[Sir_Substance]

>The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream.

I've always felt that this argument against basic minimum income said more about the arguer than society at large. In my experience, everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work.

[dagw]

everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work.

For many people that project is to watch their favorite TV shows while eating their favorite ice cream.

[onion2k]

No it isn't. That isn't their personal project. That's all they have the choice of doing. Most people do those things because they're tired after working hard all day for a wage that doesn't give them enough money to do anything but sit in front of the television. If people had the opportunity to work a bit less in their job so they could do something worthwhile and fulfilling in their spare time, most people would take that choice.

Just look at people who inherit or win large sums of money - a few of them end up just enjoying themselves, but most use the money to follow a cause that they think is something worthwhile. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true (on a smaller scale) for a minimum income.

[TeMPOraL]

Exactly this. After 8h+ of work for little pay, 2h of commute, doing dishes, dinner and cleaning up, you'll have little energy to do anything creative and constructive. Grabbing a beer and turning on TV is a way to relax before turning in and beginning another day of work. I don't know of a person who doesn't have dreams, hobbies, things to do and create. Many just put it off until they can buy a house, until they can have children, until they can give children education, until they retire...

[goldfeld]

I think it's even more than necessarily being tired: people who struggle to get by are in a constant state of alert and stress that precludes developing their creative dreams (they will have them, but can't advance on them). When you're stressed you'll turn to addictions to relieve yourself: chocolate, TV, MJ, and some will even become workaholics through some basal twisted work ethic.

[TeMPOraL]

That's true, and I know this from first-hand experience. Having an unstable financial situation, constant worrying about how to support 4 people and pay off debts pretty much shuts down your ability to do anything creative. It didn't stop me from having ideas, it didn't even stop me from starting to work on them - but it always stopped me from advancing on them - either because lack of money for required components, or being too stressed out worrying to focus on doing the theoretical/software work. So in the end I ended up opting for watching stuff and reading books as a way to tune down before another day of struggle.

And yes, I am a programmer. You can end up in shit as one too. I made some bad work choices before and ended up pretty much not being paid for half a year.

[goldfeld]

I think especially because us programmers can get high salaries early on, divorced from both having to save and from the experience of handling money well, we can fall hard. I also speak from personal experience :)/:(

[just_had_tea]

I wish there was a translation of this article into English: https://decorrespondent.nl/511/waarom-arme-mensen-domme-ding...

Basically, the argument is that "poor people do stupid stuff" because their "intelligence bandwidth" is being sucked up by worry about where to find the next meal/rental payment/etc. leaving no brainpower for what we well-off and spoilt folk would call "constructive pursuits".

[mattchew]

> Just look at people who inherit or win large sums of money - a few of them end up just enjoying themselves, but most use the money to follow a cause that they think is something worthwhile.

Can you link to the source you're talking about? I'd like to know more about what you're referring to.

[paulhauggis]

"a few of them end up just enjoying themselves"

The studies about people that win money that I've seen paint a different picture: 75% lose it all within 5 years by not spending wisely. It's the same with professional sports players and it's gotten so bad, they have started getting them mandatory professional money managers. I believe there is a Netflix documentary about it called "broke".

People that inherit money also end up losing their money at crazy rates unless they already had good money management skills/work for a living/were taught these skills by their parents.

I don't see how this would be any different with a basic income. Not to mention the inflation caused by it. For starters, all businesses will have their prices raised automatically to pay for the new taxes imposed on them.

In the very beginning, it might be okay in terms of economics. However, as the years go on, more and more people will start relying on this basic income and we will have entire generations of people depending on it to live.

Costs will only increase and there will be less people actually contributing to the tax base, so the only way to continue to pay for it is tax increases on the middle class and everyone else making a living. It's basically just another wealth transfer scheme to people that never earned it.

The sad fact is that the vast majority of people never really appreciate things they haven't earned and although a basic income sounds nice in theory, it's a flawed idea that is doomed to fail.

[chimprich]

With all due respect, I think you're really confusing two arguments here; that of wealth distribution and the concept of basic income.

The idea of a basic income does not imply a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the poor or indeed anyone. You could set up a basic income system tomorrow in your country of choice and set the level of basic income and tax levels so that everyone, at least in the beginning, was receiving the same amount of cash they were before.

One advantage of the idea is that the poor would be more likely to find work because the marginal reward is so much better, leading to more wealth overall and sharing out the tax burden more. At least in theory.

[paulhauggis]

"With all due respect, I think you're really confusing two arguments here; that of wealth distribution and the concept of basic income."

With all due respect, you are only thinking about basic income at step 1. I laid out what will happen at step 10..which is essentially a wealth distribution system.

"You could set up a basic income system tomorrow in your country of choice and set the level of basic income and tax levels so that everyone, at least in the beginning, was receiving the same amount of cash they were before."

Where do you think the money comes from to support a basic income? Who do you think pays for it?

"One advantage of the idea is that the poor would be more likely to find work because the marginal reward is so much better"

How so? Many poor people will be content with not finding work and just living on basic income. Minimum wage will also need to be well above what they are getting from the government, further contributing to inflation.

"leading to more wealth overall and sharing out the tax burden more. At least in theory."

You are only looking at it from one very small part of it.

[gregjwild]

> In the very beginning, it might be okay in terms of economics. However, as the years go on, more and more people will start relying on this basic income and we will have entire generations of people depending on it to live.

The problem here is the rate of job automation vs. job creation right now. There's a lot of indicators suggesting we're reaching - or have reached - the tipping point here. We need a strategy for giving people breathing space to adapt to job destruction. That might be a basic income, or a government backed re-training program perhaps. But the latter supposes that there are enough jobs to go for when they re-train. And the one big growth area, IT, is really limited to those with some some degree of innate talent. Think about all those truckers and taxi drivers who are going to see their jobs eliminated by maybe 2030.

[tormeh]

I know one single person like that. Wanting this is very rare and is a symptom of mental illness. Most people want to be proud of something. Granted, MacDonald's will have problems finding workers, but is that so bad?

Living in Norway it is perfectly possible to slack off on the taxpayers' bill if you want to, but society doesn't collapse. People would rather avoid the low status associated with living on the dole than avoid work.

[mierek4ever]

Norway is extremely different than for example US. With all due respect, I'm sorry, I can't see Norwegians happily supporting social programs if they are mostly designed to help immigrants. US is immigration based. What about Norway consisting in 15-20% of Blacks, than the other 80% coming from all over the world. I believe that about 75% of all Americans are immigrants, their children, or their grandchildren. Would you not mind supporting Latinos, Blacks, Poles, Russians, Germans, Brits, Indians, Pakistanis, and whoever else is there in this pot?

I think in Norway it would end up with much worse results than in the US. I think Norwegians in this case would vote for some kind of nazi stuff. It's enough for you to have a few immigrants here and there to become extreme right.

So, please don't compare and don't think you are any better. You are not.

[rhizome31]

I don't think the point was saying that Norway is better than the US. The point was saying that in Norway, it's already possible to live with tax payers money, but most people choose to work. So based on the assumption that US people are as good as Norwegians, most US people would still choose to work even if they didn't have to.

[vidarh]

> It's enough for you to have a few immigrants here and there to become extreme right.

If you refer to the current government, consider that the junior partner in the current government that is considered "extreme right" by Norwegian standards would mostly be Democrats by US standards. E.g. a substantial proportion of them are in favour of continuing most of a welfare system that would get even many Democrats in hysterics over socialism.

By Norwegian standards, the majority of the US Congress is "extreme right" and threatening "US conditions" is a well established way of scaring people.

[just_had_tea]

...in which we learn the real reason you're against UBI—dirty immigrants.

I really fail to see how this can be anything other than an argument for more fair/equal wealth distribution in the world. If most countries had similar schemes, then why would the "good for nothing immigrants" go to supposedly scrounge in the US?

[anticon]

If we redistributed wealth around the world, everyone would be poor, unable to start companies, etc etc. Does that really solve anything useful?

You do realise that if you redistributed wealth over the world, you would be drastically worse off don't you...

[nekopa]

If all the world wealth was distributed to everyone on the planet, we'd all get about $51,000.

I'd be drastically better off.

[jchrisa]

You can take all our money, we'd still have plumbing, fiber, and college degrees.

[tiatia]

Mate, "The one who speaks the truth needs a fast horse." (Chinese Proverb).

Don't "overunderstimate" the reason of the average reader here and don't be discouraged by the down vote.

"Zwei mal drei macht vier, widewidewitt und drei macht neune, ich mach mir die Welt, widewide wie sie mir gefällt."

[anon4]

If everyone is equally worse off, won't it lead to lower prices?

[s73v3r]

That's a lie and you know it. Isn't the refrain parroted here all the time something about bootstrapping your own company? Self funding and all that? While a couple people like you might throw a tantrum and decide not to participate, I imagine there would be 5x that many in poorer places in the world who would be able to more than make up for it and start amazing companies.

[icebraining]

It's less socially destructive than many of the jobs I know.

[s73v3r]

No it's not. That's what they do to try and escape the stress from having a shitty job. Which they have to do in order to have a roof over their heads.

[verinus]

and my take on people arguing for basic minimum income have not understood the human nature.

communism was doomed from the beginning as they were removing all incentives to do something useful in the long therm.

[TeMPOraL]

Human nature is people wanting to reap rewards for their work (that includes having private property). UBI doesn't take away that.

Speaking of "removing all incentives to do something useful in the long term", this is what capitalism does today. There aren't many businesses or even people caring about long-term in their lives, because you have to pay your rent next month, you have to be competitive today, you have to reach your company's quarterly goals, etc. Competition makes things inherently short-term. UBI is a way to remove some of the pressure from general population, so you'd have an option to say "fuck it, I'm gonna do something for long-term payoff" and not starve in the process.

[koonsolo]

> Human nature is people wanting to reap rewards for their work (that includes having private property). UBI doesn't take away that.

How are you going to pay for UBI? With taxes. If you already receive a tax free UBI, this means the percentage of taxes on your extra income will drastically increase (with factors, not percentages). This means that when you work for someone else (sell your time/products), only a tiny percentage will go into your pocket.

If daycare of your child costs $500, and your full-time job gets you $500, how many people in this situation will drop their job and become a stay at home parents?

[splawn]

Good point! More stay at home parents is another benefit of BI that I haven't even thought of yet. I get more sold on this idea the more I read about it.

[koonsolo]

Who is going to pick up the trash, bake bread, repair your car, build your house, build streets, build cars on an assembly line? Less and less people. And less people producing, means less people consuming. Your BI won't be able to support you for very long because prices will increase (less supply). It won't take long before your economy is screwed.

[splawn]

I thought BI was mainly a response to the question "What will we do when most menial jobs are automated with better AI?". Tech that could pick up trash, bake bread, repair your car (If owning a car even makes since at that point in the future).. etc. Honestly its all speculation right now. I think its cool that they are doing this experiment right now, but they may be jumping the gun. However, I also think its jumping the gun to assume it will never work.

[dtech]

There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income).

The second doesn't disincentivize working, as you still get increased rewards if you work or work harder.

* Unless you are in a position of power of course, then you deserve more.

[vidarh]

> There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism)

Everyone getting exactly the same regardless of merit has nothing to do with communism. So much so that Marx spent a lot of time criticising this idea and tearing it totally apart whenever someone raised it (Critique of the Gotha Programme has a substantial section on this subject).

[xienze]

> and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income).

You realize that basic income will just become another campaign promise to secure votes, right? Couple that with "I can barely live on my basic income!" sob stories and we'll quickly find that basic income won't be so "basic" given enough time.

[anticon]

Seriously? Do you not think you're in a bubble of 1%ers? Most people aren't itching to start a company you know... Most want to watch American Idol and do nothing.

[wubwubwub]

Why does everything have to be an extreme at each end of the spectrum? Either starting companies or doing nothing?

I'd like to believe, possibly naively, that for a lot of people there would be a middle ground. Spending their time on personal growth, creative pursuits, general fitness and well being. In essence, living well.

Just because you're not attempting to start the next social media, it doesn't automatically mean that you have no other interests or internal framework for living.

[Loughla]

That's exactly what would happen. Many people would transition to part-time jobs to spend time with their families/friends/volunteer or civic organizations they are already involved in.

You can see it when an 'Average Joe' gets a windfall. Anecdotal evidence is all I have, but having observed several people inherit money from older relatives who have passed, the general first focus is on creating free time to spend with family and friends. Then they focus on those organizations they are already involved in. Then they focus on fun nonsense like large TV's and dumb cars.

[rorykoehler]

Listen bra, if you're not crushing it you ain't worth .

Welcome to the hyper-individualist bro culture based around status and money. The self-worth crutches for people with low self-esteem/ huge uncontrollable egos.

[TeMPOraL]

There are also a lot of things that can and need to be done for others (as opposed to personal growth, general fitness, etc.) that don't make sense as companies, or that are perverted beyond recognition when exposed to market pressures. Starting a company is one of many ways of doing things useful to the public, but not the only one.

[merijnv]

Who says it has to be a company? How about that guy that wants make music but doesn't have the time to practice due to work. The girl that wants to paint, but is to tired after work.

Why does everything have to be about companies and money? Can't you really imagine any useful social, artistic, or other things these "dumb, lazy" people might want to invest their time into? How about just being a stay at home parent and investing more time in their kids? Do you really think society would not improve from any of these things?

[TeMPOraL]

How about science or engineering? Imagine how it would be if scientists actually had time to read papers in their field, perform experiments and pursue some research goals, instead of cranking paper after paper in order to stay employed?

What about all those social projects that people want to do, but don't have time to really support?

[knodi123]

> Imagine how it would be if scientists actually had time to read papers in their field, perform experiments and pursue some research goals

That's part of the reason why most scientists before the 1900s were wealthy men from the upper class.

[anticon]

So you want to spend £240 billion pounds, twice the NHS budget in the UK, on helping struggling artists?

[merijnv]

Struggling everyone. Why the hell is some bank CEO making several hundred million a year and we have people that can't even reliably be home in the evening to tuck their kids in because they're working 5 jobs. I'm all for taxing high-end income (coporate and private) even more to pay for this.

Why would everyone need to work anyway? It's not tenable. A few more years/decades and we'll have automated so much it'll be impossible to actually employ everyone. So unless you suggest we let everyone who is in a now obsolete field starve, I suggest we start thinking of how we're going to manage a society where it's just impossible for everyone to work.

EDIT: Also, where's this 240 billion figure coming from?

[anticon]

The level of koolaid here is just too large a mountain to attempt to scale.

Automation will just move a few jobs around, like it always has done. And yes - we don't need jobs. But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money.

[merijnv]

> But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money.

Why not?

[robmcm]

The irony that you chose American Idol as the TV show is delightful. It's a prime example of people often from impoverished background trying to better them selves rather than sitting around doing nothing :)

[notahacker]

Alternatively you could interpret American Idol as people spending one day a year pursuing an unlikely dream of lavish wealth before going back to the couch to see how the few contestants that made it through get on :)

I'm not sure "practising for reality TV shows" falls into the category of self-actualisation I'm particularly keen to uproot the economy as we know it to fund.

[s73v3r]

Wouldn't that be similar to startup culture, though?

[celticninja]

I think you need to define most. Where is your sample data? You have a biased opinion and you are sticking to it it seems.

[s73v3r]

The more I read your posts, the more I imagine you're just someone who's scared that they won't be able to have a bunch of employees paid minimum wage at his beck and call, that he can treat however he wants because they're dependent on him for a job.