7 ms·

Just came here to say that the tired argument that UBI "start[s] creating some pretty powerful disincentives to work" is really just old at this point. What som

Just came here to say that the tired argument that UBI "start[s] creating some pretty powerful disincentives to work" is really just old at this point. What someone that trots that out is saying is that more people would be able to forgo wasting their lives in menial jobs and instead create art and new businesses, or stay home to raise a family or care for elderly parents, as if either of those is somehow morally wrong or shameful. There will still be incentive to working - cars and houses and jewelry and iPhones and etc and etc will still cost money, likely above what a basic income gives you (except for the most basic apartment and car maybe). But people will be able to choose to not work in deplorable conditions or for terrible wages or for below minimum wage because tips, and won't have to live in constant fear of losing a minimum wage job and losing the leaky roof above their family's heads, or going bankrupt when your kid breaks his arm. When people claim UBI will disincentivize working, they mean disincentivize being taken advantage of by a system meant to keep them under foot and under served - and that not willingly participating in such a system is somehow morally reprehensible. Which I find morally reprehensible.

danharaj 11y ago
Yes. One need only consider that the threat of starving to death is an incentive to sell yourself to another person in order to dispel the euphemistic and misanthropic rhetoric.
mojoe 11y ago
Yep, and considering that extreme poverty leads to all kinds of avoidable crime, I'd much rather live in a society where people are doing something unproductive (like playing video games all day) rather than going out and hurting each other, themselves, and their communities.
strictnein 11y ago
Sorry, but I don't feel like paying more in taxes so that people can "create art" and take care of their own families. When did it become my responsibility to work harder so that they can do that? Taking care of my family involves me working hard, so why are you willing to make me work harder so that others can work less? An no one thinks taking care of your own family is shameful or morally wrong. Taking more money from me to pay you to take care of your family, on the other hand, is morally wrong.
- damon_c 11y ago
  You could look at the idea of people creating art, new business, making movies as something that you and your family could benefit from. Art, one could argue, is the whole point isn't it? Otherwise, what else do we as a species leave behind?
  - strictnein 11y ago
    People have things called hobbies. I have several, but I don't expect to be paid for them. I do them during my free time.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Answers like this consider a society of one (or one plus family) and doesn't comprehend how the health and well being of a society directly correlates to the health and well being of the one. But put that aside for a second. You also get this basic income, which is basically just printed money, so your taxes aren't helping someone else create art with UBI (but they sure are now, in actual reality). Your moral outrage about someone "creating art" as though it's less hard than your job is laughable, and oh by the way, your reward is income far above UBI, so you exist on a different financial plane for your hard work anyway. But lower crime and happier people and less burden on courts and properly fed kids that lead to a better educated generation and less terrible schools in inner cities and every other benefit you receive from basic income and not one ounce of your "hard work" is just a step too far for you?
  - strictnein 11y ago
    So we're just printing all this money? Wow. I can't see anything wrong with that. If it's that easy, let's start at $1 million a person per month. We'll all be rich!
  - aklemm 11y ago
    An excellent answer. It's alarming how easy it is for young, childless, well-off people to simply not have any capacity to understand these points. I say that having been such a person, so it really is sad how long it can take to learn such lessons!
rhino369 11y ago
If we really could have a system where we could just stop working and have basic income that would be the great liberation of the masses. But all these basic income proposals require people to pay taxes to support us. I've lived on 20k a year with almost no required work. And I've lived on 200k with a job. I'd pick the former everyday and twice on Sunday. So I don't have some moral problem with not working. The problem is the tax base would implode and there wouldn't be anyone left paying the bills. The system would collapse. Maybe if software actually eats the world but not until then.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  >I've lived on 20k a year with almost no required work. And I've lived on 200k with a job. I'd pick the former everyday and twice on Sunday. Almost no work is not the same as no work, and 20k is not the same as 12k.
- acdha 11y ago
  > So I don't have some moral problem with not working. The problem is the tax base would implode and there wouldn't be anyone left paying the bills. The system would collapse. > Maybe if software actually eats the world but not until then. That's the most likely way I see a basic income happening, too: automation eats into a huge number of jobs – self-driving vehicles take out a LOT of people currently working as truckers, delivery drivers, etc.; robots turn Amazon warehouses into ghost towns where a few technicians tend the machines; whole categories of office jobs continue to fade as analog data entry goes away and processes are automated; and so forth. In that kind of scenario, it's easy to imagine voters supporting a tax on high earners and corporate income to provide an income for people who simply don't have skills which can't be done by a machine.
- overgard 11y ago
  Why do you think middle class suburban teenagers work awful jobs with no chance of career growth (Walmart, McDonald's, etc)? Most of them have parents providing for necessities. It's because people always want more. Even the poorest people today live like kings compared to five centuries ago, but people still strive for more despite this relative prosperity!
ikeboy 11y ago
The concern is that the loss of workers will hurt production/the economy/etc. If right now, people are willing to do simple work for minimum wage, but we change the system so that people want twice as much before working, then anything that depends on that kind of labor goes up in price, with ripple effects. If less people work, less goods are produced, and prices go up. Similarly, if more people are buying things with their guaranteed income, there's more demand, and prices go up. This has nothing to do with judging people for choosing not to work, despite what you claimed. Do you understand that opposition to this idea might not be motivated by wanting to have a system "take advantage " of people? It sounds like you don't, from what you wrote.
- themartorana 11y ago
  BI can't be static, and will have to be tied to the affordability of basic necessities like housing and transportation. As prices rise, so must BI, or it's not BI. I don't mind discussing the finer points, but work disincentive as it exists as an argument to work as a moral obligation, yes, I think (know [0]) the common thought pattern is that work is a moral requirement, that those that don't are bad, and all social status is earned by those that have, while have-nots just haven't worked hard enough. As a basic argument of production, it's basically been proven that work disincentive is not actually a thing. Here's a good gathering of evidence: http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/08/25/a-universal-basic-income-and-work-incentives-part-2-evidence/ http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/08/25/a-universal... [0] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsen...
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >As prices rise, so must BI, or it's not BI. Well then you need to include that in the cost. You can't look at current costs and current tax revenue. >As a basic argument of production, it's basically been proven that work disincentive is not actually a thing Saying "this does not lead to a work disincentive" is a very different argument from saying "this leads to a work disincentive, but that's a good thing". Make up your mind. Above you argued that work disincentives were perfectly fine, and are the intended outcome, and anyone who doesn't like them is a monster that wants to enslave people. When I point out that there's a legitimate concern that production will go down, and possibly enough to make BI unviable, you turn around and say that there's no disincentive. Also, "one guy here argues something, while quoting extensively from many people who disagree" is by no means a "proof" for that side. It's an argument. When there's an economic consensus, that would be closer to proof. I also have a problem with this: >However, if, as I have suggested elsewhere, the UBI is financed in part by eliminating middle-class tax loopholes (without changing marginal tax rates), Dave’s income would increase by less than the full $8,000 and he would reduce his annual work by less than 13 hours This is saying that increasing someone's effective tax rate will increase the number of hours they work. That seems wrong, even if marginal rates are fixed.
Shivetya 11y ago
Your making assumptions that people who rely on it will put their time to good use when a great many of them are not currently do so, why would they change with even less reason? Incentive to work would more like incentive to receive even more benefits for other items. The problem is politicians, suddenly there will be all sorts of new exceptions to your BI "because". Then we are back to square one. I see most BI suggestions as rationalization for giving up. Face it, there are a lot of people who would be and even some who are living at a level none of us can fathom. Do we really want to legislate an permanent poor class of people, one where there is likely more incentive to not leave it? Finally how do you plan to prevent self destructive and generally harmful activities some will engage in. There are countless stories of generational incompetence, from high frequency of out of wedlock children if not even out of school, to not even finishing school? How can we incentivize good behavior, good for self and society?
- themartorana 11y ago
  But we already have that permanent poor class, vanishingly few of whom escape it, and they're actually getting poorer as time goes on. I see UBI as the best plan by far I've heard to address homelessness and poverty and education and hunger with a single solution. No it's not perfect, but for as little as working provides poor people now, what incentive do they have now that they'd lose later besides those below basic human dignity (like eating)? To your point about politicians mucking with BI on the regular, I concur that is a real concern to proper execution.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Some of us just aren't so sure that we know better than poor people and should decide what's best for them. If they want to dedicate their lives to "unproductive" activities, so what? What makes your job so important, anyway? Mine certainly isn't world-changing, despite earning me a better-than-average salary.
- overgard 11y ago
  Do you think we'd have less homeless people if the incentives for not being homeless were made stronger? "The beatings will continue until morale improves". You make it sound like people choose to be poor because it's awesome. You know what? Poor people already have plenty of incentives not to be poor, nobody wants to be in that boat.
loki49152 11y ago
This is the exact line of nonsense that was used to sell the original transition to welfare statism. Literally the exact words - "It will be just enough to survive but not enough for anyone to ever be satisfied with". History proved them wrong. This isn't "a tired argument", as if it were some speculation based on beliefs. It's a recounting of what actually happened and continues to happen with welfare/handout programs.

danharaj 11y ago

Yes. One need only consider that the threat of starving to death is an incentive to sell yourself to another person in order to dispel the euphemistic and misanthropic rhetoric.

mojoe 11y ago

Yep, and considering that extreme poverty leads to all kinds of avoidable crime, I'd much rather live in a society where people are doing something unproductive (like playing video games all day) rather than going out and hurting each other, themselves, and their communities.

strictnein 11y ago

Sorry, but I don't feel like paying more in taxes so that people can "create art" and take care of their own families. When did it become my responsibility to work harder so that they can do that? Taking care of my family involves me working hard, so why are you willing to make me work harder so that others can work less? An no one thinks taking care of your own family is shameful or morally wrong. Taking more money from me to pay you to take care of your family, on the other hand, is morally wrong.

damon_c 11y ago
You could look at the idea of people creating art, new business, making movies as something that you and your family could benefit from. Art, one could argue, is the whole point isn't it? Otherwise, what else do we as a species leave behind?
- strictnein 11y ago
  People have things called hobbies. I have several, but I don't expect to be paid for them. I do them during my free time.
themartorana 11y ago
Answers like this consider a society of one (or one plus family) and doesn't comprehend how the health and well being of a society directly correlates to the health and well being of the one. But put that aside for a second. You also get this basic income, which is basically just printed money, so your taxes aren't helping someone else create art with UBI (but they sure are now, in actual reality). Your moral outrage about someone "creating art" as though it's less hard than your job is laughable, and oh by the way, your reward is income far above UBI, so you exist on a different financial plane for your hard work anyway. But lower crime and happier people and less burden on courts and properly fed kids that lead to a better educated generation and less terrible schools in inner cities and every other benefit you receive from basic income and not one ounce of your "hard work" is just a step too far for you?
- strictnein 11y ago
  So we're just printing all this money? Wow. I can't see anything wrong with that. If it's that easy, let's start at $1 million a person per month. We'll all be rich!
- aklemm 11y ago
  An excellent answer. It's alarming how easy it is for young, childless, well-off people to simply not have any capacity to understand these points. I say that having been such a person, so it really is sad how long it can take to learn such lessons!

rhino369 11y ago

If we really could have a system where we could just stop working and have basic income that would be the great liberation of the masses. But all these basic income proposals require people to pay taxes to support us. I've lived on 20k a year with almost no required work. And I've lived on 200k with a job. I'd pick the former everyday and twice on Sunday. So I don't have some moral problem with not working. The problem is the tax base would implode and there wouldn't be anyone left paying the bills. The system would collapse. Maybe if software actually eats the world but not until then.

aninhumer 11y ago
>I've lived on 20k a year with almost no required work. And I've lived on 200k with a job. I'd pick the former everyday and twice on Sunday. Almost no work is not the same as no work, and 20k is not the same as 12k.
acdha 11y ago
> So I don't have some moral problem with not working. The problem is the tax base would implode and there wouldn't be anyone left paying the bills. The system would collapse. > Maybe if software actually eats the world but not until then. That's the most likely way I see a basic income happening, too: automation eats into a huge number of jobs – self-driving vehicles take out a LOT of people currently working as truckers, delivery drivers, etc.; robots turn Amazon warehouses into ghost towns where a few technicians tend the machines; whole categories of office jobs continue to fade as analog data entry goes away and processes are automated; and so forth. In that kind of scenario, it's easy to imagine voters supporting a tax on high earners and corporate income to provide an income for people who simply don't have skills which can't be done by a machine.
overgard 11y ago
Why do you think middle class suburban teenagers work awful jobs with no chance of career growth (Walmart, McDonald's, etc)? Most of them have parents providing for necessities. It's because people always want more. Even the poorest people today live like kings compared to five centuries ago, but people still strive for more despite this relative prosperity!

ikeboy 11y ago

The concern is that the loss of workers will hurt production/the economy/etc. If right now, people are willing to do simple work for minimum wage, but we change the system so that people want twice as much before working, then anything that depends on that kind of labor goes up in price, with ripple effects. If less people work, less goods are produced, and prices go up. Similarly, if more people are buying things with their guaranteed income, there's more demand, and prices go up. This has nothing to do with judging people for choosing not to work, despite what you claimed. Do you understand that opposition to this idea might not be motivated by wanting to have a system "take advantage " of people? It sounds like you don't, from what you wrote.

themartorana 11y ago
BI can't be static, and will have to be tied to the affordability of basic necessities like housing and transportation. As prices rise, so must BI, or it's not BI. I don't mind discussing the finer points, but work disincentive as it exists as an argument to work as a moral obligation, yes, I think (know [0]) the common thought pattern is that work is a moral requirement, that those that don't are bad, and all social status is earned by those that have, while have-nots just haven't worked hard enough. As a basic argument of production, it's basically been proven that work disincentive is not actually a thing. Here's a good gathering of evidence: http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/08/25/a-universal-basic-income-and-work-incentives-part-2-evidence/ http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/08/25/a-universal... [0] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsen...
- ikeboy 11y ago
  >As prices rise, so must BI, or it's not BI. Well then you need to include that in the cost. You can't look at current costs and current tax revenue. >As a basic argument of production, it's basically been proven that work disincentive is not actually a thing Saying "this does not lead to a work disincentive" is a very different argument from saying "this leads to a work disincentive, but that's a good thing". Make up your mind. Above you argued that work disincentives were perfectly fine, and are the intended outcome, and anyone who doesn't like them is a monster that wants to enslave people. When I point out that there's a legitimate concern that production will go down, and possibly enough to make BI unviable, you turn around and say that there's no disincentive. Also, "one guy here argues something, while quoting extensively from many people who disagree" is by no means a "proof" for that side. It's an argument. When there's an economic consensus, that would be closer to proof. I also have a problem with this: >However, if, as I have suggested elsewhere, the UBI is financed in part by eliminating middle-class tax loopholes (without changing marginal tax rates), Dave’s income would increase by less than the full $8,000 and he would reduce his annual work by less than 13 hours This is saying that increasing someone's effective tax rate will increase the number of hours they work. That seems wrong, even if marginal rates are fixed.

Shivetya 11y ago

Your making assumptions that people who rely on it will put their time to good use when a great many of them are not currently do so, why would they change with even less reason? Incentive to work would more like incentive to receive even more benefits for other items. The problem is politicians, suddenly there will be all sorts of new exceptions to your BI "because". Then we are back to square one. I see most BI suggestions as rationalization for giving up. Face it, there are a lot of people who would be and even some who are living at a level none of us can fathom. Do we really want to legislate an permanent poor class of people, one where there is likely more incentive to not leave it? Finally how do you plan to prevent self destructive and generally harmful activities some will engage in. There are countless stories of generational incompetence, from high frequency of out of wedlock children if not even out of school, to not even finishing school? How can we incentivize good behavior, good for self and society?

themartorana 11y ago
But we already have that permanent poor class, vanishingly few of whom escape it, and they're actually getting poorer as time goes on. I see UBI as the best plan by far I've heard to address homelessness and poverty and education and hunger with a single solution. No it's not perfect, but for as little as working provides poor people now, what incentive do they have now that they'd lose later besides those below basic human dignity (like eating)? To your point about politicians mucking with BI on the regular, I concur that is a real concern to proper execution.
icebraining 11y ago
Some of us just aren't so sure that we know better than poor people and should decide what's best for them. If they want to dedicate their lives to "unproductive" activities, so what? What makes your job so important, anyway? Mine certainly isn't world-changing, despite earning me a better-than-average salary.
overgard 11y ago
Do you think we'd have less homeless people if the incentives for not being homeless were made stronger? "The beatings will continue until morale improves". You make it sound like people choose to be poor because it's awesome. You know what? Poor people already have plenty of incentives not to be poor, nobody wants to be in that boat.

loki49152 11y ago

This is the exact line of nonsense that was used to sell the original transition to welfare statism. Literally the exact words - "It will be just enough to survive but not enough for anyone to ever be satisfied with". History proved them wrong. This isn't "a tired argument", as if it were some speculation based on beliefs. It's a recounting of what actually happened and continues to happen with welfare/handout programs.