It does not remove "perverse" incentives. Human nature dictates our desires. If we could have everything we ever wanted then there would be no "perverse" incentives. I could have my own amusement park where there would be no lines and I could ride any ride I wanted at any time - not to mention someone would carry me from ride to ride.
People will always want more, to achieve more. The "perverse" incentives exist simply because of that fact. If you cannot accept that, you should go live in the woods far away from people and be happy.
Life isn't fair, you do what you can to help those less fortunate around you. But, if you think for a second that some sort of "equal" pay will solve our worlds problems you are either ignorant or in denial of our human nature.
Your post contains no arguments, just a straw man with some accompanying unsubstantiated statements. No one is suggesting that any single measure will solve all the world's problems. But might we not solve one, or two?
First of all, nobody's opinions are substantiated. I believe that human nature has not and will not change. By human nature, I'm talking about what drives us to do the things we do.
I understand the logic behind BIG. My problem with the _idea_, as it is, is that the idea ignores human nature. If you want to bring an idea to the table, at least be honest about it.
The examples I gave were situations where people did something against their own interests because the current system of welfare provision is broken. Maybe that is inevitable; maybe the system we have is better than any alternative.
But ask yourself if a BIG were implemented:
Would my friend still live with his elderly parents?
Would my colleague's secretary have quit?
Would my acquaintance have been forced into a degrading simulation of a job search he would never succeed at?
The secretary might still have quit anyway - it probably depends on the level of BIG. Ending the pointless simulation of a job search for your acquaintance doesn't require a BIG, and a BIG alone probably doesn't represent the optimum solution either.
Those points don't mean that a BIG is bad, but since people tend to only see one side of an issue after they've made up their mind on it (whether rationally or emotionally), I thought I should bring it up.
"The secretary might still have quit anyway - it probably depends on the level of BIG."
She'd either get BIG and her salary, or just BIG. Compared to the previous scenario of salary vs welfare. The motivation to stay employed would be greater with BIG, surely. The husband would receive BIG regardless of her salaried situation.
I do understand your point. And you gave perfect examples of situations where BIG would be beneficial. My problem with the idea is that proponents ignore the negatives or severely downplay them. My biggest argument against that type of idea is that it kills human drive and ambition and progress.
Sorry, you are confusing "perverse incentive" (as in the incentive itself is perverted) and "incentives to things that are perverse" (as in having incentives to do things that are socially considered to be perverse).
It is a simple innocent ignorance of the term. Look up what perverse incentive means and you'll understand.
I can see you're defensive about this subject, but a simple google search of the term comes up with a wikipedia article explaining what is commonly meant by "perverse incentive".
I agree that BIG creates incentives... that is the point of all social policy in the history of ever. But the contrast here is that current policy can make positive actions (working, investing, personal development) a net loss to a family or individual who attempts them. THAT is the definition of a perverse incentive.
And my point is that BIG policy makes it so that negative actions (not working _hard_, not investing, no personal development beyond what is required) are not a net loss to the family or individual. Thus, it promotes doing the bare minimum to get by, especially when the result is a very comfy, stress free lifestyle.
You might want to Google the term yourself. According to Wikipedia, "A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers". That is exactly westicle's usage here, unless you are implying that the outcomes he described were actually intended.
Maybe you aren't aware of the meaning of the term "perverse incentive." A "perverse incentive" is when you are incentivized to do something that doesn't make sense. It's not the same thing as "incentive."
People will always want more, to achieve more. The "perverse" incentives exist simply because of that fact. If you cannot accept that, you should go live in the woods far away from people and be happy.
Life isn't fair, you do what you can to help those less fortunate around you. But, if you think for a second that some sort of "equal" pay will solve our worlds problems you are either ignorant or in denial of our human nature.