In my opinion the basic income idea is the good way to go.
In my mind UBI means stability, stability means better, thought out choice choice of employment, better work choice means less abuse by employers (who happily exploit people on the edge) AND more happiness, therefore less stress and higher productivity.
It's not a perfect solution, as there will be people who will refuse to work, but those would in my honest opinion use their time to socialize with others, and less stressed people who actually work would, at least in part, happily resocialize people left out through socialization and natural integration. Social circles mean opportunity, opportunities mean chances of success in finding work.
Tech giants are predicting widespread, permanent unemployment. Jobs that currently pay something like $20k to maybe $50k are supposed to be replaced with basic income paying more like $10k. If large swaths of the population are going to take a de facto pay cut over jobs that in some places are already considered poverty wages AND then they have little or no hope of securing paid income to supplement their UBI, this sounds like a terrible nightmare to me.
I would much rather people be working on new ways to spread the work around while improving quality of life for the masses. You know, the policy they pursued during the last Industrial Revolution when automation was threatening to eliminate jobs.
It is one of those ideas that is neat, plausible and wrong. It suffers from several fallacies of composition.
The money becomes worthless in the eyes of those that receive it, and that's because if I have spent my time growing carrots - even if I have used machines to grow lots and lots of carrots, I still need to see you give up your time in the service of others before I am happy to let you have carrots.
If you don't, then you are not seen as contributing to society and humans get upset when that happens.
That's because you get paid twice in real terms. Once by the self-consumption of your own time and once with the consumption of the output of others you have purchased with your basic income.
That is seen as unfair.
The correct solution is to organise your time to the service of others as a job. A job that is focussed on social value, not profit. You then get the living wage for that job - a wage that is much higher than any suggested basic income, without any need to increase taxation.
The problem is a lack of jobs. The problem is the fallacy that the private sector creates jobs, when in reality its task is to destroy them and replace them with automation. A task we need it to do if we're to drive productivity forward.
A UBI that allows citizen to surive on it is simply unfundable; Let's take Belgium, 1000eur/month per citizen; That's 120 billion eur/year. The Belgian state revenue is 227 billion eur/year, and Belgium has the highest taxes in the world. How does the discussion on UBI goes past this simple mathematical fact ?
Yes, how does a discussion on UBI go past this simple mathematical fact?
By looking at the income distribution and realizing that a vast majority of the worlds income is concentrated in the hands of a breathtakingly small group of people and is continuing to be concentrated even more by the advent of even more integrated automated production and services.
All the while this small group continues to lobby for lower taxes worldwide and engages in tax-avoidance schemes that drive local manufacturers and service providers out of business. Heck, this group has so much money, they don't even know what to do with it anymore! Profits have skyrocketed in the last 30 years, but these increases have gone exclusively to the richest people of the world.
Productivity per person has more than quadrupled since the 1950. Yet the wages have stagnant since the 1970. Where did all the money go? I bet you can answer that question yourself.
Now, where do you specifically go wrong with the math? By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money. They could afford it. They just don't want to. And the system they built for themselves allows them to get away with it.
> By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money
How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. At the extremes, tiny differences in competence lead to exponentially differing compensation scales. Look at any professional sports league for examples.
> They could afford it. They just don't want to.
Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing.
And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit.
> How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square.
If you are relying on rent instead of work for an income, you are mooching, simple and easy. Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation.
> Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits.
Yes, it does. Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling.
> You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing.
I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not demanding that those earning more than me should be taxed more - I'm very much aware that I'm a privileged member of the 1%. I'm among those that should be taxed more!
>And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit.
There are good arguments to be made that a UBI scheme would actually be less complicated than the complex tangle of social support systems we have nowadays. At least in Europe.
> Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation.
No, you're also getting paid for the lack of appreciation of the capital in the machinery, the possibility that the machinery loses value, and the maintenance and upkeep of the machines. If you're a landlord, you're paying for maintenance, property tax, and code upgrades in exchange for money for shelter. It's just a means of exchange of goods for money, like any other.
Or do would you rather that productive machinery (including capital) be not produce, and capital locked away from productive use? By not charging money for the use of goods, you disincentivize the purchase of capital machinery/real estate as there is no upside, only downside to ownership/usage.
> Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It isn't right for people to charge rent for the use of capital, just because, and you have to redistribute wealth because otherwise you'll be forced to anyways, screw what's right. Either argue from the moral high ground or sheer pragmatism. You can't have both.
> I'm among those that should be taxed more!
Nobody is stopping you from donating more money to the government or any number of good charities. Why should extra taxation be necessary and involuntary when people with consciences like you are willing to act on your better impulses rather than just whine about the status quo?
Nominal wages have increased since 1970. Where did the money go? It's not hard, it's basic math: deficit spending necessitates printing money (done in various ways, notably QE) , which eats away spending power.
IMHO instead of raising taxes, states could focus on giving employees the salary and the security they deserve. If the productivity indeed increased 3x, then employees should be able to benefit from it not the state.
I want to believe in a world, where you receive wealth by creating it.
Worker-owned production would indeed be a good idea to assure that those creating wealth are actually the ones that are receiving it.
However; when faced with more and more integrated and automated production and services, I'm afraid that in the long run there wont be many jobs left to create wealth. Instead all wealth will belong to those owning the production capacity.
I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production. If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth.
In that case engineers and technicians get the money they deserve by the wealth they create. The owners of these machines provide the necessary capital (financial/technical) to make automation possible.
We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place. That is the very premise of a liberal economy.
I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me.
> I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production.
The problem with automation is that more and more people end up without job. That's the only problem with automation I see. As for worker-owned production; in the face of automation, in my opinion it's a medium-term solution only.
> If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth.
But that's not what happens. Fist, no one "figures out a way to create the machines". You build upon the collective knowledge of you society to improve on existing designs. And it's the use of this collective knowledge that indebts you to society.
Second; even if someone figures out a way to improve a machine and automate more work; that person won't be the one to collect the gains. Instead it will be the employer, while the ingenious employee gets a modest one-time bonus.
> We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place.
Usually the owners of production capacity are not the managers of production capacity. The times where the factory owner was sitting in a bureau above the manufacturing floor are long past.
> That is the very premise of a liberal economy.
Which is not the economy we have.
> I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me.
You see, there's the problem; there is no free market. What we have today is a system of crony-capitalism where those with wealth have the power to shape the rules of the market to their advantage while everybody else loses out.
I haven't thought about the aspect of our debt to collective knowledge.
It's true that we owe a lot to our society. If I couldn't find a doctor, a pharmacist, an Internet Service Provider, a supermarket I wouldn't be able to live.
But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?
The fact that we don't live in a liberal economy may be true, and I'm probably too naive in my thinking.
I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.
> But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?
This is a very good question. One to which I hope to find an answer someday.
> I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.
I too think that a market is a better solution for resource distribution than a centralized planning system. Let's get rid of incorporation. Level the playing field. Demolish the abomination of legal personhood. Minimize the capability of a market participant to externalize costs. There are many ways in which the current market implementation suck. Maybe we can fix it?
Wow :), "demolishing the abomination of legal personhood" is not needed. We need to fight monopolies and demolish market entry barriers not the "legal person".
The legal personality is a fundemantal concept of our law system. For example states are legal persons, that is how you can sue the state and get compensation. Publicly traded incorporations on the other hand are a bit tricky. My professor always said these types of corporations are the greatest invention since the steam engine.
Maybe we could further this analogy. Banning steam engines would've probably sustained the growth of industralization. Without industralization we could avoid the inhuman treatment of workers, the pollution. But at the same time, we wouldn't have improved, we wouldn't get to achieve the level of productivity we have today.
On the other hand the law of corporations is getting insanely complex and it must be simplified.
It takes time and stability to cultivate a healthy law culture, and at our current state I believe that new advancements in this field of law will be made.
If we could minimize corruption and try to stick to a Randian ethics standard, whilst providing free and decent healthcare and education, I believe that the society will continue to improve. I think it's not the idea of the current market that sucks, the problem is at our implementation.
Well, rich people move to Belgium to pay (a lot) less tax (popular among Dutch and Americans for instance: you can go to mansion towns like Schilde and Braschaat and find only American and Dutch legal tax evading millionairs); so as with everywhere, you will need to force the rich to pay like everyone all over the world at which point the problem will already look different. Sure they might have worked for that money but paying less or no tax: how is that fair? Won't happen soon though.
Labor force participation is falling while production is rising. That is what everyone on HN and in any engineering or computing related field does all day: figure out how to get more value from less labor.
You're right. People won't make stuff. People already don't make stuff. Machines do. A tiny elite class of engineers and managers figures out what the machines should do, designs them, and tends to them. The masses need not be involved.
"A new report from the state health department shows a dramatic rise in heroin use in Alaska. The number of hospitalizations for heroin related causes nearly doubled in the state from 2008 to 2012" [2]
"Alaska had one of the lowest four-year graduation rates in the United States in the 2013-14 school year...That year, 71.1 percent of Alaska's high school seniors graduated in four years -- the rest dropped out or needed more time to get their diplomas." It was 68% in 2011.
[3]
I'm suggesting it as a possibility yes. Parent tried to suggest it as all rosy up in Alaska and suggest there's no negative correlation for UBI up there. And Alaska is toward the top on two major issues so it's worth noting.
If you don't have to work maybe drugs become more likely and graduating becomes less important?
In a society where everything is built or farmed by robots, only a small subset of the population needs to work. The rest can just do whatever they like. Even in today’s world, large amounts of people don’t really make “stuff” anymore.
Fortunately that society is at least 100 years in the future and none of us here will see it. When I was a kid, we were promised flying cars and life of leisure. 30 years later: no flying cars and busting my ass at work like a hamster in the wheel.
The problem is, our society right now only pays for "physical stuff". Hardware and services that are made and performed by people (who are usually in poverty).
However, think of all the artists/musicians/journalists that spend just as much "work" producing this content that you consume for free on the internet. We haven't figured out how to pay those people yet, except through internet advertising.
Now look at the most profitable company: Google. We make pretty much all of our record profits through advertising. Yet everyone hates advertising, and it's only getting worse, as evidenced by the ad-blocker wars happening right now. Lets get rid of the middle-man advertisers, and pay those content creators fairly for their work. UBI is one way to do this.
The basic income is an idea that is supported by people who don't seem to understand humans, or who want to take power away from most humans.
Basic income is essentially another form of theft from the workers. People resent the rich because they do nothing for their income, but apparently if everybody does nothing for their income then that resentment is magically disappears.
That doesn't work in human society. Humans require that others contribute. As the Great Ali said: "Service to others is the price you pay for your room here on earth".
The problem the UBI has is that, like the rich, it is unfindable in real terms. Those that produce see the fraud, gather together and politically agitate to have it removed.
And you end up with what we have now - a depleted unemployment benefit system, and various small handouts to people others consider 'scroungers'.
The actual solution is to expand the definition of 'job', get beyond the neoliberal idea that everybody and everything is a business trying to create profit and implement a Job Guarantee full of activities that deliver social value - allowing people to serve others.
Once you do that, then you just pay them the living wage and the system works. From an individual's point of view their experience is that they have a job, one that is matched to their skills and that others consider a useful use of time. If they move jobs to the private sector, they still get a wage of about the same value. But the public spending stops instantly - which gets rid of the need for additional taxation.
In my mind UBI means stability, stability means better, thought out choice choice of employment, better work choice means less abuse by employers (who happily exploit people on the edge) AND more happiness, therefore less stress and higher productivity.
It's not a perfect solution, as there will be people who will refuse to work, but those would in my honest opinion use their time to socialize with others, and less stressed people who actually work would, at least in part, happily resocialize people left out through socialization and natural integration. Social circles mean opportunity, opportunities mean chances of success in finding work.