Basic Income & Soylent


Well, I was trying to be humorous. I’m sorry if I bruised any generational


Thank you for that anecdote and congratulations on your recovery.

Some reading for you:

  1. On Lotto demographics:
  2. On tobacco consumption:

It is common knowledge that lower income groups disproportionately buy
lotto tickets and tobacco products. Why would I “lie” about something like


I would love to answer this question, but I have too much shame to continue hijacking this topic for an inappropriate discussion.


its alright i laughed when i read it


How it the topic being hijacked? The person in the article that this thread is about is doing an “experiment” with soylent & basic income. The only point in the article that hasn’t really been addressed is the fact that you can’t buy soylent with food stamps. That, and the brilliant way he said how to game Amazon’s subscription model for a discount.




About that…


I mean this is clearly speculative. We’ll be able to see if this is the reality by observing countries like Switzerland and Finland over the coming years.


Not really.

You take 20% of a company’s profits, but they get 20% more customers. Net results is the CEO takes home the same big check, and has no reason to raise prices.

It does make it more expensive to do hire unskilled labor, as more people will work for themselves, start their own business, and go to collage, and avoid working for McDonald. But robots are cheaper anyways.


[quote=“Stuart_M, post:35, topic:27058”]These people would spend it on lotto tickets, alcohol and cigarettes[/quote]First, you are one of “these people”. Your idea that one group is somehow inherently different that your group will lead you to a massive amount of wrong conclusions.

And second, increasing alcohol consumption makes no sense. You can only get so drunk.
Same way if you eat 1 pack of soylent a day, and get a million dollars, you won’t start eating 2 packs of soylent each day.
Now, you might change from cheep beer to more expensive gin, or change from soylent to ample or something, but there’s a limit on how much you can consume each day.

Also, in every case they tried this, alcohol consumption went slightly down, probably due to people having less stress.


I can[quote=“mellored, post:50, topic:27058”]
in every case they tried this, alcohol consumption went slightly down

I can’t find a source, but another way to look at it is -

Poverty and drug abuse are positively correlated.
If someone wants to reduce drug abuse, why on Earth would they attempt to by denying already poor people even more income?

Obviously people against drug abuse wouldn’t want this, or shouldn’t if their argument is to be coherent.


[quote=“sylass94, post:51, topic:27058”]Poverty and drug abusse are positively correlated.[/quote]Right, but does A cause B or does B cause A? Or are the two unrelated.


It’s both. Some people wind up poor from spending too much on drugs. Some people are so poor they feel drug use is all that’s worthwhile. It’s an individual phenomenon.

The only part you’re wrong about is suggesting they don’t influence each other at all.

lol that would be a pretty crazy explanation though


[quote=“Dias, post:52, topic:27058”]Right, but does A cause B or does B cause A? Or are the two unrelated.[/quote]It’s mostly unrelated.

"The elasticities for alcohol and tobacco expenditure are negative and insignificant"

"No evidence was found of an increase in spending on alcohol, either in the
general villages or the tribal pilot. If anything, when asked whether they were buying
more or less of specific food items, a slightly higher proportion of households in basic
income villages in both sets of pilots said they were buying less alcohol than before."

Another way to look at what people when they have enough money to not need to work, is to look at people who have enough money and don’t need to work.

Bill Gates, spends his time eradicating diseases in Africa.
Elon Musk, started a few new companies and works as an engineer.
Warren Buffet, continues his job as an investor.
Arnold Palmer (golf legend), spend his older days designing golf courses and running golf shops.
Donald Trump, runs a country (where he is running it is outside the scope of this discussion).
Charlie Sheen… druggies will be druggies, no matter how much money they have (or don’t have).

You just don’t see any evidence of people with money suddenly turning to drugs en-mass, or suddenly turning away from drugs*. They mostly continue to do whatever they where doing before hand. Though people will work for themselves rather than someone else, if given the opportunity.

*The slight decrease is use is mostly due to reduced stress and increased security. It helps those people who turned to drugs because they feel insecure or hopeless, and now with money, they don’t. (Evidence in the first link). You could, for instance, afford to leave an abusive relationship instead of turning to drugs to kill the pain. Not a common thing, but it happens.


[quote=“sylass94, post:53, topic:27058”]The only part you’re wrong about is suggesting they don’t influence each other at all.

lol that would be a pretty crazy explanation though[/quote]A better explanation would be that the more money you have, the less likely you are to get caught.


That, and even if you are caught it’s unlikely your punishment will be the same as a po’ man.


Prosecutorial Discretion
Jury Nullification

I believe it was Jesus who said
"Money talks, bullsh*t walks"


Now you’re getting it.


It cost ~$31,000 to imprison someone per year.

I wonder how many people would stay out of jail if they had $12,000 basic income…


I doubt it would be many. Very few people commit crimes out of necessity.


What is the reason that poor people commit more crime then?

I was assuming the most likely explanation was financial circumstances.