> I'm not an economist, and I don't know the ins and outs of basic income, but that one throwaway page in The Expanse made me think a lot about what I think basic income should look like... and I don't think it should look like a monthly check.
1) If Basic Income is doled out slowly (say every week or every day as a credit card), then it's nearly impossible for someone to die from starvation. Should we also take away their knives just in case they commit suicide some other way?
2) The idea you mention is not "Basic Income", it's something else. And the major problem with that "something else" is: Who gets to decide what level of shelter is "good enough for basic"? Who decides what quality of t-shirt is "good enough"? Who decides which level of Ramen is "good enough"?
Having the government (or even a company) decide what products millions of people should get is Communism. It's pretty obvious that everyone getting these products will be unhappy with them. (Some people will think they are too cheap, others will think they are too expensive. But few people will be "happy" about it.)
Basic Income is giving everyone some money and letting people spend their money as they wish, just like Capitalism. Companies are forced to read the market and adjust their products to answer new demands. If they don't, some other company gets the dollars. Heck, science tells us that even if people choose to buy the exact same products as in the above paragraph, the people who choose it will be happier because they got to choose.
Everyone will choose to make their own trade-offs. In fact, some people will choose "cheap everything" in order to save up money. With their saved money, they can purchase "Luxury" items. So all companies benefit, not just the low-end.
For example, someone can choose to eat cheaper ramen in order to afford an XBox (people already do it today!). If many people start making that same trade-off, the market can respond and start chasing these dollars. Maybe Microsoft decides to make a low-end XBox. Maybe some competitor does. Maybe some rich people buy the new low-end XBox because they like its attributes better. Everyone with money is free to choose. There is no walled garden between the haves and have-nots.
No offense, but the idea in your book sounds a lot closer to "prison" than Basic Income.
Gonna have to disagree with you. I think your view is a bit pessimistic.
> Who gets to decide what level of shelter is "good enough for basic"? Who decides what quality of t-shirt is "good enough"? Who decides which level of Ramen is "good enough"?
> No offense, but the idea in your book sounds a lot closer to "prison" than Basic Income.
You don't have a choice in prison. In prison, you eat what they feed you, live where they tell you, wear what they give you, and if you don't want those, then you get nothing at all.
You DO have a choice in this "basic" world. In a "basic" world, you get those things no matter what. The government picks it, sure, but they say "This is what you get at a minimum. If you want more, here's a path to contribute to society, and society will compensate you with money, and you can use that money to buy nicer stuff."
1) If Basic Income is doled out slowly (say every week or every day as a credit card), then it's nearly impossible for someone to die from starvation. Should we also take away their knives just in case they commit suicide some other way?
2) The idea you mention is not "Basic Income", it's something else. And the major problem with that "something else" is: Who gets to decide what level of shelter is "good enough for basic"? Who decides what quality of t-shirt is "good enough"? Who decides which level of Ramen is "good enough"?
Having the government (or even a company) decide what products millions of people should get is Communism. It's pretty obvious that everyone getting these products will be unhappy with them. (Some people will think they are too cheap, others will think they are too expensive. But few people will be "happy" about it.)
Basic Income is giving everyone some money and letting people spend their money as they wish, just like Capitalism. Companies are forced to read the market and adjust their products to answer new demands. If they don't, some other company gets the dollars. Heck, science tells us that even if people choose to buy the exact same products as in the above paragraph, the people who choose it will be happier because they got to choose.
Everyone will choose to make their own trade-offs. In fact, some people will choose "cheap everything" in order to save up money. With their saved money, they can purchase "Luxury" items. So all companies benefit, not just the low-end.
For example, someone can choose to eat cheaper ramen in order to afford an XBox (people already do it today!). If many people start making that same trade-off, the market can respond and start chasing these dollars. Maybe Microsoft decides to make a low-end XBox. Maybe some competitor does. Maybe some rich people buy the new low-end XBox because they like its attributes better. Everyone with money is free to choose. There is no walled garden between the haves and have-nots.
No offense, but the idea in your book sounds a lot closer to "prison" than Basic Income.