Author Topic: What would you do if your country provided a guaranteed minimum income of 20K?  (Read 38061 times)

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3963
  • Location: France
I am amazed that the concept of contributing to the society you live in is lost on so many posting here who are eager to choose to live off others hard work.

I support 100% providing for a welfare and safety net for those in need, but not for those just too damn lazy to work.

You miss the point. In the future most real work will be done by robots. Most jobs now are pointless, paper pushing. Will we migrate to a 3 day work week? If not, what do we as a society do when there are not enough jobs to go round?

That's the real problem that this is a solution for. The fact that even if people want to work (and work in something they are capable of that doesn't burn them out in 5 years), what if they can't? Or choose not to so that others might?

"Too damn lazy" is just old style thinking from when people HAD to work in the fields so they didn't starve. We're a bazillion years from that.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
I am amazed that the concept of contributing to the society you live in is lost on so many posting here who are eager to choose to live off others hard work.

I support 100% providing for a welfare and safety net for those in need, but not for those just too damn lazy to work.

You miss the point. In the future most real work will be done by robots. Most jobs now are pointless, paper pushing. Will we migrate to a 3 day work week? If not, what do we as a society do when there are not enough jobs to go round?

That's the real problem that this is a solution for. The fact that even if people want to work (and work in something they are capable of that doesn't burn them out in 5 years), what if they can't? Or choose not to so that others might?

"Too damn lazy" is just old style thinking from when people HAD to work in the fields so they didn't starve. We're a bazillion years from that.

Big +1.

Also, keep in mind, it opens up the possibility for people to pursue other, more creative outlets, that may not necessarily pay much today, so it isn't viable as a career.  If someone was taking the 20k minimum income, retired, and wrote a play, composed a symphony, etc., I wouldn't call them lazy.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Age: 42
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)
The hardest part of this conversation is how fundamentally a guaranteed minimum restructures society.  If you toss in a few other libertarian notions like a VAT or flat tax and a decriminalization of drug possession of not outright legalization you get some really big changes that significantly alter the fabric of our government and society. The analysis if impact of such programs easily strays into utopian thinking that has a rosy picture at the far end of time, but makes no account for the details of how to get there or how to deal with unforeseen winners and losers.  I think the idea of a basic minimum is enticing, but I need to see more serious thought about the consequences.

If the Basic Minimum is enacted and all the now obsolete agencies shut down, how do you avoid alterations that can harm the basic program such as extra funds for one group or the other, qualifying hurdles that necessitate bureaucracy or political poison pills designed to reduce program effectiveness and make it unpopular.  These are all common tactics of opposition to or exploitation of a law.  Are we really going to assume Congress will be on its best behavior?

What is the economic impact of the above scenario? If someone loses their 50k a year state job overseeing a Federal grant and gets it replaced with 18k a year in guaranteed income, what does that do to a person's purchasing habits?  Extend the personal impact out across several thousand local, state and federal employees affected and how does the economy and job market absorb this level of shock.  All prior experiments happened inside a vacuum, while services were replaced for sample populations with the basic income, the offices that serve all those outside the sample group remained open so there are no data points addressing the systemic change inherent to a Basic Minimum.  Where will tens of thousands of unemployed, skilled white collar workers go?

How is it really being paid for in the long run? Best estimates of cost are always in the short term and rely on a number of broad assumptions.  Building off of above, if my income drops by 30k a year for even a short time I'm not paying nearly as much in income, payroll or social security taxes anymore.  Even in the case of a VAT, if my income drops by 30k, I'm not buying nearly as much. I'm just doing the minimum to get by until I can find work in a suddenly very difficult market. 

I need answers that don't wander into utopian pipe dreams of, "Everyone will rediscover their creative potential and do things that currently have no market demand and cannot be specified at all, but will be super important and everyone will be happy."
« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 02:00:56 PM by gillstone »

Spartana

  • Guest
I would ask for a $20K raise the day it gets implemented with the thought being that 1) I add significant value and 2) I work for the differential in pay between working (current salary) and not working (welfare which I am not eligible if I quit today). If I were to quit now, I would receive zero welfare, if I were to quit under this parallel universe I would receive $20K. It would be like I just got a $20K reduction in pay in my mind.

I wouldn't quit and depend on the government income because I wouldn't feel its right to live off of others without trying to work/build weath and I wouldn't trust that it would go on indefinitely.
But according to this thread, half of the $20K raise you'd ask your employer for would be taken in taxes so your raise would only be $10K. Nice raise but maybe not enough for you to want to spend all your free time at work if you didn't have to.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3693
  • Location: Germany
Does anyone really think this would alleviate poverty?  Seriously?
Depending on how you define poverty:
1. Definitely YES
2. Definitely increasing poverty.

but wealth tax can't be justified on the same grounds as progressive income tax.
Right, the progressive income tax has by far a weaker base. Not excactly on the topic, but a nice one:
http://boingboing.net/2014/07/09/tom-the-dancing-bug-a-formula.html

Quote
Seems to me that a guaranteed income at the poverty threshold wouldn't add much to our current spending and is just a different way of skinning the same cat with a LOT less bureaucracy.
Thats the idea - from the financial point.
In germany social security is ~ 600€ depending on several factors.
Average spanding on social is ~600€.
In most "modern" countries it is just a question of about 10% more which is payed for by burocracy costs.

Quote
The "luddites" and communists have always been wrong,
Only for the "everything" part. But 2/3 of the jobs just 50 years ago are now automated.

Quote
If so would this reduce the cost of Higher Ed, would there be volunteer profs or nearly free accredited colleges staffed by semi-retired experts?
I dont know about the first part (more people would study more things), but I can say from experience the second is true. People love to share wisdom. Ah, by the way: Wikipedia ;) Also Khanacadamy, Duolingo, fold.it - just to name 3 things that volunteers would do that are highly "profitable".