Do you want to live in poverty? No? There's your incentive!

You don't believe that is an incentive? Well do you personally do more than is required to survive in poverty? Could you work less and get by? See, the incentive works on you!

Where basic income really helps is with groups like single mothers. Single mothers have a strong disincentive to work - a job has to cover whatever they receive now, plus child care costs. If you don't have good job prospects, few jobs pay enough to do this. This is the fundamental economic reason that creates "welfare moms".

With basic income any job that exceeds the cost of daycare is a net positive.

> Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work?

A lot of people wouldn't do anything; but they don't do much now, either.

Others, however, wouldn't be satisfied with basic survival.

I could probably quit my job and move somewhere cheaper and work 10 hours a week and be able to afford basic food and accommodations - but that doesn't equate to a party at my house every night, because the ultra-basic income wouldn't pay for any frills like alcohol, drugs, or entertainment.

This is absurd. People will work, they just won't "work for the man" if they don't want to. They will do things they enjoy. They will be creative. They will play sports. They will volunteer, etc etc.

Ask yourself: what would you do with your life if you had nothing to compel you into the daily grind for survival? If your basic needs were guaranteed to be met, what would you want to accomplish? Imagine a world where this were true for everyone. Why would anyone prefer this rat race to that? Just so you can continue to stratify society based on those who "contribute" in ways that have market value?

Being a waiter, cook, barista, janitor, retail floor worker, or cashier are all 'working for the man' that few people really enjoy. So restaurants, coffee shops and basically all stores disappear in your proposed only "do things they enjoy" world.

Which is good, because no one would work construction, or do plumbing, or review building permits for safety in a basement office in city hall for fun either, so there wouldn't be places for these establishments to exist soon anyway.

Society can't function with people only doing things they enjoy.

You don't think there is any amount of money you could pay people to do those things for you? If so, I think you're mistaken.

This may mean that costs for getting people to do unpleasant things for you will rise. Consider it a correction to the fact that median real wages have been falling for years, if you'd like. If - even with your new basic income - you are having a hard time finding someone to work for you, you'll just have to offer more money. This is preferable to forcing people to work for you out of fear of them dying for want of food or healthcare, in my book.

I think you also have a narrow-minded conception of what people can view as fun. I would very much enjoy being a chef, but it doesn't pay as well as my current gig and that's a larger motivator for me in part because of the lack of social net.

Robots and automation will continue to do more and more of the total labor that humans need; this provides a constant check against labor prices rising too much. It seems like we would steer our robotics and AI R&D towards replacing jobs that humans really don't want to do [at the amount you're able to pay them]. What's wrong with that?

I would be a lot more inclined to find value and even enjoyment in being a waiter or cook if my desire (quite plausible to imagine) was to own and operate a restaurant. Likewise, I wouldn't mind so much doing janitorial work or running the cash register in my own shop.

Maybe what would disappear is the huge retail / food service chains, in favor of passionately-run local businesses?

What people seem to be missing in this thread is the fact that the concept of the basic income is that it's _basic_.

Construction already (surprisingly) pays pretty well, so does plumbing, etc etc. More tedious jobs will either be automated (which is far more efficient) or if they absolutely require a human brain, there will be a rise in the cost of that labor until the work is worth the money for enough people.

Money is fungible enough that it can be converted into "doing things [you] enjoy". With a well-designed, subsistence level basic income, you won't have enough money to do things you enjoy (unless your hobbies start and end at eating, having shelter, and sleeping). If you work construction, or plumbing, or any "boring job", you'll make substantially more money than the "basic income", and can spend that money on things you enjoy.

You're right about your point in the short term. My comment was considering the extreme (though inevitable future) where the majority of labor is obsoleted by automation. Usually discussions about basic income have a component about the increasing obsolescence of unskilled and even skilled labor and the necessary changes to society to accommodate such a future.

We went from putting every ounce of labor into hunting/gathering/building shelter for oneself and one's family to early civilization where the surplus of resources generated by agriculture (i.e. technology) caused a labor surplus that allowed for new kinds of jobs to arise. More recently, the US went from 80% farmers at the time of the Revolution to 2% now. Along the way the definition of "low-level labor" and "skilled labor" changed; you'd be hard-pressed to get a job even at McDonald's or in a factory, if you're completely illiterate in modern America. It's hard to argue that these changes weren't for the better, for _everybody_, including those at the bottom of the new order. The bottom of society today is orders of magnitude better off than the middle of society in 1790, and we owe that pretty much entirely to technological advance. There are of course speed bumps along the way, and a generation of workers that are not skilled enough for the new order will have a hard time, but in a healthy economy, it's the role of the state to smooth that path using the resources that the economy at large gains from the advances in efficiency and wealth.

I'm a little skeptical of the idea that this wave of technology must be different from all the ones in the past (which isn't to say it's impossible) and obsolete jobs completely. Programming literacy may simply become the new literacy; Education may very well have to become a longer stage of life, but given lengthening lifespans, it won't necessarily be a drastically higher proportion of one's life than it has been in the past.

This isn't true. Our usual concept of ownership and hiring might have to change. There are people out there who dream about running a coffee shop. There are people out there who are the restless type who have to be working on "something". Yes, you'd have a hard time finding baristas to work for 5 dollars an hour. You could probably find plenty of people who would join a "co-op" type ownership situation where everyone shared in the less than pleasant responsibilities for a shared sense of ownership of the entire endeavor and a shared cut of the profits. No doubt society would look different than it does now, and there would be a lot of problems to solve. But these problems aren't unsolvable.

When people come over to my house, it's always a big chore to get someone to make the coffee.

Usually 5 or 6 of us gang up and threaten to throw the other one out of his house. Works every time.

> Society can't function with people only doing things they enjoy.

Yes it can. Or rather it will. That's the whole point of this basic-income discussion. The source of the problem stems from the fact automation and software is systematically replacing humans in things they don't enjoy.

I think that's just it. Under our current system, that's what people believe because that's what we've been taught to believe in order to make the system work.

But, if we were free from the need to earn income, would we all just curl up and die? Or, would we pursue other interests and make (perhaps even more valuable) contributions to society? In fact, when you look at the financial incentives our society provides, they are frequently misaligned with their net value to society. But, that's another discussion.

The author makes the point that even now, much work is done for free and given away (software, music, content creation and information curation, etc.)

Then, remember, this is just a basic, livable income. There is still financial incentive for those who desire more.

Not having to work to live may be the best thing to ever happen to the planet. :)

Are companies going to stop paying employees? No, so there's still going to be an incentive to work. Like, say, having more than bare subsistence.

I don't know what you're arguing against, but its not what people mean by an unconditional basic income. Maybe you're arguing against pure communism, but that's not what this article is about at all.

I can't tell if you're trolling. I would say most mathematicians and scientists are enthusiasts. Many programmers are also enthusiasts.

I don't even have to specify the occupation. All I have to say is that "some people are enthusiasts and would continue to produce anyway".

[Peter, Michael, and Samir are chatting as they hang around the printer]

Peter Gibbons: Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic.

Samir: So what did you say?

Peter Gibbons: I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech.

Michael Bolton: No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.

You don't ever do anything - not any one single thing - without a profit motive?

"You don't ever do anything - not any one single thing - without a <strike>profit</strike> motive?" [Corrected]

There are many non-profit motives, from simple hunger (i.e., when you're hungry you want food, not "profit") to curiosity (e.g., can I build a robot to beat Bill's bot?), from sex-drive (e.g., oh-la-la, she's hot, let me go chat her up and see if there's a "we" in our future) to helping friends and family (e.g., mom's yard has a dead tree in it, and she can't remove it herself, let me get some buddies together to go do it).

Yes, that's why there's plenty of reasons you would still want to "do things" even if you didn't need to work.

There's a really odd logic involved here. If people did not have any motivation besides making money, they would not have any desire to _spend_ money.

Who does?

Today I drew a picture for fun.

Everyone.

For example, if the basic income was $10k/year, would you feel as though you still had an incentive to work and earn a little more money than that?

Not that I think this system would work, but people do volunteer without being paid: charity, soup kitchens, etc.

Yeah, but notice that most volunteer work has a special feel-good element to it? Feeding the homeless. Saving lost animals. Helping disadvantaged children.

There aren't many volunteer organizations that, to borrow dgallagher's example, mow lawns or rake leaves, and the ones that do, only do it for special places. Perhaps for a monument or a park.

Obviously people would mow lawns but the price would be higher because they don't have to. If you wanted someone to mow your lawn, you would probably need extra income. Or, since you have more free time, you can now mow it yourself and enjoy it instead of feeling like it's cutting into your only spare 48 hours.

The point is that volunteer work is not going to grow dramatically and fill the void left by paid work.

Oh. I'm assuming the same thing, then.

The attractive part of basic income for me is that everyone has enough to buy food and housing, so suddenly menial laborers have an iota of bargaining power.

> Why would anyone do anything if they had no incentive to work?

Since jobs will still pay, why would having a small stream of unconditional income equate to "no incentive to work"?

The article is assuming that there's no need to create incentives to work. Indeed, that the market will not provide incentives to work, because it won't be needed.

Well, you can solve the problem very easily. If they don't want to have a j-o-b, you can send them to Siberia. Now everybody wants a job. Of course being productive while at work becomes your next challenge. The travails of communism!