[criddell]

> We need to pivot our economic system towards a basic income model.

So putting a floor on what people get each year seems like a pretty good idea. How about a ceiling as well? What's an equitable spread? 10x? 100x? Should the basic income given to residents of Manhattan be 2.5x what people in Wichita get?

[danans]

Basic income isn't intended to pay for luxuries such rent/real-estate in Manhattan. If one wants to live a very high quality of life in a desirable place, one will still have find a way to make enough money to afford that outside of basic income.

The idea is to lift the very bottom of the income distribution, those who are likely to be put out of work first by automation, to a level where they are not plagued by a desperation for basics that causes them to damage themselves and society (i.e. drug abuse, crime). People in that situation already represent a significant cost, both in dealing with the problems, and also in the lost human potential.

The hope is that as automation reduces the cost of a lot of basic consumables (not rent or real estate), fewer people are kept in the aforementioned desperation.

With automation, these consumables will also not vary tremendously in price between Manhattan and Wichita, since the one of the biggest differences in production costs between both places, labor, has been removed from the production costs. Therefore, there would be no need to index BI by location.

Basic income can't solve the problem where automation has effectively removed all human-added value in all jobs. At that point, we'd have to impose more dramatic measures of redistribution, and also come up with new ways of measuring individuals' contributions to the general welfare, and reward them based on that. But I think we're still far away from that.

[iamcurious]

>Should the basic income given to residents of Manhattan be 2.5x what people in Wichita get?

One of the main arguments of basic income, as opposed to unemployment benefits, is to reduce the bureaucracy involved. So the answer would be an empathetic 'no'. Hopefully, having a guaranteed income decoupled from location would push people to populate cheaper places. And thus, rent would get much cheaper overall.

[criddell]

> reduce the bureaucracy involved

Basic income indexed to a geographical cost of living doesn't have to be a big bureaucracy problem. Plus, I think segregating by wealth is a terrible idea.

[unabridged]

Checking that people actually live where they claim requires a big bureaucracy. For 2.5x the money a lot of people would claim to be homeless living in Manhattan.

[iamcurious]

>Basic income indexed to a geographical cost of living doesn't have to be a big bureaucracy problem.

See what unabridged said.

>Plus, I think segregating by wealth is a terrible idea.

Giving people more money because the rent is more expensive where they live equates to giving more money to landlords. That is an even more terrible idea.

Besides, Manhattan isn't that good of a place to live. Specially when you aren't tied to the job market and can take more risks.

[yazaddaruvala]

Governments shouldn't provide money. The ideas behind basic income are to ensure the majority of people are one step higher on the hierarchy of needs.

That said, it would be best for governments to provide free safe housing, heat, sanitation, food, water, communications (fast internet and telephone), medical care (including preventive care through gym memberships and such), and high quality accessible education, certification.

The reason I don't like basic income: while in comparison it's a lot easier to budget, it's also a lot harder to keep up to date, or keep geographically relevant. It's harder to find efficiencies, like Soylent for food or improving gyms, hospitals, schools. Its easily abused, money can buy guns or heroin, it doesn't always get used for food. Meanwhile, food in a world where food is free can only feed you and your family.

[criddell]

> That said, it would be best for governments to provide free safe housing, heat, sanitation, food, water, communications (fast internet and telephone), medical care (including preventive care through gym memberships and such), and high quality accessible education, certification.

That makes a lot of sense.

[JoshTriplett]

> How about a ceiling as well? What's an equitable spread?

In no possible way up to you to decide, thankfully.

It's one thing to say "nobody should go hungry or live on the street"; we could argue about the most efficient way to go about achieving that, but it's not an unreasonable statement. It's quite another thing to say "you're not allowed to be too successful or we'll steal it from you".

[criddell]

It isn't up to me to decide, but as a participant in our democracy, I have a say just like you.

> you're not allowed to be too successful or we'll steal it from you

Well, maybe there wouldn't be a hard ceiling, but I could see the revival of the 90% tax bracket for big earners.

[JoshTriplett]

> Well, maybe there wouldn't be a hard ceiling, but I could see the revival of the 90% tax bracket for big earners.

That's a very entitled, might-makes-right point of view; what gives you the right to do so, other than getting a mob together with enough might?

[criddell]

Again, I have only one vote, just like you. I don't think I have any particular right when it comes to setting policy.

But, if radical redistribution of wealth is wanted by voters, then the population can enact laws to make it happen.

I have no doubt that automation on a scale beyond what most people think is possible (and maybe desirable) is coming. Today, any talk of basic income in the US isn't going to go anywhere. However, at some point enough people are going to be out of work that they will be a big enough voting block that politicians will start restructuring the economy to make those voters happy. I'm not sure I see any other possible outcome.