Slashdot Mirror


The Campaign To Get Every American Free Money, Every Year

merbs writes: Supporters of a basic income have finally organized a proper political movement. Basic Income Action is, according to co-founder Dan O'Sullivan, "the first national organization educating and organizing the public to support a basic income. "He tells me that "Our goal is to educate and organize people to take action to win a basic income here in the U.S." This 2013 Economist article does a good job of summarizing the pro and con viewpoints on the (ahem) basic idea.

41 of 1,291 comments (clear)

  1. Don't we (the US) already have that... by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    in the form of SS (old age, disability, survivor benefits), food stamps, etc, etc?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only if you qualify. Otherwise, tough luck.

    2. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It replaces government pensions, welfare, food stamps, even the minimum wage, and all of the redundant bureaucratic apparatus (and chances to cheat) that are associated with those programs.

      And by simplifying and removing that bureaucracy, you can theoretically save money overall.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? Do you really think the bureaucracy is going to go away?

      If it loses funding, it will.

      And when was the last time you heard of any major tax or department in govt that was fully and successfully defunded or removed entirely?

      Hell, it took almost 108 years to remove the Phone Excise Tax ....something as archaic as that took forever to fully remove.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by ExekielS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Historically, this is false. Automation just increases worker productivity as last step automation is always more expensive and so non-cost effective as to be permanently pointless and prohibitive. From the period 1936 to 1970, wages rose with productivity in a perfect correlation, as they are expected to in all fair markets, those higher wages turn into consumer demand, which spawns new markets, creates new jobs, keeps the markets growing. If it didn't work that way, we wouldn't have progressed since 50k years ago whatsoever. Unemployment, low wages are caused by market structure, consolidation, currency pegs/manipulation, etc. Not by automation. So long as we have a market structure that creates massive unemployment, we need welfare to deal with it. If we don't, then we are forcibly killing people. Laziness has never been a problem.

      --
      ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
    5. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by kaka.mala.vachva · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly this. Machines are replacing people, which is fine in itself. However, the money generated by those machines goes into the hands of the few, and the people whose jobs are lost are left high and dry. Machines should be helping people, but because of the way they are used, they are helping only a small minority.

    6. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      replaces government pensions, welfare, food stamps,

        To me this is the basic flaw of basic income. By handing out free money, you are still going to have all the social ills those programs are at least mitigating, but now you have fewer people in your society who are working profitably (or at least I will assume so). Further, the flaw with currency has always been that its value is not fixed by any hard force, but rather floats based on a complicated set of functions that surely will not favor the poor. The outcome I see is that you give that currency out, and prices of things will go up, and people are still having a hard time scraping by (and bad decisions with that money will further conflate the issue).

      I would rather see "Basic Services" instead of basic income. Every person can get X amount of food, show up and be treated for medical concerns, have day care, be provided with A place to live suitable for themselves alone, with heat and enough electricity for a single person. Do not give out money, give out basic and enabling services people in hard times can use. None of this would be posh, but it would provide basic living needs. You could do nothing at all and exist for as long as you live. This would have less inflationary impact, and would allow companies to hire/fire at will (which they arguably need to do), and allow citizens to retrain themselves as technology renders disciplines obsolete, and ultimately provide the safety net I think a civilized country should have, but leaving the best parts of capitalism. There will be considerable incentive incentive to get out of and an impetus to return the individual to productivity, which is actually the primary force for economic health in a country anyway. Some never will... and the success or failure of this program will be determined by how many such people exist.

      But if you want to run a socialist experiment, this is how I'd start it, not by handing out a check.

    7. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you want to tax wage earners so you can, in turn, pay everyone a stipend that comes with a debt+interest burden? With today's western governments running deficits, that's essentially what you're suggesting. You're crazy. You can't just print money when people need/want more.

    8. Re: Don't we (the US) already have that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The people who really can afford to have kids without worrying about what happens if they lose their job etc. are the people who aren't having any kids. If everyone took your advice (and somehow, magically, birth control became 100% effective), we would quickly have a population collapse. A huge number of kids these days are being born to poor and lower-income people; they're keeping our numbers up. How that's going to play out long-term, I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound good. What the answer to this is, I don't know. Honestly, I think that if we don't want a societal collapse within 2 generations (because the more productive people in society aren't replacing themselves with kids, and the kids of the unproductive people aren't generally becoming productive to replace the older productive ones), we need to work really hard on life-extension therapies so people can live past 150.

    9. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Historically being the key word, because historically, 'automation' has meant giving workers tools that let them do the same job more efficiently. Rather than displacing workers, it just increases productivity, because those humans were still needed as operators. The problem is, that's becoming less and less the case. I'm not sure it is the case on a large enough scale, yet, but we can clearly see that someday it will be. We've already gone from an era where all it took to make a passable living was to be an able-bodied adult that was willing to work hard, without any special skills, to one where that increasingly just doesn't cut it for getting along yourself, let alone to support a family.

      For instance, consider taxi drivers, regional and long haul truckers - what happens when they get replaced by self-driving robots? It's certainly a hell of a lot more efficient, but do you think that's going to create new jobs? The guy at the dispatch center and the mechanic already have a job. Maybe we get a new computer tech who specializes in fixing the computer side, but that's minuscule compared to the number of human roles eliminated. Worse, the job roles that are being eliminated are relatively low-complexity/low-education. Even if there were enough jobs, how many of those drivers do you think are going to be capable of retraining to do much more advanced analytical work?

      We do have a serious problem in that from about the 70s/80s onward, the gains in productivity have become increasingly decoupled from wages. All the benefits are going to the rich, especially the seriously rich. But I disagree that automation - real automation, not just augmenting/aiding human workers - will never lead to increased unemployment.

    10. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by psycho12345 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the can afford them, which, after being laid off, they can't. Doesn't matter how cheap something is, if my discretionary income is 0.

    11. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the things those machines make go into the hands of people who still have a job and can pay for them.

      FTFY. As the cost of labor trends to zero, the cost of goods trends to the cost of raw materials.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    12. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by ADRA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "From the period 1936 to 1970" ... and then wages fell off the cliff. You could blame globalization but I wouldn't, fully anyways. Eventually humanity will stop finding ways to be more productive, and instead find ways of enriching their lives. This is a given. Until we're blazing around the Galaxy using FTL, we have very strict sets of conditions in which we can grow as a species. If we continually push through the phyosophical rhetoric that productivity will expand into infinitely, we'll have a large cultural upheaval when our ability to produce (and hence our rewards for such success) start to diminish.

      You only need to look at Japan for a microcosim of such a phenominon. Their growth trajectory was off the charts, and then they hit the 80's when their industry largely caught up with 'western economies' and then the brakes started to grind and now they've been in a funk for decades recouperating from the slowing of their economic outputs (an aging boomer population didn't help either). They largely haven't accepted that in their world, a work-hard get rewarded social function is no longer a guaranteed ticket for happiness and success. Just wait till China hits the wall (if this latest round of economic slowing was a canary, it could be here already). That would certainly cause a huge skip in the world's economic heart beat.

      The end point being, if we purely look at productivity and economic outputs as a goal as a species, we're in for some unhappy, hard roads ahead.

      --
      Bye!
    13. Re:Don't we (the US) already have that... by cbhacking · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't believe that there should be a basic living stipend, unless everyone, even those who work, receive it.

      This is probably an over-generalization, but I've got to say: only an American could so thoroughly miss the point of a basic / guaranteed income as to think this is even a question. (Yes, I'm an American too, I just spend a lot of time outside of our political echo chambers.) The whole point of this system is that *everybody* gets it.

      It replaces a wide swath of other social programs and regulations. Social Security and Unemployment and so forth are the obvious ones, but it goes much further than that. Minimum wage goes away, and people are instead paid what the market will actually support for their work (without the risk that they will be left without enough to get by on). Food stamps (which go to people who are working, even working full-time, under the current system) go away.

      Yes, this means Bill Gates gets as much from this program as an 18-year-old who is trying to get her garage band off the ground... but that's OK. Gates doesn't need the money, but it's not worth the overhead to make sure he doesn't get it; easier to just let *everybody* get it. As for the 18-year-old, she can pursue her art without worrying that she'll end up out on the street. It also addresses inequality, contrary to what The Economist claims; even though the absolute difference in their incomes doesn't change, the ratio sure as hell does.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  2. Free stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How about instead of giving away section 8 housing, Obamaphones, welfare stamps, and imposing high minimum wages you just let us keep the money that we worked for and let us decide how to spend (or save) it.

    1. Re:Free stuff by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it doesn't scale. Money has to keep moving or civilization collapses, and when you guys that turn the screws and get ALL the money keep it, it gets sucked out of the economy and stuck in the Cayman Islands or some such place.

      This has happened before and was called the Gilded Age and led to the Great Depression. You guys simply don't produce as much economic activity as a thousand poor people each with a thousandth of the money.

      Nations that don't figure this out are gonna die, so it's kind of up to them what they do about it.

  3. Free money isn't free by Nkwe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the taxpayers. Redistribution of wealth may be a good or bad thing depending on your political opinion, but giving out money has to be a cost to someone, somewhere - it is not free.

    1. Re:Free money isn't free by marciot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The money comes from automation and productivity increases due to technology. If a factory installs hundreds of robots and now no longer needs to hire people, there needs to be a way to redistribute some of those savings otherwise those who own the machines will gain all the advantages. In an ideal techno utopia, machines would be doing the majority of the work, most would live off a basic income out of that productivity surplus, and the few who enjoyed building machines would continue to do so (either for the prestige or for a larger share of that productivity surplus).

  4. Ben Franklin by Jhon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

    and

    There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them [Great Britain]. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful? And do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burden? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

    1. Re:Ben Franklin by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Extrapolating from that, the best sort of welfare program would be to have a "work center," where anyone can go to earn money. Maybe they will clean up the litter on the highways, or maybe they will dig ditches and re-fill them afterwards, but they should be doing work. And then pay them a reasonable wage in return.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Ben Franklin by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Careful. You're basically proposing the Chinese way. Employing everyone to do jobs that may not need doing is not something that causes benefit to society. It just ensures that the poor are busy, instead of idle. What you want is the poor skilled in a way to contribute to economy, not to sweep the side of the road.

  5. It might finally be time for this by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the work cycle is just about done evolving. For example:
    - Hunter-gatherers organized into agrarian societies
    - Mechanization and industrialization led to many farm workers transitioning to factory work
    - Societal pressures on education, etc. led to many factory workers transitioning to office and service work
    - Offshoring of all manufacturing from first world countries shifted smart people to office work, less-than-smart people to crappy service jobs
    - Offshoring of office work including IT shifted a bunch of the smart people to crappy service jobs or the "gig economy"
    - Automation or offshoring of the rest of the office work will lead to....chaos? Revolution? A country of people being paid to rate cat videos on YouTube?

    Whatever it leads to, there isn't any work left for most people to move to. Smart people are still relatively OK, but there are A LOT of not-smart people holding down random corporate jobs and the few factory jobs that are left. When there's nowhere to go, and society still uses money to value things, basic income is a good idea. It also formally recognizes that there are people who just can't contribute to society at the same levels as others and provides a humane existence for them.

  6. Re:The solution for this already exists. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Get a job. Earn all this "free" money yourself.

    I lean fiscally conservative, but anyone who believes it's this simple is...well, I'll be a little tactful...very wrong.

    Ask new high school grads how easy it is to "get a job". It's possible, but it can take months, and the job you get won't be great and won't pay much. I've also known very intelligent and capable people who were long term unemployed. They aren't anymore, but a year or two out of work completely discounts any "get a job" nonsense. There aren't always jobs for everyone who wants one to get.

  7. uh no by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you have a criminal history, neck tattoos, didn't work a single day during high school or summer, didn't go to college, got horrible grades or didn't graduate, didn't learn any interview skills, don't have a license because of multiple DUIs, and you're broke as can be because of child support payments all because you're an irresponsible, lazy, idiot then I don't think you "deserve" free money as they put it. The government isn't here to babysit you and give you a participation trophy just for almost trying at life. You screw up your life, there's consequences. People don't even realize how hard I worked to get where I am right now I make about $30,000 a year and live in a studio apartment. In life if you don't try and you make mistakes, you DON'T WIN and you DON'T GET FREE STUFF!

  8. Where did this idea come from? by acoustix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do people think are entitled to other people's money?

    We've already seen what numerous entitlement programs have done to the USA. Our labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in my lifetime and I was born in the 70s. This is what happens when you over regulate an economy, over legislate entitlement programs, and don't require people to be productive in order to live.

    Are there people that are truly down and out through no fault of their own? Absolutely! Is it really half of the US population? (47% don't pay federal income tax) Hell no. Maybe 5%. Let's scale back all of the unnecessary entitlements and get people being productive and working again.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Where did this idea come from? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      numerous entitlement programs have done to the USA. Our labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in my lifetime

      Bull! It went down largely because factories drifted overseas, and nothing equivalent is replacing it on the same scale. Smarter machines and dirt-cheap overseas labor by desperate near-slaves are clearly biting into career options for high-school-level workers. Almost everything predictable and repetitious is drying up before our eyes.

      Even wages among the educated have been stagnant of late. Education only delays the inevitable. The current economy hugely favors the 1%: it's a winner-take-all economy.

      If you get in the 1% club you have the power to protect your turf. If you are outside the club, you have to grovel with the masses for the shrinking pie.

  9. Re:Not Free Money by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where did the money in your pocket come from?

    It came from presumably your employer. Where did they get it? They made things and consumers of some kind bought the things.

    Where did the consumers get the money to spend?

    This is where your concept fails. The basic income idea is so simple and obvious. It says 'okay, let's continue to have a relatively unregulated capital-based system, and this is where the money comes from'. It's nothing more than a negative feedback loop on a variable that would otherwise go into a runaway condition and crash the program.

    If you don't believe 'capital' is going into a runaway condition and crashing capitalism, then you clearly do not run your own business and rely on customers having money to spend.

  10. Re:Didn't we try this in the past? by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, exactly. 'Basic income' is the last, desperate attempt to impose communism, before we move into a post-industrial economy where communists are irrelevant.

    'Seize the means of production, comrades!'
    'Uh, I have it in my garage. It's called a 3D printer.'
    'You! Seize his means of production, brother!'
    'Why? I already have one.'

  11. How is this paid for? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I've done a cursory glance at the two links provided, and I don't see how giving everyone a $2K a month check will be paid for?

    Does this money just magically appear?

    Isn't the Fed Reserve already magically creating money for us...and that is just getting us further in debt?

    While this sounds all warm and fuzzy...everyone likes "free" money...but WTF does it come from?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:How is this paid for? by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Inflation is a tax on everyone.

    2. Re:How is this paid for? by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the money is free. That's the thing. Modern economies are made up in no small part of manipulating the sentiment of the participants. The money numbers are completely made up and pretty arbitrary. It's more a delicate game of manipulation than earnest tracking of resources. The concept of 'resources' is now so fluid that it's actually a really hard concept.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:How is this paid for? by thejam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You want paid work because you want more than whatever plain rice you'd be able to afford surviving on a basic income. With a universal basic income in place, any money you make in work is entirely in addition to the basic income, so there's a really strong incentive to go for it. By contrast, under a welfare system, paid work is "rewarded" with disqualification from receiving welfare, so people are disincentivized against getting paid work. This "welfare trap" is avoided under a basic income system.

    4. Re:How is this paid for? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A huge problem with basic income is setting the level. Everybody gets a piece, so they will vote for the politicians promising to raise it. You won't be able to win an election without promising to raise it. It will keep going up, and up, and up, and ..

    5. Re:How is this paid for? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you pay attention to austerity politics, they are all making big noises about inflation, but in every case they're losing more in GDP than they save in 'austerity'. It's a trap that causes economies to shrink and die, and we're damn lucky the USA hasn't wholeheartedly bought in to this thinking.

    6. Re:How is this paid for? by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "There are PLENTY of folks with no drive which would leech on said system and not be self motivated enough to try to better themselves above it in any significant way."

      So they would stay exactly where they are now but with a lower "TCO" for the country that hosts them. So, what's the problem, then?

  12. Re:I can't see how this will work by jonnythan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you get a job, you get that money on top of the basic income. A job or no job could be the difference between ramen every night and having real food and a car.

  13. Re:Didn't we try this in the past? by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we have now is not pure Capitalism, what the Soviets had was not pure Communism, and so forth.

    Central planning of an economy has been shown to be very inefficient. Rapacious unbridled capitalism has been shown to be rapacious. No pure doctrine has ever survived the test of time. Inevitably a decent economy needs to employ things that also happen to be part of Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism.

    How about we have a philosophical/economic debate without immediately siloing ideas and arguments as a way to dismiss them entirely?

  14. Universal Apocalyptic truth by netsavior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't take 7 billion people to feed, clothe, shelter, and even communicate with 7 billion people.

    So what do we do? We are TOO efficient for everyone to earn a living. So do we just murder the people who are not "needed?" Do we let them starve? Do we have massive unnecessary works to employ the unemployable? I am all for suggestions, but when society doesn't really need as many workers as it has, you have to either change the idea of work, or kill off some of the workers.

  15. We need this. by Chalnoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Getting unconditional basic income would be a huge boon for workers. If leaving work becomes a viable option for nearly everybody, then employers will no longer be able to abuse their employees. They'll actually have to offer decent working conditions, or the workers will just walk away. This should end bullshit practices like firing people for not working on holidays, or getting pregnant, or complaining about sexual harassment.

    It wouldn't happen immediately, but a UBI would dramatically improve the employment marketplace for employees.

  16. libertarian that supports a BIG by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I'm a libertarian leaning supporter of a BIG.

    1. If you check out their actual site, they're proposing a much more modest $800-1500/month.
    2. No, the money comes from eliminating most other forms of welfare. This would fund about 3/4 of the BIG@1k/month
    3. The rest could be funded through tax 'adjustments'. For example, put in a flat tax. It need not be progressive or have lots of deductions because 'everybody' gets the BIG, which serves as a huge tax deduction/credit. A flat 30% from $1 earned, for example, has you 'breaking even' at $40k worth of income. Don't give a break for long term capital gains, so people like Trump doesn't get away with only paying 20%(15% earlier), and you have your income back.
    4. If they 'print' money instead by using the reserve, we aren't going deeper in debt so much as causing inflation. Which I've almost forgotten about recently...

    Personally, I like the BIG because it's mechanical, neutral, fungible, and therefore free(libertarian leaning, remember). Mechanical - it's neutral. You don't have people using it to try to tell you how to live your life, as they do with welfare and taxes today. Fungible - use it for YOUR needs, which may not be the needs the legislature forsaw when they passed a welfare package with restricted spending. Eat cheap but need warm clothing? Too bad! EBT money is only for food, not clothing!

    I might be libertarin - but I'm a practical minarchist, not an anarchist. I've seen enough research to believe that a practical safety net is cheaper than our current policies. Multiple research studies have shown that, for example, homeless people are extremely expensive, between shelters, emergency rooms, police, court, and such. To the tune of $250k per homeless person per year. Turns out that a 'shelter first' policy works better than requiring them to detox on the street. Worst case, ~$12k/year per person is a whole lot cheaper than $250k. And this is only one example of many.

    While $12k might not seem like much - put 4 'would be homeless' into a house or apartment, and you're looking at a decent amount of purchasing power.

    It also helps solve the 'welfare cliff' problems where earning extra money when you're on assistance can actually end up costing you money. Sure, you might be paying 30% of everything you earn in taxes, but you don't have any cases where earning $1 more makes you ineligible for a program, costing you $5k.

    When Canada tried a similar program in a town, they found employment was maintained, but graduation rates went up, hospital visits went down, and mothers spent more time with their newborns.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  17. Seize your Privilege by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If your parents worked harder to get you a better education, that's yours. Seize it and use it.
    If you have contacts which can get you a better job or opportunities, use them...they are yours.
    if you can get ahead by using tools and information that you accumulated, do it.

    This White Privilege crap is bullshit.

    And Fuck You and your "Normal People" bullshit.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.