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.
Only if you qualify. Otherwise, tough luck.
and
The idea behind a basic guaranteed income is that it replaces all that, and is universal. EVERYBODY, regardless of age, disability, location, job, or dead relatives is guaranteed the basic income. 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.
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.
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.
Even cheap Chinese laborers are being replaced by machines now, a new era is quickly approaching. I once agreed with your opinion, but in an era where most college graduates have to move back in with their parents - laziness is not the problem.
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
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.
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."
What do you propose? The death penalty for neck tattoos?
No matter how you cut it we will ALWAYS pay for those who won't work. Either we will pay as crime victims, or as supporters of their children who are in foster care/receive nutrition programs, need section 8 housing, etc etc. Or we will pay to dispose of their dead body when they die of neglect. Somehow those who will not work will cost you money no matter how you vote.
I, for one, would love to prevent desperation, crime, and abuse by paying losers to sit at home playing xbox and smoking weed staying out of my way and off of the streets..
desperate people do desperate things.
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?
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).
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.
GPD of USA last years was 18.14 Trillion
300 Million times $10,000 is 3 trillion. So we need to capture 16% of the GDP in taxation to pay for this.
$869 Million of social security payments would be replaced by this. As would $949 Million of welfare payments. So the majority of this would be covered by the costs of the programs it would replace, and there are many smaller programs this would replace that I am not going to take the time to chase down and add up.
Has social security caused rampant inflation? How about child tax credits? Have welfare payments caused our currently explosive 1% inflation?
The simple math does not sound too bad.
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.
Right now new capital enters the system via debt. Businesses and consumers borrow money the banks don't actually have. If it doesn't get to the consumers, it doesn't keep circulating. If it doesn't keep circulating, more businesses lay people off and there are fewer consumers spending less money.
The basic income idea is to put new money into circulation not from taxes necessarily, but probably from printing it into circulation. That creates some inflation, which is basically debt spread evenly across the entire economy. Then the economy keeps the money flowing, because there's a steady supply of it to people who aren't currently employed. It makes banks a secondary source of entry for currency rather than the primary one.
The government doesn't have to keep track of this program for rent, that program for health insurance, this other program for some other type of assistance, and then a complex tax code. The basic income subsidy and a simplified tax code makes the government much more streamlined so the tax rate can actually be lower or more of the money put into the subsidy.
It might not be an ideal solution, but it's not expected to be "free". It's actually a very profound macroeconomic idea for adjusting to booming per-worker productivity and a simultaneous lack of jobs. The problem it's trying to solve is that the reason the job market is so soft is that so few people need to work to produce the things that make everyone able to live comfortably. Demand for labor is down, which is causing demand for products to be down (via lack of means to pay). If more people could pay, more products could be sold. The corporations wouldn't need tax breaks as subsidies because nearly all products are subsidized on the buyer's side. Most of the tax burden could eventually be shifted onto the people owning the automation.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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?
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.
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...
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