3 ms·

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

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.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Creating art is always work, but it's probably not a job unless you can regularly sell the product for sufficient funds to support yourself (short of that, it's more of a hobby).
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    How do you expect less people to hold down "traditional jobs", yet expect traditional measures of production and output to not decrease? Redefining work doesn't answer any of the questions. Calling art work doesn't affect production, unless art suddenly becomes edible. "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." You could say that about any position anyone takes. Nobody's accusing Bi advocates of trying to cause societal collapse. They say that BI might, in spite of the advocates best intentions, lead to problems. Your good intentions don't cause good outcomes, so just saying "I don't want society to collapse" is not a useful argument.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      'How do you expect less people to hold down "traditional jobs", yet expect traditional measures of production and output to not decrease?' This is interesting. I can't speak for the parent; I would weakly guess that their response would be that they never specified that they were talking about "traditional measures of production" but were specifically objecting to traditional measures. If that's the case, they should have done so more clearly at the outset. That said, I can see a couple ways that could happen that workers might opt out of traditional jobs without a decrease in "traditional measures of production and output". I make no particular claim that any of these is likely. One potential outcome is that increased options for workers leads to increased upwards pressure on wages, leading to increased pressure for automation. Improvements to automation could mean increases in production in the medium term, at the cost of some production in the short term. Another possibility appears if we consider the following model, which may or may not be related to reality: 1 Some workers are disgruntled. 2 Disgruntled workers, on average, have a negative marginal productivity. 3 Because of economic incentives, disgruntled workers must make themselves indistinguishable from regular workers along axes actually used when making hiring/termination decisions. 4 Given other opportunities, those most dissatisfied with their current situation will be most likely to leave. In this case it would seem that on providing a basic income, we would see those negative marginal productivity workers leave first, which could mean an immediate gain in productivity.

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.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Creating art is always work, but it's probably not a job unless you can regularly sell the product for sufficient funds to support yourself (short of that, it's more of a hobby).
- ikeboy 11y ago
  How do you expect less people to hold down "traditional jobs", yet expect traditional measures of production and output to not decrease? Redefining work doesn't answer any of the questions. Calling art work doesn't affect production, unless art suddenly becomes edible. "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." You could say that about any position anyone takes. Nobody's accusing Bi advocates of trying to cause societal collapse. They say that BI might, in spite of the advocates best intentions, lead to problems. Your good intentions don't cause good outcomes, so just saying "I don't want society to collapse" is not a useful argument.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    'How do you expect less people to hold down "traditional jobs", yet expect traditional measures of production and output to not decrease?' This is interesting. I can't speak for the parent; I would weakly guess that their response would be that they never specified that they were talking about "traditional measures of production" but were specifically objecting to traditional measures. If that's the case, they should have done so more clearly at the outset. That said, I can see a couple ways that could happen that workers might opt out of traditional jobs without a decrease in "traditional measures of production and output". I make no particular claim that any of these is likely. One potential outcome is that increased options for workers leads to increased upwards pressure on wages, leading to increased pressure for automation. Improvements to automation could mean increases in production in the medium term, at the cost of some production in the short term. Another possibility appears if we consider the following model, which may or may not be related to reality: 1 Some workers are disgruntled. 2 Disgruntled workers, on average, have a negative marginal productivity. 3 Because of economic incentives, disgruntled workers must make themselves indistinguishable from regular workers along axes actually used when making hiring/termination decisions. 4 Given other opportunities, those most dissatisfied with their current situation will be most likely to leave. In this case it would seem that on providing a basic income, we would see those negative marginal productivity workers leave first, which could mean an immediate gain in productivity.