The modern welfare regulatory state is based on centrally planned payouts and penalties. If you’re for that system in the first place, it’s nonsense to complain that a company hires an employee who is eligible for one of the payouts. Who isn’t eligible for some payout? The premise of the system is that society is improved by centrally planned tweaking of all of us.
And of course the moral logic of condemning employers is nonsense on other grounds as well, as you point out. I don’t give Walmart employees a nickel—what right do I have to complain Walmart doesn’t give them more?
But on purely consequentialist grounds, moral logic isn’t the point. Many purposes are served by making this argument, the most benign being an attempt to squeeze more money out of Walmart.
Illogical arguments may still be effective arguments, and effective for a great many things. Don’t ask whether it’s logical, ask what it achieves.
consider Grayson’s claim that each Walmart employee costs the taxpayers on average $1,000. In what sense is that true?
I’d respond instead with one of Thomas Sowell’s 3 questions: compared to what? What would former Walmart employees cost the taxpayers?
This meme worries me because I lean towards thinking that the minimum wage isn’t a terrible policy but we’d be better off replacing it with guaranteed basic income
Uh oh. That’s an idea from libertarians like Milton Friedman and Charles Murray. Are you sure you’re a liberal?
It suggests that if you want to be virtuous, you should avoid hiring people
Ha. Yes, the usual liberal premises make those who bake the pies into criminals victimizing those who want to eat them.
I’ve got some bad news for you. You’ve gone off the liberal reservation. I say this from the libertarian side—your economic analysis is libertarian, and your moral analysis is similar to Rand’s. Ayn Rand! Prepare to be tarred and feathered.
There are plenty of liberals who think other liberals need to pay more attention to market incentives. Or I suppose Bill Clinton was off the reservation, too? Matt Yglesias? Jimmy Carter? His analysis isn’t libertarian, it’s merely informed by basic knowledge about economics.
Uh oh. That’s an idea from libertarians like Milton Friedman and Charles Murray. Are you sure you’re a liberal?
It’s also an idea supported by lots of people who call themselves socialists. It’s almost like arguments aren’t soldiers and winning a debate doesn’t force your opponent to agree with you about everything else.
Since he was talking about Walmart, liberals, and Medicaid, I took the context as the US, where few call themselves socialists, and liberals usually protest loudly when they are.
Any prominent US liberals calling for a basic income guarantee, and in particular, as an alternative and not an add on to the regulatory welfare state?
Since he was talking about Walmart, liberals, and Medicaid, I took the context as the US, where few call themselves socialists, and liberals usually protest loudly when they are.
What I’m telling you is that the BIG is a policy that has been loudly lauded, not merely by run-of-the-mill progressives, but by people so far left they happily call themselves socialists.
Any prominent US liberals calling for a basic income guarantee, and in particular, as an alternative and not an add on to the regulatory welfare state?
Liberal pundits tend to have considerably more political power than libertarians and so don’t spend a lot of time calling for remaking the entire US social welfare system from the ground up. And they tend to think the ongoing existence of people living in poverty is a bigger priority than shrinking the government regulatory state. But they certainly show willingness to replace some government programs while implementing a BIG and discuss it positively as an alternative to other means of alleviating poverty for exactly the same reason libertarians like it.
If you read the articles you cite, you’d see that they refer primarily to Charles Murray and Milton Friedman.
The only reference to a prominent US liberal I see is one to Martin Luther King Jr.
It would be great if more liberals got on the train, but from your comments, they’re not really on board.
And they tend to think the ongoing existence of people living in poverty is a bigger priority than shrinking the government regulatory state.
Problem is, if they’re of the disposition to meddle in people’s lives, it seems unlikely that the poor will be left out of their tender ministrations. Keeping the current punitive welfare programs intact would keep all the perverse incentives, but at a higher benefit level, making for an even larger trapped and dependent class.
If you read the articles you cite, you’d see that they refer primarily to Charles Murray and Milton Friedman.
The articles I cite were written by progressive pundits. And the biggest organization dedicated to it is mostly made up of socialist academics.
The percentage of self-identified libertarians who support a basic income guarantee is certainly higher than the percentage of liberals who support a basic income guarantee. Hell, it’s probably higher than the percentage of liberals who have heard of a basic income guarantee. I don’t even know that that is indicative of some special trait about libertarians—not having any political power or influence makes it much easier to defend only the best ideas. But if you want to claim victory for your tribe, no one will stop you.
Libertarians 1, Progressives 0! Go Greens! Down with the Blues!
Problem is, if they’re of the disposition to meddle in people’s lives, it seems unlikely that the poor will be left out of their tender ministrations. Keeping the current punitive welfare programs intact would keep all the perverse incentives, but at a higher benefit level, making for an even larger trapped and dependent class.
Please do not treat other people this way on Less Wrong. It’s ugly and rude.
(I am not disagreeing with the statements of fact you are making regarding basic income, at least not very much — the basic-income idea originated with Renaissance liberals and humanists, although it was adopted by Friedman and others. I am objecting to your conduct.)
originated with Renaissance liberals and humanists
As far as I know, the originator of the basic principle was Thomas Paine, though he also went for a lump sum payment on the age of majority as well. By US terminology today, he’d be a libertarian.
I don’t see anyone listed prior to Paine on the link given, and would be interested if you had a precursor to Paine.
Right-libertarians certainly claim Paine, but his Agrarian Justice proposal is strictly redistributionist — taxing inheritances and land ownership to fund pensions, a move specifically targeted at aiding the dispossessed at the expense of the wealthy. Moreover, he considered this obligatory, and not merely a charity or a political compromise. There is a whiff of Georgism or Geolibertarianism about Paine, and he is certainly no anarcho-capitalist. But he’s in that quadrant.
(Although by U.S. terminology today, anyone associated with the French Revolution would be a terrorist, sadly.)
That said, the notion of basic income is found in More’s Utopia as an alternative to killing thieves who steal because they are poor. In early examples it’s difficult to distinguish basic-income proposals from make-work proposals, though, in part because of the notion that idleness was a social ill. (Which is distinct from the right-libertarian notion that people do not deserve sustenance if they don’t work on projects the market demands.)
but his Agrarian Justice proposal is strictly redistributionist
Minimally. The funds for widows and orphans would be. Old age pensions could either be seen as redistribution or forced retirement plans from funds owed. Paine considered payments obligatory because they were based in justice, compensation from the land possessors to the non land possessors for their exclusive use and control of “their” property. It’s land title that is redistributionist.
I don’t consider More’s basic income the same as Paine’s. Paine’s was a just compensation to a free citizen—More’s was the feeding and watering of citizen livestock subject to forced labor. Might as well say that a pack mule gets a basic income. They did at least agree on the inherent injustice of property in land, though I don’t think More made the connection between that injustice and a basic income as compensation.
Which is distinct from the right-libertarian notion that people do not deserve sustenance if they don’t work on projects the market demands.
To understand right libertarian thought, you first must see how they distinguish between what you deserve and what you have a right to (which I argue is crucial to a non theocratic state). No one deserves cancer, but that doesn’t give one a right to rob one’s neighbors to pay for treatment. For right libertarians, you earn what you get in free exchange with others, and they object to having those earnings confiscated by force.
All states are theocratic. The question is who the god is. For capitalist states, it’s capital accumulation (a term I use for its increased information content compared to the mere, “money”).
Libertarians aren’t telling you to accumulate capital
Certainly they are. They’re setting up a society whose core, whose driving engine, is an optimization process for capital accumulation. With that in place, the systemic incentive structure affecting everyone becomes: accumulate capital or die.
The modern welfare regulatory state is based on centrally planned payouts and penalties. If you’re for that system in the first place, it’s nonsense to complain that a company hires an employee who is eligible for one of the payouts. Who isn’t eligible for some payout? The premise of the system is that society is improved by centrally planned tweaking of all of us.
And of course the moral logic of condemning employers is nonsense on other grounds as well, as you point out. I don’t give Walmart employees a nickel—what right do I have to complain Walmart doesn’t give them more?
But on purely consequentialist grounds, moral logic isn’t the point. Many purposes are served by making this argument, the most benign being an attempt to squeeze more money out of Walmart.
Illogical arguments may still be effective arguments, and effective for a great many things. Don’t ask whether it’s logical, ask what it achieves.
I’d respond instead with one of Thomas Sowell’s 3 questions: compared to what? What would former Walmart employees cost the taxpayers?
Uh oh. That’s an idea from libertarians like Milton Friedman and Charles Murray. Are you sure you’re a liberal?
Ha. Yes, the usual liberal premises make those who bake the pies into criminals victimizing those who want to eat them.
I’ve got some bad news for you. You’ve gone off the liberal reservation. I say this from the libertarian side—your economic analysis is libertarian, and your moral analysis is similar to Rand’s. Ayn Rand! Prepare to be tarred and feathered.
There are plenty of liberals who think other liberals need to pay more attention to market incentives. Or I suppose Bill Clinton was off the reservation, too? Matt Yglesias? Jimmy Carter? His analysis isn’t libertarian, it’s merely informed by basic knowledge about economics.
It’s also an idea supported by lots of people who call themselves socialists. It’s almost like arguments aren’t soldiers and winning a debate doesn’t force your opponent to agree with you about everything else.
Leave a line of retreat.
Since he was talking about Walmart, liberals, and Medicaid, I took the context as the US, where few call themselves socialists, and liberals usually protest loudly when they are.
Any prominent US liberals calling for a basic income guarantee, and in particular, as an alternative and not an add on to the regulatory welfare state?
What I’m telling you is that the BIG is a policy that has been loudly lauded, not merely by run-of-the-mill progressives, but by people so far left they happily call themselves socialists.
Read the list of people involved with The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network and tell me it is a libertarian stronghold.
Liberal pundits tend to have considerably more political power than libertarians and so don’t spend a lot of time calling for remaking the entire US social welfare system from the ground up. And they tend to think the ongoing existence of people living in poverty is a bigger priority than shrinking the government regulatory state. But they certainly show willingness to replace some government programs while implementing a BIG and discuss it positively as an alternative to other means of alleviating poverty for exactly the same reason libertarians like it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/17/guaranteed_basic_income_the_real_alternative_to_the_minimum_wage.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/08/obama-doesnt-want-to-just-write-welfare-recipients-checks-but-what-if-we-did/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/how-to-cut-the-poverty-rate-in-half-its-easy/280971/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
If you read the articles you cite, you’d see that they refer primarily to Charles Murray and Milton Friedman.
The only reference to a prominent US liberal I see is one to Martin Luther King Jr.
It would be great if more liberals got on the train, but from your comments, they’re not really on board.
Problem is, if they’re of the disposition to meddle in people’s lives, it seems unlikely that the poor will be left out of their tender ministrations. Keeping the current punitive welfare programs intact would keep all the perverse incentives, but at a higher benefit level, making for an even larger trapped and dependent class.
The articles I cite were written by progressive pundits. And the biggest organization dedicated to it is mostly made up of socialist academics.
The percentage of self-identified libertarians who support a basic income guarantee is certainly higher than the percentage of liberals who support a basic income guarantee. Hell, it’s probably higher than the percentage of liberals who have heard of a basic income guarantee. I don’t even know that that is indicative of some special trait about libertarians—not having any political power or influence makes it much easier to defend only the best ideas. But if you want to claim victory for your tribe, no one will stop you.
Libertarians 1, Progressives 0! Go Greens! Down with the Blues!
I already agree with you.
I’m a socialist and I support Basic Income Guarantee. Jack has social proof now.
How nice for him.
It’s not proof of anything I was asking for, unless you’re some particularly prominent US liberal behind your username.
Please do not treat other people this way on Less Wrong. It’s ugly and rude.
(I am not disagreeing with the statements of fact you are making regarding basic income, at least not very much — the basic-income idea originated with Renaissance liberals and humanists, although it was adopted by Friedman and others. I am objecting to your conduct.)
As far as I know, the originator of the basic principle was Thomas Paine, though he also went for a lump sum payment on the age of majority as well. By US terminology today, he’d be a libertarian.
I don’t see anyone listed prior to Paine on the link given, and would be interested if you had a precursor to Paine.
Right-libertarians certainly claim Paine, but his Agrarian Justice proposal is strictly redistributionist — taxing inheritances and land ownership to fund pensions, a move specifically targeted at aiding the dispossessed at the expense of the wealthy. Moreover, he considered this obligatory, and not merely a charity or a political compromise. There is a whiff of Georgism or Geolibertarianism about Paine, and he is certainly no anarcho-capitalist. But he’s in that quadrant.
(Although by U.S. terminology today, anyone associated with the French Revolution would be a terrorist, sadly.)
That said, the notion of basic income is found in More’s Utopia as an alternative to killing thieves who steal because they are poor. In early examples it’s difficult to distinguish basic-income proposals from make-work proposals, though, in part because of the notion that idleness was a social ill. (Which is distinct from the right-libertarian notion that people do not deserve sustenance if they don’t work on projects the market demands.)
Minimally. The funds for widows and orphans would be. Old age pensions could either be seen as redistribution or forced retirement plans from funds owed. Paine considered payments obligatory because they were based in justice, compensation from the land possessors to the non land possessors for their exclusive use and control of “their” property. It’s land title that is redistributionist.
I don’t consider More’s basic income the same as Paine’s. Paine’s was a just compensation to a free citizen—More’s was the feeding and watering of citizen livestock subject to forced labor. Might as well say that a pack mule gets a basic income. They did at least agree on the inherent injustice of property in land, though I don’t think More made the connection between that injustice and a basic income as compensation.
To understand right libertarian thought, you first must see how they distinguish between what you deserve and what you have a right to (which I argue is crucial to a non theocratic state). No one deserves cancer, but that doesn’t give one a right to rob one’s neighbors to pay for treatment. For right libertarians, you earn what you get in free exchange with others, and they object to having those earnings confiscated by force.
All states are theocratic. The question is who the god is. For capitalist states, it’s capital accumulation (a term I use for its increased information content compared to the mere, “money”).
So theocrats like to claim. “Hey, everybody is doing it.”
Libertarians aren’t telling you to accumulate capital, they’re telling you to expect retaliation if you kill or rob your neighbors.
Certainly they are. They’re setting up a society whose core, whose driving engine, is an optimization process for capital accumulation. With that in place, the systemic incentive structure affecting everyone becomes: accumulate capital or die.
Who do you think I’ve treated how?