4 ms·

Of course most people only work to make money. Why else would they spend 8-12 hours of their day doing something they don't want/like to do? This article is ar

by kdamken 10y ago

Of course most people only work to make money. Why else would they spend 8-12 hours of their day doing something they don't want/like to do? This article is arguing against the wrong point. If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. Some people would be lazy, because humans are inherently pretty lazy, but a lot of people would work on things they're passionate about. Work sucks for most people: “Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.” -George Carlin

dragonwriter 10y ago
> If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. If everyone had free money but garbage collection wasn't fully automated first, garbage collectors would have higher pay and/or better working conditions and opportunities for advancement, because people aren't going to want to sit around in their own garbage, they are going to want it picked up, and be willing to pay to have that done (and, if it stops getting done in the short term, there going to be willing to pay more to have it done.) Free money doesn't remove the motivation to work when you can get more money for working. (Now, if you lose the free money when you work, then, sure, that kills motivation to work, which is actually one of the problems with means-tested welfare programs that UBI seeks to address.)
- WalterSear 10y ago
  If garbage men made $50k, and everyone got $50k, the choice would be, do nothing for $50k or make $100k as a garbage man. Would we get less garbage men? Not necessarily. I don't think people will be any less inclined to do unpleasant jobs per se - they still pay the same. What we will see however, is a massive change in employment at >underpaid< jobs. "Picking lettuces for $2/hour? Fuck that, I won't starve if I don't, any more. Come back when you have a business model that doesn't involve abuse." I don't see any problem with that. Industries that rely on making their employees choose between penury and destitution need to go the way of the slave plantations. It's our duty as humans to move forward.
  - DougN7 10y ago
    But who does pick the lettuce? What does that do to the price of lettuce? If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food prices? I think you've hit on the problem -- UBI is not anything more than wage inflation, which will force people to work again to keep up with the spiraling prices.
    - WalterSear 10y ago
      I don't think that the only thing keeping civilization together is the fact that a certain population is impelled to work by starvation. If the prices of things are being kept artificially low, due to the duress of the employees producing it, then the market will fix the problem. We might see a short term rise in certain commodities. But, unfettered, this just induces more efficiencies, such as automation, into the system. Efficiencies produced by upper middle class engineers, who would now, thanks to UBI, have the same earning power as their upper middle class parents did. UBI isn't wage inflation for many reasons, such as the actual value of money isn't equal to people with different incomes. It isn't going to become more expensive to live, because people don't go out and buy twice as many groceries when the have twice as much money - the money is used for different priorities.
      - DougN7 10y ago
        > the money is used for different priorities More money chasing the same goods increases prices. Imagine each family has $15K more than they do now. Some would upgrade their living conditions, causing more competition in the strata they are moving up to, which would increase prices. Some would buy cars they couldn't previously, causing more demand for cars, and increasing prices. Some would go for luxuries they couldn't previously, causing more demand. There is no way around supply and demand. The only way prices don't increase is if demand doesn't increase. If some people create more demand, others have to have less demand.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > But who does pick the lettuce? Realistically, in the short-run, basically the same people doing it now: even a "just out of poverty level" UBI isn't yet sustainable with the current level of productivity and automation. So, the people that can't get a better job than lettuce picking will still need to work, and will still be picking lettuce. They'll have slightly higher total income. (From the UBI itself; whether their wages will change and in which direction is less clear.) > What does that do to the price of lettuce? Not a lot in the short run, though maybe small increases. > If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food prices? Likewise. A "mature" UBI that would be at a level that would substantially change this would also require levels of productivity and automation where you probably wouldn't have people picking lettuce (though you'd have a few maintaining the lettuce-picking bots) in the first place.
- DougN7 10y ago
  That brings up an interesting point. What if UBI was $50K. And garbage men made an extra $50K for working. So do the lettuce pickers, and then sewage workers, and the newpaper deliverer, burger flippers, -- basically every job that needs to get done that isn't pleasant. Sure, they won't all get $50K - some more, some less. Labor _costs_ are now very high, high enough that I think prices would have to rise significantly. Suddenly $50K isn't enough to live on any more... Seems like a spiral that could never be satisfied.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    I believe you're just talking about inflation as a result of UBI and the potential > Labor _costs_ are now very high, high enough that I think prices would have to rise significantly Your assertion is not supported by data: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2Xa https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2Xa Labor costs have been shrinking for years, much more drastically so since the mid 1970's. This is also supported by data about effective wage stagnation (approximate 6% growth over the last 35 years, most of that going to the top quintile) Regarding your original assertion about rising prices - that may be true to some degree if we're talking about consumables, but you could argue that some of the current welfare systems are doing the same thing.

by kdamken 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. If everyone had free money but garbage collection wasn't fully automated first, garbage collectors would have higher pay and/or better working conditions and opportunities for advancement, because people aren't going to want to sit around in their own garbage, they are going to want it picked up, and be willing to pay to have that done (and, if it stops getting done in the short term, there going to be willing to pay more to have it done.) Free money doesn't remove the motivation to work when you can get more money for working. (Now, if you lose the free money when you work, then, sure, that kills motivation to work, which is actually one of the problems with means-tested welfare programs that UBI seeks to address.)

WalterSear 10y ago
If garbage men made $50k, and everyone got $50k, the choice would be, do nothing for $50k or make $100k as a garbage man. Would we get less garbage men? Not necessarily. I don't think people will be any less inclined to do unpleasant jobs per se - they still pay the same. What we will see however, is a massive change in employment at >underpaid< jobs. "Picking lettuces for $2/hour? Fuck that, I won't starve if I don't, any more. Come back when you have a business model that doesn't involve abuse." I don't see any problem with that. Industries that rely on making their employees choose between penury and destitution need to go the way of the slave plantations. It's our duty as humans to move forward.
- DougN7 10y ago
  But who does pick the lettuce? What does that do to the price of lettuce? If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food prices? I think you've hit on the problem -- UBI is not anything more than wage inflation, which will force people to work again to keep up with the spiraling prices.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    I don't think that the only thing keeping civilization together is the fact that a certain population is impelled to work by starvation. If the prices of things are being kept artificially low, due to the duress of the employees producing it, then the market will fix the problem. We might see a short term rise in certain commodities. But, unfettered, this just induces more efficiencies, such as automation, into the system. Efficiencies produced by upper middle class engineers, who would now, thanks to UBI, have the same earning power as their upper middle class parents did. UBI isn't wage inflation for many reasons, such as the actual value of money isn't equal to people with different incomes. It isn't going to become more expensive to live, because people don't go out and buy twice as many groceries when the have twice as much money - the money is used for different priorities.
    - DougN7 10y ago
      > the money is used for different priorities More money chasing the same goods increases prices. Imagine each family has $15K more than they do now. Some would upgrade their living conditions, causing more competition in the strata they are moving up to, which would increase prices. Some would buy cars they couldn't previously, causing more demand for cars, and increasing prices. Some would go for luxuries they couldn't previously, causing more demand. There is no way around supply and demand. The only way prices don't increase is if demand doesn't increase. If some people create more demand, others have to have less demand.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > But who does pick the lettuce? Realistically, in the short-run, basically the same people doing it now: even a "just out of poverty level" UBI isn't yet sustainable with the current level of productivity and automation. So, the people that can't get a better job than lettuce picking will still need to work, and will still be picking lettuce. They'll have slightly higher total income. (From the UBI itself; whether their wages will change and in which direction is less clear.) > What does that do to the price of lettuce? Not a lot in the short run, though maybe small increases. > If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food prices? Likewise. A "mature" UBI that would be at a level that would substantially change this would also require levels of productivity and automation where you probably wouldn't have people picking lettuce (though you'd have a few maintaining the lettuce-picking bots) in the first place.
DougN7 10y ago
That brings up an interesting point. What if UBI was $50K. And garbage men made an extra $50K for working. So do the lettuce pickers, and then sewage workers, and the newpaper deliverer, burger flippers, -- basically every job that needs to get done that isn't pleasant. Sure, they won't all get $50K - some more, some less. Labor _costs_ are now very high, high enough that I think prices would have to rise significantly. Suddenly $50K isn't enough to live on any more... Seems like a spiral that could never be satisfied.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  I believe you're just talking about inflation as a result of UBI and the potential > Labor _costs_ are now very high, high enough that I think prices would have to rise significantly Your assertion is not supported by data: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2Xa https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2Xa Labor costs have been shrinking for years, much more drastically so since the mid 1970's. This is also supported by data about effective wage stagnation (approximate 6% growth over the last 35 years, most of that going to the top quintile) Regarding your original assertion about rising prices - that may be true to some degree if we're talking about consumables, but you could argue that some of the current welfare systems are doing the same thing.