Just for fun: “Mincome”

Last updated on: November 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm by Jane the Actuary

Just for fun: “Mincome” 2013-11-13T16:28:00-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Yeah, once again, Althouse has found an interesting link and I’m playing copycat. According to a NYT report, there’s a group in Switzerland promoting a guaranteed minimum income. Everyone in the NYT comment section loves it (they promise that they’ll do great things to benefit the world if only they didn’t have to earn a living); Althouse commenters are skeptical.

A minimum income would fix a lot of what’s troubling about the social welfare system — the fact that there are so many layers of adminstration, so many complex benefit structures (and the arbitrariness of whether you move off the waiting list for the housing voucher, for instance), cases where work pays less than welfare. But at the same time, we don’t really know exactly how large a percentage of the population is, basically, so lazy that they’d accept the minimum and watch Jerry Springer all day. Plus — one commenter raised the issue of the kids — how do you ensure that Mom uses the money to feed the kids rather than buy meth, if not for a food stamp voucher that can only be used to buy food?

Anyway, I thought it’d be fun to think through the pros and cons, and impacts on the economy as a little exercise in thinking and writing, but right now there’s dinner to be made and homework to be supervised. But I wanted to at least put that out there for anyone who’s not simultaneously reading Althouse.

UPDATE:

Just read more of the NYT comments; here are some snippets of what they have to say:

“A guaranteed income will also unleash a torrent of altruistic projects. It will free people to work for the good of society without fear of starvation.”

“It would reduce the bureaucracy and I think unleash a massive amount of creative energy since people could do what they wanted instead of worrying about a roof over their heads. Society would be focussed on what matters instead of the endless pursuit for money.”

“I thinks it’s a terrific idea. And those who are irresponsible with money will stimulate the economy.”

“We are often told that the housing projects and welfare payments of the 1970s to 1980s were a disaster, resulting in a deadbeat underclass producing nothing of value. In fact, that welfare generation largely produced hip-hop culture in all its varieties, which has become a multi-billion dollar industry and one of America’s biggest exports.”

“This is an interesting idea, helping people and even re-birthing a sense of community, because if the cutthroat competition necessary to survive in this society were softened, mutual trust and aid would increase. But it doesn’t deal with questions underpinning our entire system: Why work? Why accept the five day work week as if etched in stone? The forty (or more) hour work week is for the benefit of the ruling class only. It’s arbitrary. Why not work for two days and be off for five? If we all agreed, it would happen easily.”

“At the very least, this is a serious conversation that needs to begin: what societal function is served by tying people’s basic needs to employment? As more and more jobs are removed – think of all the people who were once employed in auto factories – without being truly replaced, why do we stick to this idea that someone absolutely *must* work? There are benefits to working, and no one advocating this is suggesting that we should just all kick back, take our $10,000 and do nothing. But by removing the strict Puritanical ethos of “work = life = purpose,” we may be able to provide people with more opportunities, rather than less. How many people would rather volunteer for a living, rather than work minimum wage at McDonald’s? Who knows, but in our system as it exists, we’ll never know.”

“It seems to me that this would be virtually self-funded – almost all of the money paid out as minimum income would flow right back into the economy for food, shelter, clothing and other spending. Very little would be removed from the economy in the form of savings, as the primary reasons for savings (a safety net or to leave money for heirs) would be negated. The money flowing back into the economy would generate the increased tax revenue needed to fund the program.
Additionally, with people able to reject work that pays too little, employers would be forced to provide more competitive salaries which would release more of their profits back into the active economy.”

Now, I should say that not all the commenters were as dreamy-eyed and optimistic that everyone would use this benefit for the good, but it’s still startling to see how many are!

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 12, 2013

Update on VoucherCare

Next Post

November 16, 2013 On Introverts. . .

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Paul tell Timothy to guard in 1 Timothy?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The church What has been entrusted to his care The gospel His heart