Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgallagher | Hacker News Reader

Every single adult member receives a weekly payment from the state, which is enough to live comfortably on. The only condition is citizenship and/or residency.

Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life!

You get the basic income whether or not you’re employed, any wages you earn are additional.

Few, that's a relief. It'll be nice to close all of the school's down and tell kids they can go home, play video games indefinitely, and never have to worry about their future again.

The welfare bureaucracy is largely dismantled. No means testing, no signing on, no bullying young people into stacking shelves for free, no separate state pension.

Down with welfare, up with communism!

Employment law is liberalised, as workers no longer need to fear dismissal.

Hey boss, fuck you! Why? Because fuck you, that's why! What are you going to do about it? Fire me? Ha!

People work for jobs that are available in order to increase their disposable income.

That's cool. Make sure to tax them high enough to pay for all of my house parties.

Large swathes of the economy are replaced by volunteerism, a continuation of the current trend.

Who wants to volunteer to clean my toilet and mow my lawn? Anyone? Even if I say thank you when you're done?

The system would be harder to cheat when there’s only a single category of claimant, with no extraordinary allowances.

I can't figure a way to game it either; it's mathematically and economically perfect!

View on HN

This is a really unhelpful comment. Why don't you think for a second next time before rushing out some snarky, superficial nonsense.

Of course people would still work, for the same reason you don't still live with your parents - although judging by your response, maybe you do. Are you personally going to be perfectly content with a $10K/yr subsistence allowance? And closing all schools? What are you talking about?

The fact is that many countries have something like this anyway, with probably a few more strings attached, and they haven't turned into anything like what you predict. The fact you name-drop "communism" just cements your obvious ignorance.

Among us highly motivated and educated people who read HN regularly, it seems somewhat foreign that large swaths of the population will revert to just drinking beer, smoking legal weed, playing video games, watching tv, eating McDonalds and living in their RV or subsided apartment and not use birth control. But large swaths of the population already do this.

>> large swaths of the population already do this.

They do indeed. And why not let them?

Most of what they could do with their time is being automated away, and the front-line service industries (restaurants, coffee houses) can only take on so many.

Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute? That even without their effort we have wealth in excess and can afford to carry them?

> Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute?

You are free to support those who can't meaningfully contribute, but where do you get the moral authority to demand that I do so as well, with my own money?

Besides the moral argument, isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopulate in relation to those who are "meaningfully contributing", to the point where the ratio is so bad that the system breaks down?

In fact, you already see this in places like Israel and the perpetually "studying" ultra-orthodox who refuse to do military service, have lots of kids, and, of course, take massive state subsidies.

>> You are free to support those who can't meaningfully contribute, but where do you get the moral authority to demand that I do so as well, with my own money?

We're not quite there yet but what happens when all the food and goods a society need can be made by automation, run by a skeleton crew of (say) 5% of the population in facilities owned by 1% of the population? Nobody else can compete on price or availability, the makers don't need staff, and only so many can fit into the service industries.

Do the 1% continue to take the majority of wealth as rent, and the 5% live reasonably well, and f*ck everyone else? Or do we recognise that human progress has been a group effort and start to share the abundance with everyone?

Besides which, if you're asking where the moral authority to demand you help house feed and clothe people comes from... LOL. It's already here. What's not moral is the immature libertarian "I've got mine" attitude we see so much of these days. Tax to help the less fortunate and societal development is theft of my stuff by force and inherently immoral? That's a pretty stunted and selfish thought pattern right there.

>> isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopulate in relation to those who are "meaningfully contributing", to the point where the ratio is so bad that the system breaks down?

Oh no, the poor people will breed!

> if you're asking where the moral authority to demand you help house feed and clothe people comes from... LOL. It's already here.

Rather than snarky comments, try to actually think about the question. There are good arguments against unbridled capitalism, but "Libertarians -- LOL!!" is not one of them.

Rather than pulling a sentence out of context and telling someone to "actually think about the question," try to actually address the argument.

Silly goose, it's not your money if you owe it in taxes.

We should welcome this. For those left in the job market:

- remuneration would likely improve

- only motivated people would be left, so "pretending" to enjoy a job and all other kinds of fakery diminishes

- artificial competition for jobs would decrease drastically

- the ability to change jobs becomes extremely fluid on both sides of the table(with liberalized hire/fire policies [employer-side] plus a lack of worry about winding up in the street [worker-side])

This is a very large net benefit to the motivated. The sooner those who don't want to be there get to stop working, the better for the rest. An "arts, sports, and leisure (which may take the form of beer or video games)" is going to happen, and we should be happy to allow it for those who want nothing more.

-"remuneration would likely improve"

why?

-"artificial competition for jobs would decrease drastically"

why is artificial competition important? You are saying that it will be easier for qualified people to get jobs because unqualified people won't bother to apply any more?

Rumeneration would improve because of the reduction in the number of people in the "reserved labor" pool, which means lower competition for each position (currently, there are 3 people for each available job opening, as an example), which raises wages. Additionally, the existence of an alternative income stream means that you cannot use the threat of "no income" to hold wages down. Finally, these same forces will mean that "dirty" jobs will no longer be able to bank on the marginal status of potential employees to keep their wages lower - the example of the toilet scrubber (before we get toilet cleaning Roombas, of course) is a useful one. If a potential toilet scrubber can think "do I do this dirty job for only slightly more than the BI, or do I find another one?", then the wage is forced to rise if you want someone scrubbing your toilet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

Artificial competition going away is important, because it reduces the "fake" demand for positions; those that would rather not be there won't, which takes the pressure off that position (reducing its perceived scarcity/value.) This has both the above-described wage effects, and a cultural effect: you no longer have people pretending that they want a job, lying to get jobs, inflating their resumes, gladhanding, etc. You're only there if you want to be.

Given a reasonable implementation, I would expect a rise in consumption. It would of course be one time (but sustained). So industries and jobs that serviced that consumption should be able to grow, which usually brings higher pay.

Also, if inflation stayed in hand, the basic income itself would look an awful lot like a raise.

How will forcing them to run in a hamster wheel prevent them from continuing to do so?

In fact, why wouldn't improving education help with the claim that people are inherently lazy. I don't understand the objectivist assumption that there are huge numbers of lazy people who will always leech off of others. Instead of assuming that schools would be closed because they wouldn't need to be open to educate people, and that those people aren't worth it anyway, why not educate people and develop their curiosity, motivation, and empathy for others. It is those qualities that most people learn and then cultivate intrinsic motivation into passion to pursue goals that are not purely financial.

Helping people, building something great, improving the world are goals that can and are being taught in schools now. Unfortunately, the state of education is far from perfect. It seems feasible to correlate the laziness that is so feared by opponents of BI with a flawed education system. It is difficult to believe that better education cannot improve the intellectual curiosity and motivation of the supposedly "lazy." A flawed education system produces ignorance, laziness, and stifles intellectual appetite.

Instead of falling back on fundamental attribution error to assume there's something inherently wrong with the "lazy" person, maybe realize that without proper education and being shown opportunities and paths for contribution, people will certainly seem lazy. Not to say that university admissions are a perfect filter for people who are willing and capable of working hard, but even at top tier universities in the U.S., "Undecided" is a common major among students. Students who have a high school degree and have made it into selective schools, demonstrated at least some ability to work, but still don't necessarily know where to contribute.

Without data, but anecdotally I hear of many relatively wealthy middle-aged people who could retire comfortably, but don't, or they pursue a different productive interest (like teaching or volunteer work) after switching from their previous career. It seems reasonable that a better education system would go far to encourage people to better themselves and the world even in a BI scenario. It is hard to imagine someone who has learned curiosity, intrinsic motivation to contribute something, and empathy for others would sit around and leech from others all day.

Can you please explain how and why living with one's parents is an insult?

>> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life!

That's the point. With increasing automation we don't need to work.

>> It'll be nice to close all of the school's down and tell kids they can go home, play video games indefinitely, and never have to worry about their future again.

You have aspirations for more than a roof over your head and enough to eat though, right?

>> Hey boss, fuck you! Why? Because fuck you, that's why! What are you going to do about it? Fire me? Ha!

Yeah, if you still want the money we pay you, or you can go back to your subsistence wage. You won't starve on the street but there won't be any fancy vacations either.

>> Make sure to tax them high enough to pay for all of my house parties.

How are you funding these parties? Your basic income feeds, clothes and houses you, and little else.

>> Who wants to volunteer to clean my toilet and mow my lawn? Anyone? Even if I say thank you when you're done?

No, those would be jobs you still have to pay money to get done, because they're unpleasant.

In fact you'll probably have to pay more for those because they're unpleasant and people don't need the work as badly.

I've never really heard of anyone proposing a weekly payment from the state, which is enough to live comfortably on

I've heard of lots of people proposing a very small guaranteed payment from the state, as in, bare minimum for subsistence-level food and shelter, on the order of $10,000/year. You would not be able to "party every night for life" on such a pension.

The idea is that it would lubricate the job market, reducing the costs of employment, by taking some of the social benefits-providing responsibility away from employers and giving it to the government, which arguably should own it. This would encourage entrepreneurship (less scary to quit your job and start your own business if you have a better safety net) and also potentially alleviate homelessness and various other social ills.

Those content to never work and do whatever "partying" they can afford on their tiny basic income would also be free to do as they wish, because who wants those people in the workplace anyway? Save the jobs for the people who actually want them, not the people who only need them in order to not starve.

I strongly suspect that the Basic Income Guarantee would receive increases in excess of the rate of inflation, as politicians use it to buy votes.

I think the $10k/yr figure that was quoted is unrealistic - that would cover food expenses with not much left over for housing costs. Even in a low-cost part of the nation, they'd have to perform work of some kind to earn more.

That's a crazy amount of money to spend on food. Does that figure include buying food for multiple people? As a single person that's more than 5X what I spend on food. In fact $10K would completely cover my food and rent for a year with a small bit left over. Obviously this will differ from place to place and person to person.

I think the $10k/year proposal was per person, not per household. Although that begs the question, at what age should the benefit start?

$10k/year is $833/month. $500/month rent and $333/month (about $11/day) for food is pretty basic subsistence for a single person. Yes, you'd have to work if you wanted anything more than basic nutrition and shelter, or wanted to live in a high-cost urban center, but the idea here is just that you shouldn't face homelessness/starvation just because you can't find gainful employment.

If per-person, population of the US is currently about 330 million. Doing the math, that's $3.3 Trillion per year in payments to be made. Social Security expenditures in 2008 were about $615 billion. There are obviously other programs that people qualify for, and I'm specifically excluding Medicare/Medicaid because they're health programs, not living-expense programs.

Even so, if the income guarantee program were implemented, expenditures in this arena would go up by about a factor of 4 to 5.

Ideally, increases would get tied to the CPI, or some other index. I also wouldn't mind a provision that would automatically adjust payments to ensure solvency.

Regarding the amount, it should be small enough to make it difficult to live off of. I don't think it would be a good idea if we created a class of BI dependents. There should still be fairly strong incentives to work. I think the main purpose of the BI would be to alleviate the need to rely on corporate america as a de facto social welfare provider. If you look at what happened to Detroit, for example, after the car industry tanked, the local economy went down with it. At the very least, BI would have provided a stabilizing force, slowing down the decline, and possibly giving residents a chance to re-build the local economy.

I think the main purpose of the BI would be to alleviate the need to rely on corporate america as a de facto social welfare provider.

Exactly. In America we still have social welfare benefits, we just get them mostly from our employers rather than from our government, because at some point, for some reason, we decided that we don't want the government to provide them. The implicit assumption being that people without jobs don't deserve them.

Social welfare benefits really should be in the scope of the government's responsibility, not private corporations'. They shouldn't be tied to a particular place of employment, especially as job positions get scarcer and shorter.

> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life!

Given that a typical developer could earn a basic income in a month or two and then take the rest of the year off, yet almost nobody does, I think we can conclude that it is not as sweet as you think it might be. It might be fun for a week or two, but then it is time to get back to doing something productive.

> Sweet! None of us have to work anymore! Party at my place every night for life!

As Nursie said as well, that's the whole fucking point. The fact we don't live like this today is an atrocity.

It seems that you don't understand the kind of world we're headed to. Energy abundance + automation = dirt cheap manufacturing. At first mostly by economies of scale, later literally dirt-cheap, as pretty much everything you could imagine can be made from dirt, power and a bit of advanced manufacturing tech we don't yet have but we know how it will work [0]. Energy abundance + automation + ever better software = most service jobs gone, most knowledge jobs disappearning, and people getting quickly optimized out of economy.

There is a potential for everything to be free because it doesn't have to cost anything. The only reason we would like that not to happen is some kind of weird stockholm-syndromish love for slavery (i.e. work).

Maybe we should stop working on life extension as well because we were meant to work hard and then die.

[0] - actually, we have it, but it's not ours and we can't control it yet. But it works. You and I are examples of it. Biology is nothing but an highly advanced tech we haven't master so far.

I agree with these concerns; I really can't see how a system like this would possibly work. Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work?

Not that I think this system would work, but people do volunteer without being paid: charity, soup kitchens, etc.

Yeah, but notice that most volunteer work has a special feel-good element to it? Feeding the homeless. Saving lost animals. Helping disadvantaged children.

There aren't many volunteer organizations that, to borrow dgallagher's example, mow lawns or rake leaves, and the ones that do, only do it for special places. Perhaps for a monument or a park.

Obviously people would mow lawns but the price would be higher because they don't have to. If you wanted someone to mow your lawn, you would probably need extra income. Or, since you have more free time, you can now mow it yourself and enjoy it instead of feeling like it's cutting into your only spare 48 hours.

The point is that volunteer work is not going to grow dramatically and fill the void left by paid work.

Oh. I'm assuming the same thing, then.

The attractive part of basic income for me is that everyone has enough to buy food and housing, so suddenly menial laborers have an iota of bargaining power.

For example, if the basic income was $10k/year, would you feel as though you still had an incentive to work and earn a little more money than that?

You don't ever do anything - not any one single thing - without a profit motive?

Who does?

Everyone.

Today I drew a picture for fun.

"You don't ever do anything - not any one single thing - without a <strike>profit</strike> motive?" [Corrected]

There are many non-profit motives, from simple hunger (i.e., when you're hungry you want food, not "profit") to curiosity (e.g., can I build a robot to beat Bill's bot?), from sex-drive (e.g., oh-la-la, she's hot, let me go chat her up and see if there's a "we" in our future) to helping friends and family (e.g., mom's yard has a dead tree in it, and she can't remove it herself, let me get some buddies together to go do it).

Yes, that's why there's plenty of reasons you would still want to "do things" even if you didn't need to work.

There's a really odd logic involved here. If people did not have any motivation besides making money, they would not have any desire to _spend_ money.

Do you want to live in poverty? No? There's your incentive!

You don't believe that is an incentive? Well do you personally do more than is required to survive in poverty? Could you work less and get by? See, the incentive works on you!

Where basic income really helps is with groups like single mothers. Single mothers have a strong disincentive to work - a job has to cover whatever they receive now, plus child care costs. If you don't have good job prospects, few jobs pay enough to do this. This is the fundamental economic reason that creates "welfare moms".

With basic income any job that exceeds the cost of daycare is a net positive.

I can't tell if you're trolling. I would say most mathematicians and scientists are enthusiasts. Many programmers are also enthusiasts.

I don't even have to specify the occupation. All I have to say is that "some people are enthusiasts and would continue to produce anyway".

I think that's just it. Under our current system, that's what people believe because that's what we've been taught to believe in order to make the system work.

But, if we were free from the need to earn income, would we all just curl up and die? Or, would we pursue other interests and make (perhaps even more valuable) contributions to society? In fact, when you look at the financial incentives our society provides, they are frequently misaligned with their net value to society. But, that's another discussion.

The author makes the point that even now, much work is done for free and given away (software, music, content creation and information curation, etc.)

Then, remember, this is just a basic, livable income. There is still financial incentive for those who desire more.

Not having to work to live may be the best thing to ever happen to the planet. :)

> Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work?

A lot of people wouldn't do anything; but they don't do much now, either.

Others, however, wouldn't be satisfied with basic survival.

I could probably quit my job and move somewhere cheaper and work 10 hours a week and be able to afford basic food and accommodations - but that doesn't equate to a party at my house every night, because the ultra-basic income wouldn't pay for any frills like alcohol, drugs, or entertainment.

[Peter, Michael, and Samir are chatting as they hang around the printer]

Peter Gibbons: Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic.

Samir: So what did you say?

Peter Gibbons: I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech.

Michael Bolton: No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.

Well, you can solve the problem very easily. If they don't want to have a j-o-b, you can send them to Siberia. Now everybody wants a job. Of course being productive while at work becomes your next challenge. The travails of communism!

This is absurd. People will work, they just won't "work for the man" if they don't want to. They will do things they enjoy. They will be creative. They will play sports. They will volunteer, etc etc.

Ask yourself: what would you do with your life if you had nothing to compel you into the daily grind for survival? If your basic needs were guaranteed to be met, what would you want to accomplish? Imagine a world where this were true for everyone. Why would anyone prefer this rat race to that? Just so you can continue to stratify society based on those who "contribute" in ways that have market value?

Being a waiter, cook, barista, janitor, retail floor worker, or cashier are all 'working for the man' that few people really enjoy. So restaurants, coffee shops and basically all stores disappear in your proposed only "do things they enjoy" world.

Which is good, because no one would work construction, or do plumbing, or review building permits for safety in a basement office in city hall for fun either, so there wouldn't be places for these establishments to exist soon anyway.

Society can't function with people only doing things they enjoy.

You don't think there is any amount of money you could pay people to do those things for you? If so, I think you're mistaken.

This may mean that costs for getting people to do unpleasant things for you will rise. Consider it a correction to the fact that median real wages have been falling for years, if you'd like. If - even with your new basic income - you are having a hard time finding someone to work for you, you'll just have to offer more money. This is preferable to forcing people to work for you out of fear of them dying for want of food or healthcare, in my book.

I think you also have a narrow-minded conception of what people can view as fun. I would very much enjoy being a chef, but it doesn't pay as well as my current gig and that's a larger motivator for me in part because of the lack of social net.

Robots and automation will continue to do more and more of the total labor that humans need; this provides a constant check against labor prices rising too much. It seems like we would steer our robotics and AI R&D towards replacing jobs that humans really don't want to do [at the amount you're able to pay them]. What's wrong with that?

What people seem to be missing in this thread is the fact that the concept of the basic income is that it's _basic_.

Construction already (surprisingly) pays pretty well, so does plumbing, etc etc. More tedious jobs will either be automated (which is far more efficient) or if they absolutely require a human brain, there will be a rise in the cost of that labor until the work is worth the money for enough people.

Money is fungible enough that it can be converted into "doing things [you] enjoy". With a well-designed, subsistence level basic income, you won't have enough money to do things you enjoy (unless your hobbies start and end at eating, having shelter, and sleeping). If you work construction, or plumbing, or any "boring job", you'll make substantially more money than the "basic income", and can spend that money on things you enjoy.

You're right about your point in the short term. My comment was considering the extreme (though inevitable future) where the majority of labor is obsoleted by automation. Usually discussions about basic income have a component about the increasing obsolescence of unskilled and even skilled labor and the necessary changes to society to accommodate such a future.

We went from putting every ounce of labor into hunting/gathering/building shelter for oneself and one's family to early civilization where the surplus of resources generated by agriculture (i.e. technology) caused a labor surplus that allowed for new kinds of jobs to arise. More recently, the US went from 80% farmers at the time of the Revolution to 2% now. Along the way the definition of "low-level labor" and "skilled labor" changed; you'd be hard-pressed to get a job even at McDonald's or in a factory, if you're completely illiterate in modern America. It's hard to argue that these changes weren't for the better, for _everybody_, including those at the bottom of the new order. The bottom of society today is orders of magnitude better off than the middle of society in 1790, and we owe that pretty much entirely to technological advance. There are of course speed bumps along the way, and a generation of workers that are not skilled enough for the new order will have a hard time, but in a healthy economy, it's the role of the state to smooth that path using the resources that the economy at large gains from the advances in efficiency and wealth.

I'm a little skeptical of the idea that this wave of technology must be different from all the ones in the past (which isn't to say it's impossible) and obsolete jobs completely. Programming literacy may simply become the new literacy; Education may very well have to become a longer stage of life, but given lengthening lifespans, it won't necessarily be a drastically higher proportion of one's life than it has been in the past.

This isn't true. Our usual concept of ownership and hiring might have to change. There are people out there who dream about running a coffee shop. There are people out there who are the restless type who have to be working on "something". Yes, you'd have a hard time finding baristas to work for 5 dollars an hour. You could probably find plenty of people who would join a "co-op" type ownership situation where everyone shared in the less than pleasant responsibilities for a shared sense of ownership of the entire endeavor and a shared cut of the profits. No doubt society would look different than it does now, and there would be a lot of problems to solve. But these problems aren't unsolvable.

When people come over to my house, it's always a big chore to get someone to make the coffee.

Usually 5 or 6 of us gang up and threaten to throw the other one out of his house. Works every time.

I would be a lot more inclined to find value and even enjoyment in being a waiter or cook if my desire (quite plausible to imagine) was to own and operate a restaurant. Likewise, I wouldn't mind so much doing janitorial work or running the cash register in my own shop.

Maybe what would disappear is the huge retail / food service chains, in favor of passionately-run local businesses?

> Society can't function with people only doing things they enjoy.

Yes it can. Or rather it will. That's the whole point of this basic-income discussion. The source of the problem stems from the fact automation and software is systematically replacing humans in things they don't enjoy.

> Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work?

Since jobs will still pay, why would having a small stream of unconditional income equate to "no incentive to work"?

Are companies going to stop paying employees? No, so there's still going to be an incentive to work. Like, say, having more than bare subsistence.

I don't know what you're arguing against, but its not what people mean by an unconditional basic income. Maybe you're arguing against pure communism, but that's not what this article is about at all.

The article is assuming that there's no need to create incentives to work. Indeed, that the market will not provide incentives to work, because it won't be needed.

>> "Who wants to volunteer to clean my toilet and mow my lawn?"

You can't clean your own toilet and mow your own lawn? Especially considering you would have more time to do it with a guaranteed basic income.

At the right price someone would do it. If BI covers my food, small but comfortable housing and general expenses but not an iPad and you offer me $50 to mow your yard each time. I'll mow your yard all summer for an iPad.

The incentive-based, consumer system still works and people will still do mediocre jobs - but they will do them at fair, negotiable wages because they aren't dependent on them.

to the Gulag with you!

Coders that work more than 8 hours a week will be banished to the countryside to learn how to live free.

It will be former CEOs that clean the toilets as repayment for their debts to the working class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com