Hacker News Reader

Comment by summerdown2 | Hacker News Reader

> A certain percentage of the population would stop working entirely since they no longer need to.

Everyone I've ever seen argue this has had strong opinions about how other (more greedy and venal) people would act. They, of course, would still work, but the great unwashed masses would sit on their backsides and take the money.

I suggest, instead, we try specifics. Given a basic income, I wouldn't be lazy. Nor would anyone I know, which includes some very poor people who would love to work if they could only do better than on benefits.

I suspect (though I don't know), that you wouldn't be lazy, either.

Also, the evidence of limited trials is that this increases work, not idle people:

eg http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html

> The BIG is a form of social protection, which reduces poverty and supports pro-poor economic growth.

View on HN

   They, of course, would still work, but the great unwashed masses would sit on their backsides and take the money.

The counter argument would be the existence of industries that people will already not work in.

For example Italy has a 38.5% youth unemployment rate. It also can't get enough workers for the garment industry. So why don't the youth of Italy want these jobs? Maybe the work is seen as menial (so a cultural condition) or maybe the wages are too low (they think they deserve more) or maybe Italy has made hiring citizens too difficult (so they shift to the black economy), but either way their reluctance is sustained by a welfare state that allows them to not work.

The same can be said in this country with the absurdly low unemployment rate in North Dakota while the disability rate has shot through the roof. Unless you think people have suddenly and inexplicably become disabled this is clear evidence that people are willing to go on the Government dole rather than get a job in North Dakota.

I'm not even saying these people are evil or irrational. (It actually seems entirely rational to me) In a similar situation I'd probably do the same thing.

The question is: how many people currently working would stop working if they didn't need to? (particularly in the areas vital for the basic functioning of society) That question is so impossibly difficult to answer that I don't think any system we come up with won't have potentially disastrous consequences.

> That question is so impossibly difficult to answer

I agree, which is why I think we should not implement a basic income immediately, but that we should proceed with further trials and examine the evidence on the ground.

> The same can be said in this country with the absurdly low unemployment rate in North Dakota while the disability rate has shot through the roof. Unless you think people have suddenly and inexplicably become disabled this is clear evidence that people are willing to go on the Government dole rather than get a job in North Dakota.

Or, people who are able-bodied and unemployed have chosen to move out of North Dakota (perhaps due to work available elsewhere), and/or people who are disabled have chosen to move to North Dakota for financial or environmental or other reasons. Either of these would both reduce the rate of unemployment and increase the rate of disability without people "choosing to go on the Government dole".

> The question is: how many people currently working would stop working if they didn't need to?

The price consequences of BI are such that this is self-limiting. Once you set a level of BI, the more people choose to opt out of work, the less affordable it is for people to choose to opt out of work. Less people working -> higher market clearing cost of labor -> higher market clearing cost of all goods and services -> reduced standard of living for people on fixed incomes (including whatever point the BI is set at.)

Although the unemployment rate is low in North Dakota there are actually only about 17,000 open jobs. This wouldn't even employ all the unemployed people from Minneapolis.

Compounding the issue are a lack of housing, and the fact that over half of those positions are low paying dead end jobs like fast food, walmart, etc. It's also very far away from almost everywhere - a four to nine hour drive from the closest major airport.

I don't think it's all that difficult to answer. When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways? I can think of 100s of other jobs that someone wouldn't show up for because they aren't worth the time, they aren't fun, or even remotely interesting.

Basic income is just that - basic income. Some people who want to have more than that will work. Janitors still want iPads or cable television - and they will be incentized to work for that on a competitive market for those products and services.

0 hours of janitoring = small comfortable house and enough food

5 hours of janitoring = small comfortable hosue and enough food and cable televsion

If people simply stopped working when they could live "comfortably" why would they buy iPads, cable television, new cars? Employment history and reputation aren't going out the window with this plan either. A janitor will be good at his job because he knows if he gets fired he won't get reccomended for other janitorial jobs - and his chance of getting an iPad in the future goes way down.

I know janitors who buy lottery tickets, eat out at restaurants and have cable television - according to you those wouldn't exist because they could "janitor" less and live without those.

I never said any of those wouldn't exist, but I'm a firm believer in rewards. Right now a janitor is rewarding himself with a paycheck so he can do what he wants otherwise the flip side is poverty.

Here's the thing. Let's say you made $100k per year working 40 hours/week with benefits. If I were to pay you to not work but get a smaller wage (keeping your benefits), what percentage would be acceptable to you? 90%? 80%? 50%? What is it worth to you to not have to work?

There is a number that most janitors would probably accept. I think a fair number of retail employees too.

> When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways?

There's something that deeply bothers me about the notion that the above is a bad thing. Yes, you would no longer have access to low-wage janitorial services. But that's your problem, not your janitor's. Do you think he wants to be scrubbing toilets for a subsistence wage?

The world will not fall apart for want of janitors, or garbagemen, or baristas.

Imagine a world where, at some time t=0, there are zero people filling these jobs because of a basic income. It truly doesn't take all that much enterprise to see an opportunity in a world with no janitors. At t=1, there would still be janitors, but there would be fewer of them, the ones that exist would be better-paid, because they're now working for something approaching the wage that you might demand if someone asked you how much it would cost to clean their office.

Do you think he wants to be scrubbing toilets for a subsistence wage?

Thanks for proving my point. No, I highly doubt he wants to scrub a toilet for a subsistence wage. I think a janitorial job would go empty for a long, long time. So now, instead of me focusing on my job, I have to take time out of my day to do something I'd pay someone for.

It would be better if you get your basic livable wage but still have to work (exceptions made for childcare, students, disability, etc.) and depending on the job you get what the market deems as extra. So, if you get $20k per year as a livable wage (figure just chosen for easier math) and a job would've paid $25k, you get the $5k difference in your paycheck. This would help keep the low-interest, but easy, jobs staffed.

" I have to take time out of my day to do something I'd pay someone for. "

But apparently you wouldn't pay enough to have them do it, so it's more valuable to you to use your time to do that job.

If you paid more, you could more effectively utilize your time.

"So, if you get $20k per year as a livable wage (figure just chosen for easier math) and a job would've paid $25k, you get the $5k difference in your paycheck. This would help keep the low-interest, but easy, jobs staffed."

So you would only be getting paid 5k then. If I don't work at all, I get 20k. If I work, I get 25k.

I think that's what you're suggesting. Unless you're suggesting you get nothing if you don't work, at which point we don't have a basic income anymore, and this idea is moronic.

because they still would be better of working, just possibly at a lower hourly rate. basic income: 1000 USD. unemployed janitor: 1000 USD employed janitor: 1300 USD.

He does not need to work anymore, but it might still be worth it.

Supply and demand. If the wages on offer are inadequate to secure janitorial services, they will go up.

Many of these arguments assume that in (say) 50 years, all the janitorial/toilet cleaning/fruit picking jobs (i.e. shitty) jobs won't have been replaced by robots. I think this will happen whether it puts people out of work or not, so maybe we stop people from needing these jobs in the first place. Sure there will be some manual labor left to do, but it'll be highly paid so you can do it 5 hrs a week instead of 50 for some extra cash for your house party.

> So why don't the youth of Italy want these jobs? Maybe the work is seen as menial (so a cultural condition) or maybe the wages are too low.

If you can't make a living wage at these jobs, then by taking the job you are hastening your own demise. If you already have a living wage, then taking a low-paying job will give you a supplemental income. If you can work part-time at a low-paying job, then you can still spend your other time educating yourself or looking for a better job.

Also, if you can't fill your factories with the wage that you're offering, then the free market is telling you that you need to either increase the wage, or learn to make do with less, i.e. decrease output.

It's worth keeping in mind that a number of the people who would show up in statistics as not working would be devoting themselves to activities that are socially beneficial but not currently economically viable: community art projects, gardens, mentoring children, cultivating time-intensive abilities that are inhibited by the archaic idea that the only worthwhile way to exist is to work 40+ hours per week. I know that's what I'd do.

I'd also like to travel, and would be more than willing to work a sane amount of hours to contribute to the basic functioning of society in exchange for the means to do so. With respect to the Italy example -- raise wages enough and I'd bet the shortage would disappear. If the societal need is great enough, the prices will reflect that (maybe we don't actually need more garments?).

The basic functioning of society would need to be redefined a bit -- perpetual economic growth is neither sustainable nor desirable at least while it comes at the expense of the environment, or social and medical well-being (obesity, depression, etc).

If there were no work left in the world for humans (and yet I was still allowed to live), I might devote my entire energies to the education of my daughter.

Today, that is called idleness. But in that future world, perhaps it would not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com