4 ms·

So, I'm sure this will get buried, but in the hopeful event of responses: How does this prevent people from spending up to their means? People who make 20k, sp

So, I'm sure this will get buried, but in the hopeful event of responses: How does this prevent people from spending up to their means? People who make 20k, spend to their means. People who make 50k, spend to their means. People who make 100k, spend to their means. People who make 452k, spend to their means. This is a sincere, non-snark question: people spend to their means. It's similar to packing a bag, a person has a tendency to fill the bag, regardless to if they need all the things they put into it. I'll dig up sources, but people who make 452k a year, they'll tell you they're not rich. They don't feel rich. This. How is this resolved? Everyone wants a vacation to an island every year, and the best things for their kids, the best food on the table, the best cable channels. How is this fixed? For example (and for the record, I hold these people in the highest regard) how do we replace trashmen, postal workers, the guy who pumps my sewage, that dunkin donuts worker? The guy who cuts lawns, or sells firewood? Basic income, in my opinion, is a good idea. People living without the stress of of worrying about paying rent, I really like that idea. I have siblings, and their life is upside-down because they can't pay the bills and keep food on the table (I help as much as I can) how do we fix that? Would my brother just get a nicer apartment, and eat nicer food, and still be broke? He is a welder by trade, and makes a living. Paycheck-to-paycheck, but he makes it work. If he had an extra 15k a year, I am fully confident, he would still be living paycheck-to-paycheck. He is my brother and I love him, this is his reality. How do we fix that?

jessriedel 11y ago
I don't endorse this by any means, but you may be interested in the work of Cornell Economist Robert Frank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Frank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Frank
ddod 11y ago
UBI isn't supposed to fix the problem of money mismanagement. If everyone was spending up to their means, that would be a success because the economy would be flourishing. If they were putting that money into savings, the experiment would be a failure. UBI is designed to solve for the future economy where human labor's value diminishes. In 20 years your brother's welding job may still be paying but whatever job you (or your children) do on a computer will likely be much better handled by AI. UBI is to bail you (and most of our economy) out, not necessarily your brother.
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  My brother _is_ most of our economy. This was my whole point.
  - ddod 11y ago
    No, most of the US economy is service and office based. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf (see chart 3)
tim333 11y ago
I'm not sure what needs fixing. People spend what they earn. What's the big problem?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  People not having a buffer of money is a huge problem. Not saving for retirement is also a problem the way things are right now.
  - aug-riedinger 11y ago
    That's from your 100% rational point of view. Some people just don't act rationality, including in their money management. There is nothing to fix here. You could say, "if they are unhappy at the end, there is something to fix". Most rational people don't understand this because of the logic: you don't want to produce a future unhappiness. Let's take a softer example: in a winter morning, how should you dress up? Well, a rational mind would look at the weather forecast, open his window to feel the outside temperature and dress up accordingly. But some other people won't care. The "effort" required to make the right decision is too high, the gain is too low, why care after all? For those people, there are three outcomes possible: 1. they took a good decision without the information and will be happier than the rational guys, because they did not have to care about taking the decision and the outcome was good 2. they took a bad decision but still it was not worth the effort and even if they got a little cold during a few hours, they'll make it at the end 3. they took a bad decision which they must turned into bad enough consequences so that they should have cared (eg. they got cold) And the best is that in category #3, a rational person would learn from what happened and avoid to reproduce it, but being irrational allows the person to not learn from its experience. The conclusion to this is that since most of our decision making in everyday life is rational, it is hard to understand those who don't act the same way. Also we all are more or less rational, because that's what society forces us to be in respect of the others. But some topic, like how to spend money, or dress in the morning are left to one's freedom, and must not be controlled by some higher rationality. Nothing proves us that the irrational outcome won't be better that the rational one. What if outcome #1 is the most realistic one? We are too rational.

jessriedel 11y ago

I don't endorse this by any means, but you may be interested in the work of Cornell Economist Robert Frank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Frank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Frank

ddod 11y ago

UBI isn't supposed to fix the problem of money mismanagement. If everyone was spending up to their means, that would be a success because the economy would be flourishing. If they were putting that money into savings, the experiment would be a failure. UBI is designed to solve for the future economy where human labor's value diminishes. In 20 years your brother's welding job may still be paying but whatever job you (or your children) do on a computer will likely be much better handled by AI. UBI is to bail you (and most of our economy) out, not necessarily your brother.

irishcoffee 11y ago
My brother _is_ most of our economy. This was my whole point.
- ddod 11y ago
  No, most of the US economy is service and office based. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf (see chart 3)

tim333 11y ago

I'm not sure what needs fixing. People spend what they earn. What's the big problem?

Dylan16807 11y ago
People not having a buffer of money is a huge problem. Not saving for retirement is also a problem the way things are right now.
- aug-riedinger 11y ago
  That's from your 100% rational point of view. Some people just don't act rationality, including in their money management. There is nothing to fix here. You could say, "if they are unhappy at the end, there is something to fix". Most rational people don't understand this because of the logic: you don't want to produce a future unhappiness. Let's take a softer example: in a winter morning, how should you dress up? Well, a rational mind would look at the weather forecast, open his window to feel the outside temperature and dress up accordingly. But some other people won't care. The "effort" required to make the right decision is too high, the gain is too low, why care after all? For those people, there are three outcomes possible: 1. they took a good decision without the information and will be happier than the rational guys, because they did not have to care about taking the decision and the outcome was good 2. they took a bad decision but still it was not worth the effort and even if they got a little cold during a few hours, they'll make it at the end 3. they took a bad decision which they must turned into bad enough consequences so that they should have cared (eg. they got cold) And the best is that in category #3, a rational person would learn from what happened and avoid to reproduce it, but being irrational allows the person to not learn from its experience. The conclusion to this is that since most of our decision making in everyday life is rational, it is hard to understand those who don't act the same way. Also we all are more or less rational, because that's what society forces us to be in respect of the others. But some topic, like how to spend money, or dress in the morning are left to one's freedom, and must not be controlled by some higher rationality. Nothing proves us that the irrational outcome won't be better that the rational one. What if outcome #1 is the most realistic one? We are too rational.