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.
A lot of people can't wrap their head around this. I once posed the question, "What would happen if one king owned all the gold?", and I got some pretty bizarre responses. Some people just couldn't wrap their head around the fact that when money leaves the economy, the economy switches to a different form of money and becomes degenerate before that happens. One poster seemed to think that gold would somehow still be required for tax payments, despite the fact that all the gold was already in the treasury and was thus impossible to render as payment. Many refused to see the king as being potentially capital and/or government. They were locked into the idea that he was one or the other, based on their ingrained political philosophy.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
>> $10k per child
The current problem with "per child" is that it is sometimes an incentive to have MORE children, especially if the cost to minimally clothe/feed/plug-em-into-TV is less than the offered incentive. For population control and family stability, you'd be better off with something like "$20K per adult, $45K for married couples - period. If you want kids, scale back your lifestyle or get a job/education that can support a higher standard of living."
Agreed. Not a huge fan of welfare in general, but this system is much preferred to the current system. Here's how you pay for it (remember this includes outlays AND overhead - overhead can be quite huge in some cases)
1. Eliminate all low-income welfare programs - there are a TON of these
2. Eliminate social security
3. You can probably eliminate most forms of medicare and medicaid
4. Eliminate most low-income student support programs (school lunches, etc...)
5. Eliminate most V.A. support programs, which is basically welfare as well
6. Government pensioners can probably have their pension payments removed from the minimum income (IE you don't get a pension AND basic income)
- This won't necessarily save money but can ease pressure in the pension system
7. Eliminate make-work/stimulus programs
That's just the tip of the iceberg. You can probably eliminate unemployment insurance, minimum wage, heck almost all labor regulations as the philosophy behind them is that low-income workers are exploited as they are being "forced" to work to survive.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
There is no good reason to choose basic income (income guarantee) over a job guarantee where the government is the employer of last resort. This is still a form of Keneysian intervention, but a very direct one. Decreasing unemployment raises aggregate demand and brings on recovery from the recession. Inflation doesn't occur until you approach full employment. But at the same time as the recession is over, and since such work offered by the public sector is at or just below minimum wage, most would move back to private sector jobs. "Free money" is not given to those who are able to work and are simply failing to find employment, and is reserved for the severely disabled and so on — unlike the current situation.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
My proposal:
Government offers you free room, board, medical, and a limited spending allowance.
In return, you must accept a sterilization surgical procedure.
I am not sure how to deal with the case of people having a whole lot of babies early on and then accepting the offer. Might want to wait and see how much of a problem that turns out to be before trying to solve it.
Another perspective: Where are the mass graves of the tens of thousands of workers replaced with farm tractors? The ones who curled up and died when they were no longer needed to plow and plant and such?
We are more resourceful that skeptics believe, and change has always made people fearful. Fear sells, and it is easy to exclusively take council of that fear.
With respect, I would not ridicule a fearful pessimist, apprehension and fear are natural but not inevitable. I believe there's much more to be optimistic about ahead -- Challenges make us grow overall as a species.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
Ah, but then it comes down to the criteria for qualifying for public assistance, and the decisions that one makes and how those decisions affect the individual's life.
A friend of mine peaked in his early twenties. He was doing highly skilled technical work on embedded electronics. They moved the job and he couldn't bicycle or bus-ride to get there anymore. He worked computer repair for a depot place, but they closed. He ended up at a computer big-box store that is now closed. He followed coworkers from that big-box store into retail. He eventually had supervisors that didn't like him and would only give him ten hours a week to try to get him to quit, but he wouldn't quit to go anywhere else. Eventually they were fired and the new supervisors gave him full-time again, but shlepping retail packages to restock store shelves has taken its toll on him and it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone else would hire him.
He made a significant series of missteps along the way, arguably starting with not getting a driver's license. He's been geographically stuck and that has severely limited his options. Unfortunately I fully expect him to work to the grave because he doesn't qualify for much in the way of financial assistance because he has no dependents, nor is he physically bad enough off to qualify as disabled. I can't even say if I feel he deserves extra help or not. He has made his own way, and while it hasn't led him to bounty it has been full of opportunities that he did not exercise.
I believe that there should be safety-nets. I don't believe that there should be a basic living stipend, unless everyone, even those who work, receive it. I think it makes much more sense start using the stick approach to employers, to have tax levels that reflect the burden that not paying workers for full-time employment, and to reduce those taxes the more employees are full-time.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That just highlights even more problems, for example the $869 billion is divided between 59 million Americans, so most of those - the neediest - are going to be taking a substantial hit. Retired workers average at about $1300 a month, dropped under your vision to $800 a month. Disabled workers would lose about a third of their income. Over half of the $949 billion goes on medical care, and I'm willing to wager that's likewise divided up between a relatively small number of people.
As appealing as UI sounds on the face of it, it's a really ignorant idea at this point in our economic development.
My leanings are very much in the libertarian direction. I support property rights, free markets, etc, etc, etc.
With that in mind, if we, as a society, are going to have wealth redistribution, this method is the least offensive to me.
Inflation is an extraordinarily evil and offensive thing, but if we are going to create money out of thin air, the place where it can do the least harm is in the bank accounts of the people.
Government should stop debasing our money and stop encouraging idleness, but if they are going to do it anyway, this seems to be the least offensive option.
The catch is that it needs to coupled with responsibility. It needs to replace our other systems, to a large extent. It cannot simply be added to them, or the people will waste their free money, and come back looking for more.
See that "Preview" button?
Relevant topic - http://strikemag.org/bullshit-... Keynes predicted a 15 h work week and, in effect, given the level of time spent doing inessential or paper-pushing non-sense, we have just that. The closer we are to full-automation, the more a concept like basic income is attractive as we have to saturate the market with products and services no one really needs nor, at a certain point, will they want, which places increasing pressure on employment rates as more of the population comes to rely on these jobs. Or in the case of upper middle classes, put asses in seats where they won't do much of anything. Powers that be still demand 40, or suggest even longer hours for people to make ends meet. There's absolutely no need for it. Every year in the West we seem to lose capacity for productivity. Mind you I would go for an alternative to BI like a negative-tax of sorts which would still be very streamlined and cheap but would omit needlessly sending out cheques to those that don't need it.
Or maybe some people have kids and then things turn south? If I lost my job and I spent my savings while looking for a new one, I wouldn't be able to just give away my kids because I couldn't afford them anymore.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
Except that billionaires like JK Rowling were once on the dole.
Guaranteed income allows people to take risks. Instead of being stuck on a dead end job treadmill to keep the apartment or health insurance, they can do risky things that could reap huge rewards.
One of the reasons that children of successful parents are more successful is because of that safety net. Even if they fail, its not so bad. The cost of failure for a regular person would be loss of home and enormous difficulty just to make ends meet.
Plus, the whole notion of smart and not-so smart doesn't hold true. There is a "smart enough" and after that is just luck. Kind of like how basketball isn't all just the tallest people in the world. They are generally tall but after you're tall enough, extra height doesn't really matter.
They wouldn't be able to pay for this purely out of tax revenues already collected. It would require printing money and sending checks against money that hadn't been in the economy yet. That influx of money would cause some level of price inflation. It would also, however, create more demand for goods and generate more sales of goods. That would create some jobs and encourage further automation. Eventually when there's nothing left to automate, the businesses selling everything will be the primary sources of taxes. Workers will be lightly taxed and most of all of them will have subsidized incomes. Those not working are subsidized to the baseline.
The whole idea is basically turning corporate subsidies on their heads. Companies used to get subsidies for creating jobs and keeping their product prices down. Now much of those go back to the stockholders or other owners since automation is cutting production costs and cutting some jobs. As the jobs go away, though, the demand for the products goes away. It's largely a consumer economy, so it needs consumers to spend money. Stop subsidizing the corporations who are automating away the means to consume. Start subsidizing the consumers who then buy the products.
It's not necessarily the best plan, but that's the part necessary to understand before praising it or dismissing it.
Another competing but potentially complementary option is that if fewer person hours are needed but we have so many people, lower the number of hours before overtime kicks in. If we cut everyone's hours by 20%, 20% more people might get hired. Still, though, people wouldn't want to give up 20% of their pay, so giving more people jobs at the same pay rate for fewer hours does -- guess what -- inflate prices.
Inflation is only a tax on those who are holding currency, or who have chosen to trade a given service or good (such as time worked) for currency at a fixed rate. Non cash capital, money, and property are not affected by inflation. So inflation is not, in practice, a tax on those who are in favor of inflation.
"UBI is a way to uplift everyone"
Except for those who pay for it.
"Also, YOU would benefit from it too, since it would be paid out to everyone."
Not everyone will pay FOR it.
"What, you don't like money?"
Yup, that's one reason why I work. To earn MY OWN MONEY.
The other reason is because I can. I've worked for a few decades to develop knowledge, skills, and abilities that are sufficiently marketable to enable me to find employment. Others not so fortunate or motivated may have different results.
I do not begrudge the needy support necessary to live. I do question whether guaranteeing everyone a minimal income is a wise thing. Motivation is important. It is the perceived lack of motivation that so many people who question the War on Poverty point to and ask 'why?'.
There is, indeed, no real answer to that forthcoming yet,
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This has nothing to do with socialism. This is an attempt to strengthen the free market.
Money does magically appear. It has no value other than what a bunch of technocrats have agreed upon. We do print money with no value. But we give that money to a handful of institutions who decide as technocrats who gets money. A small club decides what market segments receive investments. They also decide who is able to get a loan. But that small club of technocrats have proven over and over again that they don't know what they are doing. Every 10-15 years governments over the world have to bailout banks with tax money. The financial sector is being kept alive with tax payer money, but don't bring to the society what they are supposed to bring. They only think about their own short term profits. That is socialism at its absolute worst!
Basic income also works with printing money with no value. But instead of giving it to a small club of institutions, the government gives everyone an equal share. Individuals, businesses, banks, ... have to compete for that money in a free market. Who gets the money? The person with the best idea. What business earns most? The business with the best products. What bank gets most? The bank with the best service toward the customer.
That's the idea of basic income. It is a liberal idea. But it is not the socialist kind of idea where the state runs businesses. The only thing the state does is collecting value added tax and giving everyone an equal share of money, without requiring the big bureaucracy to decide who is entitled for subsidizes or who has to pay what amount of income tax. Basic income goes hand in hand with a flat income tax system and a high value added tax. Flexible work, high VAT, low income tax, basic income, unregulated free market. That is what basic income is about. Are you happy with a basic income, a roof above your head and decent food? Just work a few days a month until you have enough. Do you want to live in luxury, go on holidays, have a big TV? Work a bit more.
Think about it. If you are happy with your basic income, you no longer need to work. If you want something more, you have to work for it. If you want to start your own business, you can spend your savings and work hard and succeed or fail. When you fail, no worries, you still have your basic income.
The main reason why I haven't started my own business is that I don't like insecurity. I've a nice income. Do I want to risk my safe live just to try my luck in my own business? I do not want to. When I start my own business, I need to invest my savings and I lose my income. Way too risky for me. With basic income, I would have started my own business 2 decades ago. When things wouldn't go as good as expected, I'd still have my basic income. If I would have succeeded I might have been an employer of many people.
You have probably never needed public assistance in the US. It's a bureaucratic nightmare, and often impossible for someone who's physically or mentally disabled to deal with. It doesn't matter if you "qualify", because you don't have the knowledge of a lawyer-accountant or the money to pay for help or means of transportation to get where you need to be at the right time. Getting assistance is more work than "actual work" is, yet a disabled person who isn't able to work is supposed to do all this, and they can be cut off at any time for any reason because some bureaucrat changes the rules. It is cruel, humiliating and inhumane. A simpler system like basic no-questions-asked income would at least restore some dignity to millions and millions of individuals who are currently subjected to financial abuse. Right now it's the most vulnerable and those with the greatest need who have the most difficult time getting assistance.
That's the problem. *SOME* wealthy people will use their wealth in a socially beneficial manner (or at least in a way that explores the possibility of social benefit). But most of them won't.
If you don't have extremely rich people, there will be some options that are never explored. Some of those options will be extremely valuable. Most of them, however,...
Governments and corporations have not be very good at exploring high risk/high payoff scenarios. We need those areas explored. (How rapidly?) What alternative structures will accomplish this? The alternatives wouldn't need to be very efficient to be better than the current approach. A change in the laws to encourage thinks like corporations creating entities like Bell Labs was might suffice, but they need to be able to accumulate stashes of cash that cannot be raided except for advanced projects.
That said, I'm in favor of totally replacing the non-retirement portion of Social Security (and part of that) with a basic income...which everyone gets. Somehow it needs to be tied to the actual cost of living, but "somehow" is dangerously vague. Perhaps the "basic income" should equal the current minimum wage, and then remove all minimum wage rules & laws. (At least in my area the minimum wage is considerably below the actual poverty level. I don't know what the law says the poverty level is.) I believe that *eventually* the basic income should be above the actual poverty level, though not by much. And that education should be free at all levels. So if you want to devote your life to polishing your skills for a decade, you should be able to do so. Perhaps internet access should also be freely available at, say, the speed of a 100 kB/s. Perhaps a bit slower.
The idea here is to be prepared for the (already incipient) future where robots increasingly replace jobs. Eventually, of course, all jobs will be replaced, but that's several decades off. In the mean time SOME people will need to be employed, and will need to prepare themselves for employment, with no guarantee that the job will still be available by the time they are ready. Many people will need to prepare for 10 years for a job that will be automated away shortly before they are qualified (or very soon afterwards). This is already happening to people, but it's still rather uncommon. It won't remain uncommon. A sign of this is the number of articles saying "People should consider the concept of a career to be obsolete" and similar things. They emphasize the need to be always ready to retrain, but many careers require an extensive preparation. Doctor, lawyer, pharmacist, etc. And the initial signs of automation are just that fewer new people are currently being hired. This is almost always disguised in the reported statistics, or attributed to a temporary economic slowdown. And currently much of it is accurately attributed to off-shoring. But new articles seem to be indicating that many of those jobs that were off-shored are being automated because even Javanese workers aren't as cheap as robots. (OK, most factory automation doesn't involve real robots. But that's the way it's being reported.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It should be noted that such programs have been trialed in small areas. They're not only generally met with wide support, but they tell an interesting story. The rate of people working does drop, but only in certain categories: generally only 1) teenagers and young adults, who use the time to get a better education when they would otherwise have worked; and 2) new parents, who take more time to spend with their children. In other groups, the rate of work does not change. For those two groups, the lack of work is still a sacrifice - the basic income is well less than what one could earn with a proper job. But it lets people focus on what's important in their lives - for their happiness and their future.
"This administration is so incompetent that they cover their tracks with bigger tracks." - Seth Meyers