Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arelius | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that there does still exist a whole lot of jobs that require people to do them that are not easy to motivate people to do. Some of these jobs are required so that we can house, clothe, and feed them.

If nobody actually had to work, would we really have enough people building homes, farming food, and making, and distributing food such that we could continue to feed, clothe and house everbody? I don't know what the answer is, but you must admit that there is a serious possibility that the answer is No. I agree everybody should have the right to food, clothes, and shelter, but I'm not sure that the approach of giving it to everybody for free will actually be sustainable, at least not without some additional thought into the infrastructure.

View on HN

The basic idea being discussed is very close to a "Guarunteed Minimum Income" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income ). Essentially, everyone regardless of work is supplied with a certain minimum, but with enough work they can earn far more than that minimum.

I do not believe it has ever been fully tried in practice (though a strong social safety net comes somewhat close in a piecemeal fashion). But there is no reason in principle it cannot work and some respected thinkers such as Thomas Paine have advocated it. There would be enough people motivated by a combination of the love of the job and the desire to earn more than the low-guarunteed minimum to ensure necessary societal functioned.

It may have some undesirable side effects, but in principle it could be made to work.

Edit: Slight edit for clarity.

Well we enjoy the effects of the "social" engine of grouth in Spain now a days(among the other problems as a construction bubble, etc..) Basically you have people trying all sort of tricks to recieve a salary from the government just because they deserve it. That way they don't have to work anymore. People tend to look at this as a right and the ones who go and earn their money with their effort are regarded as "dumb", after all it makes no sense to work if you don't need to. Maybe this is a cultural thing, but I find dangerouse to reinforce people in receiving money with out contributing with their job.

I don't know if people should receive actual money, but it makes sense to me that they receive access to safe housing, food, healthcare and education. I don't think this can work in poorer societies, but in ones which can afford it, well, it seems most humane. If you aren't working, and can, well you won't be able to brag to your friends about having the latest ipad, but you should still have a place to sleep and food to eat. I think most people don't like sitting idly by all day long and since a lot of fun things cost money, they'd be willing to sacrifice some of their time to be able to afford those other things. I have been to Norway a few times and I liked the way they managed to balance things out there. Also, I recently watched this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html How economic inequality harms societies and I thought it was interesting.

I agree in the part, that is more human to share with those that don't have. But giving all the basics to those able to work will back fire ( as it currently does in countries like spain), people will go to great lengths to cualify as a "payable non worker". As politicians earn their possition with votes, they tend to buy votes increasing this "social" solutions. Over time money spent in this piles up and reaches unreasonable sizes(and fuels corruption aswell) A completely different scenario are the health care, housing and education of on-risk population, I meen kids and old or ill people. Here in Spain the system has been abused (mostly by the lack of value that people gives to Free stuff felt as a IS their right to enjoy no matter what, on oposite to Ariely's studies). I still find great that anybody may have access to the latest cancer treatment or heart surgery( while the per capita cost of health is lower than in the US).

I don't think we can afford a guaranteed minimum income unless it's too small to live on or health care isn't included. Health care is expensive. Right now the system works (in every first world country) by transferring money from young, healthy people to older sick people. Give younger people the opportunity to slack off, and a great many of them will.

I think the idea is great, and there is probably a way to make it work. I also just think that it'll end up being more complicated then we imagine in order to build it in a stable manner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com