Why do people HATE Basic Income idea?

[Johan]

Why? I'm not sure I understand why firms would have to raise salaries all that much. You'd expect many of them to actually go down as a result because people would need less money for a complete income.

If a person makes $2000/month doing 40 hours/wk making widgets and then the government suddenly starts giving that person $2000/month whether they work or not, most of the widget workers are going to stay home and sit on their ass. True a few enterprising individuals will realize that they can keep working at the widget factory and end up with $4000/month, but most will just opt to stay home and watch the Flintstones. Therefore, the guy running the widget factory is going to have to offer higher salaries in order to get warm bodies in the door. Those higher salaries are going to translate into higher retail prices.

The whole idea of basic income is essentially a something for nothing scenario. And something for nothing is rarely sustainable for very long.

[Plu]

Right, so basically nobody has any idea what basic income is, how it works, that it has been tried and all tests point to that it does work, and the general argument is "you're ignorant" or "I don't think this could work because I have no clue what it is" or something like that?

These are all arguments of people who have no idea what basic income is supposed to be about.

A) If you make $2000 in a 40 hour factory job, basic income is going to be much less than $2000 a month.
B) All the research ever done on this subject points to people not going to "stay home and sit on their ass", most people don't like sitting around doing nothing.
C) You don't have to create more money, basic income is cheaper than the current social system in most countries because it cuts down immensely on bureaucracy.

All of these things have been scientifically tested, and I'm being countered by arguments along the lines of "I don't know the subject but it can't work for reasons I made up that aren't part of the subject" and "ur stupid"? Sheesh. Good going guys.

[missingnocchi]

A) If you make $2000 in a 40 hour factory job, basic income is going to be much less than $2000 a month.

What? I thought you said people would get basic income whether they worked or not? Now there's a scale?

B) All the research ever done on this subject points to people not going to "stay home and sit on their ass", most people don't like sitting around doing nothing.

You underestimate my power.

C) You don't have to create more money, basic income is cheaper than the current social system in most countries because it cuts down immensely on bureaucracy.

You know how food stamps and WIC only work on certain items? Yeah, there's a reason for that.

All of these things have been scientifically tested, and I'm being countered by arguments along the lines of "I don't know the subject but it can't work for reasons I made up that aren't part of the subject" and "ur stupid"? Sheesh. Good going guys.

Source, please.

[Plu]

What? I thought you said people would get basic income whether they worked or not? Now there's a scale?

The scale is based on how much you need to survive in the country. It should be quite a bit below minimum wage unless minimum wage itself is already ridiculously low, in which case the entire economy is basically fucked up. The amount is the same for all people in the country, but if a minimum wage job earns $2000 probably basic income would be closer to $1200 or something.

You underestimate my power.

I doubt anyone on this forum is such a lazy bum that they'd be complacent to sit in a really small run-down appartment, drinking cheap beer and watching a crappy old tv. If you're picturing being able to do more on minimum income, you're picturing you'll get more money than what it should be based on. It's a bare minimum, no more.

You know how food stamps and WIC only work on certain items? Yeah, there's a reason for that.

Yeah, and that reason is also why so much money is lost on bureaucracy around the whole welfare program. When you put people on basic income, you can just let them starve if that's what they feel like doing. It's really just their own fault, we shouldn't need to babysit grown people.

Source, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

The wiki page lists loads of studies on the subject, including some experiments done on the topic. I'm not sure what kind of thing you're looking for, but if you tell me I can see if I can find an article. Even googling for arguments against it generates next to nothing, though. The only argument against it on the wiki is "people will work less", with an observed reduction in hours of 5% in the experiment. Which is basically not much to worry about. And the only people who worked "substantially less" were single mothers and teenagers supporting a family, which seems like a good thing to me.

If you can find more arguments (and especially research or experiments) against it, I'd gladly listen. But they seem to be pretty rare compared to loads of research into why it would work.

[josephpalazzo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

The wiki page lists loads of studies on the subject, including some experiments done on the topic. I'm not sure what kind of thing you're looking for, but if you tell me I can see if I can find an article. Even googling for arguments against it generates next to nothing, though. The only argument against it on the wiki is "people will work less", with an observed reduction in hours of 5% in the experiment. Which is basically not much to worry about. And the only people who worked "substantially less" were single mothers and teenagers supporting a family, which seems like a good thing to me.

If you can find more arguments (and especially research or experiments) against it, I'd gladly listen. But they seem to be pretty rare compared to loads of research into why it would work.

You should read your own link. This is what it says. It was implemented in a remote town in Namibia, however,

There is no public access to the project database. In a Namibian daily, the project representatives confirmed the lack of public access to their data and justified it.[23]
 
The design of the project and the conduct of the empirical studies have been criticized by some authors for intransparent procedure and inappropriate methods.[24]

In other places where it was also tried on a small scale, it was done on a small period of time, though there were some benefits, but no country really implemented full time, on a national scale. There are political parties in every countries which have adopted this idea in their platforms, but you cannot claim this has really worked well anywhere.

[Plu]

Did I mention that it was implemented on a national scale? If so, that was a mistake. The Swiss are working on it, but other than that it's just succesful researches and experiments. But still; succesful experiments show that there's something there. That it might very well work. And that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as is being done in this topic.

[josephpalazzo]

Did I mention that it was implemented on a national scale? If so, that was a mistake. The Swiss are working on it, but other than that it's just succesful researches and experiments. But still; succesful experiments show that there's something there. That it might very well work. And that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as is being done in this topic.

My understanding of economics leads me to believe it wouldn't work. The study of unemployment and how it's tied up to employment, and such things as consumer demand, investment, tax rates, exports and imports, show that the objective goal of reducing unemployment - a goal that it necessary to lower poverty level - is a difficult task. There are no easy solutions. You cannot implement successfully policies that would go against the law of Demand/Supply, or that business always try to maximize profits or ignoring the fluctuations in the business cycle with its periods of boom and bust. History shows that any economic/political system that ignored these brute facts met dysmal failure. And I can see some serious flaws in the concept of a basic income, some of which I have already mentioned.

[Plu]

I'm trying to understand the flaws you see, so let me know if I missed something.

You've mentioned these two concrete things that I see:

Firms would be forced to raise salaries way above whatever the basic income is ( whether $1000/mo or $2000/mo as has been suggested so far in this thread)

It's an economic fact that if you increase the money supply, which you are doing in this case by giving more money to people with no increase in economic output, what it does is bring inflation up (hint: prices go up).

The first seems to assume that if people get enough money for a roof over their head and little more, suddenly they aren't willing to go back to work to bring their income up to their previous standard. This seems counter intuitive. If you get $1000 a month for free are you saying you would stop going to your $2000 a month job? To me, that sounds ridiculous. In fact, companies could actually lower wages and people would keep coming, because they would quickly realise that just a roof over your head and the barest of food isn't really a good life. And you could work for less, because every dollar you earn is basically luxury money, not a dollar you need to keep from starving.

The second seems to assume that you'd need to print more money in order to give all people money, but calculations show that by cutting down hugely on the bureaucracy currently needed to keep people from abusing government welfare would make this option comparable or even cheaper than the current welfare system (at least in more socialist countries; the US is probably a terrible example for this). Which means you aren't printing more money at all.

Neither of these seem a particularly large flaw unless you try to slap it on the current day US, which is still a terrible example. And I'm also not seeing how this would interfere with the supply/demand change all that much, since it's not generating new money from nothing and we already have loads of people who already get welfare.


Basic income is little more than current welfare for the jobless + the existance of minimum wages for companies to ensure basic income for the workers. The only thing you are doing is cutting away loads of red tape by no longer forcing companies to give people a living wage for the work they do, and no longer requiring people to prove they aren't already getting a living wage from some other place before you give them welfare.

[josephpalazzo]

The first seems to assume that if people get enough money for a roof over their head and little more, suddenly they aren't willing to go back to work to bring their income up to their previous standard. This seems counter intuitive.If you get $1000 a month for free are you saying you would stop going to your $2000 a month job? To me, that sounds ridiculous. In fact, companies could actually lower wages and people would keep coming, because they would quickly realise that just a roof over your head and the barest of food isn't really a good life. And you could work for less, because every dollar you earn is basically luxury money, not a dollar you need to keep from starving.

You can't base this on what you would do personally. You need to look at what everyone would do. For instance, if you would raise someone's salary by $100/mo, and you would ask, "what would you do with this extra money?" Some would spend all of it, some would spend a certain amount and save the rest, others would save all of it. In recent studies, the general average is that $30/mo would be spent, the rest would be saved. Under other economic conditions that number could change, but the point is that you personally would not necessarly follow this average trend.  

The fact is that there are many if they could avoid working altogether, even if it means living in substandard living conditions, they will choose to do just that.  If the government gives a basic income, firms would have to raise their salaries to coax a substantial number of people to get up everyday and earn much more than if they would stay at home. I'm not saying everyone would do that, but there would be a substantial percentage of the population who would.

The second seems to assume that you'd need to print more money in order to give all people money, but calculations show that by cutting down hugely on the bureaucracy currently needed to keep people from abusing government welfare would make this option comparable or even cheaper than the current welfare system (at least in more socialist countries; the US is probably a terrible example for this). Which means you aren't printing more money at all.

First of all, if the government cuts down, it means an increase in the unemployment rate. So you would lay off working people, and with that money the government just saved, you would give more to those who already have a job or are already receiving government hand-outs. Not much of a solution.

Second of all, the case of increasing the money supply went hand in hand with doubling everyone's salary. This scenario which I gave you was to make you realize that more money doesn't solve the problem at hand: reducing poverty, which is the aim of a basic income. The main trust there in that scenario is that increasing the money supply without an increase in output accomplishes absolutely nothing as you would have more money but prices would go up in tandem.  

Neither of these seem a particularly large flaw unless you try to slap it on the current day US, which is still a terrible example.

The main problem in the US, in regard with the OP, is that we have a growing inequality between the top 1% earners and the other 99%. But basic income will not solve this disparity. Though it could be a topic for another thread.

And I'm also not seeing how this would interfere with the supply/demand change all that much, since it's not generating new money from nothing and we already have loads of people who already get welfare.

You would be increasing the money supply since everyone would be getting a government handout, as opposed to the present situation, in which only a small number of people are getting some form of a government hand-out.

Basic income is little more than current welfare for the jobless + the existance of minimum wages for companies to ensure basic income for the workers. The only thing you are doing is cutting away loads of red tape by no longer forcing companies to give people a living wage for the work they do, and no longer requiring people to prove they aren't already getting a living wage from some other place before you give them welfare.

It's not exactly the same. For one, the present situation is not an automatic hand-out, basic income is. Secondly, you don't want to send the message that getting on welfare is a carreer choice, which would with basic income. Thirdly, we should do everything possible to get people off of welfare by giving them the tools to retrain and acquire marketable skills, basic income is a disincentive.

[Plu]

The fact is that there are many if they could avoid working altogether, even if it means living in substandard living conditions, they will choose to do just that.

What is this fact based on, then? If it can't be based on you and me, I'm assuming you have a study that shows it? Because experiments show that people don't like sitting around doing nothing, mostly.

First of all, if the government cuts down, it means an increase in the unemployment rate. So you would lay off working people, and with that money the government just saved, you would give more to those who already have a job or are already receiving government hand-outs. Not much of a solution.
Second of all, the case of increasing the money supply went hand in hand with doubling everyone's salary. This scenario which I gave you was to make you realize that more money doesn't solve the problem at hand: reducing poverty, which is the aim of a basic income. The main trust there in that scenario is that increasing the money supply without an increase in output accomplishes absolutely nothing as you would have more money but prices would go up in tandem.

Yes. Although you would save more in cutting down on buildings that are no longer needed to be maintained than in salaries. Also, I am expecting companies to change their salaries pretty quickly in order to fix the discrepancy. Wages would start going down quite substantially for a while. With companies no longer being required to pay the basic income and thus required to pay minimum wage, salaries will quickly stabilise around what the market really thinks they should be.

You would be increasing the money supply since everyone would be getting a government handout, as opposed to the present situation, in which only a small number of people are getting some form of a government hand-out.

There is no extra money. It's just going to different things now. Instead of to government officials, it's now going to regular people. Instead of government offices, it's now going to startup companies that people start with their basic income. No new money comes into circulation; it's just reassigned.

It's not exactly the same. For one, the present situation is not an automatic hand-out, basic income is. Secondly, you don't want to send the message that getting on welfare is a carreer choice, which would you with basic income. Thirdly, we should do everything possible to get people off of welfare by giving them the tools to retrain and acquire marketable skills, basic income is a disincentive.

Being on welfare is a shitty carreer choice, and introducing basic income doesn't change that. In fact, it makes it less likely because you'll probably be getting less in welfare with basic income since all of the extra programs and things you normally gain to get welfare money disappear. But the number of people in any situation that enjoy being on welfare is really low. Most people are just trapped there. In part because getting a job is really hard because a job is expensive, in part because the government is looking them on the fingers and not allowing them to spend it in a way where they can back on their feet (see: only food from foodstamps, not schoolbooks. really?)

And lastly; giving people the money to survive while they teach themselves new skill is giving them the tools to retrain and acquire marketable skills. It's a far cheaper option than all sorts of complicated systems where we look down on them, force them, and otherwise set them up for demotivation and ultimate failure. Again; one of the results of experiments was people using the money to go back to school on their own.

[Mister Agenda]

Economics is all about the margins. If you give people a subsidy that's 10% of what they already make, very few will stop working to live on that 10%. However, as the percentage of the subsidy goes up, the percentage of people who will stop working to live just on that goes up too.

There's a phrase that goes 'you can have as much poverty as you're willing to pay for' that describes the phenomenon of beneficiary rolls increasing as benefits increase, that is, the higher the benefits, the more people who enroll into the system. and unemployement or some level of underemployment is required to qualify to be on the rolls. In other words, when benefits rise, some people quit their jobs to go on benefits rather than work. And again, this happens on the margins. Someone who has pressing demands on their time at home who can make almost as much on benefits has a strong short-term incentive to go on benefits, although in the long run they might be better off continuing to gain work experience and potentially be promoted or move to a better job. If benefits are more than you can make at your current job, more people will find that attractive.

I'm not saying we can't have a basic income, but there seem to be limits on how high it can be without causing significant economic damage. In my own case, I wouldn't pass up early retirement if I had a base income of $20,000 I could count on (that wasn't over-inflated). A LOT of people would retire at 55 and 20 years with that to boost their retirement with. Which means employers would have to replace them, probably with internal promotions for the most part, and bringing in more people at entry-level positions. Since most companies would be in the same boat, it's likely that demand would exceed supply, so companies would be competing for people to fill those positions.

But I don't like to bet against the Swiss. Maybe they can pull it off.

[josephpalazzo]

The fact is that there are many if they could avoid working altogether, even if it means living in substandard living conditions, they will choose to do just that.

What is this fact based on, then? If it can't be based on you and me, I'm assuming you have a study that shows it? Because experiments show that people don't like sitting around doing nothing, mostly.

Hummm, if people were that honest, we wouldn't need a police force, courts, judges, lawyers and prisons. Sorry, but get real. The vast majority of people would stay home if they had a guaranteed basic income instead of getting up everyday, travel through thick traffic and pollution, put up with a shitty boss, etc. It's a fact of life you seemed to having been shielded from.





 

Also, I am expecting companies to change their salaries pretty quickly in order to fix the discrepancy. Wages would start going down quite substantially for a while. With companies no longer being required to pay the basic income and thus required to pay minimum wage, salaries will quickly stabilise around what the market really thinks they should be.

As I foresaw, you are clueless on the law of Supply/Demand. Firms will only lower their salary if there is a greater number of people that want to work than there are vacant jobs. In the case of a guaranteed basic income, there would be fewer workers for the vacant jobs, and therefore firms would have no choice but to increase their salaries to attract more people to fill those vacant jobs.

You would be increasing the money supply since everyone would be getting a government handout, as opposed to the present situation, in which only a small number of people are getting some form of a government hand-out.

There is no extra money. It's just going to different things now. Instead of to government officials, it's now going to regular people. Instead of government offices, it's now going to startup companies that people start with their basic income. No new money comes into circulation; it's just reassigned.

That would be true only if the amount paid out to civil servants + buildings exactly matches all the money given to everyone through the basic income. Studies show otherwise. In the US, the civil servant make up slightly less than 10%, not all would be cut off as some of them work in departments not related to social welfare. But in the case of basic income, 100% of the working population would get it. If you would try to match these two numbers ( amount saved = basic income), the basic income would be about enough for each one to buy a hamburger at McDonald. Not worth the effort to stamp out poverty.

[Plu]

Hummm, if people were that honest, we wouldn't need a police force, courts, judges, lawyers and prisons. Sorry, but get real. The vast majority of people would stay home if they had a guaranteed basic income instead of getting up everyday, travel through thick traffic and pollution, put up with a shitty boss, etc. It's a fact of life you seemed to having been shielded from.

So basically "because I say so", just after you told me I can't use myself as an example. Cute. But not very convincing.

As I foresaw, you are clueless on the law of Supply/Demand. Firms will only lower their salary if there is a greater number of people that want to work than there are vacant jobs. In the case of a guaranteed basic income, there would be fewer workers for the vacant jobs, and therefore firms would have no choice but to increase their salaries to attract more people to fill those vacant jobs.

Ah, more of the personal attacks. Even cuter. There are more people willing to work than there are vacant jobs; that's why we have an unemployment rate. There won't be fewer workers for the vacant jobs; all the real slobs and carreer welfare people are already on welfare. And all the people currently working for minimum wage aren't being paid a market-operated salary, they're paying a government enforced salary and those will go down because there are a lot of people willing to take those jobs; it's just that companies don't consider them worth it if they need to pay minimum wage for an extra pair of hands.

Take a walk through the getto. See how many people would be willing to help you for a few hundred dollars a month, just to have some extra income. Ask around how many people like living at that wealth level and how many wouldn't mind working to get out of it.

Studies show otherwise.

Which studies? Except the US (why do you keep bringing it up? I already told you it's a terrible fit for this idea because it's a completely fucked up country) in most countries it is quite affordable.


It seems you're running off of personal opinions much more than actual study or knowledge of what basic income would do. All the while blaming me of doing so.

[josephpalazzo]

Hummm, if people were that honest, we wouldn't need a police force, courts, judges, lawyers and prisons. Sorry, but get real. The vast majority of people would stay home if they had a guaranteed basic income instead of getting up everyday, travel through thick traffic and pollution, put up with a shitty boss, etc. It's a fact of life you seemed to having been shielded from.

So basically "because I say so", just after you told me I can't use myself as an example. Cute. But not very convincing.

Which part of "if people were that honest, we wouldn't need a police force, courts, judges, lawyers and prisons" don't you understand?

As I foresaw, you are clueless on the law of Supply/Demand. Firms will only lower their salary if there is a greater number of people that want to work than there are vacant jobs. In the case of a guaranteed basic income, there would be fewer workers for the vacant jobs, and therefore firms would have no choice but to increase their salaries to attract more people to fill those vacant jobs.

Ah, more of the personal attacks. Even cuter.

It's a fact that you are clueless about the law of Supply/Demand. If you take it as an insult, that's your problem.

There are more people willing to work than there are vacant jobs; that's why we have an unemployment rate.

We are not talking about that situation. That's a different problem, requiring another thread. We are talking about changing the present system that has welfare programs to another system with basic income. Regardless of the present unemployment rate, making that change from welfare to basic income would not solve any problems, and perhaps make it worse as you are opening the door to people who will take the basic income and make do with that. The objective is to get people off the welfare roll, not encouraging them to stay there.

Take a walk through the getto. See how many people would be willing to help you for a few hundred dollars a month, just to have some extra income. Ask around how many people like living at that wealth level and how many wouldn't mind working to get out of it.

Maybe YOU should take that walk. You'll be surprised that some are not willing to make the effort to try to get a job, or get retrain even when there are such programs available to them.

Which studies? Except the US (why do you keep bringing it up? I already told you it's a terrible fit for this idea because it's a completely fucked up country) in most countries it is quite affordable.

That doesn't answer the issue: "if the amount saved = basic income, the basic income would be about enough for each one to buy a hamburger at McDonald. Not worth the effort to stamp out poverty." I take you have no answers.

It seems you're running off of personal opinions much more than actual study or knowledge of what basic income would do. All the while blaming me of doing so.

Whatever rocks your boat.  :P

[Plu]

It seems you haven't changed one bit since the last time I called you an elitist asshole