Guaranteed income. If the economy doesn't require everyone's labor, a bunch of people just shouldn't work, so make sure they can eat and you're done. I don't understand all this American obsession with jobs for everyone.
Promise free food, and suddenly way more people are demanding it than the economy can support. Even if the economy can afford to give away food, society stagnates because there is no incentive to produce nor advance anything of value - be it making widgets, sweeping floors, or writing sonnets. Those who do produce the wealth unproductive others live on will decide to not bother (look up "go Galt"). We Americans are obsessed with jobs because we realize to not work leads to death, be it individual or cultural.
"free food" doesn't necessarily mean a communist society where everything is free - it means providing an income level that allows for the necessities of life. It probably makes more sense to give those away than it does to force people to work meaningless jobs just so we feel they aren't getting something for "free" - if the jobs don't produce value, then the workers are getting something for free, they're just also wasting their time in the process.
People would still have every incentive to work to improve their lot in life; most people on HN probably have the capability to quit their jobs and live off of welfare checks, but it's not exactly a great lifestyle, even if it doesn't require any work. In fact, people might have more incentive than they do now to try out new, interesting work; knowing that if everything blows up they won't screw up their lives and the lives of their families is a great asset.
Overall, I imagine society would progress tremendously if everyone were able to get an education and do creative work while being guaranteed the basics of life, even if that results in some freeloaders surviving on the dole.
It's amazing how many people will settle for a free "necessities of life" income. TV makes it very easy to waste time with satisfaction. Few will use the opportunity for creative productivity. Most will be freeloaders. Whatever the arguable percentages, it creates a drag on the productive by depriving them of the value of their work.
A television is not a 'necessity', and if the policy is designed correctly the income should be designed to support just the bare minimum of existence, i.e. food, shelter, and some sort of health care. This can be done providing debit cards or other payment systems that only allow the recipient to spend the funds on approved items.
Most first rate economies already have fairly extensive welfare systems in place, and you do not see people begging to get fired from their jobs so that they can get unemployment. Most people have at least some ambition to increase their social and economic status and that won't change.
> Those who do produce the wealth unproductive others live on will decide to not bother (look up "go Galt").
Has this ever happened? Has anyone at any wealth level ever simply stopped making money because he was upset about taxes? I hear a lot of small-time sole proprieters talk about it, but I've never heard reliable reports of it actually happening.
A quick summary is that yes, people probably do choose not to do certain kinds of work when taxes are too high, but not in the way that Bill O'Reilly tends to advertise it - it's unlikely that someone is going to quit a high-paying job because their marginal tax rate went up a point. However, if you're undertaking an endeavor with a 5% chance of success, and a 30x tax-free payout in case of success (relative to a safe option), your expected payout is 1.5x with no taxes; 1.35x with a 10% tax rate; and 0.9x with a 40% tax rate. Whether or not you'd take the risk in the first two cases varies from person to person, but in the latter scenario, most people wouldn't bother; you'd have better expectancy at a roulette table.
I appreciate the EV calculation. That would probably raise the marginal value at which someone like Warren Buffett would buy a company, fix its problems, and make it productive again. I doubt he'd shut down Berkshire Hathaway, or that it would even slow down people intent on creating a startup; but it would have a marginal effect.
Still a bit different from the classic "going galt," though.
Has anyone at any wealth level ever simply stopped making money because he was upset about taxes?
Yes, it happened to Ronald Reagan. When the top tax rate was 90% (he was an actor at the time), he chose to make only two movies/year. He saw little point in making more movies since he wouldn't get paid for it.
Well, fewer Reagan movies. How is this a BAD thing? He was a bad actor, and a worse president.
Meanwhile, a true artist, would make movies no matter what the top tax rate was, because he had the urge to. Artists have worked for nothing for ages, in order to create.
They will choose where they contribute and will modulate the risks they take as a function of pay-off, though. These aren't things you see hitting instantly, but it affects decisions at the margin and eventually nickels add up.
At least one prominent American, Thomas Paine (of the American revolution) advocated a guaranteed minimum income for everyone in his pamphlet Agrarian Justice, which was a real fascinating read:
Jobs provide more than income, they also help with self-esteem and prevent idleness, which in turn keeps things like crime down. I think useless make-work jobs are ultimately more feasible than guaranteed income for those reasons.
> prevent idleness, which in turn keeps things like crime down
This, this right here is exactly the kind of puritan thinking I find infuriating.
Seriously, leisure as a terminal negative term in your utility function?! Never mind the people who are going to use the time to learn, to create art and share it, to spend time with their families -- if we don't shackle people to their counters and desks, they'll be rioting in the streets!
How much theft/violence do you think is driven by need, by looking for a way to get by? If anything, I would expect violence and theft to go down.
Having been quite the slacker, I assure you there are massively diminishing returns to leisure time, unless you turn it into work. If you don't get anything done, you feel worthless. Maybe 20 hours a week is enough, but no work at all isn't good for you. Rioting in the streets is exactly what the welfare class of Britain did mere months ago.
Art and study could certainly be more heavily subsidized, though. But I would count those as types of work.
Agreed with parent that this is basically a Puritan attitude. This idea that one creates self-worth via work is not anything like a cultural absolute. One of my favorite things about Balinese culture is that they don't have the idea that poverty is vice.
Maybe it's a Puritan attitude, but is it wrong? Who cares about cultural universals; if the Balinese are happier as impoverished slackers, live and let live.
