
Basic Income Means Basic Freedom - samsolomon
http://thoughtinfection.com/2013/12/15/basic-income-means-basic-freedom/
======
kaoD
The money for basic income must come from somewhere, right? I can think of two
choices:

    
    
      1. Creating money from air, thus driving price inflation.
      2. Redistributing income, where the top earners would have to pay for
         the ones which choose to just enjoy their basic income.
    

I haven't really dug into basic income proponents' argument and the article
misses the point (which IMHO is the real important point, of course basic
income would be awesome). How does it hold economically? Inflation or
punishing top performers seem like a really bad idea.

And sociologically... how does it handle the race to the bottom after everyone
realizes work sucks? Where does wealth come from if nobody works?

~~~
jmillikin
Top earners have a strong vested interest in the lowest possible income not
being _too_ low, because starving homeless masses have a negative impact on
property values. The question is not whether to redistribute income, but how
much and by which mechanism. Inflation is income redistribution also,
remember.

The traditional income redistribution systems in the US are social security
(from the young to the old), welfare (from the employed to the unemployed),
and medicare (from the healthy to the unhealthy). The cost of these systems is
$X + $Y + $Z. Costs are inflated by large bureaucracies put in place to
enforce social mores as punitive measures against the poor ("piss in this cup
or you don't get EBT this month"; "EBT is for buying cheez-puffs, not
condoms").

If giving $X + $Y + $Z to everyone in the US would provide them with a better
quality of life, then it makes sense to do that instead of managing separate
programs.

Two significant additional benefits to a basic income are:

1\. It fixes the problem of going from unemployed to employed-at-minimum-wage
resulting in a net decrease in household income. It's a simple observation
that punishing people for getting a job will decrease the total number of
employed adults.

2\. It enables the minimum wage to be much lower than the poverty line. The
nation has collectively decided that an adult working full time should be
entitled to to the basic necessities of life, and the cost of that decision is
that jobs which are worth less than $7.25 simply aren't offered (or are only
offered illegally). If everyone already makes enough to get by, then there's
far fewer ethical problems with paying someone $3 an hour to sweep some floors
or pick up garbage from a sidewalk.

~~~
jswinghammer
Inflation is a redistribution scheme of the poor to the rich and from savings
to spenders.

Life becomes a lot simpler when we just eliminate all these schemes and just
let people solve problems for themselves. This expectation that you can
disrupt the economy in a major way and have the rest of the society stay
static around me is a very serious reasoning error.

~~~
capisce
Should we eliminate taxes, welfare, and universal access to health care too?
Let people starve or suffer if they can't find work?

~~~
baddox
The first sentence, yes. The second sentence, no.

~~~
capisce
You might do well by reading
[http://www.raikoth.net/libertarian.html](http://www.raikoth.net/libertarian.html)

~~~
baddox
It's a rather popular anti-libertarian piece, and I have read it (although
it's been a while).

------
jseliger
_Basic income will serve to reinforce this fabric and enable the risky
ventures that will power us forward in the 21st century._

Maybe. But for an alternative view, see "Four Reasons a Guaranteed Annual
Income Won't Work" ([http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-04/four-reasons-a-
guar...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-04/four-reasons-a-guaranteed-
income-won-t-work.html)) and, although not strictly an alternative view, "What
are some of the biggest problems with a guaranteed annual income?"
([http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-
are-some-of-the-biggest-problems-with-a-guaranteed-annual-income.html)).

As so often happens, the devil is in the implementation and incentive details.

Based on my reading I think a guaranteed annual income is a _good idea_ , but
I'm agnostic on the question of whether a guaranteed annual income would work
in practice.

------
mwc
An economic analysis on a proposed minimum income model for New Zealand:[0]

    
    
      The [basis minimum income] scheme proposed by the Welfare
      Working Group is a significant policy change with large
      economic consequences. The scheme is fiscally very costly
      and would not necessarily achieve its main goal of 
      reducing poverty. The high personal tax rates required to
      fund the scheme are highly distortionary to the labour
      market and to savings and investment decisions, and would 
      be likely to induce a significant behavioural response. 
      This has damaging effects on the tax system and economic 
      growth.
    

Also of importance, from the same report:

    
    
      Although the Gini coefficient improves under all models,
      many beneficiaries (including the disabled, carers and 
      sole parents) currently receive more than $300 per week 
      and would be made financially worse off under a GMI 
      scheme.
    

At a high level, it seems that the economic reality of providing a basic
minimum income to everyone requires a significant increase in taxation
revenue. That might be possible with significantly higher GDP per capita, but
I'm not certain we're there yet.

[0]
[http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Wor...](http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Treasury-
A-Guaranteed-Minimum-Income-for-New-Zealand%20.PDF)

Edit: formatting.

~~~
sliverstorm
_That might be possible with significantly higher GDP per capita_

That's actually a really interesting point. The feasibility of BI is going to
be tied to GDP per capita, as well as cost of living. In a country where GDP-
per-capita is several times cost of living, BI would be relatively easy,
whereas a country where GDP-per-capita is barely above cost of living, BI
would be very difficult (because where do you come up with the money?)

US GDP per capita is about $50k. I'm not sure what cost of living is, but that
definitely isn't a whole lot higher than what is usually accepted as the
threshold to living somewhat comfortably (somewhere around $40k)

Norway, on the other hand, has a USD GDP per capita of ~$100k, so unless cost
of living is much higher, BI may be much more feasible there.

------
ctdonath
I've long observed that the core problem with free open source software is
that there is no incentive to do the small percentage of things which really
do need doing and which nobody has any incentive to do (see the classic
problem of crappy video & audio drivers, among other such issues) short of one
thing: MONEY.

"Basic income" will suffer the same problem. There are things which must get
done, and which nobody will do short of earning money doing it. Give people
that money outright, and nobody will do those jobs for it. Oh, a few people
might pitch in, but nowhere on the scale needed.

BI romanticized the notion that most people will be productive contributors to
society given free coverage of necessities. This is never objectively
quantified in favor of the notion ... which history records various attempts
at, with a great many people suffering horribly in the process of forcing it
to work. Oh, these are always excused as "did it wrong, we'll do it right"
with no objective reason to believe the optimism. Sure, some people will do
good with their free money - but who's gonna do those dirty jobs? not you, you
don't have time for it as you pursue more productive occupations, paying
others to do so you don't have to.

~~~
crdoconnor
>"Basic income" will suffer the same problem. There are things which must get
done, and which nobody will do short of earning money doing it.

Basic income does not mean everybody does their jobs for free.

~~~
ctdonath
Basic income means nobody is in a position where they will do menial work
which nobody else will. Paying more for those jobs means competing with like-
paying jobs of a far more desirable character. You ready for custodial labor
to cost several times more? suddenly employers can't spend nearly as much for
more advanced work because basic sanitation (and other menial but needed work)
is suddenly far more costly.

~~~
glomph
Yes I am ready for that. Wage slavery is wrong if there is a viable
alternative.

~~~
ctdonath
Then triple your custodian's pay already. Nothing's stopping you from doing
the right thing.

------
charlieflowers
In the US (and I presume most 1st world countries), we're pretty thoroughly
(and intentionally) infected with Consumerism.

People who are making $150,000 are not content, and are working 60-hour weeks
to get that raise up to $160,000. And the same thing is happening with people
making $500,000 or $50,000.

All of those salaries produce MORE than enough to live comfortably on. And
many people with a good salary could -- if they so chose -- live on $40,000
and save like crazy, and retire very early (as preached by Mr. Money Mustache
among others).

But ALMOST NO ONE DOES THAT. So what logical basis is there to assume that
Basic Income would change this? Many people already have Basic Income plus a
whole lot more, but they don't pursue a basic secure position. Rather, they
spend all they make (and often more), and they work slavishly to get more
income.

(Is Basic Income meant to help the poor and unemployed ... who don't have the
"good salary" I mention above? If so, I'm all for it, but it seems to me that
if the price of a slum apartment is $300/month before Basic Income, it will
merely be $600/month -- or whatever scale factor it takes to soak up that
extra income -- after it.)

~~~
dllthomas
That's much of the point. If people want to feel useful and most people want
to be paid to feel useful, then only a few will opt out - hopefully in favor
of something that means more to them - leaving space for those who can't
and/or won't.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
Maybe a more palatable way to spinfund basic income / progressive taxing is
not to tax the wealthy but to tax robotics / AI. Increasingly productivity
gains will come from robotics anyway. Taxes like this should have close to the
same effects as progressive taxes but seem less leftist. It would look more
like an evitable human progression to the voter base instead of sneaking
socialism.

------
smokeyj
I'm in favor of free ponies and ice cream. Maybe I should blog about it.

~~~
stefan_kendall
Socialist reductionism always works for me, although never as I expect.

"Health is important. Doctors should be free, right?" \- Yes.

"But what about housing?! People can't just freeze to death. So housing should
be universally free for everyone, right?" \- Yes.

"Clothing is just as important as housing. Clothing?" \- Yes.

"And food? You can't live without food. Universal free food?" \- Yes.

"And without access to technology, you can't get a job, so surely the
government should provide computers and phones. Otherwise people have no
chance of rising out of poverty. Universal technology?" \- Yes.

I'm pretty sure no one has ever gotten the point, and I've only turned half-
hearted socialists into full-blown socialists. Oh well.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
Yes, yes, no because clothing is affordable and not gone after a single use,
yes, no but internet should be a utility and libraries should have computers
available. Am I too socialist?

------
downandout
The primary issue with our economy is that each dollar one has makes it easier
to obtain the next dollar. If you play that out to its only possible
conclusion, you wind up with all of the money in very few hands. Somehow, that
money has to go back into circulation, in the form of loans, grants, charity,
salaries, etc. or our economy simply won't be an economy anymore.

It has never been the role of government in a capitalist society to hand out
money, nor should it be. Government's role is to create a legislative
structure that incentivizes behavior that leads to a healthy economy and
society. If we have a problem with the stockpiling of wealth, then we need to
craft new laws that disincentivize that behavior. Something needs to change,
but it doesn't involve firing up the money presses.

~~~
gnaritas
Governments role is whatever its citizens decide it should be. There are no
absolute rules. Every generation makes that decision for themselves.

------
orionblastar
First off I myself am on disability, not by choice but because I became
mentally ill due to the stress I was under at my job. Startup burnout or
whatever.

Secondly, I'd much rather be working a job than be on disability, but I wasn't
given a choice because my doctors had ordered it. I wasn't given a choice
because employers discriminated against me for my disability/mental illness
and either called me 'overqualified' or refused to hire me or only hired me to
fix things and then fire me when the things are fixed.

I've been trying to do my own startup since 2002 when I lost my last job. No
money for me anywhere. I would have less stress with my own small business and
small circle of clients than in a large greedy megacorpration that cares more
about profits at any cost than people or anything else.

I think instead of basic income, we should give money to the small business
administration to give people lessons in business management and programming
or whatever to do their own startups. The SBA has a lot of volunteers who can
mentor people into starting up a successful business. The real problem for
people down on their luck like me is finding the money to do a startup while
on disability or little or no income.

I read articles about giving some random homeless guy money and programming
training, and then he has an app in the app store for iPhones. Why don't we
just do that for all of the poor people out there? Everyone can write their
own app, get training and support, and get some startup funding and see if it
works out they can have their own small business. If not, well at least you
tried.

This basic income is not freedom, it is slavery to force one out of the market
and no longer be productive or do anything for society. I can just see people
dropping out of high school in large numbers to stay at home with their
parents, avoid taking a job, just apply for basic income and get that low
income AT&T DSL Internet for $15/month and play video games on a cheap PC or
used Playstation or used XBox for the rest of their lives and never contribute
anything for the betterment their lives and help out others.

Altruism is great, but most of it is fake altruism for attention or good PR or
to pay for past sins of getting rich at the expense of others and make a
foundation that does charitable things that buys products from their
businesses and provides a tax shelter and then gives them awards. True
altruism is doing things to help out others, and mentor them, and teach them
to become better and also help out others and keep passing it on, with no
personal rewards and no good PR and no attention, just doing it for the
empathy and compassion. But so few people do true altruism these days, only
the fake altruism.

I think that it takes more than to just give someone money as a basic income,
you need to give them an education, train them, mentor them, help them reach a
level of success so they can become independent and then in turn help out
others to do the same as people once helped them.

~~~
dllthomas
_" I read articles about giving some random homeless guy money and programming
training, and then he has an app in the app store for iPhones. Why don't we
just do that for all of the poor people out there? Everyone can write their
own app, get training and support, and get some startup funding and see if it
works out they can have their own small business. If not, well at least you
tried."_

Because it makes the already super competitive field of app writing
_artificially_ even more super competitive, and probably doesn't add as much
good to the world as the same people could elsewhere, and probably doesn't
actually make these people enough money to do much (plausibly not even
survive, absent other supports).

~~~
orionblastar
Well how else can we help others to earn money in order to survive?

~~~
dllthomas
Well, we can train for something we know there is excess demand for, but that
involves picking winners, and the people who are great at that don't usually
work in government bureaucracy (and only occasionally work in charity).

Another approach is to ask people in less need of paid work to make room - a
low Basic Income has that effect: as some people leave the workforce to focus
on unpaid activities (child rearing, volunteering, art, educating themselves),
this leaves more jobs available for those who need them.

------
xname
Obviously, 21 is a magic number, all the proposals in the article are simply
based on "the 21st century".

Because it is the 21st century, so freedom is free. Done.

~~~
zxcdw
Because this will be the century when AI and robotics(automation) can be more
cost-effective than a _" big enough"_ proportition of human labour. What this
means, is that at some point it is simply better to invest in
machinery(automation) than employment.

Eventually AI will surpass human capabilities in every domain where any sort
of intelligence matters. It's inevitable, given exponential progress. Whether
that "eventually" is next decade or next century is irrelevant(or whether it's
a tailored weak AI or an universal true strong AI) -- what is relevant is that
aforementioned _" big enough"_ proportition of people, and AI(and automation)
will surpass them well enough to be competitive against humans _far_ sooner.

Somebody has to deal with this, somehow. Basic income guarante could be a
solution -- automation can produce enough for people to live off well enough.

~~~
xname
The author's argument is now, not "eventually".

------
yc-kjh
The author is an economic idiot.

Socialism and Communism fail every time they are tried. Every time.

[http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3095028/posts](http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3095028/posts)

Read Bradford’s description (in the article linked above) about what socialism
did to the Pilgrims: it created poverty, envy, and slothfulness. Many of them
_died_ as a result. Prosperity only returned when they re-introduced private
property.

I suspect the author is well meaning, but he is ignorant. His "solution" will
create misery. I hope he educates himself, then changes his mind.

~~~
legutierr
Basic Income is not Communism. Communism is state control of the means of
production, and centralized planning of the entire economy.

Whether Basic Income is Socialism depends on your definition of Socialism. If
you go by the definition found on wikipedia, which I think is pretty standard,
BI is not Socialism either. [1]

Basic Income is redistributive, but so is the US tax system, as it has been
for nearly 100 years. It is a more aggressive and explicit redistribution
scheme, but it is not of an entirely dissimilar nature, nor is it incompatible
with free-market capitalism.

So regardless of one's opinion of Socialism and Communism, whether or not
socialism and communism typically fail has no bearing on whether a basic
income would be successful, because they are different things.

However, when you say:

> Socialism and Communism fail every time they are tried. Every time.

You should consider that the vast majority of the world's large economies are
described as "mixed economies" that combine elements of socialism and laissez
faire capitalism. Many, if not most of these have been mixed--combining
Socialist and Capitalist policies in one way or another--for decades, if not
for more than a century. So, unless you are going to assert that the modern
economic order is a "failure", I think you should rethink this sentiment.

> The author is an economic idiot.

Strong words probably not best used in this situation.

If "redistribution" of economic surplus (i.e. profit/income) is a feature of
Communism and Socialism, it is not the most important feature of these
ideologies, which concern themselves with limiting or eliminating private
property.

In fact, I would assert that redistribution is a specifically _Capitalist_
response to the Socialist critique of private property and markets: it is a
way to reduce economic injustice by focusing entirely on the distribution of
surplus, while leaving private property at the core of the economic system,
and while also relying on markets to determine prices and the appropriate
allocation of investment.

[1] "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the
means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

~~~
adventured
"You should consider that the vast majority of the world's large economies are
described as "mixed economies" that combine elements of socialism and laissez
faire capitalism."

This explains nicely why the world economy is collapsing in a heap of failed
Keynesian (aka Socialist) policies and endless mountains of debt that can't be
repaid under any circumstances. From Japan's rapidly collapsing economy (so
bankrupt all they have left is to print their currency to oblivion), to
America's bankruptcy (doesn't even need explanation), to China's bankruptcy
(endless rounds of stimulus, requiring ever more stimulus to get the same fake
GDP growth, corporate debt larger than GDP, and several times their sovereign
fund, and 40% of their GDP going to just paying against debt), to the
implosion of countries such as Greece / Spain / Portugal / France / Italy, all
of which are being propped up temporarily by a central banking printing
bonanza that is destroying standards of living.

I'm not aware of major mixed economies that possess any meaningful amounts of
laissez-faire Capitalism. Japan, US, China, Britain, India, Germany, Mexico,
Brazil, Canada, Italy, Australia, South Korea, Russia (aka the largest
economies in the world) possess approximately zero laissez-faire Capitalism in
their respective economies. I'd challenge someone to produce a major industry
in any one of those countries that is actually completely unregulated by the
state and untaxed (both of which are requirements of hands-off Capitalism); or
even examples of zero regulation with very little taxation, as the US had in
the 19th century.

Internet, steel, building, manufacturing, energy in general, oil, nuclear,
automobiles, railroads, telecom, commodities, housing, banking / finance ---
where's the laissez-faire, aka completely unregulated, again? Doesn't exist.

~~~
legutierr
Your response is largely a red herring. The primary point of my post was to
say that Basic Income has nothing to do with Socialism.

I was not asserting that the way that mixed economies work today is ideal or
even desirable. However, I was asserting that these economies have been
largely successful, which it seems you disagree with. However, that's really
beside the point.

I used the term "laissez-faire Capitalism" to describe Capitalism in its pure
form, not to say that it is found in mixed economies per se. Maybe I should
have just said "Capitalism." Again, I don't think it makes a difference.

