Sure, but employees could threaten to quit their job. Anyway, how much money is currently locked as strike funds?
If threatening employers with the words “We’ll quit” is all that’s needed, then why do employees bother with strikes in the first place? Action gives power to words. As for your (rhetorical?) question, I’m not sure I follow. Non-unionized employees certainly don’t have a strike fund.
that could be dealt with subsidies specifically targeted at startups.
Hackers’ hobbies and experimentation technically don’t count as startups, even though they can lead to official companies in due time. Basic income can help support such experimentation. Furthermore, subsidies targeted specifically to startups can be opposed by established businesses as government meddling.
The same endowment effect applies to taxes which affect most of the population. When the government proposes tax raises there is always some opposition, but this doesn’t prevent tax raises from occurring from time to time.
When an average American interviews for a job, which of the two is more likely on his mind: the wage, or the tax implications of the new job? Tax reformers face the uphill battle of a public perplexed by the complexity of taxation, as well those who feel protected from tax increases via possible deductions and loopholes. By contrast, an income stream is an easier thing to grasp. If everyone is given this income stream, any attempts to cut this income stream won’t be met with “some opposition.” It will be met with widespread opposition.
If the government started to give money to everybody who turns 18 and doesn’t work I suppose that people would tend to notice
But your “lazy-only”… I mean, “unemployed-only” solution won’t fly because it will be demonized in the manner that you demonize SNAP here:
Food stamps are considered something extremely low status which only the filthy poor and social parasites would ever accept. Most people don’t care about the issue except as a social cost.
Basic income does not actively discourage work. Instead, it gives people leverage to choose their work if they so desire. Yes, I agree it is, to put it mildly, optimistic to expect adoption of basic income in the near future. However, I’m in it for the long-run.… unless, of course, someone convinces me that basic income is a bad idea. You’re currently not succeeding in this regard.
If threatening employers with the words “We’ll quit” is all that’s needed, then why do employees bother with strikes in the first place?
Because they would be in serious troubles if they quit and don’t have another form of income.
Hackers’ hobbies and experimentation technically don’t count as startups, even though they can lead to official companies in due time. Basic income can help support such experimentation. Furthermore, subsidies targeted specifically to startups can be opposed by established businesses as government meddling.
So either these hackers are unemployed, therefore they would be getting unemployment benefits if they existed, or they are employed, hence they can fund themselves with their salary. Until they can find an investor, of course.
But your “lazy-only”… I mean, “unemployed-only” solution won’t fly because it will be demonized in the manner that you demonize SNAP here:
Nope. Cash from unemployment benefit is indistinguishable from cash from another form of income, unlike food stamps which automatically signal you as “poor” any time you use them to buy something.
Whereas many SNAP recipients actually are employed, your “unemployed-only” solution actively discourages work.
Not any more than basic income does.
Appeal to ridicule ----- (earlier this year) ----- So cryonics induces people to commit suicide. Nice.
Off topic.
Appeal to authority
You are not helping to keep the level of this discussion high.
Back from my Thanksgiving break. Delighted to see another turkey.
Because they would be in serious troubles if they quit and don’t have another form of income.
So what you’re saying is that your “unemployed-only” solution will make the words “We’ll quit” into a more credible threat, and employers will meet their demands because employers are too stupid to call their bluff? You do recognize there are benefits to being employed other than the wage, right? Health care, networking, friends, knowledge, experience, etc? And, as I suggested before, what if the employees are paid well above your “unemployed-only” solution but wish to strike for shorter hours or a safer workplace?
My great-grandfather was on the receiving end of a strike in 1940, and he lasted for two months without blinking an eye. If you tried your simple threat of “We’ll quit and go live off the benefits” on him, it would have come across like this scene from Cable Guy.
they would be getting unemployment benefits if they existed
One of my contentions is that basic income has a much better chance of coming into existence than your solution, although I’ll hedge this notion with Milton Friedman’s Negative Income Tax discussed below.
Nope. Cash from unemployment benefit is indistinguishable from cash from another form of income, unlike food stamps which automatically signal you as “poor” any time you use them to buy something.
Nope. We’re not talking about signalling “I’m poor” to the cashier at the supermarket. We’re talking at the level of policy. You know, Washington D.C. and all that. By the way, maybe you should have looked at a SNAP card before going all scarlet letter on me. Look at this mountain of shame. And here’s a film about the people who carry such cards. Maybe the film will help you stop calling them “filthy poor and social parasites.” Even Tyler Cowen praises SNAP.
Not any more than basic income does.
Randomized control trials (here’s one for example) indicate that basic income encourages work. RCTs often inspire hipster cynics to complain: “Oh, they continued working just because they knew the RCT would end. If you guaranteed them basic income for life, they would quit their jobs.” Of course, such complaints are merely handwaving, unlike the empirical evidence just presented.
Are there any RCTs for your idea? If no, why? As it turns out, the Negative Income Tax RCTs decades ago were probably the closest to your idea, since it tapers off as you earn more (similar to Viliam_Bur’s suggestion in this thread). The results inspired mixed reactions, with many critics claiming a drop in labor. This paper tries to sort out the mess.
Jodie T. Allen of the Nixon administration dealt with the NIT RCTs firsthand, and she immediately noticed some practical problems. For example, just like the EITC today mistakenly gives out billions of dollars to technically ineligible recipients, the NIT will probably mistakenly give out many billions more and turn the IRS into an even bigger bureaucracy as it deals with millions of ever-changing recipients. You seem quite naive to such administrative issues, per your professed belief to Viliam_Bur:
The bureaucratic hassles could be reduced to virtually zero if the government keeps track of who is employed and who isn’t. Yes, there is a risk of fraud: people could work without declaring it (with the complicity of their employers if any) and earn both their wage and the benefits. The judicial system can deal with that. I have no idea what I’m talking about.
As I’ve stated before, basic income has its implementation problems. But it’s nowhere near the level of complexity of your idea, which you insist is not that complex, because you haven’t spent much time actually thinking about it. This brings me to my main complaint against you.
Off topic. You are not helping to keep the level of this discussion high.
On topic, because I’m actually the one keeping the level of this discussion high, just like in past encounters. See, when I pointed you to this article last year, I discovered that you didn’t actually read it, and you went right back to ridiculing cryonics advocates. Then when you gave this half-assed one-liner above, I realized you probably do this with every subject. Just to double-check, I provided more links. As far as I can tell, the only ones you click on are the ones you judge to be an assault to your character, because those links are easier to process. So tell me: why should I continue to provide links if all you’re going to do is respond with half-assed one-liners? The only link you’ve provided thus far is an off-topic Wikipedia entry.
I understand you may be pressed for time, so instead of inefficiently talking past each other, let’s just exchange some links to books of our respective ideas. I’ll go first: here’s a huge anthology of Basic Income research. Your turn.
So what you’re saying is that your “unemployed-only” solution will make the words “We’ll quit” into a more credible threat, and employers will meet their demands because employers are too stupid to call their bluff?
If a single employee threats to quit, it’s not credible, just like if he or she threats to strike. If they many employees threat to quit, and they have the means to support themselves without a job, then the threat is credible.
You do recognize there are benefits to being employed other than the wage, right? Health care, networking, friends, knowledge, experience, etc?
If health care isn’t free then it should be at least included in the unemplyment benefits. The other stuff are real benefits, but they aren’t necessarily decisive to make the threat empty.
And, as I suggested before, what if the employees are paid well above your “unemployed-only” solution but wish to strike for shorter hours or a safer workplace?
If they are payed well above the unemployment wage then they can afford to strike. And basic income wouldn’t make much differnce to them anyway. You are making up increasingly contrived scenarios.
Nope. We’re not talking about signalling “I’m poor” to the cashier at the supermarket. We’re talking at the level of policy. You know, Washington D.C. and all that. By the way, maybe you should have looked at a SNAP card before going all scarlet letter on me. Look at this mountain of shame. And here’s a film about the people who carry such cards. Maybe the film will help you stop calling them “filthy poor and social parasites.” Even Tyler Cowen praises SNAP.
What is your point? Are you going to argue that food stamps are not low-status?
Randomized control trials (here’s one for example) indicate that basic income encourages work.
So if you give starving people cash, then maybe they don’t starve and improve their condition. How surprising...
Are there any RCTs for your idea? If no, why? As it turns out, the Negative Income Tax RCTs decades ago were probably the closest to your idea, since it tapers off as you earn more (similar to Viliam_Bur’s suggestion in this thread). The results inspired mixed reactions, with many critics claiming a drop in labor.
These weren’t unemployment benefits, but anyway it’s unsurprising that giving away money, in whathever way, reduces incentive to work.
As I’ve stated before, basic income has its implementation problems. But it’s nowhere near the level of complexity of your idea, which you insist is not that complex, because you haven’t spent much time actually thinking about it. This brings me to my main complaint against you.
Oh, come on. If the government can collect taxes, then it knows how much each of its citizen makes, with the exception of criminals, who face the risk of legal prosecution. Yes, unemployment benefits would have implementation costs. Still, these costs are probably less than the costs of the subsidy to Walmart, McDonald’s, et al. that basic income would impose on the government.
On topic, because I’m actually the one keeping the level of this discussion high, just like in past encounters. See, when I pointed you to this article last year, I discovered that you didn’t actually read it, and you went right back to ridiculing cryonics advocates.
A desperate person forfeiting the last months of her short life by starving herself to death, for a most likely misguided hope in a pseudoscientific and quite prossibly fraudulent procedure is not something I would call ridiculous. “Tragic” seems a much more appropriate description.
Anyway, you are arguing ad hominem. Just to give you a taste of your own medicine, if I were to lower myself to the this level of discourse I could say that since you buy into cryonics, which is bunk, then your general ability to form rational judgments on any topic is probably deficient, therefore you are probably wrong on basic income. I suppose that this would make sense from a Bayesian point of view. But that would be an ad hominem, hence I’m not going to make that argument.
I understand you may be pressed for time, so instead of inefficiently talking past each other, let’s just exchange some links to books of our respective ideas. I’ll go first: here’s a huge anthology of Basic Income research. Your turn.
Here’s another Wikipedia entry. Search “Argument by verbosity”.
If threatening employers with the words “We’ll quit” is all that’s needed, then why do employees bother with strikes in the first place? Action gives power to words. As for your (rhetorical?) question, I’m not sure I follow. Non-unionized employees certainly don’t have a strike fund.
Hackers’ hobbies and experimentation technically don’t count as startups, even though they can lead to official companies in due time. Basic income can help support such experimentation. Furthermore, subsidies targeted specifically to startups can be opposed by established businesses as government meddling.
When an average American interviews for a job, which of the two is more likely on his mind: the wage, or the tax implications of the new job? Tax reformers face the uphill battle of a public perplexed by the complexity of taxation, as well those who feel protected from tax increases via possible deductions and loopholes. By contrast, an income stream is an easier thing to grasp. If everyone is given this income stream, any attempts to cut this income stream won’t be met with “some opposition.” It will be met with widespread opposition.
But your “lazy-only”… I mean, “unemployed-only” solution won’t fly because it will be demonized in the manner that you demonize SNAP here:
Whereas many SNAP recipients actually are employed, your “unemployed-only” solution actively discourages work. Therefore, your belief that the problems of targeted welfare “could be reduced to the point of irrelevance” seem, to put it mildly, a bit optimistic to me.
Basic income does not actively discourage work. Instead, it gives people leverage to choose their work if they so desire. Yes, I agree it is, to put it mildly, optimistic to expect adoption of basic income in the near future. However, I’m in it for the long-run.… unless, of course, someone convinces me that basic income is a bad idea. You’re currently not succeeding in this regard.
Appeal to authority
Because they would be in serious troubles if they quit and don’t have another form of income.
So either these hackers are unemployed, therefore they would be getting unemployment benefits if they existed, or they are employed, hence they can fund themselves with their salary. Until they can find an investor, of course.
Nope. Cash from unemployment benefit is indistinguishable from cash from another form of income, unlike food stamps which automatically signal you as “poor” any time you use them to buy something.
Not any more than basic income does.
Off topic.
You are not helping to keep the level of this discussion high.
Back from my Thanksgiving break. Delighted to see another turkey.
So what you’re saying is that your “unemployed-only” solution will make the words “We’ll quit” into a more credible threat, and employers will meet their demands because employers are too stupid to call their bluff? You do recognize there are benefits to being employed other than the wage, right? Health care, networking, friends, knowledge, experience, etc? And, as I suggested before, what if the employees are paid well above your “unemployed-only” solution but wish to strike for shorter hours or a safer workplace?
My great-grandfather was on the receiving end of a strike in 1940, and he lasted for two months without blinking an eye. If you tried your simple threat of “We’ll quit and go live off the benefits” on him, it would have come across like this scene from Cable Guy.
One of my contentions is that basic income has a much better chance of coming into existence than your solution, although I’ll hedge this notion with Milton Friedman’s Negative Income Tax discussed below.
Nope. We’re not talking about signalling “I’m poor” to the cashier at the supermarket. We’re talking at the level of policy. You know, Washington D.C. and all that. By the way, maybe you should have looked at a SNAP card before going all scarlet letter on me. Look at this mountain of shame. And here’s a film about the people who carry such cards. Maybe the film will help you stop calling them “filthy poor and social parasites.” Even Tyler Cowen praises SNAP.
Randomized control trials (here’s one for example) indicate that basic income encourages work. RCTs often inspire hipster cynics to complain: “Oh, they continued working just because they knew the RCT would end. If you guaranteed them basic income for life, they would quit their jobs.” Of course, such complaints are merely handwaving, unlike the empirical evidence just presented.
Are there any RCTs for your idea? If no, why? As it turns out, the Negative Income Tax RCTs decades ago were probably the closest to your idea, since it tapers off as you earn more (similar to Viliam_Bur’s suggestion in this thread). The results inspired mixed reactions, with many critics claiming a drop in labor. This paper tries to sort out the mess.
Jodie T. Allen of the Nixon administration dealt with the NIT RCTs firsthand, and she immediately noticed some practical problems. For example, just like the EITC today mistakenly gives out billions of dollars to technically ineligible recipients, the NIT will probably mistakenly give out many billions more and turn the IRS into an even bigger bureaucracy as it deals with millions of ever-changing recipients. You seem quite naive to such administrative issues, per your professed belief to Viliam_Bur:
As I’ve stated before, basic income has its implementation problems. But it’s nowhere near the level of complexity of your idea, which you insist is not that complex, because you haven’t spent much time actually thinking about it. This brings me to my main complaint against you.
On topic, because I’m actually the one keeping the level of this discussion high, just like in past encounters. See, when I pointed you to this article last year, I discovered that you didn’t actually read it, and you went right back to ridiculing cryonics advocates. Then when you gave this half-assed one-liner above, I realized you probably do this with every subject. Just to double-check, I provided more links. As far as I can tell, the only ones you click on are the ones you judge to be an assault to your character, because those links are easier to process. So tell me: why should I continue to provide links if all you’re going to do is respond with half-assed one-liners? The only link you’ve provided thus far is an off-topic Wikipedia entry.
I understand you may be pressed for time, so instead of inefficiently talking past each other, let’s just exchange some links to books of our respective ideas. I’ll go first: here’s a huge anthology of Basic Income research. Your turn.
If a single employee threats to quit, it’s not credible, just like if he or she threats to strike. If they many employees threat to quit, and they have the means to support themselves without a job, then the threat is credible.
If health care isn’t free then it should be at least included in the unemplyment benefits. The other stuff are real benefits, but they aren’t necessarily decisive to make the threat empty.
If they are payed well above the unemployment wage then they can afford to strike. And basic income wouldn’t make much differnce to them anyway.
You are making up increasingly contrived scenarios.
What is your point? Are you going to argue that food stamps are not low-status?
So if you give starving people cash, then maybe they don’t starve and improve their condition. How surprising...
These weren’t unemployment benefits, but anyway it’s unsurprising that giving away money, in whathever way, reduces incentive to work.
Oh, come on. If the government can collect taxes, then it knows how much each of its citizen makes, with the exception of criminals, who face the risk of legal prosecution.
Yes, unemployment benefits would have implementation costs. Still, these costs are probably less than the costs of the subsidy to Walmart, McDonald’s, et al. that basic income would impose on the government.
A desperate person forfeiting the last months of her short life by starving herself to death, for a most likely misguided hope in a pseudoscientific and quite prossibly fraudulent procedure is not something I would call ridiculous. “Tragic” seems a much more appropriate description.
Anyway, you are arguing ad hominem.
Just to give you a taste of your own medicine, if I were to lower myself to the this level of discourse I could say that since you buy into cryonics, which is bunk, then your general ability to form rational judgments on any topic is probably deficient, therefore you are probably wrong on basic income. I suppose that this would make sense from a Bayesian point of view. But that would be an ad hominem, hence I’m not going to make that argument.
Here’s another Wikipedia entry. Search “Argument by verbosity”.