I've liked Charles Murray's ideas on universal basic income whenever I've heard them. Milton Friedman supported it as well. The key is that it must simplify and replace already existing welfare programs, otherwise it would simply be too expensive and a bureaucratic nightmare.

So, what are your thoughts about basic income or any other alternatives that I'm or others are not aware of? — Posty McPostface

The pragmatic argument is that a basic income will effectively reduce or eliminate poverty at a lower or similar cost to what we're spending now. The counter argument is primarily moral - it's not right to give people money who don't or won't work for it. They don't deserve it.

Agree - there has to be some relationship between income and work, even if it is essentially a gratuity.

Although really the deeper problem is that consumer economics relies on the stimulation of demand and the constant consumption of stuff on the part of the populace. Someone needs to point out that due to the Malthusian pressures that we’re all going to be exposed to soon, there needs to be an alternative economic model which rewards something OTHER than consumption. I imagine that is going to take an enormous cultural shift, but then, ‘nothing concentrates the mind like the knowledge that one will be hung in the morning’.

Agree - there has to be some relationship between income and work, even if it is essentially a gratuity. — Wayfarer

Are you responding to my post? If so, I guess I was unclear. I support a basic income for pragmatic reasons. I don't care about the moral argument. I was just expressing my understanding of other people's objections.

I was reflecting on one of the points you made, although now I read it again, I see you were simply flagging it as one amongst the spectrum of views.

I guess what I'm saying is that, I think the provision of a basic income sounds a very civilized idea, if it were possible, but at the same time, I think there has to be some link between production and consumption. Or, there has to be a culture within which the citizenry can pursue a meaningful occupation, even if it's not directly tied to such a proposed income. I can't see how making an income available without any kind of reciprocity could work.

I think you'd have to divide the payment into two parts. I'm not an economist, so I wouldn't claim to know the economic implications of such a payment, but ethically, the idea that people do not simply owe you the fruits of their labour seems pretty ancient, but the idea that someone can charge you just for standing on a particular piece of the earth is relatively new and not so easily defensible. So, whilst you could make an ethical argument that the part of the payment covering food, clothing etc should be linked to work, I don't think it would be quite so justified that the part of the payment covering rent (or housing costs) need be linked to anything.

In fact, if people were automatically entitled to a certain area of land, they would indeed be free to engage in an exchange of labour for their food or to simply grow their own. Equally we could be quite justified in withholding further aid to the healthy individual on the grounds that if they were willing to work they could secure their own means of survival.

Are you responding to my post? If so, I guess I was unclear. I support a basic income for pragmatic reasons. I don't care about the moral argument. I was just expressing my understanding of other people's objections. — T Clark

I agree on the necessity. If people are excluded from ways to provide for themselves and from provision itself, eventually they will from necessity pick up their scythes, axes, and hammers and dismantle the entire social structure. Examples: the French and US revolutions, and countless others throughout history. For that reason, almost everyone should thank creators of the entitlements (in the US) of social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, and so forth. In brief, they are dikes against the flood of chaos. A question arises if they can work forever....

The counter argument is primarily moral - it's not right to give people money who don't or won't work for it. They don't deserve it. — T Clark

People do love a bit of morality, 'tis true. With basic income, there is always the opportunity to tut at how someone has done nothing with the opportunity, while another has shone in some way.

So, what are your thoughts about basic income or any other alternatives that I'm or others are not aware of? — Posty McPostface

I think people who can work should be given the opportunity to work in what they'd want to work in. If someone is not capable to work, then I think they should be given basic income, or otherwise they should have all their food/healthcare/education/water/shelter needs taken care of. And I think if someone is able to work, and they refuse to work, then they shouldn't be given anything - I mean it would be unfair for someone who can contribute to not contribute and freeload on the back of others no?

I mean it would be unfair for someone who can contribute to not contribute and freeload on the back of others no? — Agustino

Yeah; but, what if they hate their job and want to educate themselves or go back to college, or pursue areas of interest that don't entail an immediate return on material investment, like arts, history, or music?

I do agree though, and think the Pareto principle would apply; but, have no idea how to deal with that.

Yeah; but, what if they hate their job and want to educate themselves or go back to college, or pursue areas of interest that don't entail an immediate return on material investment, like arts, history, or music? — Posty McPostface

Then if they want to pursue those things, they clearly do want to work.

I do agree though, and think the Pareto principle would apply; but, have no idea how to deal with that. — Posty McPostface

What do you mean you have no idea how to deal with that? With what?

Then if they want to pursue those things, they clearly do want to work. — Agustino

So, doesn't that mean that someone who doesn't want to work is devoid of any desire to want anything material in the world? It would seem that that could be an argument against the notion that there are swaths of people who just want to live on welfare and would only be a drain on the economy. I mean, even welfare participants are consumers, no? At the very least, you can reference Keynesian economics to justify giving people money to stimulate the economy. I think, Milton Friedman thought along these lines, or not since I haven't read his argument for Basic Income.

What do you mean you have no idea how to deal with that? With what? — Agustino

Well, assuming that it's true that some people would only want to be on welfare and not produce or create anything of value, then the Pareto principle states that at least 20% of those people would account for 80% of the negative outcome, as in, wanting to be on welfare but not doing anything productive with their time. Assuming, that to be true, then there's really no means to prevent that from happening, or is there?

I think if someone is able to work, and they refuse to work, then they shouldn't be given anything - I mean it would be unfair for someone who can contribute to not contribute and freeload on the back of others no? — Agustino

In a tribal village setting yes. But in a modern technological massively connected society such thinking is out of context. You are,in effect, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It would seem that that could be an argument against the notion that there are swaths of people who just want to live on welfare and would only be a drain on the economy. I mean, even welfare participants are consumers, no? — Posty McPostface

From a scientific point of view, consumption is actually a drain on the economy, not a blessing. Those people are consuming goods and more resources need to go into their production for that reason. The same effect could have been achieved if the government spent that money instead of lazy individuals, and probably it would be spent with more wisdom too.

Well, assuming that it's true that some people would only want to be on welfare and not produce or create anything of value, then the Pareto principle states that at least 20% of those people would account for 80% of the negative outcome, as in, wanting to be on welfare but not doing anything productive with their time. Assuming, that to be true, then there's really no means to prevent that from happening, or is there? — Posty McPostface

I think the Pareto principle loops on itself in a fractal kind of way. I'm actually reading an interesting book about this at the moment - kind of a practical business book - called 80/20 Sales and Marketing (if you swim in some business circles, I'm sure you heard about it). It's quite good, lots of actionable advice, and opened my eyes to a few things. But it's also very "salesy" - what else could you expect from a marketer lol. Basically, the idea is that 20% of the 20% account for 80% of the 80% of the results - meaning 4% account for 64% of the results.

Personally, I use the Pareto Principle to think about little things that can give significantly better results, or I use it to allocate my time basically. But I'm not set in stone about the 80/20 breakdown. It may be 90/10, 95/5, 70/30, etc. But for sure a lot of the results are obtained by few of the actions. In terms of my own personal revenue, the 80/20 rule holds quite well. Few clients make up most of my revenue, and the others are tiny in comparison.

From a scientific point of view, consumption is actually a drain on the economy, not a blessing. Those people are consuming goods and more resources need to go into their production for that reason. — Agustino

The truth is the more work that society squeezes from the population, the more extreme luxury goods are made, and the fewer people consume them. The effect becomes more bizarre and exaggerated as technology and productivity increases.