TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

The Failure of a Past Basic Income Guarantee, the Speenhamland System

44 pointsby marcusgarveyover 10 years ago

12 comments

learnstats2over 10 years ago
This article appears to confuse guaranteed income (means-tested top-up) with basic income&#x2F;basic income guarantee (which you get unconditionally)<p>One of the major criticisms made of Speenhamland (a means-tested top-up) is that pay was reduced because employers knew employees could claim it back via the state top-up. That could happen under guaranteed income, as it apparently does here, but <i>is not relevant</i> to basic income.<p>Wikipedia clearly points out this difference: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Difference_from_guaranteed_income" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Basic_income#Difference_from_g...</a><p>A very poor article.
评论 #8896172 未加载
评论 #8896655 未加载
dllthomasover 10 years ago
From the article: <i>&quot;Even though some readers call for a stipend to everyone, that simply is not going to happen, at least in terms of net results.&quot;</i><p>From Wikipedia: <i>&quot;The authorities at Speenhamland approved a means-tested sliding-scale of wage supplements in order to mitigate the worst effects of rural poverty. Families were paid extra to top up wages to a set level according to a table.&quot;</i><p>So... &quot;basic income isn&#x27;t going to happen, a priori, so I&#x27;m going to call the failure of this other system (that looks much more like what we&#x27;re currently doing than like a basic income) a failure of basic income&quot;.
评论 #8896224 未加载
applecoreover 10 years ago
Since the early twentieth century, the world is undergoing dramatic and unprecedented change. It&#x27;s going to be very hard to extrapolate from the failure of any past system or experience into the twenty-first century.
评论 #8896049 未加载
评论 #8896472 未加载
nhaehnleover 10 years ago
I find the article to be unfortunately meandering, but it contains an important question slightly more than half-way down: Why all the popular support for a Basic Income Guarantee rather than the arguably superior Job Guarantee (though the two ideas are not mutually exclusive)?<p>The author makes some frank points that BIG advocates should take to heart. This paragraph really hits home: <i>Too many of the fantasies about a basic income guarantee seem to revolve around a tiny minority, like the individual who will write a great novel on his stipend. Let’s be real: the overwhelming majority of people who think they might like to write a book don’t have the self-displine to do so in the absence of external pressure. And that’s before you get to the question of whether it will turn out to be good enough for anyone but the author to want to read it.</i>
评论 #8896189 未加载
评论 #8896232 未加载
评论 #8896173 未加载
评论 #8896428 未加载
评论 #8896323 未加载
评论 #8896564 未加载
评论 #8896320 未加载
pbreitover 10 years ago
Even if it supposedly works, it seems so artificial and counter to individual freedom and responsibility that it makes no sense whatsoever given the current US constitution and the principles the country was founded upon.<p>(yes, I understand there are a lot of things in place that fall under that umbrella)
评论 #8896267 未加载
评论 #8896484 未加载
评论 #8896326 未加载
评论 #8896170 未加载
评论 #8896341 未加载
refurbover 10 years ago
This article has issues (as already pointed out by others), but it raises a valid point. What would be the effects of a basic income? It refers to lower wages, which might be one.<p>This just reminds me of other gov&#x27;t efforts to &quot;tweak&quot; the system. A great example in the US is drug prices. Some federal gov&#x27;t programs (Medicare) get to buy drugs at either discount X% or <i>the lowest price offered (to non-gov&#x27;t customers)</i> whichever is lower.<p>Sounds like a great idea, but what drug companies started to do is <i>pull back</i> their discounts on private customers in order to minimize the discount to the gov&#x27;t. As the gov&#x27;t started paying more, a mish-mash of &quot;tweaks&quot; were made to avoid this. This just created new ways for drug companies to respond.<p>Basic income is a decent idea at first glance, but holy crap it could become a complex mess pretty quick if it&#x27;s not done right. It could create some pretty perverse incentives for either individual or companies to maximize their gain.
评论 #8897351 未加载
tomlockover 10 years ago
I think a flat negative income tax is the way to go. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Negative_income_tax</a><p>When you earn a dollar, you lose 30c of your basic income. Once your basic income is eaten up in this way, you lose 30c out of your income as tax.<p>This means that the incentive to earn each subsequent dollar is essentially the same as the last. Of course, I&#x27;m sure someone smarter than me has a better idea of what:<p>1) The basic income amount will be 2) What the flat tax amount would be<p>The idea is that this would be both a tax reform action and also a replacement of a lot of welfare programs.
carapaceover 10 years ago
I normally eschew the practice of judging books by covers, but in this case I think you can judge the content by the URL and the comments here seem to back that up.<p>The robots <i>are</i> taking the jobs and we are going to have to figure out what people are <i>for</i> (because I&#x27;m assuming we cant just throw the &quot;excess&quot; population into a volcano or something, and just working them for no reason is obscene.)<p>Wendell Berry wrote a whole essay about this called, &quot;What are people for?&quot;
评论 #8897413 未加载
评论 #8897065 未加载
评论 #8896699 未加载
Futurebotover 10 years ago
Ms. Smith is confused. Income &quot;top-ups&quot; are not a GBI. Means-tested anything are not a GBI. Using the &quot;the Speenhamland System&quot; as an argument against the GBI shows a serious misunderstanding of what a GBI is. For a GBI to work, it&#x27;d have to be:<p>- national - otherwise you would get strange arbitraging behavior<p>- unconditional<p>- available to all adults<p>The idea is that you get the <i>minimum</i> (let&#x27;s say 22k a year if we started one now), then you work to get even more money. It&#x27;s enough to live on. To not starve. To pay rent. If you want to live well, you try to get a job if you can. It would have to replace nearly all of the current welfare state (except maybe disability - 22k may not be enough for the seriously disabled), and not just be another program.<p>I&#x27;m also confused about her confidence that there&#x27;s &quot;so much work to do.&quot; Automation is on the march, and will continue (I&#x27;m sure Smith is very familiar with Autor &#x2F; McCaffee &#x2F; Ford and friends.) Many of the jobs that one might envision (and that still exist) are jobs that no one wants to do in today&#x27;s world in any case. They aren&#x27;t pinnacles of dignity and pride; they&#x27;re soul-crushing, meaningless, repetitive, and body-destroying. The sooner we automate them, the better. No one will miss doing them. A jobs guarantee also puts us right back in the workhouse &#x2F; make work mindset.<p>&quot;People need a sense of purpose and social engagement. Employment provides that. History is rife with examples of the rich who fail to find a productive outlet and and whose lives were consumed by addictions or other self-destructive behavior.&quot;<p>Yes, many people would do drugs and play lots of video games. I think it&#x27;s short-sighted to believe we can stop that (and as things like VR improve, we&#x27;ll probably get to the point of wireheading.) Many others <i>would</i> spend time with their friends, make art and music, etc. I think pre-emptively assuming that most would just be loafers is falling to the same thinking trap that has sustains ideological wonders like the Protestant work ethic and modern Social Darwninism. There are other ways to encourage &quot;purpose.&quot;<p>A jobs guarantee is, and will hopefully remain, a non-starter. Machines will free us from work; then we&#x27;ll have to find our own purpose.
WalterBrightover 10 years ago
The math: US population - 316m, income $10,000&#x2F;yr, so a basic income for all would be 3 trillion dollars. The entire federal budget for 2014 is 3 trillion.
评论 #8896500 未加载
评论 #8896662 未加载
ThomPeteover 10 years ago
The article wrongly confused unconditional income with conditional one. What proponent of basic income talk about is unconditional basic income.<p>If you want to look at an actual basic income system look at the test results from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Mincome</a>
rebootthesystemover 10 years ago
Given how HN leans due to the vast majority of members being young left-leaning idealists with little real life experience in enough cultures and environments to have a realistic world view this isn&#x27;t bound to be a popular post. So be it.<p>The human condition is such that most people devolve into pretty useless individuals once all is provided for them with no effort. Even if what is provided is not &quot;all&quot; this usually has negative effects. We do best when we EARN what we have. We become better people when we have to devote time, effort and treasure to achive what we want. Various forms of subsidizing life only succeed at destroying people, communities and futures.<p>You want a country with a culture hell-bent to innovate, struggle, work hard and compete. That country will prosper and eat everyone else alive. In the US we have generations of people on the dole that have, as a result, utterly destroyed everything from individuals to cities.<p>While I don&#x27;t have any data I&#x27;d be willing to bet that recipients of huge ridiculous unearned government and union pensions are some of the most selfish people out there, just living their &quot;no worries&quot; life without a care in the world and without doing a thing to help others.<p>Then you have people like me. I&#x27;ve had two huge business failures. One resulted in a total business and personal not-a-dime-to-my-name bankrupcy. I come from an immigrant entrepreneurial family. I licked my wounds and got back to work each and every time. And did well every time because I worked my ass off while everyone else was watching TV.<p>Because I understood failure and struggle so well I have always gone out of my way to help those struggling. As an example, I have been working with this guy I met at three meetups here in Los Angeles for a year. He is basically homeless and sleeps at friend&#x27;s homes while doing gigs here and there for money. I am not giving him a dime. I am teaching him how to start a business. We&#x27;ve been at it for a year. He could barely send an email when we started. Today, I fully expect him to start making $5K a month by June and up from there.<p>Maybe what we need is safety nets for the sick and old without any family&#x2F;social (church, friends) backup. The rest get nothing could qualify for something like welfare for a very limited time and only to pay for food, a place to live and education. No iphones, no satellite TV, no playstations. You have to make it such that you turn on the innate drive to problem-solve and improve your situation that exists in every single able-bodied and able-minded individual. Nobody is suggesting throwing grandma off a cliff or not helping those who simply cannot do for themselves due to illness or dire situations. Charity is important. At the same time, organizations like churches get tax free status for a reason. They ought to help people rather than build massive empires (anyone who&#x27;s been to Texas knows what I mean).<p>And, yes, businesses, entrepreneurs, might get some kind of a tax incentive to help and mentor others. I don&#x27;t have any specific ideas to put forth. I know this can be abused to a ridiculous extent. I also happen to know that most tax money that goes to government is often wasted in absolutely grotesque ways. Imagine if we paid someone a couple of million dollars to build the Obamacare website properly the first time around and used the billion (or whatever, the exact number is irrelevant) to launch a massive startup funding program or some other worthy cause. Imagine if the 60 to 100 billion dollars California is going to absolutely burn building a high speed train nobody is going to use and, again, launched an entrepreneurial orgy. No, there&#x27;s a lot that can be done to produce positive results before we make slaves out of people, even a little bit.
评论 #8897324 未加载
评论 #8897019 未加载