Hacker News Reader

Comment by aianus | Hacker News Reader

> until there's no disincentive in doing it for free, for the experience or the kicks.

You say this like it's a bad thing. Study after study show that people perform their best creative work when it's decoupled from extrinsic reward.

If basic income covers all of your needs and allows you to do what you enjoy for the sheer pleasure of it, what's wrong with that?

View on HN

you fail to cover more than 90% of the jobs that just need to be done, and require 0 or less creativity.

as an example - what I do to earn money, while enjoying it mildly as abstractly creative process (software development) is vastly different from what I do in my free time (mountaineering, travelling, general wilderness adventures). You cannot buy my vote on this with some basic 1000 USD income, if you tax high earners like hell on the other side.

One thing I saw consistently all around the globe - people need motivation to give their best and try hard, only few deliver without it for sheer pleasure. It doesn't have to be monetary one, but this one is universal and quite well oiled principle. BI doesn't offer me anything - I want to work, I don't have an issue finding next job, and if there is anything between, we have working social system that helps me. What does BI offer to somebody like me?

> I don't have an issue finding next job

...currently. Things change, and you may one day find you do have an issue finding your next job. As someone who has been in that situation in the past, relying on a "working social system", I would much rather have guaranteed basic income to fall back on (in addition to universal health care, which is even more urgently needed where I live).

Basic Income should be quite a bit higher then; enough for a fairly comfortable life with no serious financial worries. But then, sure, I'd work for just the fun, the pleasure and the kicks. I probably wouldn't be freelancing for banks, though. Some jobs will always require pay in order to entice people into taking those jobs.

> what's wrong with that?

What's wrong is a potential increase in income inequality and worst wealth distribution.

A corporation or somebody from a upper class will be getting richer from the work being done while the guy(s) doing the work with the basic income will stay at the same level. I don't think we should increase our inequality metrics even further.

There's nothing at all wrong with wealth inequality if those at the bottom are having all of their needs met.

That's a fundamental premise where we disagree. Particularly in a society where most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth, inequality - for me - should be the primary target of politics.

Is there potential evidence you could imagine that would change your mind about that premise? I agree with GP that inequality is fine if the basic needs of everyone are met, I also go further and agree with Paul Graham that inequality is a sign of a healthy economy (http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html). I also find nothing wrong with inherited wealth because I love my heirs and want them to have an easier life than I did, I want them to have some silver lining if I pass, I'm in this for more than just myself. I thought about it for a few minutes and one piece of evidence that might make me reconsider your side is if you could show rising inequality (in an environment with an absolute basic-needs-met floor or not) leads to falling access of the basics like food, shelter, knowledge, and useful technology like penicillin. That would be a potential downside to increased inequality that I would care about -- I don't particularly care about the potential downside of increased inequality leading to increased envy since you don't treat envy by giving in to it.

Who gets to decide what "basic needs" are? Oh, "in a democracy"! That's ok then.

But I agree with you on the whole. The serfs should just be grateful I'm not beating them.

Is most wealth inherited? I thought it was fairly established that after 3 generations a personal fortune is usually lost.

Most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth. I don't know if the fact you stated is true, maybe it is, but it's not the opposite of what I said.

http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...

From the linked source in the second link you provided, it states that between 35-45 of wealth is inherited. Not to be overly contentious, but that is not "most". Is your point that inherited wealth is the majority of the unfair, and socially aggravating wealth inequality that angers a large percentage of society? Because that certainly seems believable.

By the way, thanks for the interesting links.

You're right, and not overly contentious at all: I should've said it's the biggest factor, not the major one. I had in mind values I saw somewhere for the U.S. and my country (Portugal), both around 60%.

> potential increase in income inequality

you deal with it with progressive taxation

I think that, fundamentally and strictly speaking, progressive taxation doesn't qualify as "dealing" with the problem. It's not a solution, it doesn't even attemp to solve it. It's just a quick bandage; an attempt to minimize.

And, empirically, you can see it. In my country (Portugal), with a supposedly agressive progressive taxation, inequality measures (Gini and Palma) are increasing. And the amount of luxury cars too. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com