Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LoSboccacc]

Consider Bay12, for example. Toady makes money from DF, but he's put a tremendous amount of work into it.
If the government just takes Bay12 and redistributes it, then what incentive would other indie game devs have to make their own games?

that's been debated since socialism was a thing, and there are plenty of answers around, and has nothing to do with the op topic

[Nick K]

Consider Bay12, for example. Toady makes money from DF, but he's put a tremendous amount of work into it.
If the government just takes Bay12 and redistributes it, then what incentive would other indie game devs have to make their own games?

that's been debated since socialism was a thing, and there are plenty of answers around, and has nothing to do with the op topic

Am I misunderstanding? The OP is talking about redistributing all wealth. Is ownership of companies and/or copyrights not included in the definition of wealth here?

[jaked122]

That's not the point.

This thread is specifically about what America would look like with evenly distributed wealth(I'm imagining distributing income evenly). Don't bring up specific things.

Just imagine if this worked and people weren't shooting the people distributing wealth.
And that people understood that necessity doesn't create invention, invention spreads through necessity. Though once again, the previous sentence isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

 What would it look like?

[mainiac]

What do you think would be the short- and long-term effects of increased income redistribution of some kind?

Long term: Star Trek
Short term: Star Trek

But seriously, some prices would go way down because for instance the bidding wars driving up the prices of appartments in Manhattan and San Francisco would end.  The price of massive yachts wouldn't go down, they would just stop making them.

[TheBiggerFish]

I think OP mostly meant "Even out all the direct (from-your-job) income.  What happens?" and completely ignored any intangibles like copyrights or bank accounts and physical items like cars.
Because that's what I thought of, at least.
Certainly not full-on socialism.
In short:

Consider Bay12, for example. Toady makes money from DF, but he's put a tremendous amount of work into it.
If the government just takes Bay12 and redistributes it, then what incentive would other indie game devs have to make their own games?

that's been debated since socialism was a thing, and there are plenty of answers around, and has nothing to do with the op topic

Am I misunderstanding? The OP is talking about redistributing all wealth. Is ownership of companies and/or copyrights not included in the definition of wealth here?

Nope!  I think.

[Nick K]

Ok, so we're talking income rather than wealth. In this case, most of the super-rich remain super-rich, as they're super-rich because they own a lot of stuff, rather than their salary is very high.

There are still some perverse incentives. I remember reading about a sewer in london that was clogged with a vehicle-sized blob of congealed fat, requiring sewer-workers to clear it out. That's a necessary job but a seriously nasty one - I certainly wouldn't want to do it. If they could get the same pay working in a shop or office, would there be sewer workers?
 
More generally, if everyone's paid the same, what is the incentive for someone to take a difficult, stressful, dangerous or unpleasant job? Sure, some of them have high social status so you'd still get police officers and firefighters, but there are awful jobs that don't have non-monetary rewards.

I expect society would need to find a way to encourage people to get up at the crack of dawn to go around collecting people's rubbish or whatever instead of trying to become a sports-star, actor, musician or other "follow your dreams" type of job, and quite quickly you'd be back an unequal pay again.


Edit: I noticed the OP said "increased" income redistribution, rather than total.

In that case, the effects can probably be figured out by looking at existing countries that use such systems. You're basically looking at a progressive tax system where the richer pay disproportionately more combined with some type of social security that benefits poorer people as much or more than richer ones. We have that here in the UK with an income tax where richer people pay more and a benefit system that gives more to the poor.
Of course there are countries that do similar things to a greater extent - the scandinavian countries have a reputation for this.

[Nick K]

I imagine that's the whole idea behind robotics. Get robots to do the jobs that no one wants to. Sadly, that's mostly been factory jobs, which aren't exactly jobs that no one wants and no one will take.

Agreed. If we lived in a society where we could basically replace human labour with robotics, then it'd make a lot of sense to change how our economy works to remove the need to work, with all citizens guaranteed a good standard of living. Modern technology isn't at that state yet, but if it gets there then we could end up with a utopia like in the Culture novels.

[Culise]

I imagine that's the whole idea behind robotics. Get robots to do the jobs that no one wants to. Sadly, that's mostly been factory jobs, which aren't exactly jobs that no one wants and no one will take.

Agreed. If we lived in a society where we could basically replace human labour with robotics, then it'd make a lot of sense to change how our economy works to remove the need to work, with all citizens guaranteed a good standard of living. Modern technology isn't at that state yet, but if it gets there then we could end up with a utopia like in the Culture novels.

That would require a lot more than robots; it would require a restructuring of all of society. A lot of people would get screwed over along the way. The problem with any idea that ends in "utopia" is that either the amount of societal restructuring required immediately dooms the plan from the outset, or the amount of forced adherence turns it into a dystopia.

Or that the plan actually works out, leaving us with a whole host of new problems that stemmed from the solution, or old problems that weren't actually solved entirely in the process.  Our lives would look pretty darn utopian from the life of a 16th century serf, but problems, like poverty, are relative. 

[Frumple]

If the government just takes Bay12 and redistributes it, then what incentive would other indie game devs have to make their own games? Would it really be worth slaving away over code for long hours for years if you knew the government might just decide to take ownership and hand it out across the whole population, most of whom wouldn't have made the sacrifices you did to make the game?

... would like to note to this, the incentive would be making the game, knowing you're now comfortably assured that you're not going to die starving in the streets while you're making it (assuming the redistribution scheme manages that, anyway). A lot of people spend years upon years of time programming (or writing, or drawing, or <insert creative act> -- it's ubiquitous to creative works) for not just the pittance (relative to work hours) boss Toad nets, but literally nothing, and sometimes even at significant net cost. A great many of them would freaking love to be able to spend more time doing so, but can't, because they have to eat, and what they want to do can't make (enough) money (to feed/shelter/etc. them). There are a great many people for whom the fiscal return is only a concern out of necessity. You take the necessity from them and the return becomes the non-issue they wish it were.

[LordBucket]

Second bolded bit is the topic at hand. The example was just what motivated me to make this thread - so yeah, you're fighting a massive strawman here.

Not a strawman to use an example you gave. If you would like to distance yourself from the example you gave, because you consider it so obviously ridiculous and unworkable that it's easy to tear down, that's fine. If you'd prefer to focus on:

a redistribution of income: A basic income, for example, or progressive taxation which goes negative on the lower end of the scale.

...we can certainly do that instead.

I once again, as I have done several times already, request clarification of the manner of income redistribution you would like to discuss.

The results would largely depend on the manner and amount of redistribution. For example, if you somehow managed to implement a $1000/mo UBI, I predict that the most significant price adjustment that would result be that housing prices in expensive areas would drop as some portion of people moved out of those areas.

Some prices are responsive to income. Some aren't. For example, let's compare Houston to Austin, Texas.

Austin, Texas
 * Average income: $56,351
 * Price of a gallon of milk: $2.17
 * Median house:$234,800

Houston, Texas
 * Average income: $46,353
 * Price of a gallon of milk: $2.19
 * Median house: $125,700


~20% higher average income in Austin, but over 80% higher housing prices, whereas milk is about the same. This is not an unusual case. More income sometimes results in higher prices for some things, but definitely not all things. Adding UBI to the mix would likely not change that. The ocassionally stated objection that "handing out money to everyone would result in prices raising to match, and therefore there would be no benefit" is simply not accurate, and there's a lot of evidence to corroborate that it's not accurate.

But yes, some prices would change. I think housing would be the big one, because a UBI type of program disconnects income to area. People who live in an expensive place like San Fransisco, can't simply buy a cheaper house in Texas because their job is in San Fransisco. Whereas milk is a thing that if local merchants try to raise the price to ridiculous levels, they can have it delivered from out of the area.

They generally can't do that with their job.

Once you hand people money that's not tied to location, that gives them greater ability to move around. $50,000/yr is not very much in San Fransisco. Adding $1000/mo UBI to make it $62,000/yr is still not very much. But $12000/yr is plenty of money is some other places.

Imagine if you, right now, were receiving $1000/mo. The money is simply handed to you, no work requirement at all. You can go anywhere and do anything you want with it. And what if what you wanted, was to backpack through Europe? $1000/mo is plenty enough money to do that. You could sell your house and your car, and go do the thing that maybe you've dreamed of being able to do. And not as a paltry 1 month vacation. You could do it for years and turn it into a lifestyle if you wanted. What if what you want is to buy a boat and sail across the world? $1000/mo is plenty enough money to do that.

There are many entirely valid lifestyles, in fact...lifestyles that people dream of, that can very easily be lived on $1000/mo, if that income is disconnected from location and to the working lifestyle. And some number of people tired of going into their high-pressure high-paying office job every day, would take those options.

And for those who don't, remember that a basic income would be paid to everyone. So, what if instead of taking your $1000/mo, you and your girlfriend get together with your best friend and his girlfriend, and among you take your $4000 and buy an old mansion on 5 acres in somewhere cheap like Kentucky. You each pitch in $500/mo and have the remaining $500/mo to live and party on. You don't have jobs, so you don't need a car. No car payment, no gas, no insurance. You share utilities and an internet connection. Maybe that leaves $400/mo to have fun with. Or maybe you each pitch in $100 and share a car if you want. That still leaves $300.

That's enough discretionary money to lead a decent lifestyle. It's more than a lot of people making $50,000+ in an expensive have. And for those who have more, it still might be a choice, for example, between having only $200-$400 in purely discretionary money every money and all the time in the world to enjoy it, or $1000 discretionary money per month, while working 60 hours a week and being too stressed in their free time to enjoy it very much.

So I think a significant number of people would take those kinds of options. A lot of people would move out of expensive cities. Housing prices in those cities would drop. And milk and other goods would not become so expensive as to make it all "even out and not matter."

[TheBiggerFish]

Second bolded bit is the topic at hand. The example was just what motivated me to make this thread - so yeah, you're fighting a massive strawman here.

Not a strawman to use an example you gave. If you would like to distance yourself from the example you gave, because you consider it so obviously ridiculous and unworkable that it's easy to tear down, that's fine. If you'd prefer to focus on:

a redistribution of income: A basic income, for example, or progressive taxation which goes negative on the lower end of the scale.

...we can certainly do that instead.

I once again, as I have done several times already, request clarification of the manner of income redistribution you would like to discuss.

The results would largely depend on the manner and amount of redistribution. For example, if you somehow managed to implement a $1000/mo UBI, I predict that the most significant price adjustment that would result be that housing prices in expensive areas would drop as some portion of people moved out of those areas.

Some prices are responsive to income. Some aren't. For example, let's compare Houston to Austin, Texas.

Austin, Texas
 * Average income: $56,351
 * Price of a gallon of milk: $2.17
 * Median house:$234,800

Houston, Texas
 * Average income: $46,353
 * Price of a gallon of milk: $2.19
 * Median house: $125,700


~20% higher average income in Austin, but over 80% higher housing prices, whereas milk is about the same. This is not an unusual case. More income sometimes results in higher prices for some things, but definitely not all things. Adding UBI to the mix would likely not change that. The ocassionally stated objection that "handing out money to everyone would result in prices raising to match, and therefore there would be no benefit" is simply not accurate, and there's a lot of evidence to corroborate that it's not accurate.

But yes, some prices would change. I think housing would be the big one, because a UBI type of program disconnects income to area. People who live in an expensive place like San Fransisco, can't simply buy a cheaper house in Texas because their job is in San Fransisco. Whereas milk is a thing that if local merchants try to raise the price to ridiculous levels, they can have it delivered from out of the area.

They generally can't do that with their job.

Once you hand people money that's not tied to location, that gives them greater ability to move around. $50,000/yr is not very much in San Fransisco. Adding $1000/mo UBI to make it $62,000/yr is still not very much. But $12000/yr is plenty of money is some other places.

Imagine if you, right now, were receiving $1000/mo. The money is simply handed to you, no work requirement at all. You can go anywhere and do anything you want with it. And what if what you wanted, was to backpack through Europe? $1000/mo is plenty enough money to do that. You could sell your house and your car, and go do the thing that maybe you've dreamed of being able to do. And not as a paltry 1 month vacation. You could do it for years and turn it into a lifestyle if you wanted. What if what you want is to buy a boat and sail across the world? $1000/mo is plenty enough money to do that.

There are many entirely valid lifestyles, in fact...lifestyles that people dream of, that can very easily be lived on $1000/mo, if that income is disconnected from location and to the working lifestyle. And some number of people tired of going into their high-pressure high-paying office job every day, would take those options.

And for those who don't, remember that a basic income would be paid to everyone. So, what if instead of taking your $1000/mo, you and your girlfriend get together with your best friend and his girlfriend, and among you take your $4000 and buy an old mansion on 5 acres in somewhere cheap like Kentucky. You each pitch in $500/mo and have the remaining $500/mo to live and party on. You don't have jobs, so you don't need a car. No car payment, no gas, no insurance. You share utilities and an internet connection. Maybe that leaves $400/mo to have fun with. Or maybe you each pitch in $100 and share a car if you want. That still leaves $300.

That's enough discretionary money to lead a decent lifestyle. It's more than a lot of people making $50,000+ in an expensive have. And for those who have more, it still might be a choice, for example, between having only $200-$400 in purely discretionary money every money and all the time in the world to enjoy it, or $1000 discretionary money per month, while working 60 hours a week and being too stressed in their free time to enjoy it very much.

So I think a significant number of people would take those kinds of options. A lot of people would move out of expensive cities. Housing prices in those cities would drop. And milk and other goods would not become so expensive as to make it all "even out and not matter."

Dear US government: Do this please.

[LordBucket]

Dear US government: Do this please.

It could happen.

 * Iran has had a basic income since 2010, but the amount is very small
 * Brazil has ha laws on the books mandating a basic income for over ten years, but they've been very slowly phasing to only select communities in via Bolsa Chica.
 * Switzerland has a basic income proposal coming up for vote in 2016
 * Finland is planning to conduct trials in 2017 to see if it's more effective than their current welfare systems

If the Swiss and Finnish proposals come to fruition and they successfully implement a basic income and it works, it seems very likely that it would spread throughout Europe. And the US already has the Alaskan Permanent Fund. Some portion of state oil sales are put into an investment fund, and every state residident receives an annual dividend check. This year it was $2072.

It's not a such stretch to speculate that if it does well in Europe and if the US economy continues as it has been, it could come here. It wouldn't necessarily be $1000/month. That's simply the number UBI proponents most often like to mention, because it's very close to the official poverty line. It does however, mean potentially more money than the entire federal government collects. Which is obviously a problem.

But look at social security. It started out as something like 2% of the budget and has grown to 24%. If you consolidate mean-tested welfare programs into a single UBI, no welfare offices, no mandatory drug testing, etc. then grandfather SSI recipients, depending on which assumptions you make, a $100-$300/mo payment to adults is not out of the question. From there the program could reasonably be expected to grow.

The real benefit to basic income actually isn't the "equality" nonsense that people like to whine about. It's the fact that it actually solves problems. And it creates a system that can be expanded to fill in the future holes in employment that are likely to be created as automation increases.

~200 years ago we had people starting work at age 14 and working until they died. We had school children staying home from school during summer to work the fields. The total work requirement of the population was very high. Now, we have people not starting work until 16-18, and routinely not even until mid 20s if they go to college. We have people retiring at 65 and living into their 90s. The total work engagement of our society has been dropping for about 200 years, and right now the US labor force participation rate is only 62%.

38% of our entire population over age 16 is not working, and that's been enabled by technology.

That number is likely to increase.

Ask any college graduate. There's simply not as much work as there used to be. The process seems like it might be accelerating. Imagine if driverless cars take off and let's say "only" half of the 1.7 million truck driving jobs go away. Imagine if the grocery store self checkout and phone-based ordering systems we're starting to see take off and  "only" half of the 3.3 million cashiering jobs disappear.


That right there is enough to drop the US from 62% labor participation to...let's see, 142 million total jobs (difference between this and the previous statistic due to the "under 16" demographic not being counted), so 2.5/142, means that 62% participation rate could potentially drop to around 60% just from those two professions being cut in half. That might very well happen. And it could happen in a lot of other industries too.

What if, in the next decade or two we're looking at only 50% labor participation? then 40%? 30%? How do people live if there are no jobs to be had? How do companies continue selling goods if nobody has money to buy them?

Basic income keeps the system running, all the way down to "Star Trek" when we can eliminate money altogether.

[mainiac]

I feel like LordBucket is putting me out of a job.  Quick government, gib me monies.

[Ghills]

Consider Bay12, for example. Toady makes money from DF, but he's put a tremendous amount of work into it.
If the government just takes Bay12 and redistributes it, then what incentive would other indie game devs have to make their own games?

that's been debated since socialism was a thing, and there are plenty of answers around, and has nothing to do with the op topic

Am I misunderstanding? The OP is talking about redistributing all wealth. Is ownership of companies and/or copyrights not included in the definition of wealth here?

The question of whether copyright counts is one of the many, many, many important questions that OP has obviously not thought about.

This is why forcible redistribution goes so wrong every time it's done.   We can argue about its merits all we want but that begs the question - forcible redistribution is messy and difficult on a level human beings simply are not good at.  Setting up a structure that acknowledges the natural tendency to own and contribute based on personal choice turns out to be the most efficient way to increase average wealth.  The interesting question after that is how to set limits on acceptable behavior to 1) Keep people from harming others, 2) Avoid creating a society of selfish jerks, and 3) Establish a safety net and enforcement for when jerks or nature cause damage. Wealth redistribution is boring not because it's a solved question but because it's an unsolvable question, and trying to figure out how to just redistribute wealth complete waste of brainpower.  Better to finetune systems we know work.

[mainiac]

It's only complicated if you make it complicated.

Example, allow people to earn however much they want.  However put a prohibitive tax on spending above $200k a year.  Like 99%.  What do we do about copyright law?  Who gives a rats ass?  Without the monetary incentives no one is going to put the effort into squeezing every dime out of "Happy Birthday".  People will still want to control their works for creative reasons but not for estate ones.

Put it in place, adjust it so the cap rises more slowly then inflation and in about 30 years you'd have your lovely egalitarian society.