As an example, I once had a homeless guy ask me for money outside a grocery store. I suggested that we go inside and get him whatever food he wanted, and he said he'd wait for me outside. Sure enough he was gone by the time I returned. I'm fairly certain he only wanted the money for alcohol or drugs. That kind of person doesn't save money for food, they beg for food and use the money for other purposes.
If you made the program automatically adjust your BI down when you started accepting food from government programs, that would basically act as the government stepping in for people who just aren't able to handle money.
I've had other experiences with homeless men turning down food when I offered it. I know that my father-in-law would be (and has been, in the past) happy on the street, using his money for cigarettes and gambling with his friends. There are a lot of different kinds of people that would need to be accounted for and different motivations.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/ezard-homelessness-and...
Further, I don't have much money. I cannot afford a lot of stuff for myself. So I can only help with necessities. And I don't want to judge whether any given person is lying.
In conclusion, I never hand out money. But I've bought quite a few bags of groceries for strangers.
Freedom isn't freedom without the option to fuck up.
The problem is that the US system has such incredibly low social mobility that it prevents any alternative to fucking up.
The mythology of personal choice applied to situations over which hardly anyone has actual personal control is perniciously misleading.
The "undeserving poor" - feckless, addicted, irresponsible - is just as much of a cliche as the opposite.
In fact, BI research shows that most people don't waste the money. They use it to improve their lives - sometimes by starting small businesses that wouldn't be possible without BI.
I believe that the concept of "deserving" or "undeserving" poverty is not just unhelpful but actually misleading, and creates a great deal of unnecessary confusion. It is more useful to ignore the personal details and look at the systems. We can't change other people; we can rarely change ourselves; but we can certainly change systems, because they are human creations in the first place. So that's how we should approach poverty.
I am in favor of basic income as an improvement on and replacement for other forms of social support, for a variety of reasons: it seems like a more efficient way to move money around, it seems like a more effective way to distribute resources to people in need of them, and it seems overall like a more egalitarian, less judgemental way of dealing with a whole complex of problems which currently create a great deal of suffering. It is simple enough to feel like good engineering. It is fair enough to feel sustainable. It is non-ideological enough that I feel reasonably sure it would be difficult to use it as a mechanism of social control against weirdo outliers, like I am, but who aren't fortunate enough to have access to the same resources I do.
By "option to fuck up" I mean simply the freedom to do something other than mainstream opinion thinks you should. In these examples, people clearly believe it would be a bad idea for someone begging on the street to use the money they earn to buy alcohol. Well, on average, that's probably true. But just because someone is in a desperate way, I don't believe that gives me (or you, or anyone) the right to tell them what choices they should make. It's still their life. If I am willing to hand the guy on the street corner my spare $5, I have to be willing to accept that he's going to do whatever he thinks best with that money. If I can't be happy with that I shouldn't give him the money. But I believe that each person generally is the best judge of what is best for themself; I'd like it if the society around me would leave me free to make my own choices, not because I'm successful enough not to have to beg for money on the street, but because that's how I think we should all treat each other all the time, regardless of circumstances.
And that's without even getting into the problem of perverse incentives involved in giving money to people for asking for it.
If someone asks me for money, and I give them money, it becomes their money, and it is none of my business what they choose to do with it, any more than it is any of their business (or yours!) what I would have done with it if I kept it.
Otherwise, you're not really giving them help, you're taking some amount of control over their life.
It isn't if your idea of help is unconditional donation. But is there anything wrong if I see donations as investments (in society) with expected returns on the same? Would I be wrong in trying to maximize my returns?
The point is, just giving money does not absolve us of our moral responsibility. If I donate with an objective of social good, not just with the idea of dispensing my spare wealth, it is my right and duty to see that my investments give the maximal return, i.e. maximal social good.
Of course I can be wrong/ suboptimal in my investment strategies but then I can improve.
I think this depends on what you mean by "rely on". I could see many people who are very capable of managing their money relying on BI to allow them to take behaviors that would be risky in the absence of BI. For example, a college student who is choosing between starting a small business or interviewing at larger companies may significantly rely on the BI when deciding to start their business.
However I agree that, when viewing BI as a safety net, those who would need it are disproportionately likely to also need help managing the money.
This belief is the underpinning for most current welfare systems, but is there any evidence supporting it?
Some citations to studies indicating the opposite is true:
The richer the society you live in, the more it becomes lbhe snhyg[1] that you are poor. Imagine how hard you would have to work to be homeless in the world of Star Trek TNG, for example.
[1] I rot13'd that text because it's not the best expression, and it might knock some people off, but I don't have time to euphemize things for adults.
Anything other than focusing on the core drives and desires of man is superficial at best and wasted at worst.
We live in a world now where we get half the porridge our parents did, and he's teaching us how to starve and hide porridge in our pockets for rainy days. He's part of the problem and a distraction.
Of course he did. Never, never, never, ever give money to panhandlers.
Not being flippant; there's a reason this sign exists:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/86/70/85/86708570f...
and many more alike.
"MY WIFE IS BEING HELD HOSTAGE AND I NEED $10 MORE FOR THE RANSOM!"
Essentially, allow people to pre-commit to paying for a specific expense to a private organization which has to provide that service. They can opt out later on, but only before their next basic income check.
Also, I think there should be some sort of auto-enrollment system. So if you're found homeless, having blown all your BI check on booze, you'd be automatically enrolled in the top housing provider.
I think many people would need a BI deposit weekly.
In a few years, we could even make it daily so it's as close to a continuous stream as possible.
Printing and mailing checks can be done almost fully automated and would close down millions of welfare buildings, and give people back dignity.
There's a stigma that you get when you're on public assistance or welfare. It creates a feeling of less self-worth. This causes you to believe that the best job you'll ever get is McDonald's - so why even try to better your circumstance.
GBI on the other hand goes to everyone - even the wealthy. The message is that we're all equal and it's basically a reverse citizen tax on the government to ensure everyone can live and grow in nurtured environments.
The world I see in the next 20 years - there will be no more truck drivers. Fast food restaurants will be run by 1 manager alone. Gas stations will be ran by self-serve kiosks, and be fully automated, as will be grocery stores - including re-stocking. Other jobs that will be gone: Surgeons / Doctors (probably not fully but the need will be a lot less because of AI like Watson, where you once needed 30+ doctors in a hospital you might need only 3 or 4.), construction workers, trash trucks, oil rig workers, fishing, pilots, military (replaced by drones / droids), manufacturing, etc...
We will move from a society where it's expected that everyone work 40+ hours and sometimes two jobs to meet basic needs to a society where work is optional, and 20 hours is the norm. More focus and time is spent with family and having experiences that truly enrich one's life. GBI gives people the freedom to also pursue entrepreneurism, startup ideas, music, art, writing, and any other number of hobbies and past times that could enrich society in general. Studies have shown that truly happy people aren't the ones who have the most 'stuff' it's the people who experience the most that life has to offer (i.e. traveling, events, concerts, etc...)
For us to get to GBI we need to hurry up the automation revolution -- I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, and progressive democrat who's FOR robots at Wendy's and McDonald's as well as a $15+min wage... I see it coming. 40% of jobs will be gone by 2030 and never replaced. The faster we tip the scale and hit the dirt the faster government will need to respond or there will be riots when people are starving and losing jobs left and right. It needs to get worse before it can get better essentially.
This fantasy that AI/robotics/self-driving vehicles is just around the corner is like fusion power - perpetually 15 years in the future. It'll happen, eventually Moore's law will make it possible, but it's not as close as people think.
And your comment about "The faster we tip the scale" is almost inhumane considering the impact. It needs to get worse before it can get better? I suppose that goes with "Never let a crisis go to waste..."
But that aside, if all that's left is basic cleaning then McDonalds could simply contract a cleaning service. I'd guess that a single team could service at least 10 fast food restaurants a day. And then how many years before running the cleaning service only requires one person?
Watson is not AI. Its just a marketing buzzword. Doctors will be replaced right after tenured professors and software developers... (not in 20 years).
millions?
<We will move from a society where it's expected that everyone work 40+ hours and sometimes two jobs to meet basic needs to a society where work is optional, and 20 hours is the norm.>
"We'll lose a bundle on each recipient, but we'll make it up in volume."
i guess if someone is on basic income then he will not be able to afford a family of his own; raising kids is quite expensive. A basic income receiver will also be out of luck if he has to support a member of his family who got into trouble, if your family is unable to be a potential source of security and everyone is alone on his own then the concept of family will become more brittle.
To me basic income sounds like a way to create a dependent underclass - very dependent on the state for that matter (and will probably vote for the party that is most likely to continue with the basic income policy - so it will likely be a politically agitated group). And that's not quite conductive to the idea of personal happiness...
Basic income is an attempt to deal with a growing number of people who are unemployable in the modern economy. I think a better way would be to find meaningful work for these people - maybe in such areas as caring for disabled and elderly or in education (i think we are out of luck with automating these tasks). This approach would be harder and costs more to implement than just dealing out the welfare checks, so it will probably not be adopted...
We already have that - and it's currently very hard for people on welfare and/or disability to ever pull themselves out of it. With basic income it becomes possible to start working 1 hour a week, then 2, then 3..., without having to worry about losing your benefits or getting in tax trouble.
> Basic income is an attempt to deal with a growing number of people who are unemployable in the modern economy. I think a better way would be to find meaningful work for these people - maybe in such areas as caring for disabled and elderly or in education (i think we are out of luck with automating these tasks).
If people find those things fulfilling to do themselves, they will do them (and basic income allows them to do it unpaid). If other people want them to do those things, they will pay for it. If no-one wants them to do those things, there's no value in them doing it.
So it will bring down salaries - why bother with paying a salary when you can get volunteers on basic income for free?
Unpaid work by basic income receivers is an interesting question on its own - on the side of the employee there would be the question of motivation; on the side of the employer there would be questions of reliability - can one trust an unpaid employee to appear at work reliably and in time ?
I'd expect it to bring down salaries for fulfilling or enjoyable work (or "work"), while pushing up salaries for less pleasant jobs.
Not unlikely scenario: some department is created to handle these necessities, they hire a bunch of people for terrible admin jobs, and they still sub-contract a bunch of the specific work to private companies.
It probably isn't, but one possibility is that the government would be such a huge customer, that they have significant negotiating power. Per-unit costs would consequently be much lower.
The government is notoriously bad at this.
That having been said, I personally like this idea a lot. Maybe the balance between the two can be adjusted by cutting out (the market rate + agency cost) out of your BI – i.e. If a month's cheap food is $200 at cost, if you participate in a food stamp program, it takes $250 out of your BI (since a bunch of people have to be employed to verify things about it).
That way, people will be more motivated to not use the government agencies since they get a better deal by just saving that amount out of their BI.
In the UK currently, we do that by things like having pre-pay meters for electricity - but the pre-pay electricity costs more even though you paid for it up front! (there are other similar scenarios, where poor people are penalized because they haven't a positive credit report)
I don't know the answer though; I think what ncallaway suggested was to provide it at-cost which seems fair (also, the bulk-buying power of a food kitchen means that it should not really cost any more - in fact it may cost less than doing it yourself)
On the other hand, being able to 'sign over' a portion of one's basic income might open up all sorts of other abuses. (e.g. some sort of payday loan company that says, sign over your Basic Income for a year and I'll give you a lump sum right now...)
[1] IRS Publication 590, "Prohibited Transactions", https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf
> In the UK currently, we do that by things like having pre-pay meters for electricity - but the pre-pay electricity costs more even though you paid for it up front!
Given this information, I don't see how it is similar. It seems more like stupidity of the part of British Gas or whoever. Are the prepay meters used by poorer families who get subsidies paid directly into those meters or something?
The electricity supplier gets more for the same electricity at no risk. Thats not actually stupid.. but in my opinion, it is in some way evil.
Yeah, I meant stupid as in, 'No person would take that "deal" if they could help it.' I guess the people who are taking this deal are forced to take it, and that does make it pretty bad (especially if you are a brand-new tenant who isn't actually connected to the previous one who had trouble paying).
Doesn't this already exist? You can exchange $X for food at stores, restaurants, etc. Why make a program that just turns the government into a grocery store?
That is, if my monthly BI payment is $800 I can opt to receive a monthly BI payment of $600 and also be guaranteed to receive enough basic foodstuffs to survive for the month.
I would also set these up to draw off the next month's BI payment, effectively allowing you access to short-term credit for groceries. If we are in mid-june and I've run-out of money, I can start the government foods program immediately, taking the funding out of my July BI check.
These services would be intended for people who are having a hard-time managing their finances in a responsible-way. Grocery stores neither help people manage their money or provide short-term credit solutions.
This is not necessary. Just distribute the money weekly (or daily) and let people figure out what to spend it on. If they would rather buy cigarettes than food, let them. When they're hungry they'll buy food.
For the small percent of people who have serial problems managing their capital, giving them capital is the worst thing you can do. This causes people to get trapped in a cycle.
The key difference here is you replace future-capital with the goods or services directly. It's much harder to turn food and/or rent back into capital, and then mismanage it.
...if Something Happens and you run out of cash this month, why would you expect to a) not have Something Happen next month or b) have enough surplus next month to repay the "loan"?
Well, I guess you'd want to peg the BI at "average cost of living plus buffer", so that the person always has enough liquidity to cover, say, a standard deviation of Oh Shit over the course of N months. Or, keep safety nets as nets (rather than traps) so that Oh Shit, Something Happened events don't cause this issue.
Hmmm.
With current safety nets, we have perhaps 15% [1] of Americans that for whatever reason lack the capital to have an adequate supply of food.
With Basic Income, perhaps we reduce that number down to 1%, but we still need to take care of that 1%.
With the government services program that I suggested (and there are many other models, and I'd be happy to discuss other models), maybe you get that number down to 0.3%. Yet, as a country, we still need to take care of those people.
Personally, when it comes to feeding and housing people, my answer to "At what point do we stop" is: Never.
[1] 48.1 million Americans lived in Food Insecure Households (http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hu... 317.3 million Americans in 2014 (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2013/...) = 15.1%
To use your idea though, you could join a voluntary mutualized/cooperative consumer union that buys food in bulk discounts to distribute to members, or pools 5-20 peoples UBI to buy a very large house.
If you're having problems feeding yourself, I would like to see an opt-in program where you can receive food, in exchange for $X out of your BI. If you're having problems housing yourself, an opt-in program for housing in exchange for $Y out of your BI.
The same options should be available for all the necessities (clothes, food, water, shelter, communications, and savings). The sum of these government services should sum to your total BI grant, so if you opt-in to all government services you have the basics of survival totally covered but receive no direct BI.