SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the of-course-nobody-ever-gets-bored dept.
Study: Basic income would not reduce people's willingness to work:
A basic income would not necessarily mean that people would work less. This is the conclusion of a series of behavioral experiments by cognitive psychologist Fenna Poletiek, social psychologist Erik de Kwaadsteniet and cognitive psychologist Bastiaan Vuyk. They also found indications that people with a basic income are more likely to find a job that suits them better.
The psychologists received a grant from the FNV union to research the behavioral effects of a basic income. They simulated the reward structure of different forms of social security in an experiment. "We got people to do a task on a computer," says De Kwaadsteniet. "In multiple rounds, which represented the months they had to work, they did a boring task in which they had to put points on a bar. The more of these they did, the more money they earned."
The psychologists researched three different conditions: no social security, a conditional benefits system and an unconditional basic income. De Kwaadsteniet: "In the condition without social security, the test participants didn't receive a basic sum. In the benefits condition they received a basic sum, which they lost as soon as they started working. In the basic income condition they received the same basic sum but didn't lose this when they started work."
The basic income did not cause a reduction in the participants' willingness to work and efforts, say the psychologists. Nor did their salary expectations increase. "In the discussion on a basic income, it's sometimes said that people will sit around doing nothing if you give them free money," says Poletiek, who saw no indications of such a behavioral effect.
What would you do if you were to receive a basic income?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25 2022, @04:14PM
"If I print a dollar, there is more currency. If I tax a dollar and burn it there is less currency. The amount of currency in circulation, the speed it circulates by, as well as the threat of violent force unless you use the currency to pay taxes is basically how you value how we judge the value of each unit of currency. Granted there is a bunch more stuff like alternative currencies, etc. but the model basically seems true. I don't see how that theory requires it to end with magic money printing. That may be what people do (e.g. a behavioral model), but the description isn't wrong until that behavior is proved to always happen. Also: MMR?"
MMR is Modern Monetary Realism, a way to try to work around the shortcomings of MMT by taming some of its wilder assumptions. At this point taking on MMT is rather like shooting fish in a barrel, which is why people are shifting towards MMR (which offers less in the way of a free lunch but still runs into its own problems).
Money supply isn't all that goes into money valuation. When you remember that any given currency is a fungible commodity that rests on a sort of collaborative valuation, but that there is nothing inherent to the valuation in terms in intrinsic value, then you can see how the bottom can drop out of a currency regardless of the supply situation. If nobody trusts the management of the currency, regardless of the situation on the ground, it loses its value as a medium of exchange.
"I may agree with the issues of too much gov't debt in theory, as you agree with me in theory, but ultimately we both conclude the politics of it revolves around instinctive voter conclusions--be it to believe modern-Keynesianism (e.g. Print in the bad and print slightly less in the good, maybe) or Austrian style austerity and undeniable economic forces. One can easily argue the political will forces more spending and another can argue once it goes bad the politics will force more savings. Visit Greece some time and tell me austerity is good; it's obvious why you'd want to avoid it, at least until you hit inflation. Worse yet, it isn't even clear that austerity solves tax problems since tax revenues shrink when the populace's income from government expenditures shrink."
As a matter of fact the drag of debt on GDP wasn't a theoretical article, but empirically measured, so it's not hypothetical at all. As far as austerity is concerned, it worked out very nicely for Ireland, thanks. Greece has other problems that were completely beside the point, such as a completely sclerotic system.
"Of course they do, but you are missing my point. Look at the level the UK taxed back in the 1700s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#From_1707 [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] Compare that to taxes today. Why have the rich accepted more taxes now vs then?"
The relative wealth in terms of capability, and the relative power of the rich in political terms, have changed like night and day. In 1707, the rich were not merely abstractly rich but also the big landholders and other entrenched nobility, ecclesiastical figures and so on. This was nearly a century before Napoleon made the scene. Structurally, it was not the modern world at all. Basically, this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, it's not even apples-to-oranges. A much more relevant case would be to compare the last half-century, during which the system hasn't substantially changed, during which technological changes haven't utterly changed the terms of life (despite being monumental). Asking what an eighteenth century bishop, an ex officio member of government, would accept in taxation to a crown in the wake of the Glorious Revolution, really isn't relevant to today's system.
"Agreed, but the point of my first post was to say MMT had a proposed solution to possible inflation--increase taxes."
Yeah, but that's not an answer to the whole enchilada because if your straightforward reading of MMT is that inflation demands a monetarily-mediated fiscal balance, not only will your taxes yo-yo to compensate for every shock that comes along and changes public sentiment, it completely dodges the MMT monetary goal of full employment. See the contradiction? Putting it slightly differently, if the fiscus is supposed to manage money supply, there is no real role for monetary policy. If there is the (conventionally understood MMT) mandate to drive full employment through monetary policy, the fiscal side simply can't directly control inflation. If the fiscal side could and would somehow do that, it cuts the legs out from monetary policy.
"I'm confused, why would the USA financially support migrant workers (not even green card holders but those who are visiting for a few months and then going home to Mexico)?"
If you're trying to create an employment context in which you have no minimum wage, in which you have no payroll taxes (besides the generic to try to balance your UBI), in which your barriers to employment are as low as possible on the assumption that you will just be topping up the UBI of workers who are supported - the migrant workers won't come for that pittance without a UBI. Or, if you're paying them so lavishly that they'll come regardless of UBI, you're _massively_ increasing the effective labour costs of agricultural produce because now the farmer is bearing the full tax burden of supporting a society that provides a UBI plus a payroll that pretends that UBI were never implemented. That's the straightforward worst of both worlds. From the migrants' point of view it would stop the whole thing cold, anyway. It turns from: "Come sweat like a pig in our fields for better money than you could get at home!" to "Come sweat like a pig in our fields for a pittance that would make a beggar laugh."
"That it cannot change because the corporations have mostly taken over the US gov't isn't really evidence that the rich will flee, rather they would want to stick around to keep using their investment."
It is evidence that the rich will work awfully hard to reduce their tax burden because they like money. Again, there's a big industry that supports exactly that inclination.
Your estimate of cost of living is low and incomplete. You should go back to look at what's actually involved in those calculations. My 6T was actually pretty conservative (i.e. low). But even if we take your 5.4T as gospel (it ain't), it's way over the cost of SS (which it wouldn't completely replace, as you admit), over the cost of medicare/medicaid, over the cost of all the unemployment payments, and so on. It obliterates, numerically, the present cost of the federal social safety net. And MMT doesn't really help you here because even today the federal budget isn't even close to balanced. You'd have to print trillions more per year to make it work, or tax so much harder than we presently do, that the rational move for any affluent organisation is to look for the exit door.
Wrapping this up: the UBI as stated is a punitively heavy fiscal burden that cannot be paid for by replacing similar programmes effective today. Paying for it by printing money (virtually or otherwise) bids fair to be a huge cash dump that would guarantee inflation far beyond the COVID-driven efforts of the federal government over the past year, while taxing to cover it bids fair to be the strongest driver of the wealthy and the profitable overseas that we've seen for decades. MMT and MMR don't help because their answer to inflation is to tax or borrow (bond issue) it away, such huge debt increases would be terrible for an already struggling economy, such huge tax increases would drive out the precise people and organisations that we'd need to keep it all going, and any hope of shooting for full employment (as per standard MMT/MMR monetary policy recommendations) would run hard into the changed landscape that MMT/MMR + UBI create. The market asymmetries introduced by the implicit labour subsidies would not prevent lopsided commodity value alterations from additionally screwing your primary industries. In short, it's a bad idea even if your mass hypnotic powers could get everyone to sit still for it.