We should give free money to the homeless

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here is a recent TEDTalk on Free Basic Income

 

[russ_watters]

I have to say, it was really hard to watch a video who's thesis is a flat self-contradiction (free money), but I got through it. It is mostly a rehash of what we've already discussed, with the same flaws and vagaries. But in particular, I find it pretty disingenuous for him to first advocate giving this "free money" to everyone and then citing a study that says it would cost $175 Billion. That $175 billion was not from giving it to everyone, it was only for adding enough to raise the poor to the poverty line. Giving it to everyone would cost several trillion dollars. So he mismatched his cost and benefit (in his favor) by something like a factor of 15!

[edit] And the self-contradiction can't be ignored and is just made worse by suggesting it should be given to everyone. Self-contradictory platitutes can sometimes be ignored because we can assume the person didn't really mean it or the self-contradition is to illustrate some other point. But "free money for everyone" is a very specific self-contradiction that really requires explanation. Money given to someone has to be given by someone. It simply can't be given to everyone: so who gives, who gets and how much?

 

[nsaspook]

I for one welcome our 'Free Basic Income' overlords but I would like a little more than basic income please, Master.

 

[Another God]

I for one welcome our 'Free Basic Income' overlords but I would like a little more than basic income please, Master.

Then get a high paying job. That's the beauty of the BI, it adds up with your income.

A new article on this subject: http://io9.com/how-universal-basic-income-will-save-us-from-the-robot-1653303459

 

[russ_watters]

Then get a high paying job. That's the beauty of the BI, it adds up with your income.

For some people, perhaps. But again, since someone has to pay for it, it subtracts from those people. For someone with "a high paying job", implementing a BI would substantially reduce their net (after tax) income. After implementation, acquiring "a high paying job" when you currently have none will be worth substantially less than without the BI, as you go from being a payee to a payer.

It really bothers me that the articles about it barely scratch the surface of what it means/how it would work. It really smells like a scam to me - a joke, like a facebook hoax. So:

A new article on this subject:

This particular article -- it isn't a news source I've ever heard of. Who is the author? What is the basis for his claims -- such as the title and thesis:

How Universal Basic Income Will Save Us From the Robot Uprising...

Given the ever-increasing concentration of wealth and the frightening prospect of technological unemployment, it will be required to prevent complete social and economic collapse. It's not a question of if, but how soon.

Uh, what? Is this guy too big of a Terminator fan? Where did he get this? A lot is apparently bloggers quoting bloggers, which imo leads to a self-reinforcing crackpot counter-culture (like climate change deniers or 9/11 truthers):

Another interesting fact about the United States is that a surprisingly large portion of working age adults are not working, primarily because there are too few jobs to go around. This may not be obvious, because the declared unemployment rate in the United States seems low, at consistently less than 10% over a long period of time. The problem is that the official unemployment rate hides the huge number of working-age Americans who are no longer considered a part of the workforce. Currently, only 63% of working-age adults are actually working.

That's a quote of a quote originating from Marshall Brain, founder of Ask.com. Frankly, such bad analysis from a successful entrepreneur is unforgivable. He even linked the actual stats to show how wrong he is! The combined forces of womens' lib and the coming of age of the Baby Boomers in the 1960s caused forty years of increasing workforce participation -- though the increase was not actually that big: from about 58% to 67%. Since the recession and with the retirement of the Baby Boomers and with increasing life expectancies, it has started falling again.

Now, part of what he said is forgivable error: the stat that 63% of working-age Americans are actually working. That isn't what the stat he linked measures. Labor force participation rate is both the people who are working and the people who are trying to find but are unable to find jobs. So the fraction who are working is actually lower.

But to take a single data point and call it a trend is an unforgivable error. It is difficult to see it as anything other than an intentional deception. He has the statistics in front of him that tell him that up until about 2002 the fraction of Americans with jobs was rising and even with the drops since it still only dropped back to the 50 year average. It sounds a lot less scary to say that since 2002, the fraction of working age Americans with jobs has dropped from 64% to 59%.

In either case, while you may say that that 5% drop is partially due to "too few jobs to go around", it is certainly very wrong to say that the total of 41% who don't have jobs is all due to "too few jobs to go around". The vast majority are either students, stay at home parents or retired.

 

[Another God]

You've never seen io9 before? Well, it is obviously a journalistic endeavour, not original research, but that isn't a problem, it isn't like the author hasn't linked to numerous pieces of evidence to back up everything he says.

But again, since someone has to pay for it, it subtracts from those people.

But that is how functional societies work. The people who have more than they need are taxed and that tax is spent to ensure every has basics provided to them. The current system already does that, and has done so for hundreds of years. This proposal is no different in that regard at all. The only change here is that this system is claiming to be more efficient, more effective and more equal.

But again, since someone has to pay for it, it subtracts from those people.

That is pure conjecture. The reality of the situation very much depends on how the BI is funded, and many suggestions don't involve changing income tax at all. Also, what most people would consider 'High Income' is not really the target, but rather the people with excessively large incomes, and more importantly, corporations with excessively large profits.

I would guess 99% of the population would be net better off with a BI, and 0.9% would be essentially unaffected at all, and 0.1% would feel something - but don't worry about that 0.1%, they probably won't starve. (unlike the people who need a UBI)

After implementation, acquiring "a high paying job" when you currently have none will be worth substantially less than without the BI, as you go from being a payee to a payer.

Also completely untrue. A person acquiring the high paying job would still be a payee - that is part of the charm. And again, high paid people already pay more tax - this is universally accepted in all modern progressive productive societies, and only political extremists challenge the idea.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry for the multiple edits as I read more of the article. I'll add some more comments in a new post...

The article does vaguelly discuss some funding ideas. One of the more speicifc and probably the worst is this:

Futurist Mark Walker says we could pay for it all by slapping down a 14% VAT (value-added tax) across all goods and services, which in the U.S. would yield a guaranteed income of $10,000. It would be a start, but clearly not enough.

Since he previously said that part of the motivation for this is wealth redistribution, this is a terrible way to find it because it redistributes the wealth in the opposite direction from what he wants!

A person who earns nothing or very little before the BI would see an increase in income, but everyone else would likely see a decrease and in proportion to their income, the lower and midle classes would lose the most because they spend a larger fraction of their income on goods and services than the rich.

 

[russ_watters]

But that is how functional societies work. The people who have more than they need are taxed and that tax is spent to ensure every has basics provided to them. The current system already does that, and has done so for hundreds of years.

I understand all of that. That isn't the problem, this is:

This proposal is no different in that regard at all. The only change here is that this system is claiming to be more efficient, more effective and more equal.

No. This system claims to give everyone money. It is, at face value, an impossible claim.

And the "more equal" thing always makes me snort when I see it. People who bring up equality always want equality of outcome even while applying the label to the system/conditions that provide it. But the system that generates that equality of outcome is anything but equal: you want a vast amount of money taken from one group and given to another. If one is paying a 90% tax rate and another is receiving a -$10,000 tax grant, that's not equality in my book. More imoprtantly, that isn't the way the US was designed to operate. I'm not in favor of such a fundamental change in something that worked so well for the better part of 200 years.

That is pure conjecture...I would guess...

Right. That's part of the problem here: the ideas are so jumbled/unfocused/non-specific/lacking in details that we are forced to conjecture/guess about how they might work. But there are certainly fundamental mathematical and physical realities that must be true. Most critical here is:
Money does not grow on trees. In order to give it to one person, you need to take it from someone else.

So when a thesis statement starts with "Everyone in society receives...", you may as well stop reading there because everything that comes after it is mathematically impossible.

The reality of the situation very much depends on how the BI is funded, and many suggestions don't involve changing income tax at all. Also, what most people would consider 'High Income' is not really the target, but rather the people with excessively large incomes, and more importantly, corporations with excessively large profits.

I would guess 99% of the population would be net better off with a BI, and 0.9% would be essentially unaffected at all, and 0.1% would feel something - but don't worry about that 0.1%, they probably won't starve.

We've had many previous discussions about how far into oblivion we would have to tax the rich to achieve some goal (balancing the budget, bringing social security back into the black, etc.). Most proponents of that simply don't have any idea how little money that will actually bring in because of how few super-rich there actually are. Because I'm not sure I can find the stats as easily on the 0.1%, let's use the whole 1%:

Average income: $717,000
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/
Number of households: 1% of 123 million = 1.23 million
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/

Pulling a number out of the air, let's take half of their income. That's $440 Billion. Nice chunk of change, right? Sorry, that's ony about half of what is required to give every other American $3,000 a year and about 10% of the required funding for a base income at the poverty line.

Obviously, if we limit it to just the 0.1%, the numbers get much, much worse.

Also completely untrue. A person acquiring the high paying job would still be a payee - that is part of the charm. And again, high paid people already pay more tax...

You're just guessing again. When it comes to the normal income tax in the US, about half of American households pay it and half don't. That balancing point can't move up and still support a vast increase in tax revenue, as BI proponents propose. The middle class would have to remain payers.

 

[Another God]

This system claims to give everyone money. It is, at face value, an impossible claim.
...
So when a thesis statement starts with "Everyone in society receives...", you may as well stop reading there because everything that comes after it is mathematically impossible.

This must be an intentionally obtuse comment. Of course some people are losing more money than they gain - there is no obfuscation of this fact. The point is that at the end of the day, *everyone* gets given the same basic income (regardless of all other taxes in effect).

Right. That's part of the problem here: the ideas are so jumbled/unfocused/non-specific/lacking in details that we are forced to conjecture/guess about how they might work.

That is simply because no one has run the experiment yet. The idea that we can accurately know which exact version of it will work the best without real world application is absurd. We need to implement something, then course correct. Like we do with everything we do in life, society and business.

We've had many previous discussions about how far into oblivion we would have to tax the rich to achieve some goal (balancing the budget, bringing social security back into the black, etc.). Most proponents of that simply don't have any idea how little money that will actually bring in because of how few super-rich there actually are. Because I'm not sure I can find the stats as easily on the 0.1%, let's use the whole 1%

Average income: $717,000

Why are you just limiting it to individuals? I would think that the corporations would be where most of the money is.

And why limit it to just the income? Some people earn so much money that they just end up hoarding it to no benefit to anyone. Not even themselves. They can't even spend it all.

 

[nsaspook]

Then get a high paying job. That's the beauty of the BI, it adds up with your income.

A new article on this subject: http://io9.com/how-universal-basic-income-will-save-us-from-the-robot-1653303459

The robot uprising is the answer to humans irrational behavior.


The BI IMO is just a means to keep the unwashed masses in check. It's money as a substitute opiate for the masses so they will leave us alone by satisfying their basic needs. It's simplistic intellectual idealism at it's best and a condition for servitude to the State at it's worst.

 

[russ_watters]

This must be an intentionally obtuse comment. Of course some people are losing more money than they gain - there is no obfuscation of this fact. The point is that at the end of the day, *everyone* gets given the same basic income (regardless of all other taxes in effect).

Handing a person a check with one hand and taking a check from them with the other is a silly game. It most certainly is wrong/an obfuscation to say "everyone" is getting money if in the net, not "everyone" is and to say that the money still gets added to a "higher paying job" when it may or may not depending on where the undefined cutoff is. And indeed, your post is the first I've seen in any article or discussion of a suggested dividing line between who actually gives and who gets -- so if no dividing line is given, it is indeed an obfuscation when the only thing we're told about who gets it is that "everyone" gets it! The guy in the TED talk goes one step even worse by saying "everyone" should get it and then providing an implementation cost estimate that was based on giving it only to a small fraction of the population.

That is simply because no one has run the experiment yet. The idea that we can accurately know which exact version of it will work the best without real world application is absurd.

You need to back-up a step: before you can run an experiment, you have to devise the experiment. Don't you think it is absurd and irresponsible to support a plan that hasn't even been devised yet, much less tested? It's like with Obamacare: don't read it, just vote for it! It'll be great, I promise!

We need to implement something, then course correct. Like we do with everything we do in life, society and business.

Nonsense. In business and life, people plan. Indeed, in order to implement "something", that "something" first has to be written down. At least then, we'll know what it is that is being planned! (assuming we are allowed to read the plan before voting on it)

Why are you just limiting it to individuals? I would think that the corporations would be where most of the money is.

You're guessing again. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world, at 15-35% on profits of about $1.5 trillion. Most companies pay close to the 15% low end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States
So, yes, if you took another 30% you'd get enough for the other half of that $3,000 per citizen that would halve the poverty rate (but still nowhere close to what is needed for a poverty-level income). But you'd also take a lot of the money that corporations use for research and development, expansion and disbursement to investors. So the secondary effect would be a major reduction in GDP growth and loss of savings growth. Bye, bye retirement savings!... Which you apparently want to take as well:

And why limit it to just the income?

Sure, you could take wealth/savings as well, but of course you could only do that once since once you take it, you can't take it again (once you take it from them, they no longer have it to give to you in year 2!). I wonder what wealth level you'd pick as your cutoff? $100,000? $1,000,000? Careful: if you go too low, you'll need to create a new retirement income program as well, since you'll be taking the retirement savings from ordinary Americans (who already can't count on Social Security).

The things you are talking about involve taking extreme amounts of money from larger than you think segments of society, as an experiment. Personally, I think "implement something" is extremely irresponsible before that "something" is very well defined and modeled.

 

[mheslep]

Sure, you could take wealth/savings as well, but of course you could only do that once since once you take it, you can't take it again

Yes seizing wealth is short-sited. But also, seizing property is theft, if done for no other reason than the fact that the target has some and the mob wants it.

 

[symbolipoint]

Free money can make sense if the money can be exchanged for some service or some kind of labor; these would be like a job, right? On the other extreme, some volunteer positions require some qualifications and the volunteer does not just get the position for the asking, in that someone evaluates the prospective volunteer first.

 

[Evo]

Can I say that the Ted talk was stupid and unrealistic?

Or is pointing out the obvious problems not ok? And no, I don't want to debate it, I think it's assinine. That's all. Just IMO. This person didn't do *due dilgence* to check if his idea was even feasible, which it's not, IMO. Some of these TED talks are garbage, IMO. They are not all quality discussions, unfortunately, some are just crank ideas.

Nassim Taleb called TED a "monstrosity that turns scientists and thinkers into low-level entertainers, like circus performers." He claimed TED curators did not initially post his talk "warning about the financial crisis" on their website on purely cosmetic grounds.[80]

Nick Hanauer spoke at TED University, analysing the top rate of tax versus unemployment and economic equality.[81] TED was accused of censoring the talk by not posting the talk on its website.[82][83] The National Journal reported Chris Anderson had reacted by saying the talk probably ranked as one of the most politically controversial talks they'd ever run, and that they need to be really careful when to post it.[82] Anderson officially responded indicating that TED only posts one talk every day, selected from many.[84] Forbes staff writer Bruce Upbin described Hanauer's talk as "shoddy and dumb"[85] while New York magazine condemned the conference's move.[86]

According to UC San Diego Professor Benjamin Bratton, TED talks efforts at fostering progress in socio-economics, science, philosophy and technology have been ineffective.

TED events are also held throughout North America and in Europe and Asia, offering live streaming of the talks. They address a wide range of topics within the research and practice of science and culture, often through [b[storytelling.[/b][10] The speakers are given a maximum of 18 minutes to present their ideas in the most innovative and engaging ways they can

Basically, it's not peer reviewed, it's not credible, it's just someone's musings, it doesn't meet our guidelines and should be treated as such..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference)#Conflicts_and_criticism

 

[russ_watters]

Can I say that the Ted talk was stupid and unrealistic?

Or is pointing out the obvious problems not ok? And no, I don't want to debate it, I think it's assinine. That's all. Just IMO. This person didn't do *due dilgence* to check if his idea was even feasible, which it's not, IMO.

...I think I already did that, no?

 

[Evo]

...I think I already did that, no?

GMTA :)

 

[OmCheeto]

GMTA :)

Sometimes.

Other times, they have differing opinions.

This idea is a bit "out there", but I think it needs more discussion.

Btw, did you have to pick crops when you were 9?

I think it matters, from where you came, as to what is, and is not, a viable solution.

 

[Evo]

Sometimes.

Other times, they have differing opinions.

This idea is a bit "out there", but I think it needs more discussion.

Btw, did you have to pick crops when you were 9?

I think it matters, from where you came, as to what is, and is not, a viable solution.

I did pick crops on my aunt's farm as a child.

 

[russ_watters]

I did pick crops on my aunt's farm as a child.

Me too, on my grandparents' farm...not that I see how this is relevant though...

 

[russ_watters]

This idea is a bit "out there", but I think it needs more discussion.

IMO it is irresponsible to release "out there" ideas onto the public from a forum that looks like it is supposed to have credibility. It causes people to believe the ideas are already well developed and credible. That's a good way to generate scams and give wings to bad ideas.

I think Ted should get itself a sort of peer review board.

I think it matters, from where you came, as to what is, and is not, a viable solution.

Oy, no. I cannot disagree more strongly. "Viable" is, for the most part, not a judgement call at all, it is a measurement (or calculation/prediction) of objective success or failure. If a business profits it is viable and if it doesn't profit, it is not viable. If this idea can "function" insofar as it is capable of collecting enough money to be self-sustaining and doesn't cause a collapse in society due to millions of people losing their jobs, that would be "viable".

Now, of course, for sociological ideas, it is difficult to know if the predictions would come true. I can't be absolutely sure that people would quit their jobs when is revealed that their jobs don't pay them any more money than not working would pay them. But I can be absolutely sure that if someone pitches an idea to give everyone "free money" and then quotes me a price that was based on only giving it to 1/5th of the population, he's lying to me and his idea isn't as "viable" as he claims.

That's completely different from whether an idea is "good", which may have been what you really meant. If a person is poor, they might want money and not care where it comes from. If a person is rich, they may not want to give money to people who aren't working for it. Maybe that's the "where you came from" bias you're referring to.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Maybe we can see it in action

Switzerland May Give Every Citizen $2,600 a Month
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/what-would-you-do-with-2800-a-month-no-questions-asked/?f97yi44r%3Futm_source=mbfb

 

[russ_watters]

Switzerland May Give Every Citizen $2,600 a Month

Or not:

The proposed plan would guarantee a monthly income of CHF 2,500, or about $2,600

So it wouldn't give everyone $2,600 a month unless everyone in the country immediatly quit their jobs after it is implemented!

The site cited is in German and I'm having issues with the translation though, so I'm unsure if the error was from the article or the original source.

Will be interesting to see if they do it though. And how it would actually be structured/funded.

 

[mheslep]

The problem with the Swiss plan would be same as its always been with such plans: the monetary value of your first $2600/month worth of labor is zero, and thus the incentive for anyone who can't earn any more than that amount is not to have a paying job.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

incentive for anyone who can't earn any more than that amount is not to have a paying job

So money is the only incentive to have a job? I've also had many volunteer jobs that didn't pay me dime, but I was very productive.

 

[russ_watters]

So money is the only incentive to have a job? I've also had many volunteer jobs that didn't pay me dime, but I was very productive.

C'mon Greg, that's naive. Money is the primary incentive to have a job and you can't volunteer as a hobby unless you already have a paying job that pays you enough (or are independently wealthy) while providing enough free time to volunteer as a hobby. If people volunteered to work at McDonalds for free, McDonalds would be all over that. This law, if implemented, would eliminate most of their workforce -- garbage collectors and janitors too. Zoos and aquariums would boom though.

I know people who have made this choice and the wage doesn't even need to be greater than what you are making now, it only needs to be high enough that your pay rate is too low to be bothered with.

One friend who was on unemployment actually calculated the delta-pay rate between unemployment compensation and a job she was offered and declined it because she didn't want to work for $2 an hour (or whatever the delta was).

Another friend, instead of using his new unemployed status as free time to work at a soup kitchen
(or get training or apply for new jobs) took the free time and used his unemployment checks to fund a cross-country road trip.

A third did indeed take his free time and nonexistent need for money and go volunteer at an aquarium -- where he eventually got a paying job.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Money is the primary incentive to have a job

I think it would be interesting to discuss what happens to people when money is not a major motivator and people are more able to actually do what they want to do.

This is an interesting video

can't volunteer as a hobby unless you already have a paying job that pays you enough

They can if they are already given a "living" wage.

If people volunteered to work at McDonalds for free, McDonalds would be all over that. This law, if implemented, would eliminate most of their workforce -- garbage collectors and janitors too.

That's what the robotic revolution is for. ;)

 

[russ_watters]

I think it would be interesting to discuss what happens to people when money is not a major motivator and people are more able to actually do what they want to do.

This is an interesting video

They can if they are already given a "living" wage.

That's what the robotic revolution is for. ;)

I'm a big fan of Star Trek, but we are a long way from that level of technology and even as utopian visions go, the no-money Star Trek system is very undeveloped. It is interesting, but I see it as highly speculative science fiction, not a basis for economic policy in the real world today.

Note that in the video, they didn't even test what you suggest: offering the reward without requiring the work be done. It would indeed be interesting to measure the performance if the reward is giving without any performance requirement at all.

Nor or they really testing the reality of how pay is determined. They are testing a popular theory on how pay should be determined and people oftenly mistakenly believe it is. So it is a bit of a strawman/non sequitur for them to argue that merrit-based pay doesn't necessarily produce the best results. Strictly speaking, merrit isn't the driver, supply and demand is. And while supply and demand produces some similar structures to merrit in some cases, it isn't exactly the same and in some cases produces vast differences.

Take their example of tech-based jobs. Google and Apple jobs pay well. Why do they, when clearly, exceptional people are willing to do the same work for free so performance isn't well coupled to pay? It's supply and demand. A highly sought-after employee is going to go to work for Apple or Google. All things about the vision of the company/intellectual value of the job being equal, they will pick the one that pays better.

So why do CEO jobs pay well? Because the pool of qualified CEOs is small. Why does the aquarium job pay poorly? Because even at a low or nonexistent salary, lots of quality people are still willing to do it and the job doesn't require the people who do it to be elite, so there is no need for the businesses to compete for quality workers.

 

[NTW]

Some mentally ill can get cheap housing and social security checks. They just need someone to help them figure it out and apply.

Permanent care is necessary. If you are mentally ill, but there's someone close to you who sees that you take your pills and visit the doctor at the scheduled times, then you can probably stay at home. Without that caring person, the mentally ill usually end up homeless...

 

[mheslep]

So money is the only incentive to have a job? I've also had many volunteer jobs that didn't pay me dime, but I was very productive.

There's some long established economic work showing that, at *higher incomes*, money becomes a smaller share of overall incentive, hence the like of Google providing free gourmet meals and similar perks, or young no-pay interns with complete family financial support. But at the income levels proposed by Switzerland money is everything, separating an entire class of society from incentives to improve its situation.

We can't easily see what matters to others. Left to ourselves our often flawed imagination about what works for others is benign, but enter the government that allows A to take from B to give to C and the damage can be severe.

As mentioned earlier, proposals that deal with the possibility of negative incentives came out decades ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

 

[mheslep]

So why do CEO jobs pay well? Because the pool of qualified CEOs is small.

Another reason is that the high CEO income is often long in arriving, short, and unstable. That is, the typical CEO gets the big chair at ~52, burns out or is pushed out at ~57. Yes a successful retiring CEO might get some cozy board of directors seats, but for those that were pushed out, well, there are no former-CEO job fairs, so they better have gotten their ticket-to-ride while on top.

 

[nsaspook]

As mentioned earlier, proposals that deal with the possibility of negative incentives came out decades ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

This is the effect that worries me more than just people not working. The loss of low income family stability.

They also found an unexpected result: instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup.[17]

 

[mheslep]

This is the effect that worries me more than just people not working. The loss of low income family stability.

The NIT may have flaws, but it is large improvement on just writing government checks.

 

[OmCheeto]

I did pick crops on my aunt's farm as a child.

How well did she pay?

 

[Evo]

How well did she pay?

I got to eat some of what I picked, only the workers on the picking machines got paid. But it was so much fun going out into the fields and working that I wouldn't have dreamed of asking to be paid. I always wanted to own a farm, not a huge farm like hers, but just a small family farm. (End of OT sidetrack)

 

[OmCheeto]

I got to eat some of what I picked

I ate all of my profits that year.

, only the workers on the picking machines got paid.

So, how did you make money then?

,
But it was so much fun going out into the fields and working that I wouldn't have dreamed of asking to be paid.

You sound like Greg now.

,
I always wanted to own a farm, not a huge farm like hers, but just a small family farm. (End of OT sidetrack)

There is no OT/ST in this thread. (IMHO)

All I've seen so far, is opinion. Hence, my generally slow lack of response.

hmmm...

I'm still trying to figure out where we all came from.

Does anyone know if Greg's dad read "Childhood's End" by A.C. Clark?

 

[Evo]

I didn't make money, I worked on the farm for the fun of it. During the summer when I was there, I stayed at her house and ate her food, I certainly didn't expect to be paid for having fun, I had to beg to be allowed to work.

 

[Pythagorean]

I would agree with Greg; money is not the primary incentive for me. Doing something meaningful is. Money is, however, a necessary condition (if insufficient) as far as it is needed to survive.

 

[OmCheeto]

I didn't make money, I worked on the farm for the fun of it. During the summer when I was there, I stayed at her house and ate her food, I certainly didn't expect to be paid for having fun, I had to beg to be allowed to work.

You didn't make money? Then how did you manage to acquire candy before and after Halloween? Did you steal it?

 

[mfb]

The swiss website is a bit contradicting.

Es wird also grundsätzlich an alle gezahlt, ohne Ansehen sonstiger Einkünfte und Tätigkeiten.

"The money gets paid to all, no matter how much they earn elsewhere or what they do."

On the other hand, you can find statements like this one, claiming the total amount someone earns does not change (if above 2500 SFR).

Apparently they hope the job at McDonalds would give more than 2500 SFR then. I'm not sure if that concept works. Especially as Switzerland is not isolated from Europe - can you completely change the value of work and products if everyone can simply cross the border to get something cheaper?

Anyway, would be a very interesting experiment.I can help with translations if something is unclear.

 

[RonL]

I had to beg to be allowed to work.

Hmmmm!:)

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't make money, I worked on the farm for the fun of it. During the summer when I was there, I stayed at her house and ate her food, I certainly didn't expect to be paid for having fun, I had to beg to be allowed to work.

I got paid for working on my grandparents farm when I was a kid. My parents would dump me and my sister while they went on vacation. After subtracting room and board, my very first paycheck I ever got was $7.

 

[russ_watters]

I would agree with Greg; money is not the primary incentive for me. Doing something meaningful is. Money is, however, a necessary condition (if insufficient) as far as it is needed to survive.

I suppose it would depend on where you draw your line/frame the question. If it is a question of +- a few thousand dollars, one can pick other motivations. But versus having no job, the money is by far the biggest issue.

 

[OmCheeto]

Hmmmm!:)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here's another interesting article by the Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/inter...people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal

 

[DivergentSpectrum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
In america the bottom 40% of people own .2 percent of the wealth
the top 1% own 34.6 percent of the wealth

Its really scary. Its kinda hard to even fathom or put into context. i know we say were a democracy, but technically america is an oligarchy (where a small group of people runs the country).

However, there is good news:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
while america seems to be an aberation in the trend of developed countries, overall developed countries are far more equal in wealth, which means that as humanity continues to evolve as a whole, we will eventually reach a good equilibrium between opportunity and incentive

 

[aaa16797]

I actually think that giving homeless people jobs would be better. You are basically making them work for their money, so they can spend their time doing something productive to society

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Usually people doing charity will offer them an initial (pretty) large amount of money first and then introduce them open jobs they can do.
If I were one of them, I'd prefer to get the money anyway.

 

[Czcibor]

I'm not sure how relevant it is here, but:

But the biggest problem may be the way casino profits are sometimes disbursed. Per capita payments have grown as gaming revenues have risen. “These payments can be destructive because the more generous they become, the more people fall into the trap of not working,” says Ron Whitener, a law professor, tribal judge and a member of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington state. Of the 17 tribes in the study that handed casino profits directly to members, ten saw their poverty rates rise. Of the seven tribes that did not, only two saw such an increase (see chart).Per capita payments range from as little as a few hundred dollars a year to more than $100,000. In some tribes, members receive 18 years of per capita payments in a lump sum when they turn 18. “There are a lot of very successful car dealerships around reservations that make their money off 18-year- old,” adds Mr Whitener. -

One very small tribe in the study, Jamestown S’Klallam in northern Washington, has eliminated poverty entirely. That tribe does not issue any per capita payments and has used its casino profits to diversify into other businesses, such as harvesting huge molluscs for export to China. Squaxin Island, which reduced its poverty rate from 31.4% in 2000 to 12.4% in 2010, used casino profits to get into cigarette manufacturing about ten years ago. Leaders of the Siletz tribe, by contrast, allot 40% of the casino’s net revenues to per capita payments and only 17% towards economic development. Of the tribes surveyed, the Siletz has one of the highest poverty rates.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...makes-native-americans-poorer-slots-and-slothYes, I know small sample and correlation instead of causative relationship. Nevertheless...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here is a recent opinion piece, but still interesting
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/what-happens-when-the-poor-receive-a-stipend/?_r=1

 

[houlahound]

I didn't realize there was already this thread on the UBI.