Hacker News Reader

Comment by unimpressive | Hacker News Reader

I remember some people on HN saying that having the right to a job would be better than having a minimum income. As I understand it the various communist countries are an excellent case study in why this is a bad idea.

View on HN

Not really. The problem with communism was the state-enforced mediocracy, not the social security. With minimum income you still can earn more if you wish, you simply have to work more. In communism you are paid as much as you need (or as much as government decides that you need), and it's not based on your work or skills. All people are presumed to work as hard as they can, because it's an idealistic society, a pure utopia. That's why there was no real communism to the day (and probably will not ever be), only a bunch of failed socialistic experiments that turned into corrupted dictatorships.

The only reason people would stop working for macdonalds was because in other jobs, people were being subsidized by the state to do nothing most of the day (as shown in the article) which eventually brought down the whole communist block. So yes, jobs are more important than a minimum income as long as others aren't being subsidized to do nothing (which leads a country to ruin as shown by the whole communist block).

Yeah, I forgot people living a better life in capitalism: perfect education and healthcare, pension after 40 years of labour and enough spare time to actually have a life. http://i.imgur.com/zAMkNCV.gif

I think a minimum income is a good idea in a society where there's little demand for unskilled labor. As long as the basic income is priced below the average wage of skilled labor, people will still have incentives to find employment... but those that can't, still have a minimum quality of life that should be expected in the first world.

> As long as the basic income is priced below the average wage of skilled labor, people will still have incentives to find employment...

I don't see how those two are related in this way. Unless you lose your basic income when you work.

New Zealand (and probably many other nations) provides a system similar to this where you either have a job and earn as much as you're able (based on negotiating skill and to some extent actual job skill) or you are unemployed and receive a benefit which is supposed to cover your basic living costs.

Without defrauding the system, you are better off getting a job as it provides you with a better income. Despite this, there are still a significant number of people who would rather remain unemployed than contribute productively to society. Many of them defraud the system or engage in crime to boost their income.

I think I would rather see the government guaranteeing a basic job rather than offering benefits for any length of time. Supporting somebody legitimately between jobs is fine. Somebody who hasn't worked in a year should be sent to a labour camp until they decide to find better employment.

>Somebody who hasn't worked in a year should be sent to a labour camp until they decide to find better employment.

Considering recent trends, now seems like the last time you would want to lock people into wage slavery.

On top of that, in a situation like now where you have tons more hands than jobs to make use of them, this policy seems like it would only exasperate the situation in times of economic repression.

This idea is literally considered the Bad Future(TM) in Marshall Brains Manna[0]. And I can't say I disagree. I don't want to live in a world where those homeless people I see on the street are rounded up and sedated somewhere. Especially if one day I might join them.

Not to mention that this basically outlaws several kinds of professions. (Freelance artist, Consultant)

[0]:http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Is asking people to contribute to society really comparable to the Bad Future? Having read your link, I would say it's more akin to rules 8 and 9 of the 4GC

There's nothing wrong with being a freelancer, or deliberately homeless, or simply taking a break from work in order to pursue your own projects or goals. However, if you choose to claim a benefit and do so for an extended period (i.e. >60% of the time for a year or more) then I think it's fair for the government to say "from now you work for NZ, or relinquish your benefit".

It's unreasonable to burden society just because you're lazy and unmotivated

The ridiculous utopia portrayed in Manna would be nicer, of course, but we aren't there yet. Right now everything has a cost, including lazy beneficiaries, corrupt politicians and jaw-droppingly stupid government projects. I can't see any way to fix those problems but I am allowed to hope for a world where one day we can

>However, if you choose to claim a benefit and do so for an extended period (i.e. >60% of the time for a year or more) then I think it's fair for the government to say "from now you work for NZ, or relinquish your benefit".

That's a little different, and more reasonable.

And yes, I mainly linked that story for the Dystopia part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com