Yes, it should play the same way that basic income has worked in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME

i.e. it shouldn't reduce work, except in kids staying in school longer and women taking longer time off to look after babies.

Are you reading the same article as me?

"The results showed an impact on labor markets"

Yes. And if you read to the end of that section, you (a) discover that the changes were minimal "working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for married women, and five percent for unmarried women" and (b) discover that the reason was "Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education"

Which is how I described it in my comment.

It clearly did reduce work, and the article spells out how.

You're just okay with the reasons for that reduction, which is quite a different thing to claiming there was no reduction.

A reduction in working hours does not equate to a reduction in productivity. We should be striving to minimize time spent working while maximizing productivity as a basic goal of capitalistic society.

Also this old argument about reduced work incentives is becoming increasingly invalid as an expansion in permanent structural unemployment due to automation, hyperefficiency, and globalized labor markets is spelling the end of industrial labor to begin with. Meaning that there simply are not enough jobs to go around, regardless of incentive. It's one thing to chalk unemployment up to laziness in an era of abundant opportunity, it's quite another in a post-industrial era of labor scarcity.

Remember also that a well-known limitation of economic measurements of GDP, productivity, etc. is that it doesn't account for personal work when no money changes hands. For example, a man who works full time and spends 100% of his salary on a nanny gets counted in GDP. But if he quits his job and takes care of the kid and the nanny takes his old job, then GDP and productivity have been reduced. Nothing has been changed about the amount of work done, but you've replaced two people working for money with only one working for money, so the accounting systems show it as less.

If part of the effect of minimum income is for people to spend more time with their kids, then this would show up as less work, in part, because less of the work being done would be for money.

I hope you're right. I fear you're wrong.

I used to work in a job that I don't think was very amenable to automation. It was a terrible job and I don't miss it one bit. I doubt anyone would want to work it if they didn't actually need money.

Sure, maybe we can live without windows or something, I just don't know how many such products there are. Money isn't everything, after all--there has to be something you can actually buy with that money. And if nobody or almost nobody is willing to make those things any more, what then?

That's the part that scares me. I'm sure we can print enough money for everyone. I'm not sure how much of anything there will be to buy with it. And all the arguments for this are "it's the right thing to do" rather than "we know we can make this work because..."

I don't understand why people wouldn't be willing to make windows—to take your example—in exchange for pay, just as they do now. I might expect the prices of things to go up a little because the typical laborer's bargaining position would be closer (but still inferior) to that of the typical employer[1], but why would people stop wanting more money than they have/are getting?

[1] Specifically, their worst-case outcome in negotiating employment terms (i.e. failing to agree on terms and not getting the job, then not managing to get another offer fast enough) might improve from catastrophic to merely quite bad.

> I don't understand why people wouldn't be willing to make windows—to take your example—in exchange for pay, just as they do now.

Two reasons:

[1] There might not be much to buy with that money due to effects like this / inflation now that everyone has more money but there's only the same amount (or less) of stuff to buy with that money.

[2] The actual job is horrible.

Some of the aspects of the job can be mitigated. Others, not so much. There's a big tempering furnace that's really hot. There's really no way to avoid being uncomfortably hot around the quench, even with the nearby air conditioned room. It's running at almost 800F all day.

Glass is inherently dangerous. I know of people who have been killed on the job, in spite of lots of safety gear, etc. I personally treated some very serious injuries (e.g. cuts to the wrist causing permanent damage and massive blood loss).

There's a lot of grunt work that can't be very easily automated. It's boring as hell. It's very tiring work. I have lots of other complaints, but in theory, a different employer could at least fix some of those and they would presumably have to.

> [1] There might not be much to buy with that money due to effects like this / inflation now that everyone has more money but there's only the same amount (or less) of stuff to buy with that money.

If an employer raises wages, is that (in a small way) inflationary? Does average wage have a causal relationship with inflation (I wouldn't think so, but perhaps it does, serious question)? If not, why would basic income be inflationary per se ?

> [2] The actual job is horrible.

Jobs that are horrible might have to pay more, but probably not much more. I'd hope "do it or join the homeless" isn't a necessary stick for our economic system to function, but "do it or barely have enough money to survive" would suffice. If so, it's more awful than I'd already estimated. Hell, complete destitution isn't even really the stick now, since welfare is a thing, especially in OECD states that aren't the U.S.

I guess I don't find it clear how "only have basic income to live on" is a less effective motivator than "be on welfare" (in the broad sense of "welfare"). And since we already know modern economies function OK with the latter—some of which can include cash assistance—what substantial difference does the former represent?

[1] Because there's more money and the same amount (or less) of things to buy. Think of it a bit like someone issuing stock: yes, that dilutes your shares.

[2] It's not just pay. You CANNOT pay me to do that job again. I'm sick of being cut by glass. I don't like dealing with horrific bloody injuries, though I'm incredibly conflicted there--I mean, I did volunteer for it and I don't regret doing it and helping people. And I'm glad to be able to do it and that I was able to help people and I'd even volunteer again... but it's a horrible thing to have to do and I don't wand more of it.

Basic income is just welfare on steroids. The effect should be something that depends on the scale of how much money and how many people have their 'stake' diluted by how much. The scale of this is bigger than before (everyone gets money) according to what's planned--I don't seriously think anyone will implement it as $5 for everybody and if they did, it shouldn't have any meaningful effect.

Due to more money being issued, there should be more inflation caused by it, as we can't all suddenly start producing more windows and whatnot just because we're paid more. People are also likely to start charging more because everything costs them more and people have more money to spend now.

Now, all that said, maybe it could work as a replacement for welfare. I'm not sure about that, but it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. Maybe everyone has an ID card and they can charge $X a month for food/rent/clothing, especially with the theory that people who don't actually need it might not use it. As I said, the main issue is the scale. If you get to the "work is optional" state that everyone seems to want, that's where I worry about the effects. But, there's obviously a long continuum between it being 0% optional and 100% optional and I honestly don't know what things happen where.

> [1] Because there's more money and the same amount (or less) of things to buy. Think of it a bit like someone issuing stock: yes, that dilutes your shares.

Why would there (necessarily) be more money?

> People are also likely to start charging more because everything costs them more and people have more money to spend now

It seems like all of this would work equally well as an argument for a policy of depressing wages as a way to makes everyone better off. If you wouldn't support that, why the concern about guaranteed income? Or, what is the difference, in terms of effect on the money and labor supplies? How would lowering wages not be the inverse of this, and (under this line of reasoning) be good for us? Unless you believe we're at some sort of maxima for the ideal share of money flowing to the bottom of the economic pyramid, and that sending more that way will make collectively less well-off. It's also possible I'm just not following what you mean.

Where else could the money come from, exactly? Anyhow, money creation is fairly normal, which is why I would tend to expect that if such a thing were implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

But people have to be willing to exchange things for money, so if you create tons of it, it becomes toilet paper. We already know this can break down due to direct, empirical observation. Just look up past examples of hyperinflation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

And this is the sort of thing that worries me. All the past examples had to drop their own currency, which they could no longer be trusted with, and become dependent on a foreign power. All the past examples were governments that though the government's funds were simply unlimited and many were Socialist governments that wanted to tax from the rich and give to the poor.

That said, don't get me wrong. If I could actually believe that none of us had to work and robots would do everything, I'd love it. But having worked a crappy ass job, I know that some work can only get done out of necessity at present. I really hate that, and I don't wish it on anyone, but I don't know how to fix it either. I wish I could be convinced that some of the fine, caring people putting out these proposals had thought them through, but they've mostly helped me understand that they know less than I do, and I know almost nothing :/

Slow down a little bit. If people can't afford windows, they don't reasonably have enough money (where money is access to the economy rather than pieces of paper).

A simple thing to do to limit the unexpected economic consequences is to limit the size of the basic income. For example, give everyone $5 and you are unlikely to see any effects at all. Of course then the outcome isn't very interesting, but the basic mechanism isn't necessarily going to implode the economy.

Right, it's clearly a matter of degree and the thing is I don't hear economists talking about this, only the general public, who has some sort of warm fuzzy feeling about the idea of free money, but little actual talk about what's going to happen.

My feeling is that it will either be too low to be meaningful or too high and it'll lower the production of useful things to buy, such that we're actually poorer in some sense in spite of it. I certainly agree with you about the fact that the production of the things we buy with money being more important than the rectangular pieces of paper, though.

So I actually think it can work out for a country like Norway, that's small and rich and which imports plenty of physical goods from elsewhere with oil money, and therefore where it honestly doesn't change much of anything. It's what happens when everybody does it that I wonder about.

But maybe I'm wrong and it will just end up outsourcing all the labor to China / Mexico / SE Asia / wherever with a manageable inflation and we'll muddle through somehow. I don't really know, which is why I'm disturbed that I see so few people who seem to have any good idea about the actual effects talking about it.

I've never seen a better post for the old quote about the future already being here, just unevenly distributed. Web frontend devs with ivy degrees living in SV don't have much permanent structural unemployment, well at least until they get older. Its a bit more of a current issue for the other 7.3 billion people in the world.

Let's say someone gets a PhD - that takes ~5 years. So instead of entering the workforce at 22, they enter the workforce at 27. If they retire at 70, then their working hours went down from 48 years of work to 43 years of work, or ~10%.

Do you consider the ~10% loss in working hours a major disadvantage?

I could definitely see more people getting advanced degrees in a "MINCOME" society. For example, I have a family member that really wants to do a masters, but had to work through school and isn't sure they can swing it for a masters too.

Perhaps you could reflect upon why you allowed this subject to deprive you of basic logic skills and make you rather confrontational. Andrew highlighted the areas where the policy had an effect on work. I would suggest that if you cannot dispassionately handle simple logic in a non inflammatory comment that your views may be rather clouded.

That's really meta.

"and the (im)morality is no different."

Morality is relative, but I don't understand your views on it. If a society is rich enough to give a good life to all their members, is it immoral to do it?

What about keeping a big part of the population afraid of how are they going to pay the rent tomorrow so you have cheap and available workers? is that moral? specially when we live in the richest societies of history?

People that believe in the overwhelmed goodness of markets should investigate a little more history. For instance: the ten hours bill in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factories_Act_1847) and how the "laissez faire" crow of the time opposed to "restrict the working hours of women and young persons (13-18) in textile mills to 10 hours per day" because its immorality.

What do you mean by "Morality is relative"?

Do you mean that there is no fact of the matter as to whether an act in a context is moral? Because if that is your claim, I disagree.

I don't have any problem with people who want to support a minimum basic income with their own money. The moral issue begins when you force others to financially support your scheme.

Which current society is rich enough to give a good life to all of their members?

Depends on your definition of "good life", but mine is making sure you don't have to worry about shelter, food, or vital medical care. And every industrialized nation can afford that, easily.

What does that equate to, about 40k a year for the US?

$40k * 300M = $1.2 * 10^13, or the whole GDP of the US

Okay maybe that's too luxurious for the common people. Let's say only 20k per year, and to only 200M people.

$20k * 200M = $4 * 10^12, or about the total federal spending for 2015.

So how exactly is the 'richest' nation in the world able to afford this, easily?

You're including children in that.

Also, this would presumably replace Social Security and other welfare costs (or retirees would be excluded).

And finally, people would still be working. I'm sure the taxes I pay would more than cover the cost for giving it to me.

Where is the line drawn for income where above it you pay more net (through taxes) and below it you pay less?

That's true. So why do we feel the need to coerce people into paying into such systems? The more I investigate it the more I think it's because of the power such systems grant the coercers. Consider the uproar over Zuckerberg having the temerity to spend his money on charity in the way he pleases, instead of the State getting to choose.

I believe the reason we need to coerce people into paying is because economically if you don't let people volunteer to pay, it just doesn't work. Excuse me if I don't have the sources for this as it was my Econ PhD friend who explained it to me.

I wonder if the argument against it is something like this: imagine for every person, they have some amount they are willing to contribute to said scheme. However, unless the total amount needed to fund such a project is small, if you don't force everyone to contribute then the cost will be significantly higher per person. Then, because it's higher than what some people want to pay, they choose not to pay although they would have otherwise. After that happens, the price increases more, and this effect continues.

Sure, that sounds entirely reasonable from a mathematical perspective.

But the question to ask is: does that justify the use of coercion to secure funding? I.e., does efficiency justify the use of force?

which is not?

Do we have the infrastructure (or can we build it) and the knowledge or not?

To my knowledge, what you've said is just as incorrect as what the parties you oppose said. There haven't actually been that many studies, all considered, and the studies there have been weren't conclusive.

I think Finland would be better off testing the idea (e.g. in a single city, eligible population fixed at the start) before committing to it. There would doubtless be problems with the test, but it would give a better idea of what to expect.

The article didn't mention it, but my understanding is Kela is planning to do a pilot phase where they give 550 €/month to a group of people selected by lottery across the nation.

I'll upvote you because I think you have a valid opinion, and you shouldn't be downvoted because your opinions differ from others. We need other opinions to have a healthy discussion after all.

I just want to say that first of all, you can certainly be productive without generating an income. All the people who contribute to OSS projects are certainly productive despite not being paid to do so for example.

Also, the idea that if you don't need to make a living, you will be lazier or less likely to work is actually incorrect, at least according to this: http://economics.mit.edu/files/10861

I'll be honest in admitting I haven't gotten around to reading it, I've only read the conclusion and intro, so please do correct me if I was wrong.

Finally, and this is more personal, I really do believe that most people will do better work if they are not pressured to make a living. For example, if university professors didn't have to earn a living, I imagine they would spend all their time doing research instead of using most of their time now doing administrative tasks. I can't imagine anyone became a professor thinking they wanted to go to meetings; certainly all the people I've met who wanted to become professors did it in spite of the fact they knew they would have to deal with a lot of nonsense because they could not imagine doing anything besides research.

How many PhD students in CS end up in industry because the academic environment is awful? I suppose you could argue that by joining industry they are more productive but I'd argue that both are productive, but an individual would be more productive working where their passions align.

I think most people here would not be doing what their job requires but instead contribute to OSS, and honestly we probably have better software as a result.

I am in complete agreement that people can be productive and positive to their society without working. My girlfriend and I are both STEM graduates, but if income hadn't stagnated for the last 30 years and my earnings could support the two of us, she would be a housewife in a heartbeat, and it would also greatly benefit my utility, such as gaining an extra 40 minutes a day at minimum from being dropped off at work instead of walking to and from the employee parking lot. The additional time, energy, and mental health could help boost my work performance and increase my chances of raises and promotions.

We often wonder what Western society lost when the private sector discovered that feminism was profitable.

Another empirical study to counter your first point http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-t...

Regarding the morality of it, there's a good argument to be had from the position that it's fair compensation for the allocation of property. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

Given that an apartment in Helsinki costs 900 Euros a month, 800 Euros a month cannot be considered a living.

So they live somewhere other than Helsinki.

Once you stop forcing people to prove that they are looking for work then you can spread them around the country a bit more.

The point of a universal wage is not to stop people from working though and not living in a big city removes almost any chance of working in most European countries.

A quick Wikipedia check [1] says that there are other towns in Finland, I would expect them to grow a bit. I would also expect people to take a bit of time to decide what kind of work they could do within the new system.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Urbanization

What would an unemployed Finn do currently in that situation? Is their some sort of more generous housing assistance that would be replaced? It seems like the 800 Euro allotment would be enough for 2+ roommates or a couple to afford housing and minimal other expenses.

It's a good time to own property in Finland. If I was a landlord there, say I have about 20% vacancy over the year. After this change, I should expect to have a larger pool of applicants because whether they work or not people now have an extra 800 Euros per month that can go directly to a nicer apartment, or at least to one with 2 roommates instead of 4. Joke's on them, though, I just raise my rent cost across the board by 800 Euros per month (probably less as everyone else will want to try and capture this, including other landlords who I'm competing against) and change it around if it's too high until I get back to my acceptable vacancy numbers but with a bigger profit.

Poor people having more disposable income means it's a good time to sell things that they want, like food and shelter. Joke's on them!

Indeed food is another thing whose price will rise. Meaning that because the supply pipeline is relatively fixed, when the demand goes up (due to more people with disposable income) things will either sell out more quickly or the price will go up resulting in a drop in demand to match the previous levels but now more money is in the hands of the suppliers. Only if an increased demand looks very sustainable will a company increase its supply output ahead of schedule.

Housing assistance is up to 80% of rent, up to a maximum of 400 euros per month.

Wouldn't they just get a job to offset expenses or move to a cheaper city?