Also, efficient traffic management algorithms ensure our existing roadways can be used at maximum efficiency, thereby removing the need for more roadway.
Did I miss anything?
Total estimated energy potential for renewables in the US (wind/solar/biomass/etc) is 481800 TWh. The US used 25,776 Twh of energy in 2010. That's a lot of renewable energy. With that much renewable energy, you can desal all the water you want. You could even replenish aquifers by condensing water out of the air when power is cheap (at night, when the wind is blowing hard).
We have enough land for food production, which is for the most part automated (http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html ; "There are over 313,000,000 people living in the United States. Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation (and about 2% actually live on farms). In 2007, only 45% of farmers claimed farming as their principal occupation and a similar number of farmers claiming some other principal occupation. The number of farms in the U.S. stands at about 2.2 million."). As we continue to automate farming, we'll be able to feed more people with less effort. Ergo, there is enough food for everyone.
So, let me run through this:
* Energy * Water * Food * Communications infrastructure
Ahh! Transportation! I missed that. Self-driving electric cars fit the bill. Also, efficient traffic management algorithms ensure our existing roadways can be used at maximum efficiency, thereby removing the need for more roadway.
Did I miss anything?
Last I heard, instead of paying taxes, Brunei citizens all get an annual $30k outright. Isn't that real-world, non-sci-fi Basic Income?
That's sort of the exception that proves the rule no? Not every country can be tiny and make piles of cash selling resources to large countries, while paying low wages to guest workers from poor countries to do the work that none of the citizens want to do.
I'm not saying that being born a citizen of Brunei is a raw deal, but their wealth is pretty dependent on the needs of much larger countries.
I'm not saying that being born a citizen of Brunei is a raw deal, but their wealth is pretty dependent on the needs of much larger countries.
The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money.
I don't think you understand how money works. If there are available resources then there can be available money.
I don't think you understand how money works. If there are available resources then there can be available money.
>There just isn't that much money.
How much money? Basic income doesn't imply a specific amount.
>Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant...
This is probably false. Even if the basic income is enough to live off of, people will still want more money for luxuries. But instead of having to work 50 hours a week to scrape by, they'll be able to work 20 hours a week and live comfortably, even at low wages.
And if you get to the point that you actually have more jobs than people to work them? You either lower the basic income, or you let inflation do it for you.
Better yet, automation ceases to be a bogeyman for unskilled workers. If jobs get automated away, we can increase the basic income to compensate. On the flip side, we can actually incentivize automation by increasing the basic income, leading to a future where we stop making humans do dumb jobs just so they can be employed.
How much money? Basic income doesn't imply a specific amount.
>Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant...
This is probably false. Even if the basic income is enough to live off of, people will still want more money for luxuries. But instead of having to work 50 hours a week to scrape by, they'll be able to work 20 hours a week and live comfortably, even at low wages.
And if you get to the point that you actually have more jobs than people to work them? You either lower the basic income, or you let inflation do it for you.
Better yet, automation ceases to be a bogeyman for unskilled workers. If jobs get automated away, we can increase the basic income to compensate. On the flip side, we can actually incentivize automation by increasing the basic income, leading to a future where we stop making humans do dumb jobs just so they can be employed.
>There just isn't that much money.
A $10k/yr income for every American would cost $3T.
Current US gov't spending is over $6.4T.
A $10k/yr income for every American would cost $3T.
Current US gov't spending is over $6.4T.
The idea is that technology makes doing anything undesirable totally optional.
We made horses obsolete for transport, and now nobody HAS TO ride a horse (99%). You can do it for fun.
I would argue that today, most people who ride horses enjoy doing so, where the same could not be said for times before modern transportation.
We made horses obsolete for transport, and now nobody HAS TO ride a horse (99%). You can do it for fun.
I would argue that today, most people who ride horses enjoy doing so, where the same could not be said for times before modern transportation.
No, that is not the idea, because automatability and undesirability of tasks are largely unrelated. We will habe to find a way to deal with tasks that are unpleasant but can't be automated.
Compensate them appropriately, how about?
Or find people to do them who are sufficiently desperate and low in status, compensate them just enough, make sure they don't have enough savings to walk, convince them they can't be hired elsewhere, collude with other employers to set wages, make harsh examples of anyone who pushes back, and
do anything to prevent workers from organizing.
This is much cheaper and considered socially acceptable or even laudable (depending on the country, certainly in the US). Businesses with a large share of their costs in unpleasant labor either do this or get destroyed by the competition. That's capitalism.
This is much cheaper and considered socially acceptable or even laudable (depending on the country, certainly in the US). Businesses with a large share of their costs in unpleasant labor either do this or get destroyed by the competition. That's capitalism.
Obviously that should only ever happy for CEO, golden parachute type of jobs, never blue collar stuff...
A reasonable number of social-democratic countries have basically an overly bureaucratic, somewhat perversely-incentivized version of a basic income already, and it works ok. For example, the last-line social welfare system in Denmark, which you qualify for if you have no assets and don't qualify for a "better" system (like jobseeking assistance), known as kontanthjælp ("cash assistance"), is about $24k/yr. If you're a citizen there is basically no way you can be disqualified for this system, so it functions as an income floor.
This isn't properly a basic income, because you don't get it if you work, and in addition you need to exhaust all your assets first. This provides some perverse incentives, along with some bureaucracy to keep it all organized. But when it comes down to it, once you exhaust your savings and unemployment benefits, there's an income floor of $24k/yr, which is like a basic income except you lose it if you save money or find a job... which if anything worsens the disincentive problem. I'm not sure just extending it to a proper basic income would be worse for finances, and suspect it could be better.
This isn't properly a basic income, because you don't get it if you work, and in addition you need to exhaust all your assets first. This provides some perverse incentives, along with some bureaucracy to keep it all organized. But when it comes down to it, once you exhaust your savings and unemployment benefits, there's an income floor of $24k/yr, which is like a basic income except you lose it if you save money or find a job... which if anything worsens the disincentive problem. I'm not sure just extending it to a proper basic income would be worse for finances, and suspect it could be better.
I don't understand how 'there just isn't that much money' is a meaningful statement in a world where governments can issue more currency. How much money do you propose we need to offer a basic income system?
Generally as the supply of dollars goes up, the price of a loaf of bread goes up too. Printing money isn't a panacea.
True for all national currencies but hardly for the world-reserve-currency. Here you have the following reality instead:
> generally as the supply of dollars goes up, the price of a loaf of bread goes hardly up in any noticable way, financial assets / Silicon Valley valuations / houses go up significantly (so the country thinks they got "wealthier"), and bread-loaf prices in USD-aligned weak-currency/underdeveloped/perpetually-"emerging" economies go up quite significantly
Not to worry, dollar supply inflation greatly delays consumer price inflation on your shores thanks to the massive oversupply of USD already circulating all over the globe, looking to find a way "home" ;)
> generally as the supply of dollars goes up, the price of a loaf of bread goes hardly up in any noticable way, financial assets / Silicon Valley valuations / houses go up significantly (so the country thinks they got "wealthier"), and bread-loaf prices in USD-aligned weak-currency/underdeveloped/perpetually-"emerging" economies go up quite significantly
Not to worry, dollar supply inflation greatly delays consumer price inflation on your shores thanks to the massive oversupply of USD already circulating all over the globe, looking to find a way "home" ;)
> True for all national currencies but hardly for the world-reserve-currency.
If the dollar ever started to inflate like crazy, I bet it wouldn't stay the world reserve currency for long. Also, keep in mind that some of the larger countries have been looking for alternatives (like the EUR) for years.
If the dollar ever started to inflate like crazy, I bet it wouldn't stay the world reserve currency for long. Also, keep in mind that some of the larger countries have been looking for alternatives (like the EUR) for years.
Not really, since there was no historical time when USD were being printed with wild abandon
Partly true, but we're also talking hypothetical here, as in "why don't we just print the basic income" -- "bread would get pricier" -- "in a normal national currency, yes very quickly, but in a global reserve currency, with substantial delay".
Interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma
Interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma
The price of break can start going up even before money is printed. World reserve currency status is due to the fact that historically US Dollar was a very safe and reliable storage of wealth. As soon as talks of printing more money start circulating, people outside of US will start selling USD and buying EUR/Chinese Yuan/Bitcoins/local currency. Due to that, US Dollar exhchange rate can collapse and price of bread will definitely go up.
There is some flexibility - trust in USD is still very strong and US can print quite a bit before negative cycle kicks in but it defintely could not print as much as needed to make everyone rich.
There is some flexibility - trust in USD is still very strong and US can print quite a bit before negative cycle kicks in but it defintely could not print as much as needed to make everyone rich.
> There just isn't that much money.
Sorry, but the idea scales from almost zero spending into infinity. You can not claim that there isn't enough money.
Our future looks very interesting because our machines promise to make goods very, very cheap. But they also promise to put almost everybody out of work. Left to a market, most of the population will starve, and very few become very rich. But almost any level of basic income will solve this, even if today it's too little.
Sorry, but the idea scales from almost zero spending into infinity. You can not claim that there isn't enough money.
Our future looks very interesting because our machines promise to make goods very, very cheap. But they also promise to put almost everybody out of work. Left to a market, most of the population will starve, and very few become very rich. But almost any level of basic income will solve this, even if today it's too little.
>The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would have to be so high to support UBI that the costs would dwarf what people could afford.
Actually you could support UBI by just taxing 1-2 people in the whole US.
Actually you could support UBI by just taxing 1-2 people in the whole US.
Could you crunch the numbers and explain how? A back of the envelope calculation will suffice.
Well, it might be a slight exaggeration to just tax 2 persons. But it's based on the extremely skewed power-law distribution.
The richest 2 people in america have around 120 billion dollars between them. 100B are enough to directly give $5000 to 20M people under coupons and welfare today.
Even $1000 are more than the yearly income for billions of people in places with far less physical resources than the US (and close enough food prices). Heck, 200 million Pakistanis live with a national GPD of around 250 billion dollars for comparison ($1300 per person).
And the richest 400 share around 2 trillion between them. We haven't even touched the trillions they save from off-shore accounts, shady accounting etc. And that's for private citizens, one would also want to extent it to corporations.
Also, you won't be giving a basic income to anyone making above a certain amount (no reason to give it to someone already making several tens of thousands of dollars a year).
Not to mention that these people, unlike Warren Buffet or Trump, cannot hoard the money they get, so those get re-invested in the economy pronto.
The richest 2 people in america have around 120 billion dollars between them. 100B are enough to directly give $5000 to 20M people under coupons and welfare today.
Even $1000 are more than the yearly income for billions of people in places with far less physical resources than the US (and close enough food prices). Heck, 200 million Pakistanis live with a national GPD of around 250 billion dollars for comparison ($1300 per person).
And the richest 400 share around 2 trillion between them. We haven't even touched the trillions they save from off-shore accounts, shady accounting etc. And that's for private citizens, one would also want to extent it to corporations.
Also, you won't be giving a basic income to anyone making above a certain amount (no reason to give it to someone already making several tens of thousands of dollars a year).
Not to mention that these people, unlike Warren Buffet or Trump, cannot hoard the money they get, so those get re-invested in the economy pronto.
The richest 2 people in america have around 120 billion dollars between them. 100B are enough to directly give $5000 to 20M people under coupons and welfare today.
Lets say you tax away that 2 trillion, which is mostly illiquid productive capacity rather than easily redistributable liquid cash. That'll provide a $7,200 basic income for about 275 million Americans for one year. Then what?
Of course, in real life, you can't redistribute Zuckerberg's wealth as cash. The most you could do is give every American a few shares of FB, a few shares of MS, etc.
Also, you won't be giving a basic income to anyone making above a certain amount (no reason to give it to someone already making several tens of thousands of dollars a year).
We already do that. It's called "welfare", not "basic income".
Not to mention that these people, unlike Warren Buffet or Trump, cannot hoard the money they get, so those get re-invested in the economy pronto.
You are confusing consumption and investment.
Buffet and Trump invest the bulk of their income. Buffet invests in railroads and insurance companies, Trump invests in condos. Peter Thiel invests his money in companies like Facebook, Linkedin and Deep Mind.
Consumption is when you spend the money on stuff like big screen TVs or food.
Lets say you tax away that 2 trillion, which is mostly illiquid productive capacity rather than easily redistributable liquid cash. That'll provide a $7,200 basic income for about 275 million Americans for one year. Then what?
Of course, in real life, you can't redistribute Zuckerberg's wealth as cash. The most you could do is give every American a few shares of FB, a few shares of MS, etc.
Also, you won't be giving a basic income to anyone making above a certain amount (no reason to give it to someone already making several tens of thousands of dollars a year).
We already do that. It's called "welfare", not "basic income".
Not to mention that these people, unlike Warren Buffet or Trump, cannot hoard the money they get, so those get re-invested in the economy pronto.
You are confusing consumption and investment.
Buffet and Trump invest the bulk of their income. Buffet invests in railroads and insurance companies, Trump invests in condos. Peter Thiel invests his money in companies like Facebook, Linkedin and Deep Mind.
Consumption is when you spend the money on stuff like big screen TVs or food.
[deleted]
> (It wasn't so long ago it was pretty much pure sci-fi.)
On the other hand full employment through monetary policy is pretty much science fact. Yet neither the United States nor the EU even pretend to pursue it. (China pretty much does, however. It works pretty well for them.)
It's not like providing a decent living for near everyone is this unsolved problem which, if could only we find the correct technocratic solution, we could just roll up our sleeves and implement.
The problem is that a lot of people are against doing it. At all.
On the other hand full employment through monetary policy is pretty much science fact. Yet neither the United States nor the EU even pretend to pursue it. (China pretty much does, however. It works pretty well for them.)
It's not like providing a decent living for near everyone is this unsolved problem which, if could only we find the correct technocratic solution, we could just roll up our sleeves and implement.
The problem is that a lot of people are against doing it. At all.
Here's a simple if perhaps naive question. Suppose UBI is $x/yr. What's going to stop every apartment complex owner and every rental landlord from raising the cost of living on that property by $x/yr/tenant? Will the government start fixing prices? (I imagine that slightly more realistically all owners of physical resources, not just land owners, would raise prices as much as they can while still maintaining roughly the same profit percentage in order to compete with other owners to capture the new income, and so no single group of actors is likely to capture it all with one type of product.)
That's the only thing I can see that can go wrong with basic income. I'd counter that with progressive property tax. So that if you own 5 accomodations, of which each can house a family, you might be better off with selling the sixth one than holding it, paying exorbitant tax and risking it might stay empty for too long. I would pump money earned from this tax back into basic income.
Such tax might be beneficial even now in some places. In Japan and Italy so many properties were bought out by people intending to profit from the rent that price of accomodation rose to the point that most young people can't afford to live alone and stay with parents instead.
Such tax might be beneficial even now in some places. In Japan and Italy so many properties were bought out by people intending to profit from the rent that price of accomodation rose to the point that most young people can't afford to live alone and stay with parents instead.
In short - market. One landlord raises too much, tenants smash some buses and move to another apartment complex. Yes, there will be some inflation in rent market and other consumer goods, but unlikely so drastic.
UBI funds have to come from somewhere. Depending on the source of the money, UBI will either create low inflation or large inflation.
As a matter of fact, I suspect that recent min wage increase by feds is an attempt to induce inflation. All this money are going to be spent - basically creating larger money supply in consumer sector, and, maybe finally inducing some inflation feds are trying to start since 2008. Look at priced tags of recent tech acquisitions - some sectors of economy already value money much less than consumer sector.
UBI funds have to come from somewhere. Depending on the source of the money, UBI will either create low inflation or large inflation.
As a matter of fact, I suspect that recent min wage increase by feds is an attempt to induce inflation. All this money are going to be spent - basically creating larger money supply in consumer sector, and, maybe finally inducing some inflation feds are trying to start since 2008. Look at priced tags of recent tech acquisitions - some sectors of economy already value money much less than consumer sector.
Nobody here mentioned competition across sectors and price compression?
Competition across sectors example is land lord can ask for a 10% increase, but the renter is totally free to say forget it and downsize to a rental at the original rental rate, while buying a xbox or whatever with the new income. Or paying off that .edu loan. Or paying for healthcare. Or whatever. Mandatory expenses like healthcare, tuition, iDevices, they're free to go up as high as they want and probably will. Most things are not mandatory.
Price compression is the $10M skyscraper penthouse isn't going to change because its a rounding error, but this could have a huge effect in a slumlord area. Where I live is in between, I already make about 3x median household income so going to 3.5 or so isn't going to change much.
Competition across sectors example is land lord can ask for a 10% increase, but the renter is totally free to say forget it and downsize to a rental at the original rental rate, while buying a xbox or whatever with the new income. Or paying off that .edu loan. Or paying for healthcare. Or whatever. Mandatory expenses like healthcare, tuition, iDevices, they're free to go up as high as they want and probably will. Most things are not mandatory.
Price compression is the $10M skyscraper penthouse isn't going to change because its a rounding error, but this could have a huge effect in a slumlord area. Where I live is in between, I already make about 3x median household income so going to 3.5 or so isn't going to change much.
The same thing that keeps them from raising prices today:
Competition.
Competition.
I don't know about where you are, but here in London there's more competition between buyers than between sellers.
If you give money to me and the people bidding against me, the money will end up in landlords' pockets for sure.
If you give money to me and the people bidding against me, the money will end up in landlords' pockets for sure.
Well that's persuasive.
An alternative to fixing prices would be just to compete. The government could start building its own housing, recouping the costs straight back from UBI rents, and simultaneously holding privately-owned market prices to a more reasonable level.
Would this work for utility companies too? How about mega food corps (http://www.miaatipx.com/corporations1.jpg as an example), who probably have very good statistics about what percentage of the population in an area regularly buys (and "can't live without") their products, and thus figure out the optimal price increases for each area? Gas? Cars? And what about the partners of all these other companies whose customers are other businesses not individuals, but are going to start charging more and expecting the customer business to pass it along to their individual customer -- refineries, mines, mills, graineries, farms, storage warehouses... (As I mentioned before, everyone who has anything to sell will want as big a piece of this new income that they can get and will raise prices to try and find out how much they can capture without starting to make less profit than before. Over infinite time and with everyone having perfect information of the market, I think $x/yr would become the new $0/yr.)
Is it fair for me to think that universal basic income, if it has any chance of achieving its stated goals, is insufficient by itself at least when expressed as "give every living adult $x/yr" and nothing else? Now if the only effect of UBI is making a new $0 baseline and nothing else being changed on average, then it can't hurt that much by itself, so it may be worth trying in a limited area (such as a smaller country like the mentioned Switzerland) just to get an experimental result on record before trying it out on an economy the size of the US. But when you have to do all this other stuff to make UBI achieve its goals, like have the government build housing (it already does and has done that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green), it makes me wonder why even bother with UBI itself and instead just get busy with the other things.
Is it fair for me to think that universal basic income, if it has any chance of achieving its stated goals, is insufficient by itself at least when expressed as "give every living adult $x/yr" and nothing else? Now if the only effect of UBI is making a new $0 baseline and nothing else being changed on average, then it can't hurt that much by itself, so it may be worth trying in a limited area (such as a smaller country like the mentioned Switzerland) just to get an experimental result on record before trying it out on an economy the size of the US. But when you have to do all this other stuff to make UBI achieve its goals, like have the government build housing (it already does and has done that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green), it makes me wonder why even bother with UBI itself and instead just get busy with the other things.
We do not yet have the technological foundation to feasibly implement a Banks'ian Culture-type "hard" UBI, and we barely have the beginning glimmers for even "soft" UBI like what many are discussing today. We lack energy production and management, AI, and nanotech for even rudimentary hard UBI, and even soft UBI is infeasible due to knock-on effects whose management is poorly-understood. Example: we already have a diabetes epidemic with low socioeconomic groups, and the obesogenic environment is not well studied enough to know if giving those groups more access to free time will improve outcomes. Will those groups on average use a soft UBI to improve their overall health, or will they choose poorly and the benefits of UBI blowback into exploding healthcare costs? No one really knows yet. I would like to believe that soft UBI would lead to better health outcomes, but that might simply be my own socioeconomic background speaking.
The few soft UBI trials commonly found in citations were too short-lived to tell whether we were simply observing a Hawthorne Effect at work or if the outcomes were sustainable.
The few soft UBI trials commonly found in citations were too short-lived to tell whether we were simply observing a Hawthorne Effect at work or if the outcomes were sustainable.
France's welfare system is already close to ABI. You have to fight bureaucracy, you're not eligible unless you have no revenue, and it's barely enough to survive, you're supposed to be actively looking for work, but it's there.
We could start by simplifying the system, and replace that welfare system by an equivalent ABI (the salaries of currently working people will probably need some adjustments). It would be insufficient of course, but that would be a start.
We could start by simplifying the system, and replace that welfare system by an equivalent ABI (the salaries of currently working people will probably need some adjustments). It would be insufficient of course, but that would be a start.
Here is an interesting basic income calculator:
http://mattbruenig.com/basicincomecalculator/
Happily, it suggests lots of proverty reduction is achievable with a very manageable percentage of GDP.
http://mattbruenig.com/basicincomecalculator/
Happily, it suggests lots of proverty reduction is achievable with a very manageable percentage of GDP.
That's far too simplistic and cannot be taken seriously.
One of the first serious issues you'd have to consider is migration from other countries to your model country with basic income. There's billions of people out there who'd happily live on basic income in some first world country and I'd absolutely encourage them to do so, given what the first world's riches are built on (but I digress...).
One of the first serious issues you'd have to consider is migration from other countries to your model country with basic income. There's billions of people out there who'd happily live on basic income in some first world country and I'd absolutely encourage them to do so, given what the first world's riches are built on (but I digress...).
Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people.
It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense.
For social spending, you do the same: print new money that's a percentage of GDP, and let citizens allocate their share to various social causes (police, fire, education, natural disaster relief, etc.).
As a concrete example, if the USA produces 15 trillion in GDP for the year, you could print 3.75 trillion for basic income, and 3.75 trillion for social income. The 3.75 trillion for basic income would be split evenly among the 330 million people, amounting to $11,364 annually per person. Each person would also have $11,364 to allocate ("appropriate") for various social causes.
Taxation is eliminated. Everyone is fed and sheltered. Growth in wealth is shared equally. Anarchists still get to keep all of the money they earn (remember: no taxation). IRS is gone. All of the tax-funded welfare programs are gone, but we've got plenty of money annually to dedicate to social welfare programs. People don't have to give money to the police if they care more about education. There's no need for a minimum wage, or tracking people's incomes. There's no downside (in terms of extra taxation and lost benefits) to working more. And on and on.
This is entirely doable today, at a purely technical/administrative level. Once robots are doing the work of the labor class, and 40% of the country literally has no jobs, and won't, ever—then it'll become a social necessity.
That's why the problems in this article don't keep me up at night: not only is the solution easy, it's far preferable and way more democratic and fair than what we have today.
For extra humanity, create a global currency, peg new money creation to the world's annual GDP, and do a basic and social income for everyone in the world equally, full stop.
It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense.
For social spending, you do the same: print new money that's a percentage of GDP, and let citizens allocate their share to various social causes (police, fire, education, natural disaster relief, etc.).
As a concrete example, if the USA produces 15 trillion in GDP for the year, you could print 3.75 trillion for basic income, and 3.75 trillion for social income. The 3.75 trillion for basic income would be split evenly among the 330 million people, amounting to $11,364 annually per person. Each person would also have $11,364 to allocate ("appropriate") for various social causes.
Taxation is eliminated. Everyone is fed and sheltered. Growth in wealth is shared equally. Anarchists still get to keep all of the money they earn (remember: no taxation). IRS is gone. All of the tax-funded welfare programs are gone, but we've got plenty of money annually to dedicate to social welfare programs. People don't have to give money to the police if they care more about education. There's no need for a minimum wage, or tracking people's incomes. There's no downside (in terms of extra taxation and lost benefits) to working more. And on and on.
This is entirely doable today, at a purely technical/administrative level. Once robots are doing the work of the labor class, and 40% of the country literally has no jobs, and won't, ever—then it'll become a social necessity.
That's why the problems in this article don't keep me up at night: not only is the solution easy, it's far preferable and way more democratic and fair than what we have today.
For extra humanity, create a global currency, peg new money creation to the world's annual GDP, and do a basic and social income for everyone in the world equally, full stop.
Your idea is an interesting one. It's a radical change, and I don't have a clear sense of the unintended consequences.
This is entirely doable today, at a purely technical/administrative level.
Perhaps. But from a political standpoint, it's utopian and most unlikely in the near term.
This is entirely doable today, at a purely technical/administrative level.
Perhaps. But from a political standpoint, it's utopian and most unlikely in the near term.
> Perhaps. But from a political standpoint, it's utopian and most unlikely in the near term.
What's stopping us?
What's stopping us?
People excusing their lack of altruistic effort by calling any and all proposals for a better world "utopian" or "impossible".
In this scenario, the government would need to use physical force to ensure transactions are conducted through the inflating currency rather than barter or gold or bitcoin or foreign currency, etc.
That's possible, sure, but I think it's very unlikely for purely structural reasons (the best kind IMO).
Because everyone will have this currency by default, natural market forces will causes businesses to want to sell things in that currency (people have it, and want to spend it).
The currency itself is stable (tied to GPD growth, not politician's whims).
Once some businesses decide to take it (and they will, see above), then those businesses getting that income will also spend it at other businesses who accept that income, making those businesses even more successful, causing other business to also accept the currency, and so on.
And remember: everyone has some of this currency. Who is going to have it, and not spend it? I'd venture to say the percent of people flushing their basic income down the toilet is in the low single digits at best.
It's a virtuous cycle, and no force should be needed to keep it going. Think about it: who in their right mind would move to another currency that wiped out their entire existing and future wealth? As another commenter pointed out, $11K a year is like having $500K in wealth paying out an annuity. Who would voluntarily give that up for some alternate currency that makes them poor?
Even today, look at how hard it is to modify a social welfare scheme. It's not because the government has guns and the desire to use them, it's because people really, really rely on social stability.
But yes, you're right of course: like all fiat money schemes, it only works because people want it to work. IMO people will want this to work, and furthermore: it's in each individual person's self-interest that it works.
Because everyone will have this currency by default, natural market forces will causes businesses to want to sell things in that currency (people have it, and want to spend it).
The currency itself is stable (tied to GPD growth, not politician's whims).
Once some businesses decide to take it (and they will, see above), then those businesses getting that income will also spend it at other businesses who accept that income, making those businesses even more successful, causing other business to also accept the currency, and so on.
And remember: everyone has some of this currency. Who is going to have it, and not spend it? I'd venture to say the percent of people flushing their basic income down the toilet is in the low single digits at best.
It's a virtuous cycle, and no force should be needed to keep it going. Think about it: who in their right mind would move to another currency that wiped out their entire existing and future wealth? As another commenter pointed out, $11K a year is like having $500K in wealth paying out an annuity. Who would voluntarily give that up for some alternate currency that makes them poor?
Even today, look at how hard it is to modify a social welfare scheme. It's not because the government has guns and the desire to use them, it's because people really, really rely on social stability.
But yes, you're right of course: like all fiat money schemes, it only works because people want it to work. IMO people will want this to work, and furthermore: it's in each individual person's self-interest that it works.
But yes, you're right of course: like all fiat money schemes, it only works because people want it to work. IMO people will want this to work, and furthermore: it's in each individual person's self-interest that it works.
Without taxation, what leverage does the government have over demand for the currency? Fiat money works because it can be used to pay taxes at the very least. With taxes out of the way, the government-issued currency would be no better off than a so-called altcoin.
Without taxation, what leverage does the government have over demand for the currency? Fiat money works because it can be used to pay taxes at the very least. With taxes out of the way, the government-issued currency would be no better off than a so-called altcoin.
There are other approaches. For example, the government could declare that certain commodities could only be purchased with the currency. Oil, for instance (and there's precedent there, too).
Personally, I think the government declaring that basic incomes will be paid in the currency is enough, but I see no reason to disallow other methods.
Another example is to do what the dollar says: this [currency] shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private.
Another one would be that banks could only accept that currency, and make loans in that currency.
There's a lot of options, but you're right: we'd need to get creative about it. As CS people, that's basically our job description and it's a good challenge, and I think, a solvable one.
Thanks for your comments, I do appreciate it. I certainly don't have all the answers.
Personally, I think the government declaring that basic incomes will be paid in the currency is enough, but I see no reason to disallow other methods.
Another example is to do what the dollar says: this [currency] shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private.
Another one would be that banks could only accept that currency, and make loans in that currency.
There's a lot of options, but you're right: we'd need to get creative about it. As CS people, that's basically our job description and it's a good challenge, and I think, a solvable one.
Thanks for your comments, I do appreciate it. I certainly don't have all the answers.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The taxes just become hidden in inflation instead of visible income taxes, and it becomes impossible to adjust taxes to different levels on different individuals (all dollars pay the same tax in lost value regardless who holds them or how much income they made that year.)
Since M0 is about 3.7 trillion, printing 7.5 trillion in cash would cause inflation of about 200% per year.
This would have obviously bad effects, causing people to great lengths to avoid holding cash. I think income or sales tax is the only way to distribute large amounts of money from the rich to the poor.
This would have obviously bad effects, causing people to great lengths to avoid holding cash. I think income or sales tax is the only way to distribute large amounts of money from the rich to the poor.
Not all inflationary pressure is equal (i.e. it's not true that printing X dollars leads to Y% inflation—the kind of dollars X represents matters a great deal). In part, my scheme wouldn't cause hyperinflation for much the same reasons that fractional-reserve lending doesn't cause hyperinflation, even though it also increases the money supply (drastically, too).
It matters a great deal how the money is put to use, and why, and what limits are set on the increase in the money supply. For example, it's obvious that fractional-reserve lending would not work if the fraction was 0/100 (i.e. no reserve). Similarly, large-scale money printing doesn't work when it's arbitrary and up to political whim.
Also, a nitpick: M2, not M0, is traditionally what is used to forecast inflation.
It matters a great deal how the money is put to use, and why, and what limits are set on the increase in the money supply. For example, it's obvious that fractional-reserve lending would not work if the fraction was 0/100 (i.e. no reserve). Similarly, large-scale money printing doesn't work when it's arbitrary and up to political whim.
Also, a nitpick: M2, not M0, is traditionally what is used to forecast inflation.
I chose M0 because you are talking about creating hard money, which is what M0 measures. When you create 7.5 Trillion in hard money, you increase M0 by 200%. My very rough estimate is that this will create 200% inflation, because M0 is the base through which all other kinds of currency derive their value (hence the name "monetary base").
Reserve banking doesn't cause inflation in itself as long as the reserve ratio is fixed, because a given percentage increase in M0 will result in a similar percentage increase in bank reserves (M1). So it is really down to M0, which is also the quantity that the reserve bank manipulates through its open market operations in order to execute monetary policy.
>I'll also point out that M2, not M0, is traditionally what is used to forecast inflation.
That is not relevant. Forecasting inflation under the current policy regime is a completely different matter from forecasting the inflation that your proposal would cause.
Reserve banking doesn't cause inflation in itself as long as the reserve ratio is fixed, because a given percentage increase in M0 will result in a similar percentage increase in bank reserves (M1). So it is really down to M0, which is also the quantity that the reserve bank manipulates through its open market operations in order to execute monetary policy.
>I'll also point out that M2, not M0, is traditionally what is used to forecast inflation.
That is not relevant. Forecasting inflation under the current policy regime is a completely different matter from forecasting the inflation that your proposal would cause.
My proposal would not be run under the current policy regime, and you're absolutely right: trying to forecast inflation from (part of) my proposal using M0 from the current policy regime isn't relevant. I'm not even clear why we're discussing it at all.
The theoretical and empirical relationship between changes in the money base (M0) and inflation are well established, and based on very simple intuition: changing the amount of hard money by a factor of 3, results in a change in the value of money by a factor of 1/3. I can't educate you on macroeconomics in this thread, please refer to any macro textbook.
It could still work possibly if there was a cap on basic food costs, rent controls in place. Also stockpiling or speculation on basic necessities might need to be very restricted. A lot more regulations would need to be in place alongside the basic income to keep the economy sane i imagine.
that sounds terrible. Why not just use taxes?
err.. your left wing viewpoints are showing..
have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems.
people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking.
but, the dynamics of pay may change to compensate for the amount of leverage we can get today in society
have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems.
people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking.
but, the dynamics of pay may change to compensate for the amount of leverage we can get today in society
Canadians seemed to handle it just fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979.
The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.
It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for wives, and five percent for unmarried women.[1] However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.[2] These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. 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.[3][4] A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget (/fɔrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011.[4][5] She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[6] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[7][8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979.
The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.
It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for wives, and five percent for unmarried women.[1] However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.[2] These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. 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.[3][4] A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget (/fɔrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011.[4][5] She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[6] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[7][8]
have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems.
Those problems are far more complex than you're making them out to be. Besides that, your claim of handouts is simply false. The social assistance given to Status Indians comes with a great deal of stipulations, some of which are extremely harsh such as restrictions on who you can marry. Further complicating the issue are the problems of reservation living conditions, cultural alienation and simple boredom.
Universal Basic Income sidesteps these issues because it doesn't come with any crippling lifestyle restrictions. It's simply a form of income security that benefits all people by raising them out of poverty and reducing the fear and hopelessness associated with unemployment.
Those problems are far more complex than you're making them out to be. Besides that, your claim of handouts is simply false. The social assistance given to Status Indians comes with a great deal of stipulations, some of which are extremely harsh such as restrictions on who you can marry. Further complicating the issue are the problems of reservation living conditions, cultural alienation and simple boredom.
Universal Basic Income sidesteps these issues because it doesn't come with any crippling lifestyle restrictions. It's simply a form of income security that benefits all people by raising them out of poverty and reducing the fear and hopelessness associated with unemployment.
> people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking.
Completely agree. I think the dynamics of getting a basic income when everyone gets the basic income are different than when a subset of people are living off of the work of another subset of people, who don't benefit (in fact, are penalized).
In the scheme I proposed, no one is penalized for success, and no one is penalized for not wanting to participate in capitalism. Society is not penalized because capitalists are out there making additional wealth for themselves.
I really do think the non-initiation of force, the lack of penalties, and the universal equality changes the dynamics of social welfare programs for the better. It's very much like The Incredibles: when everyone is special, no one is.
I firmly believe that a universal basic income won't reduce the struggle in life, it just shifts it from the bottom of Maslow's chart up a level or two or three. I think we can all agree that's a good thing, no matter your political persuasion.
Completely agree. I think the dynamics of getting a basic income when everyone gets the basic income are different than when a subset of people are living off of the work of another subset of people, who don't benefit (in fact, are penalized).
In the scheme I proposed, no one is penalized for success, and no one is penalized for not wanting to participate in capitalism. Society is not penalized because capitalists are out there making additional wealth for themselves.
I really do think the non-initiation of force, the lack of penalties, and the universal equality changes the dynamics of social welfare programs for the better. It's very much like The Incredibles: when everyone is special, no one is.
I firmly believe that a universal basic income won't reduce the struggle in life, it just shifts it from the bottom of Maslow's chart up a level or two or three. I think we can all agree that's a good thing, no matter your political persuasion.
Since 1930 productivity in my home country Sweden has increased fivefold, mainly due to technical achievements. Does that mean that we work 20% of the time we did then? No it does not. Wealth has increased of course since the 1930s, and perhaps we want a higher material standard.
But also consider than since the 1970s productivity in Sweden has doubled. Does that mean we work 4 hour days instead of 8 hour days now? No, of course not. Instead, since the 1970s we work 100 hours more each year.
As a society i feel that we should be using the technical achievements to give us more time for the things and the people that we love. Is that too much to ask for?
But also consider than since the 1970s productivity in Sweden has doubled. Does that mean we work 4 hour days instead of 8 hour days now? No, of course not. Instead, since the 1970s we work 100 hours more each year.
As a society i feel that we should be using the technical achievements to give us more time for the things and the people that we love. Is that too much to ask for?
Following a political conversation about 2 years ago, a very insightful left-wing commenter pointed out this:
"One of the biggest failures of Europe's socialism was the lack of any requirement to half the weekly working hours in 70s and 80s."
I wish this idea was more widely discussed, but still the mainstream idea is that more working, produce more value as if 'free time' does not hold any value.
It some scenarios is ridiculous. In Greece for example, the government trying to boost spending, opted for a law that allows commercial stores to open on Sunday. Before that it was illegal, you had to have a special permission to do that.
Of course, the problem is NOT the working hours. The problem is that people don't have money. Apparently the government thins that Greeks are waiting for Sunday to go buy sugar, milk and cigarettes. Says a lot about the level of contact that our (Greek here) politicians have with reality.
"One of the biggest failures of Europe's socialism was the lack of any requirement to half the weekly working hours in 70s and 80s."
I wish this idea was more widely discussed, but still the mainstream idea is that more working, produce more value as if 'free time' does not hold any value.
It some scenarios is ridiculous. In Greece for example, the government trying to boost spending, opted for a law that allows commercial stores to open on Sunday. Before that it was illegal, you had to have a special permission to do that.
Of course, the problem is NOT the working hours. The problem is that people don't have money. Apparently the government thins that Greeks are waiting for Sunday to go buy sugar, milk and cigarettes. Says a lot about the level of contact that our (Greek here) politicians have with reality.
Europeans are already working a lot less hours than american. It's ridiculous that many Americans can't even get 2 weeks of vacation. Things are even more brutal in developed Asian countries, and that's why their suicide rate is so high.
Here's the first ten countries in the list of countries by suicide.
Greenland
Lithuania
South Korea
Guyana
Kazakhstan
China
Belarus
Slovenia
Hungary
Japan
Obvious caveats about national suicide stats apply.
Greenland
Lithuania
South Korea
Guyana
Kazakhstan
China
Belarus
Slovenia
Hungary
Japan
Obvious caveats about national suicide stats apply.
Obvious exception of the Eastern European countries. South Korea and Japan are notorious for the high suicide rate. The work hours in these countries are ridiculous. People literally get worked to death. Engineers pretty much devote their entire life to their company. There is no work-life balance. There is only work.
> Obvious exception of the Eastern European countries.
Why?
Why?
Whenever I hear the phrase "the dignity of work", I'm reminded of Jeffrey Bernard's quote:
"As if there was something romantic and glamorous about hard work ... if there was something romantic about it, the Duke of Westminster would be digging his own fucking garden, wouldn't he?"
http://www.rense.com/general56/thevirtueofidleness.htm
"As if there was something romantic and glamorous about hard work ... if there was something romantic about it, the Duke of Westminster would be digging his own fucking garden, wouldn't he?"
http://www.rense.com/general56/thevirtueofidleness.htm
Prince Charles showing off his worn-out gardening coat: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291333/Countryfile-...
(he also wrote a couple of books about organic gardening)
(he also wrote a couple of books about organic gardening)
Quoting Aristotle:
All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind.
Anything more than 3 hours of work per day, equates slavery.
I don't think the above quotes are absolute, but are hard to argue against. However, I wouldn't expect any other approach from The Economist which content's quality has been growing logarithmically lately.
All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind.
Anything more than 3 hours of work per day, equates slavery.
I don't think the above quotes are absolute, but are hard to argue against. However, I wouldn't expect any other approach from The Economist which content's quality has been growing logarithmically lately.
Isn't gardening a popular hobby amongst the rich?
'Gardening' is quit a bit different than breaking your back to pick 200 bushels of oranges for 14 hours in 90 degree heat.
And being a real estate agent is quite different from breaking your back picking oranges.
Yet they're both work.
Yet they're both work.
Clipping, not digging.
There are at least two major indignities connected to a conventional life and career. The first is that mainstream education is about winning prizes rather than learning what is interesting to you, for its own sake. The second is that most people don't particularly enjoy their jobs, they're only working for money.
Although there's still a taboo around not working, it can't last. The future, as Arthur C. Clarke said, is not full employment, but full-time playing. (Some of that playing will resemble what we now call 'research'.)
Meanwhile, there is work for anyone who has minimal food, shelter and web access. There are many unsolved problems out there and not just in open source software. With dignity galore, because they're important.
Although there's still a taboo around not working, it can't last. The future, as Arthur C. Clarke said, is not full employment, but full-time playing. (Some of that playing will resemble what we now call 'research'.)
Meanwhile, there is work for anyone who has minimal food, shelter and web access. There are many unsolved problems out there and not just in open source software. With dignity galore, because they're important.
I am not an unconditional advocate for Basic Income but I think that the idea is intriguing and could potentially be very efficient. I am not going to argue about what BI could or could not do but I would really like to see more experiments with it to have some tangible information. I would rather see that it fails than hope that it would work. Of course, I'll be delighted to see it work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Income
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Income
We had a couple of experiments. This article asserts all sorts of vague positive effects - the concrete effects are a 9-13% drop in working hours and an 8.5% decrease in hospital visits. Unfortunately, as usual with articles on this topic, primary sources are not cited.
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...
Back of the envelope calculations are also useful. I did one a while back, you can steal the source code and build your own to at least determine affordability. The basic gist is that an inefficient targeted program is vastly cheaper than an efficient untargeted one.
http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/basic_income_vs_basic...
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...
Back of the envelope calculations are also useful. I did one a while back, you can steal the source code and build your own to at least determine affordability. The basic gist is that an inefficient targeted program is vastly cheaper than an efficient untargeted one.
http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/basic_income_vs_basic...
We might talk instead about the dignity of endeavour for its own sake, or the dignity of contribution to society. Such phrases may seem to have the makings of a social infrastructure for socialism. Indeed they do, for a world in which machines can do much of the work will need to become more socialistic if it is not to become intolerably unequal.
You know we're in new territory when the Economist puts forward something like this without pulling it apart in the next paragraph and explaining why a free market solution is preferable.
You know we're in new territory when the Economist puts forward something like this without pulling it apart in the next paragraph and explaining why a free market solution is preferable.
I'm a cynical ass, but whenever I hear the phrase "the dignity of work" I can't help but sarcastically mentally add "yeah, work will set you free".
I don't get the philosophy behind the "dignity of work". People primarily work in order to get paid, money they then spend on themselves or their families. Work is no more altruistic than going to clubs and having casual sex.
Society functions not because people feel compelled to work out of principal, but because if no one worked, the price of labor would go up until people were enticed to do it.
And it's also very strange that eroding the labor supply is painted as a "loss of jobs", when lowering the labor supply means more and better jobs for those who do want them.
Finally, the idea that making poor people better off is bad because they might work less, is ridiculous. What is society striving for in the first place, if not the benefit of its members? Sure, the disincentive to work creates real deadweight economic loss. But this loss has to be weighed against the gain to the people receiving the handouts. It seems pretty clear that the wrong balance between work incentive and reducing inequality was struck in the US, and Obamacare is helping to fix this.
Society functions not because people feel compelled to work out of principal, but because if no one worked, the price of labor would go up until people were enticed to do it.
And it's also very strange that eroding the labor supply is painted as a "loss of jobs", when lowering the labor supply means more and better jobs for those who do want them.
Finally, the idea that making poor people better off is bad because they might work less, is ridiculous. What is society striving for in the first place, if not the benefit of its members? Sure, the disincentive to work creates real deadweight economic loss. But this loss has to be weighed against the gain to the people receiving the handouts. It seems pretty clear that the wrong balance between work incentive and reducing inequality was struck in the US, and Obamacare is helping to fix this.
What does dignity have to do with altruism?
This is slightly off topic. Work is rather a vague term. If you break it down into it's components: effort, compensation, social-benefit, etc. then you can start to assign relative merit to different kinds of work. For example financiers which might be categorised as: high compensation, low to moderate effort and low social benefit and janitors: low compensation, moderate effort, low compensation. Now you can start to make value judgements about how different types of work are rated or (should be) valued by the general public or society as a whole. You can also factor out the ideological or moral components attributed to work by various political factions and start to answer interesting questions such how much should teachers be paid and what jobs which are low compensation, low social benefit should we be automating as fast as possible.
If you allow competition the market will do this. Compensation also takes into account the joy the job provides, some jobs are relatively pleasant and thus pay less than some that are much worse.
As for automation, I completely disagree - we automate where we can get the biggest gain on output. So if something costs a lot or has high social benefit we should automate it as much as possible so that it can provide more benefits to more people.
As for automation, I completely disagree - we automate where we can get the biggest gain on output. So if something costs a lot or has high social benefit we should automate it as much as possible so that it can provide more benefits to more people.
There are many types of job where market forces cannot solve the problem. (Within the context of the Universal Basic Income) there may entire categories of types of job that could be created to solve social (in the most general sense) or civic problems. For example charitable or education related activities are low to no profit - or at least it is not easy to measure their benefit directly or immediately, but high social value in the sense that they mitigate future problem that result in increase expenditures or taxes and so have long term value. Since the market uses money and direct profit as a means to measure everything it simply cannot deal with this.
Two examples that invalidate your last sentence would be Khan Academy and Mozilla -- both very competitive places to get a job, yet they don't pay substantially above market; their mission is what draws employees in. Not all competitive forces are financial in nature.
We could argue about the extent to which these nonfinancial competitive forces influence (or ought to influence) the market, but saying that they "simply cannot" seems false.
We could argue about the extent to which these nonfinancial competitive forces influence (or ought to influence) the market, but saying that they "simply cannot" seems false.
Compensation also takes into account the joy the job provides, some jobs are relatively pleasant and thus pay less than some that are much worse.
That's not generally my observation of the world. No-skill-required jobs pay less, skill-required jobs pay more. There's a slight bonus for dangerous jobs, but not a heap, relatively speaking. Pleasure derived or not only appears to have an effect on income levels outside of traditional employment and into freelancing territory, for example with starving artists and writers.
That's not generally my observation of the world. No-skill-required jobs pay less, skill-required jobs pay more. There's a slight bonus for dangerous jobs, but not a heap, relatively speaking. Pleasure derived or not only appears to have an effect on income levels outside of traditional employment and into freelancing territory, for example with starving artists and writers.
Skill determines the size of the labor pool - supply. Less desirable jobs with the same skill requirements will pay more.
There is a lot of joy to be had in doing something for someone, that they want done so much that they are willing to pay you for the work. After I've slogged 80 hours in a week on something, getting a huge fat check from my customer is a great joy, indeed.
Its not work that matters - its the formal exchange of value that occurs when someone pays you for something you've done for them, because they want to pay you that amount and are happy to do so.
The value of work is in the exchange - not the doing, not the acting, not the 'being a worker' mentality - but in actually receiving a great reward which prolongs ones own life and increased ability to survive in the world.
Fat checks are great! Work hard for them: even greater!
Its not work that matters - its the formal exchange of value that occurs when someone pays you for something you've done for them, because they want to pay you that amount and are happy to do so.
The value of work is in the exchange - not the doing, not the acting, not the 'being a worker' mentality - but in actually receiving a great reward which prolongs ones own life and increased ability to survive in the world.
Fat checks are great! Work hard for them: even greater!
I would argue that many modern 1st world jobs are a form of pointless busy work. I am also concerned by the waste of resources and damage to the environment many of these jobs entail. Most of the truly important work (like food production) is achieved overseas or by a very small percentage of the population. The victorian "work ethic" way of thinking needs to be re-examined and possibly discarded as I do not think it is useful anymore, in fact I think nowadays it is detrimental.
A more exigent social philosophy for this age would be more focused on trying to achieve a more sustainable society.
I think there's several separate issues: Krugman correctly points out that work disincentives are different from job destruction. However there are different kind of work disincentives: it is certainly hard to view people working _just_ for healthcare (as opposed to switching jobs, retiring early, or starting their own business) as something positive. By all means, disentangling healthcare from employment is at least a worthy goal -- there are many artificial reasons which currently make non-employer health insurance (and non-insurance health care) far more expensive than would otherwise be.
On the other hand, the individual mandate and increased price of even the most basic catastrophic coverage does seem to cut into disposable income, which (in a sense) has the equivalent effect of huge marginal tax hike: essentially as the salary increases, essential benefits decrease (no eligibility for food stamps, subsidizing housing, or subsidized healthcare), while taxes increase. Incentive to do anything other than get by decreases, strong incentives are created to cut out other "unavoidable" payments such as by moving to places with less expensive housing costs, even if at the cost of less employment opportunities. Replacing the system that offers increasingly little to honest working poor(1), but imposes regressive mandates to fund what are essentially transfers from working classes to middle-class senior citizens (e.g., medicare and social secure) with a a universal basic income (funded through income tax or perhaps a Georgist "rent tax") would help, but making it a political reality may be tricky but feasible ( see here for an interesting analysis from a "left-libertarian"/classic liberal perspective: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/01/the-positive-po... )
This does not automatically imply that various "mandates" of are always bad policy, the job of policy advocates should not be to hand-wave issues, but to present them in a way such that the public could make an informed choice. There are many times where Krugman does an excellent job of this (indeed, I'd imagine he rightly sees this as the very point of his NYT column); yet, it's odd that while Tyler Cowen (another trained economist) discusses this topic in a great deal in Great Stagnation and Average is Over, Krugman does not mention this and talks about what is really a related, but separate (even if important) matter of income inequality. Honestly, I don't see how income inequality (which is a serious danger for many reasons -- I don't mean to handwave it) has a role in this: if we raised the salary of teachers in Bay Area to that of software engineers, these salaries will still remain minuscule compared to that of top CEOs, but does anyone doubt that this would greatly increase teachers' job satisfaction? The problem with low pay isn't that someone is paid higher, the problem is that low (or no) pay makes life extremely stressful as basic needs and rudimentary wants are harder to fill: never mind being able to send kids to college, it's more about being able to afford a place where kids have a room to themselves while still having room to grade class papers after work -- one can't afford this on a teacher's salary in most parts of Bay Area.
(1) This is what irks me a lot about the debate on this topic. It's one thing to argue that welfare programs are wrong because taxation is wrong (then your job is to prove that taxation is wrong), but if taxation is wrong why not first cut programs that impose a greater tax burden? Military and medicare spending each cost more than food stamps and don't seem especially under-funded, yet it's the food-stamps program that got cut.
On the other hand, the individual mandate and increased price of even the most basic catastrophic coverage does seem to cut into disposable income, which (in a sense) has the equivalent effect of huge marginal tax hike: essentially as the salary increases, essential benefits decrease (no eligibility for food stamps, subsidizing housing, or subsidized healthcare), while taxes increase. Incentive to do anything other than get by decreases, strong incentives are created to cut out other "unavoidable" payments such as by moving to places with less expensive housing costs, even if at the cost of less employment opportunities. Replacing the system that offers increasingly little to honest working poor(1), but imposes regressive mandates to fund what are essentially transfers from working classes to middle-class senior citizens (e.g., medicare and social secure) with a a universal basic income (funded through income tax or perhaps a Georgist "rent tax") would help, but making it a political reality may be tricky but feasible ( see here for an interesting analysis from a "left-libertarian"/classic liberal perspective: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/01/the-positive-po... )
This does not automatically imply that various "mandates" of are always bad policy, the job of policy advocates should not be to hand-wave issues, but to present them in a way such that the public could make an informed choice. There are many times where Krugman does an excellent job of this (indeed, I'd imagine he rightly sees this as the very point of his NYT column); yet, it's odd that while Tyler Cowen (another trained economist) discusses this topic in a great deal in Great Stagnation and Average is Over, Krugman does not mention this and talks about what is really a related, but separate (even if important) matter of income inequality. Honestly, I don't see how income inequality (which is a serious danger for many reasons -- I don't mean to handwave it) has a role in this: if we raised the salary of teachers in Bay Area to that of software engineers, these salaries will still remain minuscule compared to that of top CEOs, but does anyone doubt that this would greatly increase teachers' job satisfaction? The problem with low pay isn't that someone is paid higher, the problem is that low (or no) pay makes life extremely stressful as basic needs and rudimentary wants are harder to fill: never mind being able to send kids to college, it's more about being able to afford a place where kids have a room to themselves while still having room to grade class papers after work -- one can't afford this on a teacher's salary in most parts of Bay Area.
(1) This is what irks me a lot about the debate on this topic. It's one thing to argue that welfare programs are wrong because taxation is wrong (then your job is to prove that taxation is wrong), but if taxation is wrong why not first cut programs that impose a greater tax burden? Military and medicare spending each cost more than food stamps and don't seem especially under-funded, yet it's the food-stamps program that got cut.
Why it is hard to view working "just for healthcare" as positive? Is it hard to view working "just for money" as positive? I.e. suppose that one works only because one needs money and otherwise he would spend his time playing Tetris, walking on the beach and reading medieval poetry. Why is it negative that he still works and not lives off other's money and other's work, involuntary taken?
If this is not negative, then how is it different for healthcare? It's the same money, only spent in a different way, mostly because american tax code is weird and the government tried to mess with pay arrangements repeatedly which gave birth to various fringe benefits including employer-sponsored healthcare. But at the end of it, it's the same money, isn't it?
>>> one can't afford this on a teacher's salary in most parts of Bay Area.
If you raise salaries for a wide class of employees - what do you think will happen to the housing prices? Also, where would the money come from? California has about 300K teachers. Each 10K of salary increase would cost 3 billion dollars (not counting pension costs, employer's part in taxes, etc. so actually more). Where those additional billions would come from?
But teacher's salary in Bay Are is not so far from software engineer's: http://rossieronline.usc.edu/teaching-salary-california/
The second and third highest paying districts are both located in Santa Clara County, which is also home to Silicon Valley. The average salary in the Mountain View-Los Altos Union district is $100,530, while Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union has an average salary of $92,636.
Considering other benefits like pensions, I'd say not so far from that of many software engineers.
If this is not negative, then how is it different for healthcare? It's the same money, only spent in a different way, mostly because american tax code is weird and the government tried to mess with pay arrangements repeatedly which gave birth to various fringe benefits including employer-sponsored healthcare. But at the end of it, it's the same money, isn't it?
>>> one can't afford this on a teacher's salary in most parts of Bay Area.
If you raise salaries for a wide class of employees - what do you think will happen to the housing prices? Also, where would the money come from? California has about 300K teachers. Each 10K of salary increase would cost 3 billion dollars (not counting pension costs, employer's part in taxes, etc. so actually more). Where those additional billions would come from?
But teacher's salary in Bay Are is not so far from software engineer's: http://rossieronline.usc.edu/teaching-salary-california/
The second and third highest paying districts are both located in Santa Clara County, which is also home to Silicon Valley. The average salary in the Mountain View-Los Altos Union district is $100,530, while Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union has an average salary of $92,636.
Considering other benefits like pensions, I'd say not so far from that of many software engineers.
I think the difference is that prior to the ACA, you didn't have much of a marketplace for the self insured, so you were artificially tied to your employer for the group insurance coverage.
The ACA is apparently not perfect (I, like most people haven't read the law:) ) but I think anything that keeps people from becoming serfs is a good thing.
Your argument about healthcare being money in a different form is flawed. You could make a similar argument for when people used to live in employer provided housing because owning their own homes was impossible for most people. I am sure not too many people would want to go back to serfdom because after all a roof over your head is another form of being paid.
The ACA is apparently not perfect (I, like most people haven't read the law:) ) but I think anything that keeps people from becoming serfs is a good thing.
Your argument about healthcare being money in a different form is flawed. You could make a similar argument for when people used to live in employer provided housing because owning their own homes was impossible for most people. I am sure not too many people would want to go back to serfdom because after all a roof over your head is another form of being paid.
I'm not sure - how paying for your own needs with your own earned money is "becoming serf" and why getting rid of the necessity for work in order for your needs to be paid for is a good thing?
>>> You could make a similar argument for when people used to live in employer provided housing because owning their own homes was impossible for most people.
When and where there was such time? If you refer to real slaves or serfs - they couldn't own property not because it wasn't affordable but because they did not have rights to own anything, being property themselves. Nobody argues for that. However, earning one's own housing or food or clothing or healthcare is in no way serfdom - it is a natural state of a person, the alternative being somebody else earning them and you just take them because you're too good to work, unlike that other guy. But what if that other guy thinks the same? If nobody has to work to earn their own living - who'll be supplying all these nice things you feel so entitled to enjoy?
>>> You could make a similar argument for when people used to live in employer provided housing because owning their own homes was impossible for most people.
When and where there was such time? If you refer to real slaves or serfs - they couldn't own property not because it wasn't affordable but because they did not have rights to own anything, being property themselves. Nobody argues for that. However, earning one's own housing or food or clothing or healthcare is in no way serfdom - it is a natural state of a person, the alternative being somebody else earning them and you just take them because you're too good to work, unlike that other guy. But what if that other guy thinks the same? If nobody has to work to earn their own living - who'll be supplying all these nice things you feel so entitled to enjoy?
When and where there was such time?
Now in many cases: farmworker housing, worker barracks in some industries, particularly mining, energy, and sometimes forestry or other remote work (say, employee compounds for US oil workers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East). Factory barracks are commonplace in China and other developing nations. Railroad workers, sailors, and other travelling employees are often lodged by their employers. I've also seen more than one startup in which there was a corporate apartment, though that was usually used on a fairly short-term basis by new hires, or in some cases, by founders or remote employees when travelling to other sites.
One of the earlier examples of this was the Fuggerei in Augsburg, Germany, though more strictly it was an example of social worker housing: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/germany/bavaria/augsburg/sights/...
The "Company Town" Wikipedia article offers more information on the practice. Within the US it's largely associated with extractive industries, as I noted, arising in the mid 1800s and largely dying out by the 1950s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
Now in many cases: farmworker housing, worker barracks in some industries, particularly mining, energy, and sometimes forestry or other remote work (say, employee compounds for US oil workers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East). Factory barracks are commonplace in China and other developing nations. Railroad workers, sailors, and other travelling employees are often lodged by their employers. I've also seen more than one startup in which there was a corporate apartment, though that was usually used on a fairly short-term basis by new hires, or in some cases, by founders or remote employees when travelling to other sites.
One of the earlier examples of this was the Fuggerei in Augsburg, Germany, though more strictly it was an example of social worker housing: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/germany/bavaria/augsburg/sights/...
The "Company Town" Wikipedia article offers more information on the practice. Within the US it's largely associated with extractive industries, as I noted, arising in the mid 1800s and largely dying out by the 1950s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
Company towns existed not because housing were unaffordable but because there were no infrastructure in the place where company needed it to be before they came there. In your own link it says the company rented out and old off the property once built, thus negating the claim ownership or renting this property was not possible.
because there were no infrastructure in the place
Not necessarily. Farmworker housing is offered in areas where there are alternatives, but the needs of the worker population often don't match the needs of growers: periodic work, a mobile workforce, and a concentrated area in which work crews can be picked up and dropped off, as well as a generally below-market income for the tenant population. Similarly, modern worker factory housing often exists to support a large migrant population.
The question I was answering wasn't the "why" but the "when", most specifically that it's still happening now.
Not necessarily. Farmworker housing is offered in areas where there are alternatives, but the needs of the worker population often don't match the needs of growers: periodic work, a mobile workforce, and a concentrated area in which work crews can be picked up and dropped off, as well as a generally below-market income for the tenant population. Similarly, modern worker factory housing often exists to support a large migrant population.
The question I was answering wasn't the "why" but the "when", most specifically that it's still happening now.
"It" that is happening now is not "it" we were discussing. Clearly, if you're catering to migrant population, homeownership is not a good solution for them. It's like saying hotels exist in New York because nobody can afford a house in New York. That's not the reason - the reason is that whoever needs to live in New York for two weeks won't buy a house there, unless he's a crazy billionaire. Worker housing exists, but it does not exist because otherwise workers couldn't find a place to live and thus making workers enslaved by the housing owners. It exists because it is a cost-effective solution for providing housing needs of the temporary workers, and it is natural for the employer that needs the workers to take care of their housing in the most efficient manner - thus reducing both their own costs and costs for the workers. It has very little to do with housing affordability and workers somehow being "serfs".
I disagree. The situation describe continues to exist both in the US and (more particularly) outside it. It's not always structured to make the employees utterly dependent and in debt to employers, though (usually for lower-skilled workers) this does remain the case, and is a key argument against "company towns" or other forms of employer-supplied housing in the absence of other competitive housing markets.
And the point you're trying to make about immigrant or periodic labor is precisely the problem that applies to serfs: they lack the means (or legal ability) to make their own discretionary housing arrangements.
For higher-skilled workers, who have other employment options, this typically isn't the case. Also where employees who operate under union or similar collective bargaining arrangements.
And the point you're trying to make about immigrant or periodic labor is precisely the problem that applies to serfs: they lack the means (or legal ability) to make their own discretionary housing arrangements.
For higher-skilled workers, who have other employment options, this typically isn't the case. Also where employees who operate under union or similar collective bargaining arrangements.
Correction: s/growers/landlords/
Which is to say: few rentals are interested in people, especially full families, who might be staying only a few weeks or months.
This does, of course, vary, but I'm aware of a few specific farmworker housing complexes which address just these needs.
Which is to say: few rentals are interested in people, especially full families, who might be staying only a few weeks or months.
This does, of course, vary, but I'm aware of a few specific farmworker housing complexes which address just these needs.
> However, earning one's own housing or food or clothing or healthcare is in no way serfdom - it is a natural state of a person
If we take a historical/anthropological view of what the "natural state" of human societies is, they have typically worked to fulfill essential-to-life needs, including defense, water, food, public health, fire response, etc. on a communal basis. The size of the communal unit has varied across times and places in history, from clans to tribes to city-states to nations. And hybrid systems where individuals (or more often, households) are responsible for some things and a larger communal unit is responsible for others have also been common. But the individual standing alone, providing for his or her needs entirely independently of any communal system except for market purchases, seems to only exist in certain philosophers' systems, not as something you really observe historically as the natural state of homo sapiens societies.
If we take a historical/anthropological view of what the "natural state" of human societies is, they have typically worked to fulfill essential-to-life needs, including defense, water, food, public health, fire response, etc. on a communal basis. The size of the communal unit has varied across times and places in history, from clans to tribes to city-states to nations. And hybrid systems where individuals (or more often, households) are responsible for some things and a larger communal unit is responsible for others have also been common. But the individual standing alone, providing for his or her needs entirely independently of any communal system except for market purchases, seems to only exist in certain philosophers' systems, not as something you really observe historically as the natural state of homo sapiens societies.
I currently live in Zambia, and employees are frequently provided housing; either housing or a housing allowance is standard in most contracts. This is obviously the extreme, but there are tons of people in the world for whom owning property is functionally if not legally impossible.
Why do they provide housing and not pay workers to rent the same housing? Why part of the salary must be designated "housing allowance" instead of just calling it "salary" and let the worker decide to spend it on housing?
Owning property outright might be hard to a lot of people, but there's an easy solution for it - renting. What you describe is functionally renting. The question is - why is it organized this particular way?
Owning property outright might be hard to a lot of people, but there's an easy solution for it - renting. What you describe is functionally renting. The question is - why is it organized this particular way?
Why do they do it? Because it allows the easier control of workers and a direct clawback of wages to the company, while being fairly quality-inelastic.
To be honest, I have a hard time believing you're asking these questions in good faith. This is basic stuff.
To be honest, I have a hard time believing you're asking these questions in good faith. This is basic stuff.
Do you have some sources to back up these claims, specifically in Zambia?
I'm not sure why this is the case in this country, but right now in Germany some companies provide leases on the cars. It turns out it's a tax reduction and "support local industry" at the same time - if same amount of money is just paid as salary, combined taxes for company and employee are higher. And it also supports local economy since lease choices are for german cars only. And I heard that same leasing practice is common in Israel as well.
As a strange quirk they also pay for gas used by these leased cars. As a result, my friend with such lease always tries to do vacation in spots reachable by driving - it's just much cheaper for him, even if he has to drive for two days to get there.
As a strange quirk they also pay for gas used by these leased cars. As a result, my friend with such lease always tries to do vacation in spots reachable by driving - it's just much cheaper for him, even if he has to drive for two days to get there.
Tax reasons are the most common source of fringe benefits. As you mentioned, in Israel, a company car is a commonplace benefit among hitech workers, while in the US it is almost unheard of - because of the differences in how this benefit (and cars in general) are taxed. Though with recent change in Israel's tax code this became less popular, but some decade ago a company-provided car was an assumed part of the standard benefits package.
However, we have been talking about housing being provided by employer because there's no other means to get housing, so this is completely different case - here company cars are the function of government-introduced tax law, not of prices of the cars.
However, we have been talking about housing being provided by employer because there's no other means to get housing, so this is completely different case - here company cars are the function of government-introduced tax law, not of prices of the cars.
Reduce labor mobility to reduce wages.
There's usually a little classist attitude going on. Labor class 27 will only be allowed to live in labor 27 class apartments, etc. No selecting your own personal lifestyle balance allowed, after all we only hire perfect replaceable cogs so it won't be an issue anyway.
There's usually a little classist attitude going on. Labor class 27 will only be allowed to live in labor 27 class apartments, etc. No selecting your own personal lifestyle balance allowed, after all we only hire perfect replaceable cogs so it won't be an issue anyway.
Allowed by whom? I.e. suppose I am labor 27 class employee, and I come to class 1 apartment and say "I will pay class 1 price, please rent it to me". Would I be rejected? What would be fueling this rejection? Who will be prohibiting me from selecting my own living arrangements? The parent post say housing allowance is common, who will be checking I spend my allowance on an apartment that matches my class and not instead rent a higher-class one?
I think you are giving too much weight to the people getting something for free argument...the subsidies are income based, meaning a lot of these people were never going to be able to get insurance even at work.
You can more or less tell who gets employer-based health insurance based what they're paid. I doubt too many people are going to stop working because they qualify for ACA subsidies, you still have a whole lot of things you'll need money for. I see the ACA subsidies as a way to make people more proactive about their health and keep them out of emergency rooms which is significantly more costly to the system.
As far as older folks working less because they are not tied to their employers for healthcare I think this is a good thing. I see more opportunity for younger folks to move into those jobs.
You can more or less tell who gets employer-based health insurance based what they're paid. I doubt too many people are going to stop working because they qualify for ACA subsidies, you still have a whole lot of things you'll need money for. I see the ACA subsidies as a way to make people more proactive about their health and keep them out of emergency rooms which is significantly more costly to the system.
As far as older folks working less because they are not tied to their employers for healthcare I think this is a good thing. I see more opportunity for younger folks to move into those jobs.
>>> I doubt too many people are going to stop working because they qualify for ACA subsidies
Equivalent of 2.5 million workers is too many or not too many?
>>> I see the ACA subsidies as a way to make people more proactive about their health and keep them out of emergency rooms which is significantly more costly to the system.
This is also proven not to be true. Having insurance, actually, raises usage of emergency rooms by 40%. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/02/s... It was a nice theory, too bad it's not true. But repeating it now, when it is disproven by experiment, is just substituting ideology for facts. It is not going to get us in any place that is good.
>>> As far as older folks working less because they are not tied to their employers for healthcare I think this is a good thing.
What is special in older people that them not working is good? Is that that we want the most experienced workers to be removed from the workforce, so that the productivity would drop, because lower the productivity, richer we are? And when replacing experienced and productive workers with unexperienced workers with much lower output and who also are paid much less, while moving the experienced workers from productive work to tax-sponsored welfare (which the younger workers now have to support with their salary, which is lower to begin with but now becomes even lower from having to support older folks too) - so tell me again, where the good part starts in all this? Because I kind of fail to see it.
Equivalent of 2.5 million workers is too many or not too many?
>>> I see the ACA subsidies as a way to make people more proactive about their health and keep them out of emergency rooms which is significantly more costly to the system.
This is also proven not to be true. Having insurance, actually, raises usage of emergency rooms by 40%. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/02/s... It was a nice theory, too bad it's not true. But repeating it now, when it is disproven by experiment, is just substituting ideology for facts. It is not going to get us in any place that is good.
>>> As far as older folks working less because they are not tied to their employers for healthcare I think this is a good thing.
What is special in older people that them not working is good? Is that that we want the most experienced workers to be removed from the workforce, so that the productivity would drop, because lower the productivity, richer we are? And when replacing experienced and productive workers with unexperienced workers with much lower output and who also are paid much less, while moving the experienced workers from productive work to tax-sponsored welfare (which the younger workers now have to support with their salary, which is lower to begin with but now becomes even lower from having to support older folks too) - so tell me again, where the good part starts in all this? Because I kind of fail to see it.
I have to agree with you here. The problem with insurance for routine care (the system we have in US) is that it makes the information asymmetry problem worse: since it's someone else's job to negotiate the price of routine day-to-day items, there's no incentive for individuals to make sure they're getting a good deal. This is equivalent to going through automobile insurance for oil changes and other routine maintenance.
The fact is if you have health insurance you are likely to engage in preventative care activities (eg regular primary care visits) that you would otherwise avoid without insurance, however you look at it, this is a good thing.
The fact that people may run to the ER unnecessarily even with insurance is perhaps a reflection of other problems (maybe too many hypochondriacs Googling :)? ), but that isn't a reason to not make healthcare accessible.
If the choice is between people over say 60 desperately holding on to jobs because they can't afford health insurance on their own, versus young people getting opportunities to start their own lives then the choice for me a rather simple one.
PS: I have no ideological axe to grind in this matter. If we are going to live in a modern society, these are problems that have to be dealt with somehow.
I grew up in a place and a time where people died in gutters (no exaggeration) from hunger and disease, that is the difference between a modern civilized society and one that isn't so. It is a choice that has to be made. The dignity that is afforded to people by social programs is a dignity consequently bestowed upon all of us.
The fact that people may run to the ER unnecessarily even with insurance is perhaps a reflection of other problems (maybe too many hypochondriacs Googling :)? ), but that isn't a reason to not make healthcare accessible.
If the choice is between people over say 60 desperately holding on to jobs because they can't afford health insurance on their own, versus young people getting opportunities to start their own lives then the choice for me a rather simple one.
PS: I have no ideological axe to grind in this matter. If we are going to live in a modern society, these are problems that have to be dealt with somehow.
I grew up in a place and a time where people died in gutters (no exaggeration) from hunger and disease, that is the difference between a modern civilized society and one that isn't so. It is a choice that has to be made. The dignity that is afforded to people by social programs is a dignity consequently bestowed upon all of us.
The reason those insured by the government go to ER's is because the regular clinics TURN THEM AWAY. The government program doesn't pay enough to the clinics and doesn't force the clinics to accept the patients. Judging by the 3rd degree my wife got from a dermatologist a few weeks ago, those covered by coveredca.gov are going to be in the same situation.
And by "clinics" I mean all those non-ER businesses that purport to offer treatment to the public for a fee, such as private-practice doctors.
And by "clinics" I mean all those non-ER businesses that purport to offer treatment to the public for a fee, such as private-practice doctors.
> Why it is hard to view working "just for healthcare" as positive? Is it hard to view working "just for money" as positive? I.e. suppose that one works only because one needs money and otherwise he would spend his time playing Tetris, walking on the beach and reading medieval poetry. Why is it negative that he still works and not lives off other's money and other's work, involuntary taken?
That doesn't sound quite correct. Working just for the money is a neutral, the _negative_ here is involuntary taxation. I agree that it's in a negative (and have pointed out later in my comment a particularly bad form of it), but some kind of taxation is unavoidable (anarcho-capitalism is a fascinating theory, but none of its variants strike me as realistic).
Further, I'm not advocating a system that covers every single type of heath benefits for free. I'm simply talking about insurance against catastrophes and in some cases arguing against government interference -- e.g., the kind that essentially made healthcare go through employers and insurance agencies, as opposed to Milton Friedman's idea of MSAs (a stronger form of HSAs/high-deductible insurance -- something that ACA has actually made more expensive).
Essentially it's about marginal utility: having no healthcare available is much worse than not having certainly elective healthcare but having other healthcare. Likewise earning $0 vs. earning $15k a year (not enough to live on in Silicon Valley, but ok for getting by elsewhere in the country) is much bigger difference than the difference between earning $15k and $30k, which is a much bigger difference than going betwen earning $30k and $45k. No one should be entitled to a comfortable life, but I don't think a system where individuals who are not employable (whether involuntarily or voluntarily) are left to rely on charity alone is one that will ever be created (irrespective of whether or not it could be theoretically justified). I'm an advocate of scraping the current welfare state and replacing it with a simple basic income payment (if that's not politically feasible, I'm fine with Friedman's idea of a negative income tax). This will actually lead to less government interference: less welfare programs, possibly lower (or at least no higher) taxes, and so forth. Here's an argument for this from a well known socialist organization Cato Institute (backed by such left-wing pinko commies as the Koch Brothers): http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic...
Furthermore, in terms of reducing tax rates, I strongly favour slashing military and police spending (no SWAT teams for tiny suburbs), ending the drug war, and cutting middle class entitlement programs (or at least privatizing them or making them voluntary).
> If you raise salaries for a wide class of employees - what do you think will happen to the housing prices? Also, where would the money come from? California has about 300K teachers. Each 10K of salary increase would cost 3 billion dollars (not counting pension costs, employer's part in taxes, etc. so actually more). Where those additional billions would come from?
Raising the salary is not the only way to do so: increasing the supply of housing. I live in Saratoga and lived in Mountain View: the avg price of a resident (averaged between condos, townhomes, and single family homes) is well north of $1mm in those areas. In Mountain View this can attributed to location (and Sunnyvale which is directly adjacent is cheaper, especially the north parts of Sunnyvale closer to Mountain View), but in Los/Gatos-Saratoga this is entirely due to minimum lot sizes (my place is currently worth significantly below that -- but due to being in a small area that was annexed to Saratoga and which retained much smaller lot sizes).
My point also wasn't about the need of higher pay, it was about job satisfaction having more to do with being over certain thresholds as opposed to the bizarre idea that it had something to do with how much I am making in relation to some CEO.
Re: salary itself. This also does not include the pay that is docked to go to unions (union membership is mandatory for teachers in California -- I am all in favour of removing that requirement for unions of government employees). These are closer to starting salaries of SWEs not average salaries of all engineers (my first job out of college was $85k in 2006 at Yahoo -- not exactly a company known for highest wages). Finally RSUs are a huge part of engineer's salaries: $100k in RSUs vested over four years (with refreshers) is common for even new college grads. I am not advocating raising everyone's salary of course. I am in favour of treating teachers more as software engineers: merit pay increases, performance reviews, and no traps like tenure -- much as with software engineers, it should be easy for teachers to switch schools or move to a different area if their pay is not satisfactory (and as with software engineers, it might mean some would leave the profession if they are doing it just for the money and money doesn't suffice, this again is a positive).
I think you mistook me as someone advocating greater taxation -- done in the same manner as today -- I am not; I actually believe we far less meddling in our lives, certain kinds of taxes could be lower (but perhaps other kinds -- e.g., tax on rent per Henry George), and so forth. However, I find that arguing about immediately abolishing all taxation (logical outcome of what you're advocating) are going to work -- I much prefer to acknowledge that the problems much of the left perceives are real, but offer solutions that are less coercive than status quo or other alternatives.
That doesn't sound quite correct. Working just for the money is a neutral, the _negative_ here is involuntary taxation. I agree that it's in a negative (and have pointed out later in my comment a particularly bad form of it), but some kind of taxation is unavoidable (anarcho-capitalism is a fascinating theory, but none of its variants strike me as realistic).
Further, I'm not advocating a system that covers every single type of heath benefits for free. I'm simply talking about insurance against catastrophes and in some cases arguing against government interference -- e.g., the kind that essentially made healthcare go through employers and insurance agencies, as opposed to Milton Friedman's idea of MSAs (a stronger form of HSAs/high-deductible insurance -- something that ACA has actually made more expensive).
Essentially it's about marginal utility: having no healthcare available is much worse than not having certainly elective healthcare but having other healthcare. Likewise earning $0 vs. earning $15k a year (not enough to live on in Silicon Valley, but ok for getting by elsewhere in the country) is much bigger difference than the difference between earning $15k and $30k, which is a much bigger difference than going betwen earning $30k and $45k. No one should be entitled to a comfortable life, but I don't think a system where individuals who are not employable (whether involuntarily or voluntarily) are left to rely on charity alone is one that will ever be created (irrespective of whether or not it could be theoretically justified). I'm an advocate of scraping the current welfare state and replacing it with a simple basic income payment (if that's not politically feasible, I'm fine with Friedman's idea of a negative income tax). This will actually lead to less government interference: less welfare programs, possibly lower (or at least no higher) taxes, and so forth. Here's an argument for this from a well known socialist organization Cato Institute (backed by such left-wing pinko commies as the Koch Brothers): http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic...
Furthermore, in terms of reducing tax rates, I strongly favour slashing military and police spending (no SWAT teams for tiny suburbs), ending the drug war, and cutting middle class entitlement programs (or at least privatizing them or making them voluntary).
> If you raise salaries for a wide class of employees - what do you think will happen to the housing prices? Also, where would the money come from? California has about 300K teachers. Each 10K of salary increase would cost 3 billion dollars (not counting pension costs, employer's part in taxes, etc. so actually more). Where those additional billions would come from?
Raising the salary is not the only way to do so: increasing the supply of housing. I live in Saratoga and lived in Mountain View: the avg price of a resident (averaged between condos, townhomes, and single family homes) is well north of $1mm in those areas. In Mountain View this can attributed to location (and Sunnyvale which is directly adjacent is cheaper, especially the north parts of Sunnyvale closer to Mountain View), but in Los/Gatos-Saratoga this is entirely due to minimum lot sizes (my place is currently worth significantly below that -- but due to being in a small area that was annexed to Saratoga and which retained much smaller lot sizes).
My point also wasn't about the need of higher pay, it was about job satisfaction having more to do with being over certain thresholds as opposed to the bizarre idea that it had something to do with how much I am making in relation to some CEO.
Re: salary itself. This also does not include the pay that is docked to go to unions (union membership is mandatory for teachers in California -- I am all in favour of removing that requirement for unions of government employees). These are closer to starting salaries of SWEs not average salaries of all engineers (my first job out of college was $85k in 2006 at Yahoo -- not exactly a company known for highest wages). Finally RSUs are a huge part of engineer's salaries: $100k in RSUs vested over four years (with refreshers) is common for even new college grads. I am not advocating raising everyone's salary of course. I am in favour of treating teachers more as software engineers: merit pay increases, performance reviews, and no traps like tenure -- much as with software engineers, it should be easy for teachers to switch schools or move to a different area if their pay is not satisfactory (and as with software engineers, it might mean some would leave the profession if they are doing it just for the money and money doesn't suffice, this again is a positive).
I think you mistook me as someone advocating greater taxation -- done in the same manner as today -- I am not; I actually believe we far less meddling in our lives, certain kinds of taxes could be lower (but perhaps other kinds -- e.g., tax on rent per Henry George), and so forth. However, I find that arguing about immediately abolishing all taxation (logical outcome of what you're advocating) are going to work -- I much prefer to acknowledge that the problems much of the left perceives are real, but offer solutions that are less coercive than status quo or other alternatives.
> Why it is hard to view working "just for healthcare" as positive? Is it hard to view working "just for money" as positive?
Working for the sake of something you want is a positive. Working just to avoid dying isn't.
> suppose that one works only because one needs money and otherwise he would spend his time playing Tetris, walking on the beach and reading medieval poetry. Why is it negative that he still works and not lives off other's money and other's work, involuntary taken?
Because he's less happy, fulfilled and so on than he could otherwise be. If the amount he suffers by working is more than the cost of the taxation that would support him, then yes that's absolutely a negative.
Working for the sake of something you want is a positive. Working just to avoid dying isn't.
> suppose that one works only because one needs money and otherwise he would spend his time playing Tetris, walking on the beach and reading medieval poetry. Why is it negative that he still works and not lives off other's money and other's work, involuntary taken?
Because he's less happy, fulfilled and so on than he could otherwise be. If the amount he suffers by working is more than the cost of the taxation that would support him, then yes that's absolutely a negative.
So we are saying that most of the people out there are of no use to the economy and thus, most probably, to society. Well, welcome to fascism 2.0, this vision is elitist, it creates a huge power lobby (the entity paying up the basic incomes...), and it sees people as sheep with no brains.
>...no use to the economy and thus, most probably, to society.
I think you made too big of a jump there. We are already being confronted with a situation where vast quantities of people are no use to the modern economy. The fact is technology is going to replace a lot of what we traditionally considered work. This does not mean that these people are worthless, they still hold social and cultural value to society (well, most people, there will always be people who are a drain on society, but we have that now and I don't think that will ever change).
>... it creates a huge power lobby...
We already have that. And to make matters worse, the current process of distributing welfare is highly political and manipulated by special interests. With a BI, the power stays in place, but at least the bureaucracy and special interests are removed from the process.
I think you made too big of a jump there. We are already being confronted with a situation where vast quantities of people are no use to the modern economy. The fact is technology is going to replace a lot of what we traditionally considered work. This does not mean that these people are worthless, they still hold social and cultural value to society (well, most people, there will always be people who are a drain on society, but we have that now and I don't think that will ever change).
>... it creates a huge power lobby...
We already have that. And to make matters worse, the current process of distributing welfare is highly political and manipulated by special interests. With a BI, the power stays in place, but at least the bureaucracy and special interests are removed from the process.
How exactly do you come up with that? I understand the concept, agree with it to a point (it is rather exaggerated) and I am no facist and do not have enough power, percieved or monetary, to be able to be an effective elitist. I'm anti-huge power lobby, unless you can find one that does much more good than harm. People are under pressure to be sheep already if you work one of these 'jobs'. I take the notion and look at how doing fixes could make society freer and better.
My curiosity is how exactly you came to the conclusion of this being a facist and elitist idea?
My curiosity is how exactly you came to the conclusion of this being a facist and elitist idea?
> I'm anti-huge power lobby, unless you can find one that does much more good than harm
This is the core of the thinking behind a dictatorship
> People are under pressure to be sheep already if you work one of these 'jobs'
What pressure? People are asked to work in exchange of money. Which means this system, however imperfect, still sees people as useful and productive and, thus, still gives them a chance
And it's elitist because you are creating a clear division between those that are productive and those that bring no value and that actually are a negative investment (because they do "fake" jobs). You really think you can put a mentality like that in place without creating elitism and potentially an even more uneven society than today?
This is the core of the thinking behind a dictatorship
> People are under pressure to be sheep already if you work one of these 'jobs'
What pressure? People are asked to work in exchange of money. Which means this system, however imperfect, still sees people as useful and productive and, thus, still gives them a chance
And it's elitist because you are creating a clear division between those that are productive and those that bring no value and that actually are a negative investment (because they do "fake" jobs). You really think you can put a mentality like that in place without creating elitism and potentially an even more uneven society than today?
I obviously didn't proofread that first one. I am in general against centralized power unless it does more good than harm. Healthcare, for example, holds power, but I'm surely convinced that the decentralized power that health insurance companies have is superior to government-managed health care that is done right (I'm in Norway now, and from what I can observe, works for the user's health benefit)
Asked to work? Most of us Have to. At the bottom rungs, keep your mouth shut, dress like the accepted average, and fit in with the company's culture. No creativity or input actually needed. And no questions trying to learn things. You don't need to know what the management knows. This isn't pressure? How many 32 year olds working in fast food views their job as useful or productive?
Using the 32 year old with the fast food as an example... do they feel they are valued? Likely not. Fake job, but it is a job. I somehow doubt this would change much.
Asked to work? Most of us Have to. At the bottom rungs, keep your mouth shut, dress like the accepted average, and fit in with the company's culture. No creativity or input actually needed. And no questions trying to learn things. You don't need to know what the management knows. This isn't pressure? How many 32 year olds working in fast food views their job as useful or productive?
Using the 32 year old with the fast food as an example... do they feel they are valued? Likely not. Fake job, but it is a job. I somehow doubt this would change much.
We are saying that at some point, your time is more use to you than to us. That's hugely different than "your time is useless".
A similar idea: When good ideas (like the Protestant Work Ethic) turn bad:
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...
I'm confused by the idea that technology will somehow eventually render most of the population jobless. Why should this cause a breakdown of the capitalist system? These discussions seem to take this for granted without explaining why this is true.
It looks like technology will continue to allow more and more people to pursue business ventures that are less and less related to filling basic needs. We will still consume, we will still find ways to trade that are mutually beneficial. We will simply have a better standard of living. It seems the logical conclusion is that there will be more opportunity for everyone, not less.
Different jobs and different opportunity is not the same as no jobs and no opportunity.
It looks like technology will continue to allow more and more people to pursue business ventures that are less and less related to filling basic needs. We will still consume, we will still find ways to trade that are mutually beneficial. We will simply have a better standard of living. It seems the logical conclusion is that there will be more opportunity for everyone, not less.
Different jobs and different opportunity is not the same as no jobs and no opportunity.
You may find a study of history to be interesting. What you describe sounds like the European post-western-roman empire dark ages not utopia.
How do you intend to consume if none of the consumers have money anymore? How do you intend to trade if the market is polluted by expensive middlemen and centralized .gov pre-selecting the winners and losers? If the standard of living were better in a non-monetary economy in theory, how come it never works that way in practice? Opportunities require money and power to take advantage of them, without either they will not be lost.
Why wasn't the (first) Great Depression a paradise on earth? No one had jobs or money. New high technology all over the place. So why exactly would the second Great Depression be any better than the first, if its of basically the same form? Even worse, recall the interesting economic hack used to "fix" the first one? All you need is a world war, and for the survivors, its gets better.
How do you intend to consume if none of the consumers have money anymore? How do you intend to trade if the market is polluted by expensive middlemen and centralized .gov pre-selecting the winners and losers? If the standard of living were better in a non-monetary economy in theory, how come it never works that way in practice? Opportunities require money and power to take advantage of them, without either they will not be lost.
Why wasn't the (first) Great Depression a paradise on earth? No one had jobs or money. New high technology all over the place. So why exactly would the second Great Depression be any better than the first, if its of basically the same form? Even worse, recall the interesting economic hack used to "fix" the first one? All you need is a world war, and for the survivors, its gets better.
I've either terribly represented my thought, or you have grossly misunderstood my statement.
I am arguing FOR a capitalist system. I'm saying I don't understand why the article authors will assume it is going to break down because of technological advances. It has not thus far.
Edit: I see that my second statement in my first reply is poorly written. I meant "this" to refer to technological advancement, not to joblessness.
I am arguing FOR a capitalist system. I'm saying I don't understand why the article authors will assume it is going to break down because of technological advances. It has not thus far.
Edit: I see that my second statement in my first reply is poorly written. I meant "this" to refer to technological advancement, not to joblessness.
What those people will do that we can not create machines that do it cheaper, faster and better?
So these machines will spontaneously appear?
If we get there, machines will build them, obviously.
I'm not sure if your comment is in jest. But in a world where machines are primary, the thinkers, the innovators, what use is this discussion at all?
It's all fun and games with the citizens basic income until the government hits hard times and has to think about what to cut. Having the vast majority dependent on income from a single, fallible organization is a recipe for disaster.
What dignifies people is autonomy. Someone intelligent enough to write for The Economist should be able to figure that out. That they couldn't (or chose not to) makes the article little more than propaganda.
Everybody in the USSR had job. But these jobs didn't produce any (usually) value to the society. Who wants to have a job like this? You want to do something valuable so you know that what you produce people are willing to pay for (vs. being forced to pay for it). It just seems much more healthy too.
>Everybody in the USSR had job. But these jobs didn't produce any (usually) value to the society.
Well, they got a huge backwater, mostly agricultural country, into one of the big powers of the industrial era. And got to feed some hundends of million of people, have space exploration, very good physics and math, music and arts, and a lot more besides.
So, it's a myth that these jobs didn't produce any value to the society. They just weren't as competitive as the west, but then again, they started from far worse and backwards conditions, in an a land which is cold and unhabitable as hell in large regions. And they had political BS to deal with too.
Not every similar scheme will result in the same results. Stalinist politics and such is not a necessary byproduct of everybody having a guaranteed job.
Well, they got a huge backwater, mostly agricultural country, into one of the big powers of the industrial era. And got to feed some hundends of million of people, have space exploration, very good physics and math, music and arts, and a lot more besides.
So, it's a myth that these jobs didn't produce any value to the society. They just weren't as competitive as the west, but then again, they started from far worse and backwards conditions, in an a land which is cold and unhabitable as hell in large regions. And they had political BS to deal with too.
Not every similar scheme will result in the same results. Stalinist politics and such is not a necessary byproduct of everybody having a guaranteed job.
It was criminal offense not to have a job. Regime just used it as a stick on homeless and people outside system. Some actually payd their employer for providing a fake job; for example self-employed plumbers in gray economy.
Russia was a leading world power long before the creation of the USSR. Your "backwater" was:
"One of the largest empires in world history, stretching over three continents, the Russian Empire was surpassed in landmass only by the British and Mongol empires."
(Wikpedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire)
"One of the largest empires in world history, stretching over three continents, the Russian Empire was surpassed in landmass only by the British and Mongol empires."
(Wikpedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire)
While it's true that Russia was a major world power, the passage you quote only really establishes that it was large, which would be true of a "huge backwater" too.
I disagree. I don't think everyone wants or needs a valuable job, and to most people, this is an unobtainable dream. The truth is that most people I've met doing menial jobs are happy doing them IF they have enough money to cover necessities and do something enjoyable outside of work and their employer treats them fairly. This means that in the balance, their life is meaningful, even if their employment isn't.
I also believe job satisfaction is completely independent of a job's contribution or value to society. Cleaning toilets has a definite societal benefit, but it is still menial work that requires little actual skill and is a job most people look for ways out of.
I also believe job satisfaction is completely independent of a job's contribution or value to society. Cleaning toilets has a definite societal benefit, but it is still menial work that requires little actual skill and is a job most people look for ways out of.
That people are willing to pay for something does not indicate value. The same old story of price vs value. The last finantial crisis is a great example of being able to sell something without(or lesser) value. Value is a great market, but it is not directly proportional to value.
Another example, is that if you are sick and about to die, the value of the cure for you is infinite, so you would pay everything you have an everything you will ever have if you had to. Value != Price.
Another example, is that if you are sick and about to die, the value of the cure for you is infinite, so you would pay everything you have an everything you will ever have if you had to. Value != Price.
There are these interesting developments that I noticed and I'm interested to see how many others noticed that:
(1) Polarization of left vs right views among people in both US and EU
(2) Sudden drastic turn to the right in many places in the EU while at the same time turn to the left in the US.
It seems to me that since 1945 the US has been mostly right wing and is turning left radically, while the opposite is true in the EU.
It seems to me that since 1945 the US has been mostly right wing and is turning left radically, while the opposite is true in the EU.
There's something to it. It's anecdotal, but looking at the trends in political discussions in Poland among my generation (folks in their 20s), it seems to me that they want changes in the very direction of what people in US have and complain about...
False dichotomy. There is more than one dimension. For starters, see the Nolan chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
"Maybe the jobs are gone forever" - Good analysis, economist. This article is full of bullshit 'maybes' and aggressive 'income inequality' overtones.
I don't know how this garbage gets onto HN.
I don't know how this garbage gets onto HN.
I don't know how this garbage gets onto HN.
The only unique aspect of this piece is it strikes a nerve with you. I know how it gets here, because HN is jam packed with "analysis" that doesn't make any stronger of a case for itself. Vague wishy-washy "Maybe the jobs are gone forever" level points are taken at face value when the rhetoric is headed to more agreeable conclusions.
The only unique aspect of this piece is it strikes a nerve with you. I know how it gets here, because HN is jam packed with "analysis" that doesn't make any stronger of a case for itself. Vague wishy-washy "Maybe the jobs are gone forever" level points are taken at face value when the rhetoric is headed to more agreeable conclusions.
Interesting times ahead. It's going to be painful getting there, if we get there at all, but the idea of a Universal Basic Income seems to be getting more popular. (It wasn't so long ago it was pretty much pure sci-fi.) Particularly I guess as it begins to look like modern capitalism may not actually be good at providing jobs for everyone who needs one.
Potentially UBIs could be very good for the world, freeing people to work on things they personally desire and value, and in some ways redistributing the 'means of production' back to the little guy.