Re:Time for a Guaranteed Basic Income?
by acdha on Saturday January 23, 2016 @02:59PM
(#10959795)
> Taking care of my family involves me working hard, so why are you willing to make me work harder so that others can work less?
Because when you decide you'd like to launch a startup, you don't want the failure mode to be “I lose my house and live out of my car”.
Because in a year when you or a family member develops a debilitating disease, you'd want there to be an option available which is better than “I go bankrupt and end up on the street”.
Because if you or a family member decides they want to switch careers, go back to school, etc. you'd like food, health care, etc. not to be a major source of stress unless you're independently wealthy.
Because if you or a family member ends up in a bad relationship and needs to leave in a hurry, the answer isn't hoping there's room at a shelter because all of the landlords in town want a deposit or there's a year delay getting the subsidized child-care needed to actually be able to get a job.
Most of the people in the United States who go bankrupt were willing to work hard and didn't think that would happen to them. That went well until they had medical bills, a major employer left the area, etc. and they either couldn't work or were unable to find a job. People like to say you should keep 6-12 months income in the bank, which is certainly great advice but even if you're one of the relatively fortunate people who can afford to save that much money it can disappear faster than expected if more than one thing goes wrong at a time.
As a society we've decided we don't want to live in a world where poor people die on the street (or are forced into terrible jobs, begging, prostitution, etc.). The problem UBI tries to solve is that the existing systems are incomplete, often create bad incentives, and require hugely expensive bureaucracies to review people at every step of the way. Providing a consistent income to everyone avoids things like someone getting the support they need to get a job, working hard and then having it all fall apart when they get a raise which is large enough to disqualify them from housing/child-care support but not large enough to replace it.
It doesn't get rid of the incentive to do more, however, unless you really think that most people in society will hit the basic minimums needed for life and never want nicer food, housing, entertainment, etc.
Because when you decide you'd like to launch a startup, you don't want the failure mode to be “I lose my house and live out of my car”.
Because in a year when you or a family member develops a debilitating disease, you'd want there to be an option available which is better than “I go bankrupt and end up on the street”.
Because if you or a family member decides they want to switch careers, go back to school, etc. you'd like food, health care, etc. not to be a major source of stress unless you're independently wealthy.
Because if you or a family member ends up in a bad relationship and needs to leave in a hurry, the answer isn't hoping there's room at a shelter because all of the landlords in town want a deposit or there's a year delay getting the subsidized child-care needed to actually be able to get a job.
Most of the people in the United States who go bankrupt were willing to work hard and didn't think that would happen to them. That went well until they had medical bills, a major employer left the area, etc. and they either couldn't work or were unable to find a job. People like to say you should keep 6-12 months income in the bank, which is certainly great advice but even if you're one of the relatively fortunate people who can afford to save that much money it can disappear faster than expected if more than one thing goes wrong at a time.
As a society we've decided we don't want to live in a world where poor people die on the street (or are forced into terrible jobs, begging, prostitution, etc.). The problem UBI tries to solve is that the existing systems are incomplete, often create bad incentives, and require hugely expensive bureaucracies to review people at every step of the way. Providing a consistent income to everyone avoids things like someone getting the support they need to get a job, working hard and then having it all fall apart when they get a raise which is large enough to disqualify them from housing/child-care support but not large enough to replace it.
It doesn't get rid of the incentive to do more, however, unless you really think that most people in society will hit the basic minimums needed for life and never want nicer food, housing, entertainment, etc.