8 ms·

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 chang

by 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.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    You're twisting my words. I am saying there is no work disincentive. None. That said, certain types of work that are more aggressively taking advantage of the lower class and those down on their luck will no longer have as an incentive staying just a hair above total homelessness and bankruptcy. Therefore they can pick their work with more dignity (goodbye Amazon warehouse pressures, hello treating people better). I'm also saying that the work people choose may not be entirely typical, or fit within everyone's definition of "work" as they define it as a moral imperative.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >You're twisting my words. I am saying there is no work disincentive. None. I agree that's what you said in your most recent comment. But that's not how you started. I quote: >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 You clearly said that some people are going to stop working, and instead focus on things like art, and that's a good thing. Changing your argument halfway through and not acknowledging it is bad form. In fact, you even said in this comment that there's a disincentive. It's beyond me how you can say "certain types of work ... will no longer have as an incentive" and still claim there's no work disincentive at all. Make up your mind, choose an argument and stick with it. >I'm also saying that the work people choose may not be entirely typical, or fit within everyone's definition of "work" as they define it as a moral imperative. You're still straw manning your opposition, even after I pointed out that moral imperatives to work need play no role in opposing BI. So using your terminology, how would you respond to the concern that this "untypical work" would reduce output enough to threaten the viability of a society?
      - themartorana 11y ago
        Your attempt at a "gotcha!" is a pretty tone deaf. "Creating art" is a job. It is work. As is caring for the elderly or young children - a lot of this is currently considered not working, which is laughable to anyone currently doing it. (It's also the only time I suggested people might not hold down a traditional job.) I don't think production and output would go down and I most certainly don't think it would lead to societal collapse, or I wouldn't be arguing for it. Obviously.
- dllthomas 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 could not disagree more. (Or if you want to nitpick definitions and insist that you've defined BI the one true way, then we can be pedantic and say I strongly oppose BI and strongly support a system that is very nearly BI but for this difference...) I believe that a basic income at an appropriate level will, over time, increase productivity. But I also believe that the result of a basic income higher than the economy can support is a high level of inflation. If we don't raise BI in response, that's naturally self-correcting. I don't want to remove that safeguard. Increasing it at (or slightly faster than) targeted inflation sounds advisable. We should not increase it based on predicted or observed inflation.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> 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 they would still be getting paid minimum wage, because the other half of the money comes from the basic income. It might even allow employers to pay them less, because the UBI would remove the need to have a minimum wage. So someone who was making $15K/year full time at minimum wage who is now getting $12K/year UBI may now have to accept $12K/year in wages because the market for unskilled labor is highly competitive and $24K/year in total income is highly preferable to $12K.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  You misunderstood. When I say "people want twice as much before working", I mean a marginal doubling. If I'm working for a marginal $10 doing unfun work because I need to feed myself, and I'm given basic income, I might say "hey, I'm not willing to do that same work unless I get $20 an hour for it". I might prefer "do nothing and collect BI" to "work for $10 and get BI". >It might even allow employers to pay them less, because the UBI would remove the need to have a minimum wage. So someone who was making $15K/year full time at minimum wage who is now getting $12K/year UBI may now have to accept $12K/year in wages because the market for unskilled labor is highly competitive and $24K/year in total income is highly preferable to $12K. It's not obvious which way it would go. I think my scenario above is plausible, but yours is as well. But in your scenario, why wouldn't the employer capture the entire difference, or a larger part of it? Even if they pay $16k, that's still better than 12k. Or, maybe they'd work less hours. I think that a more robust analysis than these kinds of handwaving arguments is needed. It's not a simple question.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > If I'm working for a marginal $10 doing unfun work because I need to feed myself, and I'm given basic income, I might say "hey, I'm not willing to do that same work unless I get $20 an hour for it". I might prefer "do nothing and collect BI" to "work for $10 and get BI". You might. And then that employer might prefer to hire someone willing to accept $12 (or $10 or $8) and you become the unemployed person instead of them. Or the employer might realize that it's cost-effective to replace you with an automated process at the point of $11/hour and do that. > It's not obvious which way it would go. I think my scenario above is plausible, but yours is as well. It's pretty clearly going to be some of each. But if they even approximately cancel, I don't see what problem that is supposed to create. > But in your scenario, why wouldn't the employer capture the entire difference, or a larger part of it? Even if they pay $16k, that's still better than 12k. Or, maybe they'd work less hours. Maybe they would. > I think that a more robust analysis than these kinds of handwaving arguments is needed. It's not a simple question. The problem is it's not an analysis thing. It's a facts thing and the facts are always changing. If you give $12,000/year to a person, what does it cause them to do? It depends what their options are. Maybe they'll keep doing exactly what they were doing and just have more money to spend, or use it to pay off debts. Maybe they'll demand a raise. Maybe their employer can now get away with paying them less. Maybe they'll quit their job and start a business. Maybe they'll quit their job and go to school. Maybe they'll take a different job that they like better but pays less. Maybe they'll take a different job that pays more but has a higher risk of loss of employment. It depends on the person and their circumstances. Trying to measure it across the entire economy is chaos theory and the measurement you get today in one place won't be the same as it is at some other place or in the same place after a period of time. The only way to know is to do it and find out. And if the worst case scenario is that companies have to pay some employees more to convince them to do unfun work, is that really the end of days?

by ikeboy 11y ago

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.
- themartorana 11y ago
  You're twisting my words. I am saying there is no work disincentive. None. That said, certain types of work that are more aggressively taking advantage of the lower class and those down on their luck will no longer have as an incentive staying just a hair above total homelessness and bankruptcy. Therefore they can pick their work with more dignity (goodbye Amazon warehouse pressures, hello treating people better). I'm also saying that the work people choose may not be entirely typical, or fit within everyone's definition of "work" as they define it as a moral imperative.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >You're twisting my words. I am saying there is no work disincentive. None. I agree that's what you said in your most recent comment. But that's not how you started. I quote: >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 You clearly said that some people are going to stop working, and instead focus on things like art, and that's a good thing. Changing your argument halfway through and not acknowledging it is bad form. In fact, you even said in this comment that there's a disincentive. It's beyond me how you can say "certain types of work ... will no longer have as an incentive" and still claim there's no work disincentive at all. Make up your mind, choose an argument and stick with it. >I'm also saying that the work people choose may not be entirely typical, or fit within everyone's definition of "work" as they define it as a moral imperative. You're still straw manning your opposition, even after I pointed out that moral imperatives to work need play no role in opposing BI. So using your terminology, how would you respond to the concern that this "untypical work" would reduce output enough to threaten the viability of a society?
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Your attempt at a "gotcha!" is a pretty tone deaf. "Creating art" is a job. It is work. As is caring for the elderly or young children - a lot of this is currently considered not working, which is laughable to anyone currently doing it. (It's also the only time I suggested people might not hold down a traditional job.) I don't think production and output would go down and I most certainly don't think it would lead to societal collapse, or I wouldn't be arguing for it. Obviously.
dllthomas 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 could not disagree more. (Or if you want to nitpick definitions and insist that you've defined BI the one true way, then we can be pedantic and say I strongly oppose BI and strongly support a system that is very nearly BI but for this difference...) I believe that a basic income at an appropriate level will, over time, increase productivity. But I also believe that the result of a basic income higher than the economy can support is a high level of inflation. If we don't raise BI in response, that's naturally self-correcting. I don't want to remove that safeguard. Increasing it at (or slightly faster than) targeted inflation sounds advisable. We should not increase it based on predicted or observed inflation.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> 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 they would still be getting paid minimum wage, because the other half of the money comes from the basic income. It might even allow employers to pay them less, because the UBI would remove the need to have a minimum wage. So someone who was making $15K/year full time at minimum wage who is now getting $12K/year UBI may now have to accept $12K/year in wages because the market for unskilled labor is highly competitive and $24K/year in total income is highly preferable to $12K.

ikeboy 11y ago
You misunderstood. When I say "people want twice as much before working", I mean a marginal doubling. If I'm working for a marginal $10 doing unfun work because I need to feed myself, and I'm given basic income, I might say "hey, I'm not willing to do that same work unless I get $20 an hour for it". I might prefer "do nothing and collect BI" to "work for $10 and get BI". >It might even allow employers to pay them less, because the UBI would remove the need to have a minimum wage. So someone who was making $15K/year full time at minimum wage who is now getting $12K/year UBI may now have to accept $12K/year in wages because the market for unskilled labor is highly competitive and $24K/year in total income is highly preferable to $12K. It's not obvious which way it would go. I think my scenario above is plausible, but yours is as well. But in your scenario, why wouldn't the employer capture the entire difference, or a larger part of it? Even if they pay $16k, that's still better than 12k. Or, maybe they'd work less hours. I think that a more robust analysis than these kinds of handwaving arguments is needed. It's not a simple question.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > If I'm working for a marginal $10 doing unfun work because I need to feed myself, and I'm given basic income, I might say "hey, I'm not willing to do that same work unless I get $20 an hour for it". I might prefer "do nothing and collect BI" to "work for $10 and get BI". You might. And then that employer might prefer to hire someone willing to accept $12 (or $10 or $8) and you become the unemployed person instead of them. Or the employer might realize that it's cost-effective to replace you with an automated process at the point of $11/hour and do that. > It's not obvious which way it would go. I think my scenario above is plausible, but yours is as well. It's pretty clearly going to be some of each. But if they even approximately cancel, I don't see what problem that is supposed to create. > But in your scenario, why wouldn't the employer capture the entire difference, or a larger part of it? Even if they pay $16k, that's still better than 12k. Or, maybe they'd work less hours. Maybe they would. > I think that a more robust analysis than these kinds of handwaving arguments is needed. It's not a simple question. The problem is it's not an analysis thing. It's a facts thing and the facts are always changing. If you give $12,000/year to a person, what does it cause them to do? It depends what their options are. Maybe they'll keep doing exactly what they were doing and just have more money to spend, or use it to pay off debts. Maybe they'll demand a raise. Maybe their employer can now get away with paying them less. Maybe they'll quit their job and start a business. Maybe they'll quit their job and go to school. Maybe they'll take a different job that they like better but pays less. Maybe they'll take a different job that pays more but has a higher risk of loss of employment. It depends on the person and their circumstances. Trying to measure it across the entire economy is chaos theory and the measurement you get today in one place won't be the same as it is at some other place or in the same place after a period of time. The only way to know is to do it and find out. And if the worst case scenario is that companies have to pay some employees more to convince them to do unfun work, is that really the end of days?