
Basic Income Could Be the Moonshot of Our Generation - imartin2k
http://www.slush.org/news/insight/basic-income-moonshot-generation/
======
mindslight
The real reason to oppose Basic Income isn't based on moralizing about social
programs, but that what it promises is the _exact opposite_ of the net effect
it will have!

I too want a world where people are not on a treadmill that forces them into
wage slavery. But the first step is recognizing that the primary driver of
modern individuals' needing to work is the payment of rent on assets that are
becoming ever-less feasible to purchase outright.

This is the direct result of the past few decades of extreme inflationary
monetary policy. In a time of such technological process, prices should be
steadily _dropping_ at an unprecedented rate. But instead, the Fed actually
has an explicit policy of forcing them to rise, with the _actual professed
goal_ to keep everybody working full time!!

Since new money is created by loaning against specific assets, the newly
created money just ends up bidding up the book-prices of consumer-desired
assets, closing the CPI feedback loop when the rent (interest) has finally
risen enough to take up consumer surplus.

Basic income is thus just an extension of this ongoing policy that naively
_adds to_ this inflationary treadmill - giving everyone in SF $1k/mo will
result in housing rent going up by roughly $1k/mo.

The real solution we need is the _exact opposite_ \- a return to sane monetary
policy where individuals are able to _save_ and able to reasonably _purchase_
assets like houses. The ability to save and build wealth gives people
stability (not worrying about being out of work for a few months) and thus
economic bargaining power to demand higher real wages and fewer working hours.
_This_ is the equilibrium mechanic that will constructively respond to the
need for ever-less work, finally letting wider society see the gains from
increased productivity.

~~~
taurath
How does one save if they don't make money in the first place? There are
plenty of affordable places that you can buy a house at near minimum wage, but
when that minimum wage job goes away there's nothing left.

In my experience, people don't have very much bargaining power even if they
are financially stable, own a home and have savings when a force such as
globalized trade comes through town - there is no bargaining power big enough
to avoid shutting down a plant or a business, or moving it across state or
country lines.

People need income before being able to save, before being able to purchase
assets regardless of their price. Whats more likely is that a factory that
previously paid 400 people $10 an hour would rather pay 20 people $30 an hour,
and that 380 people have no negotiating power.

~~~
mindslight
> _There are plenty of affordable places that you can buy a house at near
> minimum wage, but when that minimum wage job goes away there 's nothing
> left._

So this aspect is orthogonal to what I addressed in my original comment, hence
my example of "$1k/mo to everyone in SF" \- ruling out someone still getting
$1k/mo after leaving SF. Economic feedback most immediately applies to in-
demand housing markets where one can't simply cheaply acquire their own land
and put up their own structure. But these type of concentrated areas _are_
where the bulk of our economic activity is now occurring.

The flip side of this is that if BI were at a national level, there would be a
demand to move to rural areas where land was cheap, to reduce the largest
rent. But since, as you point out, the economic opportunities are quite
limited there such areas would be entirely reliant on BI. This would further
cement the divide between urban "rat racers" and rural poverty, making it
harder for those involuntarily caught in the latter to leave.

> _Whats more likely is that a factory that previously paid 400 people $10 an
> hour would rather pay 20 people $30 an hour, and that 380 people have no
> negotiating power_

BI won't restore those 380 people's negotiating power. Since their labor isn't
demanded, they will effectively become wards of the state. With the economics
I'm talking about, the 20 (40hr) people that are still employed gain
bargaining power as they build liquid wealth. Rather than spending their
entire life working, _they_ demand _fewer_ hours per week which actually
restores demand for the other 380.

This seems less convincing in the context of your extreme example (before all
400 could work 2 hours/week, other factors will start to matter), but the
point is that this is the trend that should have already been happening for
the prior decade instead of overleveraging encouraging sink-or-swim
overworking.

I'm actually not categorically ruling out the idea of BI. It's just that
current calls for it completely ignore any feedback due to our official
economic policy, and are actually just a continuation of the broken policy
that has largely put us in this situation to begin with.

~~~
taurath
> The flip side of this is that if BI were at a national level, there would be
> a demand to move to rural areas where land was cheap, to reduce the largest
> rent. But since, as you point out, the economic opportunities are quite
> limited there such areas would be entirely reliant on BI. This would further
> cement the divide between urban "rat racers" and rural poverty, making it
> harder for those involuntarily caught in the latter to leave.

I'm not so sure myself - if you have nothing but time to pursue whatever it is
that you want to do, would people not spend a lot of that time working on
hobbies and interests? The amount of time that potentially highly productive
people spend performing and just mentally/physically recovering from
menial/dead-end work could be put to much better use. There's no reason with
the internet today that that person couldn't become a rocket scientist despite
living in a cheap area.

Escaping the trap of these cheap rural areas is only difficult for economic
reasons - its harder to save money when almost every bit of the low paying job
goes to rent - you are spending your time spinning your wheels instead of
experimenting, educating yourself or others.

> This seems less convincing in the context of your extreme example (before
> all 400 could work 2 hours/week, other factors will start to matter), but
> the point is that this is the trend that should have already been happening
> for the prior decade instead of overleveraging encouraging sink-or-swim
> overworking.

> I'm actually not categorically ruling out the idea of BI. It's just that
> current calls for it completely ignore any feedback due to our official
> economic policy, and are actually just a continuation of the broken policy
> that has largely put us in this situation to begin with.

Asset inflation would surely happen in some areas, but we'd at least establish
a basic floor. Everything could become higher priced, but it would allow for
more fluidity and risk taking, and much more focus on education and learning.
I feel like it'd be worthwhile to continue to experiment.

------
marcoperaza
I see lots of good arguments for a basic income, and I'm somewhat convinced
that it could do much good, but these questions keep bothering me:

1\. What percent of the population will just take their guaranteed income and
do drugs/play video games/party all day, instead of being ambitious?

2\. What will be the cultural effects of a large segment of the population
living a life devoid of duty and consequences?

3\. Will we allow these overgrown children to vote? And what would they
possibly vote for except a bigger basic income and more freebies? And if you
did restrict the franchise, then what incentive will the franchised class have
to rule for the benefit of the disenfranchised?

4\. Won't this new underclass reproduce much more rapidly than the productive
class? Again, what are the social consequences of this?

5\. How do you reconcile a basic income with open immigration, which we seem
to be moving towards? A basic income in the US would probably be greater than
the yearly income of most _working_ people in the world.

~~~
mordocai
> 5\. How do you reconcile a basic income with open immigration, which we seem
> to be moving towards? A basic income in the US would probably be greater
> than the yearly income of most working people in the world.

Surely only citizens would get basic income? If an immigrant wants it, they'll
have to become a naturalized citizen which takes enough effort that they
probably deserve it.

~~~
marcoperaza
That would make it impossible for immigrants to house and feed themselves,
with the market adapted for everyone making a basic income.

~~~
mordocai
Ideally this wouldn't happen, but with our current amount of regulation you
are probably right that it would happen.

In any case, legal immigrants sound okay to me. Obviously illegal immigrants
aren't going to get it.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
If everybody doesn't get it (the BI) you just create a new indentured class.
Illegal immigrants don't get here without the cooperation of some citizens.
Its an industry. Which will flourish as the gap between laborers and citizens
widens (with a BI)

------
benturbowizard
Isn't this "helicopter money" but regardless if it is or not, why is it
considered a bad thing?

------
vidoc
Seems like over the very last few weeks, a new trendy word popped:'moonshot'.

