Very well made video! Good animation and a good introduction to the issues.
Basic income *feels* wrong to me, but it looks like trials are giving good results, so I'm not against it if the data is positive.
Reviews for "Why Basic Income?"
Wait a minute. You mean to say that Canada has no programs for those who are unemployed, too injured, or have mental instabilities that prevents them from working? That's nuts! The U.S. has Social Security Income that helped end the great depression and is helping some people from poverty. Not much, but some. If Canada doesn't have anything to help those unfortunates than I have to say that it's got to be one of the worst places to live in. It's all about survival of the fittest and the quickest with no regard for others.
Yeah, Canada needs to have something to help those down on their luck, or unable to even work due to injury or mental illnesses. This is just sad. It makes it look like the government thinks those unfortunate should go crawl to a corner and die. Come on, Canada, you're suppose to be better than this.
adamanimates responds:
If I understand the snark, you seem to be saying that Canada's already doing fine so why bother doing anything? I appreciate the health care, don't get me wrong. Turns out poverty's still a thing though in this northern utopia.
Loved the animation, and the examples used were constructed well. I think the audio could have used some fine-tuning though as it sounded a little rough and quiet.
It's a nice thought, but I feel like it couldn't stand in a real circumstance. Whenever universal funded care is mentioned, we often forget the consequences of such actions. If there was a basic income to pay everybody to have a sustainable living environment, some imbalance would have to be in place in order to do that. If that money would come from the government, it would actually come from taxing the people, decreasing the aggregate demand.
This is all just theory in my opinion, but once you have money funneling into every impoverished person in the country, that's less money going into businesses (which pay the income to working people). I don't think throwing money at the problem will fix anything.
Instead, we should be focusing on growing the employment market (perhaps making people more qualified for technological jobs). If there's a way to make more jobs available to those who are impoverished, than that would possibly solve the problem.
Kinda like that saying, "If you give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for a lifetime"
But this is all just theory, I'm in no way qualified to be making accurate assumptions
adamanimates responds:
I appreciate the honesty.
I think that we can focus on job training, but the problem is there are already too many qualified people for available jobs. You could expand the job market by expanding public funding for the massive infrastructure projects that need to happen. There is much evidence that public works projects are good for the economy and reducing unemployment, and I'm totally in favor of them.
But even that can only be a short term solution, if technology makes it so that humans aren't as efficient at the work that needs to be done.
Regarding your point about less money for business, people tend to spend money when they need things. It mostly all goes back into the economy, and that means new markets for businesses.
The saying about fish doesn't work if you can't afford a fishing rod. Maybe you might watch this video about the basic income study in India.... It's very relevant to your point at around 9:30:
I completely agree with the people criticizing this notion that you're suggesting; I just can't watch this without feeling as though you're Stefan Molyneuxing all over my tits, so I'll explain my rationale behind that reaction.
The first few points that you made about the job market being incredibly dog-eat-dog and about it being resoundingly fucked up for people already living in impoverished states to be made to feel even more like shit through an encapsulating stigma regarding their position are very valid and I think that these are matters that we should consider resolving; I don't think there's anything wrong with socialism and federal intervention in matters that affect the economy seems appropriate to me, but you're over simplifying this to say that if people were simply endowed the money needed to live sustainably, it would fix the economy. You point to studies in which people have been directly given the money they need to survive and took such as incentive to improve their lives and become entrepreneurs, but what I think you're failing to understand is that if everyone were given a fixed amount of money needed for basic income, it would not simply be a larger example of the same result.
I think a significant part of the reason that people become entrepreneurs when given the money they need for basic income is due to our current systemic arrangements; they're anomalies for being given such an opportunity in life and so they utilize it by creating businesses and taking it further. But, if this opportunity suddenly became the norm, who's to say that the majority of people wouldn't react by turning into drooling ignoramuses that watch Jersey Shore reruns all day? Everyone is is guaranteed the $12,000 a year they need to survive, so why would they feel so inclined to hold this matter to scrutiny any longer? This argument of yours that people will become more entrepreneurial and productive in a society that gives them everything they need seems tantamount to someone arguing that because attendance of grade school is legally required of those in western countries, the majorty will be able to discern the merits of this arrangement and achieve an Ivy League scholarship for their post secondary education instead of dropping out with a GED at 16 to play video games and masturbate all day.
As for your argument that as debt slaves, we've been brainwashed by the rich into believing that humans can be lazy so that their taxes won't increase, I honestly find that absurd. Of course bequeathing pedestals upon the rich so that they might become richer instead of resolving poverty is a corrupt economic practice, but this recurring argument that people are being indoctrinated by the rich and have no agency to critically consider the matter for themselves is ludicrous; you're just gas-lighting the key problem with your argument away by suggesting that it doesn't exist. I'm not saying that homeless people deserve to be homeless; I'm very aware of the nuances behind that situation and understand that a lot of them would relinquish anything they have to offer just to work at McDonald's, only to receive no call back to their homeless shelter, but can't ignore the reality of human incompetence in general. I agree with your argument that the problems you are identifying are indeed problems, but sincerely opine that your solution is trite and oversimplified.
Nice animation style.
adamanimates responds:
Thanks for the well thought-out, polite response.
I can't stand Stefan Molyneux either, so I apologize if this reminds you of him. I'd just like to point out that this is not 'my' solution. I'm trying to get an idea across in a short time that has a long history, lots of research, and the support of thousands of economists.
I suggest reading this article about how basic income was almost passed in America:
https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-president-nixon-and-his-basic-income-bill/173117835-c34d6145
I never claimed that people don't have agency. You can always read between the lines and figure out what others are trying to get you to think, and where their motivations are coming from. I'm just saying that not everyone has the time for that. It takes a lot of education and effort, and so propaganda has an effect.
As for the problem of motivation, I don't think that Basic Income is a magical answer. But my opinion is that the threat of destitution is not a just way to motivate people. Better motivation comes from elsewhere... it feels good to contribute to society, to have a role in the community, and to figure out what you can do best. There's a reason people volunteer. And of course, most people would like more than just $12,000 per year. It doesn't get you too far.
I think that we're really uncomfortable about people sitting around and doing things we disapprove of. But it doesn't bother me at all what people choose to do with their time. It's none of my business. If someone chooses to voluntarily drop out of the workforce and live on the minimum, that's another spot opened up for someone more willing to do the job.
But I'll go back to the evidence... in the 70s the basic income studies in New Jersey found, to everyone's surprise, that people hardly cut back their work hours at all. You posit that it's just because it was a small number of people, but every study around the world has found similar results.