61–70 of 669 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have different definitions of UBI, but in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working. People in a functioning society still have to work.
> People in a functioning society still have to work Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People in a functioning society still have to work Why?
Because until we have unlimited robots with AGI, stuff needs to get done for the society to function. Growing food, building stuff, delivering stuff, fixing/maintaining stuff, etc.
Can we assume a fraction of people would still be doing these relevant things and that it'd be enough to maintain a functioning society? If not, wouldn't that point towards the directions we need technology to evolve? Would paying more to the people who now don't need to work, but are willing to, suffice?
One thing I would bet on is that, in that scenario, degrading working conditions (as we frequently see in agriculture, transportation, etc) would make it harder to find people willing to subject themselves to them.
$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…
Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in thi…
because that's the way things are in scifi like Star Trek. people want to make life imitate art.
I'm not sure how to address this, but I always wonder how much we can extrapolate the findings from these studies to a universal basic income situation. I feel like giving a small group of people an extra $12000 a year provides benefits for low income people because their yearly income is now higher compared to the median income. Someone who's income is in the 5th percentile may now be in the 10th or 15th percentile…
> I'm concerned about a situation similar to college tuition in the US where easy, risk free money leads to price gouging. Once everyone has an extra $XXXXX how quickly does the market realize that the cost of goods can be raised by that amount. Yeah, I'm convinced state backed student loans has led to the crazy rise in college tuition. student loans should be private (but should 100% be dischargeable via bankruptcy)…
While I mostly agree, how do you prevent basically every student from going bankrupt immediately after graduation? None of the downsides to bankruptcy really apply to students so it's logically the best course of action if students loans could be discharged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People in a functioning society still have to work Why?
What's my incentive for subsidizing non-work in others?
This is one. We should go deeper into this question. I most certainly would continue doing a lot of the things I do now, but for fun and to progress the state-of-the-art in my field of work. I'd accept higher taxes in compensation for the assurance I will always be able to do what I do best, instead of what someone would pay me to do.
This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…
It's literally the second paragraph: > They also worked less on average but remained engaged in the workforce and were more deliberate in their job searches compared with a control group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less? Because significant portion of UPI proponents argue that it will promote working more and higher productivity. The typical argument is that it will remove barriers that prevent better worker-job matching.
A significant proportion that is not the majority? I think the vibe about UBI was always "people will work less and employers will have stricter competition when hiring employees".
I don't understand why all of the basic income studies I've seen seek to indicate whether or not giving someone free money improves their quality of life. That it does should be blindingly obvious, but that is not the question which determines whether basic income should be a political goal. That question is whether basic income is the best use of a given amount of public assistance funding. Whether it is more effici…
Honestly, it's sorta self evident that replacing a myriad of confusing and contradictory systems with one system is more efficient. We effectively have UBI already for a subset of the population and it not efficient at all because it's provided through a ton of different programs that all different regulations and inclusion parameters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add value to society?
Why is value needed? How much of it is sufficient for society to function? Yes, it IS a provocation. Let's go deeper into this question.
More simply, value production is needed because value consumption is occurring.