Origin of the BSL idea

As I recently read Basilisk Station, I noticed the similarities between Weber's BLS (basic living stipend) and recent articles by economists espousing the merits of paying everyone a basic living wage, regardless of employment.

When I saw the publication date for Basilisk Station was 23 years ago, I was very impressed by David Weber's prescience. I'm curious if he got the idea out of the blue, or if he'd been reading little known economists' articles pushing this modern day BLS even back then.

Does anyone know?

The idea of giving everyone a basic income has been around a long time, if the Wikipedia page is to be trusted the first time something like that was proposed was in 1795

Grashtel wrote:The idea of giving everyone a basic income has been around a long time, if the Wikipedia page is to be trusted the first time something like that was proposed was in 1795

This was implemeted by socialist countries in different ways. The problem which then turns up is that most people dont want to work. Therefore they have to be forced in some way. sooner or later it gets messy.

Hornblower wrote:

Grashtel wrote:The idea of giving everyone a basic income has been around a long time, if the Wikipedia page is to be trusted the first time something like that was proposed was in 1795

This was implemeted by socialist countries in different ways. The problem which then turns up is that most people dont want to work. Therefore they have to be forced in some way. sooner or later it gets messy.

Which is why a minimum wage is completely different than the BLS. One is predicated upon the idea that if someone is working full-time, they should be earning a living wage. The other is predicated upon the idea that everyone should be paid the same, whether they're working or not.

In my understanding, the BLS and a living wage are two very different ideas. The BLS is everyone (regardless of whether they work or not) getting welfare that is sufficient to live off of. A living wage is the idea that the legally mandated minimum wage should be enough that a person working full time can support themselves and 1-2 dependents. The BLS discourages people from working because there is no need to in order to support yourself (unless somehow legally mandated), while a living wage is designed so people are encouraged to work full time because it is enough money to live off of.

RODMAN012003 wrote:As I recently read Basilisk Station, I noticed the similarities between Weber's BLS (basic living stipend) and recent articles by economists espousing the merits of paying everyone a basic living wage, regardless of employment.

When I saw the publication date for Basilisk Station was 23 years ago, I was very impressed by David Weber's prescience. I'm curious if he got the idea out of the blue, or if he'd been reading little known economists' articles pushing this modern day BLS even back then.

Does anyone know?

Greentea wrote:In my understanding, the BLS and a living wage are two very different ideas. The BLS is everyone (regardless of whether they work or not) getting welfare that is sufficient to live off of. A living wage is the idea that the legally mandated minimum wage should be enough that a person working full time can support themselves and 1-2 dependents. The BLS discourages people from working because there is no need to in order to support yourself (unless somehow legally mandated), while a living wage is designed so people are encouraged to work full time because it is enough money to live off of.

On this episode of Greentea Explains It All: *clapping smiley*

I used the wrong term. I was thinking of the guaranteed minimum income. Guess the media's been beating the drum for 'living wage' so much it successfully displaced what I was really thinking of!

In slightly more recent terms: BLS was also part of the NEW DEAL manifesto under Roosevelt in the 30s which was a spin off from Hoover and Wilson. Look up "2nd Bill of Rights".

In short it was no different than what the USSR was doing, but simply clothed in slightly nicer terms. It was called Socialism instead of Communism. Then we got lucky and 2nd WWII happened, derailing Roosevelt and his cronies from implementing it.

Oatmeal brained idiots are alive and well in all countries in all ages. Everyone thinks they can be some messiah "saving" everyone from working too hard and we can all hold hands around a campfire and $$$ will grow on trees. All we have to do is reeeaaaaccchhhh out and take it if we could just put away our "greed". If only the government who is "impartial"(it isn't) IE biased towards its own power, will now the be arbiter of truth and prosperity and no "one" will hold greedy power... Right because government runs itself. It has no inputs from power blocks or those who hold the reins of power. Oh no, not them. They are idealists, not greedy power hungry maniacs...

In the UK, we have unemployment benefit payments, for an unlimited period, that are sufficient to live on and are paid if you're of working age and not employed or in education.

Unlike (I believe) the system in the US, there are no time limits. The bit that prevents Haven-style problems is that to recieve them you must to prove to the DWP that you're making a genuine attempt to find work - i.e. show application letters, go to interviews, and they may outright tell you "apply for [this position] if you want to keep your benefits".

Same here in nz. no time limit, but you have to prove yoiu are looking for work, or it can get cut, and you have to visit upskill classes to learn usable skills if you have never worked before. Also, it is set to a very low level, and if you have some of the other benefits, such as living in a state house, parts of your benefits are pre-deducted, or in a renting agreement, sent to your landlord.

FLHerne wrote:In the UK, we have unemployment benefit payments, for an unlimited period, that are sufficient to live on and are paid if you're of working age and not employed or in education.

Unlike (I believe) the system in the US, there are no time limits. The bit that prevents Haven-style problems is that to recieve them you must to prove to the DWP that you're making a genuine attempt to find work - i.e. show application letters, go to interviews, and they may outright tell you "apply for [this position] if you want to keep your benefits".