This Freakonomics podcast on guaranteed income misses the ability to shrug
Friends, the right and ability for those of us who understand the nature of things to "shrug" off the burden of unnecessary coercion is getting more urgent than ever. The movement and consensus to create some type of basic income (more than a basic living wage) is growing. The Freakonomics authors in this podcast correctly mention the concern about how such a system will create a dis-incentive for work. But as one person says, that's probably ok because the effort and output of 5 or 10% of the people will probably make up for this.
Hey you--you obviously haven't ever read Atlas Shrugged! What happens when this portion of the population decides they don't want to play that game?!
We can see how the future will play out. But IMO it's very important to hear and understand the people and forces at work that are going to bring us to the tipping point (or shrugging point) so that we can take the necessary actions ahead of time. Do yourself a big favor and listen to the 4/13/16 podcast episode of Freakonomics Radio. I can't seem to create a direct link for that episode. Here's the link to the program: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/f...
Hey you--you obviously haven't ever read Atlas Shrugged! What happens when this portion of the population decides they don't want to play that game?!
We can see how the future will play out. But IMO it's very important to hear and understand the people and forces at work that are going to bring us to the tipping point (or shrugging point) so that we can take the necessary actions ahead of time. Do yourself a big favor and listen to the 4/13/16 podcast episode of Freakonomics Radio. I can't seem to create a direct link for that episode. Here's the link to the program: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/f...
I have a different understanding of what they're saying. I don't think they mean that most people would not work and a few high producers would pay hefty taxes to carry 90-95% of society. I think they're envisioning you would get a subsistence guaranteed amount of money if you're poor, and you would loose a little of the benefit as you earn more and eventually start paying in. They don't envision most people would subsist. Rather they would work and pay taxes similar to what they do now.
What they're saying, though, is even if most people on the dole just play video games but 5-10% use it to start some huge value-creating giant like Facebook or Amazon, we come out way ahead. I can see this because I see many people start a business while their partner works some non-demanding gov't job that borders on Welfare to pay the bills. I do not know if a guaranteed income would work the same way. I do think it might help reduce crimes related to poverty and issues of children in poverty. I don't know how much, though, because it's simplistic to say being poor causes crime and child abuse. Oftentimes it's one set of human failings that causes crime, child abuse, and poverty.
In short, I'm wishy-washy on this because I don't know how it would work practically, but I'm open to the idea.
But the Freakonomics podcast is more than entertainment, it's enlightening too. It's very good at revealing the counterintuitive or unexpected relationships behind things.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/minco...
It reminds me of a recent book "The Second Machine Age," which ended with a call for a guaranteed income.
I see things similarlly to self-described techno-optimistist Sam Altman. I agree with most of his description but situation. I am cautious though. I wonder if almost all times I could live in feel like radical times calling for radcial new measures.
I respond to what Altman said about the possibility of 10% of the people creating new value in another message. I think he's on to something and not simply counting on them to carry the load the same way some people propose massive spending and say "billionaires" will pay for it.
To start with I think gov't giving money to the poor is a good thing and not alms. Most Rand fans consider it forced alms and will reject the whole idea of taking people's money and giving it to the poor regardless of how the money is spent.
Assuming it's desirable for the gov't to help the poor, I'd rather give them the money directly than have agencies provide things for them. Maybe experts with masters degrees would spend it more wisely, but maybe sometimes the poor actually know better than anyone what they need and how to use that money to improve their life and eventually generate their own income.
The other thing I like about it is it would be simple to structure it such that every dollar you earn the benefit decreases a set amount. So you would never have the case where someone actually looses take-home pay by earning more money because it puts them over some eligibility threshold.
It's absolutely true that automation is eliminating jobs much faster than most people realize. It's also increasing wealth inequality by allowing the one best person at a job to do that job all over the world. In the past we had to use the teachers who lived near us, but now we can bring the top teacher in the world into our homes or classrooms. This is completely shaking up our society.
I do not think the answer to this is a guaranteed income. Instead I think people wanting to earn money need to find ways to use these new tools to serve others for money in new ways.
The podcast also talks about a guaranteed income replacing a byzantine cluster of gov't programs. I love this idea, but I have the same thought as I do to the flat tax. A guaranteed income does not guarantee those programs go away any more than a flat tax would keep complexity out of the tax code. I guess I would be for it if it were spending-neutral or -negative, i.e. they shut down the same or more spending in gov't agencies.
I'll write what I like about the guaranteed income in a separate reply.