Timeline for Why should the state not provide for basic necessities?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2023 at 23:05 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:54 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://politics.stackexchange.com/ with https://politics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 10, 2017 at 15:30 | history | edited | Thunderforge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Spelling out the acronym "DMV", since this is not known in all countries
|
| Apr 10, 2017 at 14:56 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2017 at 13:58 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | @Andy: My comment was specifically about unemployment aid; it can be seen as basic income for the jobless and not retired, but that's different. Also, in Denmark (and other European countries), you cannot cash out retirement funds so this is a non-risk. As for people attempting stupid/crazy things, well yes, they may. They may indeed sell their homes/liquidate their assets/etc... to fund their start-up, and leave "lean" for a while in the hope of making it big. And if they fail (most do), and declare bankrupt (and lose the invested money), they are back on the job market. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 13:48 | comment | added | Andy | @MatthieuM. The question is about basic income, and so is the answer, so all of my comments are in the context that basic income exists. Given that, and given that one of the reasons you claimed was a good outcome of basic income is that people are more willing to risk creating startups, because if it fails, they have their basic income to fall back on. My point is that is NOT a good outcome, because BI also means people may do stupid things due to having that safety net now, such as cashing out retirement to fund the startup. That's my point. And BI usually replaces unemployment. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 6:15 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | @Andy: I didn't say there was basic income; I say there was unemployment aid available in case of failure. That is, people are still out of their pockets (and banks pocket) for financing the actual start-up. | |
| Apr 9, 2017 at 20:18 | comment | added | Andy | @MatthieuM. ... was that more people would be inclined to quite and try a go at a startup if there were a basic income. My point is that encouraging people to take a fairly risky move because they have basic income is a bad idea (i.e., basic income encouraging more people to take risks is a net bad, not a net good). | |
| Apr 9, 2017 at 20:17 | comment | added | Andy | "I suppose the underlying motive is that in average, a single successful start-up will create enough new jobs to cover the unemployment aid given to those which failed. Do note that we are not talking about start-up financing aids here, only unemployment aids for those who fail." You'd have to have something to prove that, and that the jobs it creates are worthwhile (e.g., yet another cafe paying min wage is hardly worth creating). I know we're not talking about gov't funding startups. The point that was made ... | |
| Apr 9, 2017 at 20:15 | comment | added | Andy | @user4012 Please don't presume what I think a startup is. Go do your own research, and you'll see that most startups fail. If a bank/private investor isn't willing to back a startup, I don't think a country should by providing a basic income level either. Its the same reason you shouldn't loan someone money to buy a car; if a bank has refused them, its because they're likely not going to repay the money. | |
| Apr 9, 2017 at 1:41 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 998 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 14:06 | comment | added | user4012 | @Andy - as Matthieu said, the goal isn't to have every startup succeed. Just enough of them to provde net job/company/economic growth. Also, you seem to be thinking "startup"=="silicon valley dotcom". Most startups are things like laundromats, cafes, car shops etc... - small business. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 10:17 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | @Andy: I would expect most start-ups fail in Denmark too, which is why most people (especially with family) would be reluctant to start one. I suppose the underlying motive is that in average, a single successful start-up will create enough new jobs to cover the unemployment aid given to those which failed. Do note that we are not talking about start-up financing aids here, only unemployment aids for those who fail. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 0:45 | comment | added | Andy | @MatthieuM. Maybe its different in Denmark, but in the US, most startups fail. So freeing people to waste their time on their startup doesn't seem like the best way to utilize limited resources. OTOH, if you can convince other's to FREELY give you money to start your company, that I would think is more efficient. | |
| Apr 7, 2017 at 20:26 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 914 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2017 at 19:46 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | Nice disclaimer; it certainly puts things into perspective. We could argue about how best to get a booming economy... but honestly I probably don't know enough about the topic for the discussion to be worth your while ;) | |
| Apr 7, 2017 at 18:59 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2017 at 18:58 | comment | added | user4012 | @MatthieuM. - again, tangentially, if innovation is specifically is your desired goal, there are far more precise and less moral-hazardy ways to achive that (e.g. specific budget allocated on "incubator insurance", to be paid specifically to cover unemployment for those who are trying to establish a viable startup. This immediately eliminates a large part of the moral hazard - even more so if it's funded out of marginal profits of past startups it funded; which not only eliminates all moral hazard but ALSO self-regulates - if the policy is good, more profits => more funding). | |
| Apr 7, 2017 at 18:55 | comment | added | user4012 | @MatthieuM. - hopefully my freshly addded disclaimer addresses point #4 - the answer set out to list and describe the reasoning; not to defend it. Tangentially, a study in Denmark may not necessarily hold true in every polity; and "stimulating innovation" is a qualitative but not a quantitative measure. You can still arrive at the overall ESE that's bad in aggregate, but achieve a couple of useful startups in the process (which nevertheless didn't prevent overall aggregate bad result). | |
| Apr 7, 2017 at 18:52 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 729 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2017 at 18:19 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | A lot of interesting points, though somewhat mixed with opinions. I particular appreciate (6): getting a definition of "basics" is really difficult. On the other hand, I find (4) unsubstantiated. I actually remember reports (from Denmark maybe?) where unemployment aid was judged as stimulating innovation: being freed from the worry of being jobless and subsequently penniless, people were more willing to quit their job and mount their own start-ups. A number of successful start-up owners specifically mentioned that since they had a family, they would NOT have done so otherwise. | |
| Apr 7, 2017 at 3:51 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1705 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 19:07 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 256 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 18:53 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 934 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 18:47 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 934 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 18:42 | history | answered | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |