3 ms·

> A huge benefit to BI in the long term is it allows people to move to cheaper areas. And do what? Abide? One thing that people want to test is whether this w

by ci5er 11y ago

> A huge benefit to BI in the long term is it allows people to move to cheaper areas. And do what? Abide? One thing that people want to test is whether this would disincentivize work. People choosing to move to where there may well be no jobs sounds as if it is disincentivizing work.

gozur88 11y ago
>And do what? Abide? Why not? Not everyone is ambitious. Heck, I doubt more than about 25% of any generation would work if they didn't have to. It's one thing to be pulling down $100+/hr in a rewarding job building the digital future, but if you're working a fry vat you're gonna quit the first time the boss pisses you off.
- mbrock 11y ago
  Unless you want any money beyond a basic standard of living to save up for travel, furniture, drinks, or whatever you want. If there's a job with a better boss, the basic income will help you transition, though.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    Sure. I just think there are a whole lot of people who will be perfectly happy spending all day smoking pot and playing CoD. Assuming they eventually get tired of that lifestyle, it's still hard to imagine a 30 year old guy who's done his own thing for fifteen years actually getting up and going to work every day.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Who says that there's no useful work to be done in jobless areas? "Jobless" just means there's no work in the area that makes a profit for a private capitalist.
- ci5er 11y ago
  That's provisionally very interesting. Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?
  - _rpd 11y ago
    Wikipedia and open source software are often used as examples.
    - ci5er 11y ago
      I realize that the thread of the conversation risks becoming a bit meander-ey through multiple authors, but if I follow the line of reasoning... So far, we seem to be positing that: with some sort of UBI, people can move to more remote or less costly locales and do things that aren't valuable enough to be paid for by evil capitalists, but are valuable enough for them to ... satisfy whatever psychological need they may have to tell themselves that they are useful or worthwhile human beings? Gosh, IDK, that's a thin stretch. I think that if society needs a UBI as a better (more effective and/or efficient) form of social safety net, we will need to convince people that it's OK if 25% or more of the entire adult population is really doing nothing more with their lives than consuming air/food/water and watching Jerry Springer. By which I mean - it might still be the best safety net scheme we can come up with to get us to/through an age of automation, but we'd best not try to sell it on the idea that it will lead to a flowering of the a new age of the human spirit or some such. Rather, it's just a social safety net that doesn't disincentivize any particular incremental unit of work at the margin. Policy-wise, that may be good enough to make it worthwhile.
      - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
        I'd actually typed out an elaborate reply, but HN told me not to post that fast. The thing about both poor and rural locations is... they don't have the public funding or private companies for a lot of stuff we take for granted in rich urban cores. Stuff like: * Medical clinics * Firefighting * Policing * Maintenance on buildings * Broadband internet infrastructure * Plumbing and sewage infrastructure * Electrical infrastructure * Roads and bridges It's not so much that UBI would end up paying the rural poor to satisfy their psychological need to feel useful, as it would send them money they can spend on pressing material needs that the rest of society have decided don't deserve to be filled if it doesn't benefit "evil capitalists". I mean, come on, do you really want to object that rural electrification or sewage should starve for lack of funding? Because that's what's already happening with the lack of infrastructure funding in many places. Hell, there's a lot of rich urban areas which have let their basic infrastructure go to crap (looking at you, MBTA!) due to immature political slap-fights. If UBI means that people have money to spend, which they can pump through their local economy, which generates a little bit more tax revenue to improve crumbling infrastructure and address basic needs, then it's a good idea. (Sure, we could spend the same state money on direct infrastructure spending, but that would be industrial policy, and thus horrific, evil Communism.)
skybrian 11y ago
There are other possibilities. Maybe they'd still work, but at a lower paying job than they'd be willing to take before. Or perhaps a couple might get by on one income. An income with no strings attached increases freedom. It's not easy to predict what people will do with it, but if you believe that people can generally make sensible choices, they're likely better off than before.
Retric 11y ago
Some people scrape by making 12.50$ / hour in LA/NYC/etc. BI would enable them to have a higher standard of living making 7.50$/hour somewhere else. This creates upward wage pressure in LA, but some people still leave LA which is good for traffic, and rents etc. Instead, we subsidize housing in LA this creates a perverse downward wage pressure, distorts the housing market, etc. Further, when people move to low cost of living there brining this BI income which creates jobs in that area, increases property values etc. There are also hidden advantages. People get away with more crap in low population areas, because you have lower impact on other people.

by ci5er 11y ago

gozur88 11y ago

>And do what? Abide? Why not? Not everyone is ambitious. Heck, I doubt more than about 25% of any generation would work if they didn't have to. It's one thing to be pulling down $100+/hr in a rewarding job building the digital future, but if you're working a fry vat you're gonna quit the first time the boss pisses you off.

mbrock 11y ago
Unless you want any money beyond a basic standard of living to save up for travel, furniture, drinks, or whatever you want. If there's a job with a better boss, the basic income will help you transition, though.
- gozur88 11y ago
  Sure. I just think there are a whole lot of people who will be perfectly happy spending all day smoking pot and playing CoD. Assuming they eventually get tired of that lifestyle, it's still hard to imagine a 30 year old guy who's done his own thing for fifteen years actually getting up and going to work every day.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Who says that there's no useful work to be done in jobless areas? "Jobless" just means there's no work in the area that makes a profit for a private capitalist.

ci5er 11y ago
That's provisionally very interesting. Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?
- _rpd 11y ago
  Wikipedia and open source software are often used as examples.
  - ci5er 11y ago
    I realize that the thread of the conversation risks becoming a bit meander-ey through multiple authors, but if I follow the line of reasoning... So far, we seem to be positing that: with some sort of UBI, people can move to more remote or less costly locales and do things that aren't valuable enough to be paid for by evil capitalists, but are valuable enough for them to ... satisfy whatever psychological need they may have to tell themselves that they are useful or worthwhile human beings? Gosh, IDK, that's a thin stretch. I think that if society needs a UBI as a better (more effective and/or efficient) form of social safety net, we will need to convince people that it's OK if 25% or more of the entire adult population is really doing nothing more with their lives than consuming air/food/water and watching Jerry Springer. By which I mean - it might still be the best safety net scheme we can come up with to get us to/through an age of automation, but we'd best not try to sell it on the idea that it will lead to a flowering of the a new age of the human spirit or some such. Rather, it's just a social safety net that doesn't disincentivize any particular incremental unit of work at the margin. Policy-wise, that may be good enough to make it worthwhile.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      I'd actually typed out an elaborate reply, but HN told me not to post that fast. The thing about both poor and rural locations is... they don't have the public funding or private companies for a lot of stuff we take for granted in rich urban cores. Stuff like: * Medical clinics * Firefighting * Policing * Maintenance on buildings * Broadband internet infrastructure * Plumbing and sewage infrastructure * Electrical infrastructure * Roads and bridges It's not so much that UBI would end up paying the rural poor to satisfy their psychological need to feel useful, as it would send them money they can spend on pressing material needs that the rest of society have decided don't deserve to be filled if it doesn't benefit "evil capitalists". I mean, come on, do you really want to object that rural electrification or sewage should starve for lack of funding? Because that's what's already happening with the lack of infrastructure funding in many places. Hell, there's a lot of rich urban areas which have let their basic infrastructure go to crap (looking at you, MBTA!) due to immature political slap-fights. If UBI means that people have money to spend, which they can pump through their local economy, which generates a little bit more tax revenue to improve crumbling infrastructure and address basic needs, then it's a good idea. (Sure, we could spend the same state money on direct infrastructure spending, but that would be industrial policy, and thus horrific, evil Communism.)

skybrian 11y ago

There are other possibilities. Maybe they'd still work, but at a lower paying job than they'd be willing to take before. Or perhaps a couple might get by on one income. An income with no strings attached increases freedom. It's not easy to predict what people will do with it, but if you believe that people can generally make sensible choices, they're likely better off than before.

Retric 11y ago

Some people scrape by making 12.50$ / hour in LA/NYC/etc. BI would enable them to have a higher standard of living making 7.50$/hour somewhere else. This creates upward wage pressure in LA, but some people still leave LA which is good for traffic, and rents etc. Instead, we subsidize housing in LA this creates a perverse downward wage pressure, distorts the housing market, etc. Further, when people move to low cost of living there brining this BI income which creates jobs in that area, increases property values etc. There are also hidden advantages. People get away with more crap in low population areas, because you have lower impact on other people.