Basic Income - Pay 90% of People Play Video Games All Day Equals Net Win for Economy

Diji1 on 22/04/2016 - 12:34
Last edited 22/04/2016 - 13:16 by 1 other user

We pay everybody in Australia a so called basic income that every citizen recieves - unconditionally. You recieve it if you work in additon to whatever earnings you have, you recieve it if you smoke pot all day and play video games.

According to Sam Altman this would be a large net win for the economy (of the USA) even if 90% of people elected to play WoW all day while smoking ganja: the increase in consumption (which is one part of being a "job creator along with employing people) would mean higher economic activity overall than we have now.

Presumably problems associated with poverty such as depression, homelessness, substance abuse and so on would improve also.

Sam Altman is of course hailed as a modern day genius even though all he does is pretend economic theories are reality on his podcast and something vaguely computery but it's not his idea originally ;)

Source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/04/21/1853216/vc-entrepre…

What do you think of so called Basic Income theory?

Education & Work

Comments

  • donbot on 22/04/2016 - 12:53
    +3

    Based on that theory, 90% of the population are consumers and will not add anything to the economy - and only consume.

    That leaves the remaining 10% of the population to service the needs of the 90% playing video games all day… lets think about that for a second.

    Massive demand (90%) with incredibly limited supply (10%). Having given this about 15seconds of thought, two outcomes will occur:

    1. Prices will skyrocket as demand far outstrips supply.

    2. As 90% of people have the limited basic income, but no way of obtaining basic human needs (eg. food), they will either resort to stealing it from wherever they can, or go into business to take advantage of the high prices. As more people do this, prices will reduce as supply increases. Eventually, things will stabilize as more people rejoin the workforce.

    End result - society will be in a position whereby the government are paying basic income to people who do not require it.

    • pais on 22/04/2016 - 13:54
      +2

      Of course the assumption that literally 90% of people have no motivation to earn beyond the 'basic income' is just silly.

    • RockyRaccoon on 22/04/2016 - 14:35

      You forget that when they are really hungry they dont just steal they kill as well, so in a few years the population is reduced so demand decreases and supply is greater so prices drop. (Unless they kill the 10% workers first - which of course they maybe stupid enough to do)

      Anyone can suppose anything - LOL

    • geek001 on 22/04/2016 - 14:56

      Very logical, although my prediction would be slightly different. We are kinda seeing this now with increases in minimum wage. When you raise minimum wage, the price of everything goes up because of higher wage costs to businesses. So the net effect is that your increase in wage buys you probably the same amount of stuff before the increase. Back at square 1.

      So, if you give everyone basic income, like you said, the price of everything will go up because of higher demand. The only party that benefits from this is the government, because now they can rake in more income tax, gst and also the economy numbers looks "good", but in reality the people are no better off.

      End result - People are no worse off but is no better off as well. So why bother with the scheme?

      • mskeggs on 22/04/2016 - 18:32

        Where are you seeing prices rising due to minimum wage increases?
        I think you will find inflation is actually very low across the board, and increases in minimum wages do not impact it, but do make the poorest workers lives better - which is a good reason to bother with it.

        • geek001 on 22/04/2016 - 20:41
          -1

          The wage increase is already factored into inflation. If there were no minimum wage increase it might mean that there are there is less inflation or no inflation at all if you take out other factors like cost of raw materials. In a rational world when costs rise prices have to rise too. I mean businesses are around to make money they can't absorb higher costs indefinitely.

        • mskeggs on 22/04/2016 - 21:21

          @geek001:
          But the inflation is not only effecting the people getting the wage rise, it is spread out, so the people getting the rise are better off.
          The few businesses that employ people paying minimum wage might have to consider making slimmer profits (which would mean they would pay less tax also) or raise their prices. But most businesses employ no, or very few employees on minimum wages. Those businesses need not raise their prices at all.
          And, of course, those employees have more money to spend with higher wages, so the businesses they lend their custom to gain from higher sales.

          You cannot solely look at one component of the economy in isolation.

          Similarly, if you give people a basic income, a number will use it to boost their spending, but another fraction will save it, and another fraction will use it to sustain themselves without work, doing things with their time that are productive but do not have a financial impact. If I spent my work day hour in a factory for $16 an hour minimum wage that I used to buy $16 worth of food, or spent my work day hour growing $16 worth of food, I would still be fed, but demand for food sold in the shops would have just fallen, putting downward pressure on prices, not the inflation you suggested.

  • Baysew on 22/04/2016 - 13:04
    +1

    We pay everybody in Australia a so called basic income that every citizen recieves (sic) - unconditionally.

    Who is We

    • 2ndeffort on 22/04/2016 - 15:24

      'We' is the 10% that are working!

    • mskeggs on 22/04/2016 - 21:28
      +1

      We are the people who earn high incomes or have accumulated out size wealth.
      Those people would have the option to stop working and play video games too, of course. But like for nearly everyone in the world, a life of video games would quickly become boring and unfulfilling.

    • kima on 23/04/2016 - 14:52
      -1

      we is the government, The government has its own revenue sources and businesses too. people think that they are personally paying the government for everyone else and never acknowledge what they cost.

  • Janko on 22/04/2016 - 14:29

    Not sure about others but if I play a game for more than an hour I finish depressed.

  • tomleonhart on 22/04/2016 - 14:54

    Receive

    • RockyRaccoon on 22/04/2016 - 15:04
      +1

      Cut them some slack, I would guess they are one of the 90% that wont work/study etc. Just play games :)

  • scrimshaw on 22/04/2016 - 18:00
    +2

    I think one day we will inevitably have to adopt basic income as we face further job cuts due to automation. The people who own and create these technologies will become richer and richer, while you, the uneducated and unskilled mass, are at the complete mercy of capitalism and will have your jobs made obsolete.

    acclaimed physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, dropped a truth-bomb about capitalism and the future of inequality. With the rapid technological advancements of the past few decades (e.g. computer technology, robotics), we have seen economic inequalities grow at alarming rates, and a kind of plutocratic class of owners — that is, capitalists — become immensely wealthy. Hawking believes that, if machines do end up replacing human labor and producing all of our commodities, and we continue on the current neoliberal route, we are on our way to becoming a sort of dystopia of a top ownership class, with immeasurable wealth, and a bottom ownerless class — that is, the masses — living in abject poverty.

    Stephen Hawking's AMA on Reddit

    “If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.”

    We are closely approaching the day where many jobs paying less than $23 /h are now becoming automated — and this also includes high paying jobs where the risk is high:

    1. Retail salespersons -> replaced by online stores
    2. Call centre reps -> replaced by robots with very good voice recognition software
    3. checkout operators -> replaced by computer systems
    4. Bank tellers -> replaced by internet banking, mobile apps. Even the ATM machine is going to go out of fashion once cashless systems become commonplace
    5. Pilots and sailors -> replaced by unmanned drones and drone ships
    6. Bus driver / taxi driver / delivery services -> replaced by a fleet of Google Self Driving vehicles
    7. Journalists and technical writers -> computer software is often used to write entire articles
    8. Manual labour that is repetitive or hazardous now taken over by robots

    When all these jobs are no longer profitable for a company to have, and they simply outsource to a tech giant company like Microsoft or Google, we'll face massive unemployment for people with basic skills. People who used to be classified working at medium-skilled jobs will downgrade to low-skilled jobs. That's where basic income becomes neccessary.

    • geek001 on 22/04/2016 - 20:56
      +1

      I guess it really depends on which end of the spectrum you support. Sure blame automation for unemployment. I dont think that is right though. The jobs that are going due to automation are repetitive tasks and humans should not be doing them in the first place. The number of times I see what people actually do and think this can't be what people do all day, I could probably replace the entire job with a script!

      Humans have the capacity to think, create and innovate. All of us should be striving to do that. I am not a very religious person but I do not think God put us on this earth to be ordinary.

      • mskeggs on 22/04/2016 - 21:26

        Fair enough, but if the market place for thinkers/creators/innovators is too small to pay them all a living wage - and it is, payment agglomerates to superstars not evenly to all creators - then how do we stop people going hungry?
        We could tax the superstars and mega rich who are gaining the disproportionate benefit of automation, and distribute some of their wealth to everyone else, leaving them merely rich. We could call this distribution a basic income, for example, and then let the creative/innovative/thinking humans go about their business of improving the world a little bit at a time without concern they might starve.

    • RockyRaccoon on 23/04/2016 - 07:26

      So Hawking has made these observations.. Well done.

      But observations are NOT solutions

      What is the solution.

      Telling me a tidal wave is going to hit, without saying what we do to escape is frankly useless.

      Redistributing deckchairs isnt the answer Just like the OP suggests.

      People need to be creative. Playing games and being paid is as one poster rightly says going to be boring if you do it all your life, If we cant create we create mischief

  • mskeggs on 22/04/2016 - 18:51
    +5

    I am cautiously in favour of a basic income.
    My caution is largely around how more vulnerable members of society are treated (e.g. the disabled etc) who may have higher needs than average. This caution is because I have seen support for the basic income in politically rightwing areas who see its main benefit as replacing welfare.
    There have been experiments in basic incomes previously. Notably in Canada in the 1970s, recently for welfare recipients in Holland, and launching in Kenya right now:
    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/14/11410904/givedirectly-basic-inc…

    The knee jerk reaction that a small number of workers would support a vast bulk of 'leaners' is, of course, nonsense, and you should be embarrassed at your ignorance if that is what you are posting. The reality is that most people take the basic income and supplement it in ways they find rewarding. A doctor might continue to work in the cardiac ward because they receive both additional financial and intrinsic rewards for their work. I don't love my job, but I would likely continue with it so I could earn money for overseas holidays etc.

    But consider people who struggle to find work, or work long hours for low pay. They suddenly have an option to gain enough income to live without the shameful hoops the jobless are currently made to jump through, or without spending long hours at a job they detest. Free them to grow some food in a garden, help out at their kids school, create art, or play video games. And maybe pick up some part time work here and there, or start their own businesses knowing they won't starve if they fail.

    Such an approach unlocks human potential.

    The main argument I routinely see is that the BI would simply push house prices etc. higher by that amount. But consider what happens in the real world. We already have a class of Aussies who receive a similar income, pensioners of one sort or another. They don't crowd into the city seeking to maximise their incomes etc. Instead, they are disproportionately found in coastal towns around Australia, benefitting from cheaper housing and better lifestyles. And if there was a BI this would increase, helping housing in the cities become more affordable.

    The counter argument is that we should keep taxes low, and have more and more people in poverty as the automation Scrimshaw talks about proceeds. I reject this, as I would much prefer the benefits of increased automation etc. be shared amongst the whole community, not just a few mega-rich.

  • tonyjzx on 24/04/2016 - 12:11
    +2

    Based on that theory, 90% of the population are consumers and will not add anything to the economy - and only consume.

    The problem is that we are largely there right now. It depends on what you mean by "Add to the economy".

    The vast majority of people on the taxpayer's dime largely do not "Add to the economy".

    Do police "Add to the economy"?

    Do fire "Add to the economy"?

    I'd say no. Of course they perform and important role but the reality is very very few in the economy actually "add to it" in the very end.

    • mskeggs on 24/04/2016 - 12:56
      +2

      Indeed. And my home cooked meal actually detracts from the 'economy' as it robs the local restaurant of revenues.
      Which is why framing everything in terms of its benefit is such a poor way to look at life.
      The 'economy' is a set of rules designed to more efficiently allocate resources that lead to people's needs and wants being met. These rules are a cost compared to a system where these needs and wants could be met without a market etc., but we accept the costs as being a reasonable trade off against inefficient distribution. But doing something 'for the economy' is as pointless as making up some unneeded new laws and regulations to do something for 'law and order' or starting fires to do something for the fire brigade.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join