5 ms·

Basic income could just as likely increase productivity. Without the need to work, there is a greater incentive to automate jobs. People don't work crap jobs b

Basic income could just as likely increase productivity. Without the need to work, there is a greater incentive to automate jobs. People don't work crap jobs because they like to, they do it because they have to. Anyone who wants a higher standard of living than the basic income minimum can improve their skills while they're sustained by their safety net. Meanwhile, basic income puts more money in the pockets of consumers, creating more market opportunities, especially for the low-cost goods and services those consumers used to work to make. Or maybe everything I've said is bullshit. Who knows? Only one thing is for sure: without experimentation, we only hurt ourselves in the long run.

maaku 11y ago
Why wouldn't I just let someone else figure out how to automate jobs? I've got my income. Let someone else figure that out.
- lintiness 11y ago
  that other person was a lot more likely to figure it out anyway.
  - maaku 11y ago
    I suppose he is also more likely to clean the public toilets too?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Why wouldn't I just let someone else figure out how to automate jobs? I've got my income. Empirically, people often expend effort to increase their income when there are opportunities available, even if their current income meets basic survival needs. I don't see why that wouldn't continue to be the case with basic income. What, people are going to stop wanting luxuries?
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    > What, people are going to stop wanting luxuries? Not sure about you, but most of the luxuries I own, I've basically only bought because I had money for them. If I didn't have money to blow on them, they really don't bring me that much joy, relatively basic items would suffice. So many things I think of as the real luxuries these days are free or basically free. I can spend hours watching youtube or playing games for extremely little cost. I would not exert extra effort to buy better phone or a 4k monitor and a 980ti instead of settling for a weaker setup. Instead I only have these things because the money was there already and I had nothing better to do with it. Basically, I'd drop out of the workforce in a heartbeat if I could afford living and a few minimal luxuries. $15-20k/year would do the job to split a cheap apartment with a friend and keep the rest under control. This is half of what some people have proposed as a UBI.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      You might accurately describe what you would do, but I think the evidence from the world around us is that most people in the US do see sufficient marginal utility in things beyond what it takes $15K-$20K -- or even $30K-$40K -- to afford to exert additional effort to earn beyond that level given the opportunity. So even if we could somehow establish a UBI that would (after accounting for whatever inflationary effect the UBI itself had) provide a standard of living comparable to $30K-$40K in current dollars (which I don't think we can come anywhere close to today), I don't think you'd see a whole lot of people who were had job prospects not working.
      - ultramancool 11y ago
        > I think the evidence from the world around us is that most people in the US do see sufficient marginal utility in things beyond what it takes $15K-$20K -- or even $30K-$40K Do we actually have evidence for this? If you're comparing working a skilled vs unskilled labor I think there's a lot more difference than just pay there that must be considered. In a lot of ways the skilled job is lower effort, even if the up front effort requirement was higher, the daily effort requirement is often lower. You also have to consider than even a relatively low effort job 8 hours a day is a massive effort difference from zero, which is the alternative you're actually comparing to. Basically, if you need to exert several hours a day worth of effort to get by, you better optimize the value you get back from them. But if you don't need to exert any at all to get by, that's a very different situation. But maybe I'm just an uncommonly lazy turd. It's possible. I just don't have evidence to say it for certain.
ultramancool 11y ago
> Meanwhile, basic income puts more money in the pockets of consumers, creating more market opportunities I worry that it would be a lot worse than that - that we could create a class of non-workers and workers. Some products would only be affordable to workers and if, like you're saying, those workers are only those working high paying jobs, this is probably how it'd work out. It could perpetually shrink the labor force while forcing those people who aren't working into a lower class in society and overall dropping our productivity at large - setting back the kinds of automation that such a society could require. Personally I'd almost immediately attempt to drop out of the workforce. And well, software developers are often pretty heavily involved in this sort of automation. So maybe I'm just speaking to my own situation here more than anything. Of course, this is only speculation, and probably one of the worst possible outcomes I can envision for such a program. I definitely agree with you about experimentation though, and if the main funds for it are coming from donors voluntarily and not out of the tax payer's pockets then that's all the better. It would be great to have both private and public researchers in on this though, I'll take as many eyes as we can get on the data.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I worry that it would be a lot worse than that - that we could create a class of non-workers and workers. UBI is intended to alleviate the problem with means-tested social welfare programs in doing that by reducing the disincentive to taking action which would produce additional income faced by those on means-tested benefits where any additional income results in substantial (sometimes even dollar-for-dollar or greater) reduction in value of benefits received. And, in any case, economically its somewhat self-limiting (unless you explicitly inflation index the benefit, in which case you are just asking for disaster if you set it wrong initially -- which is why I prefer tying benefits to a defined revenue stream, rather than a set benefit level): if too many people drop out of the work force because the benefit level is too generous given the current level of productivity, it will accelerate inflation, reducing the real level of the benefit, leading more people back into the workforce.
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    > unless you explicitly inflation index the benefit You can be 100% sure that unless this is specified you'll have people lobbying for it every year. Or just flat rate increasing the UBI, etc. I can envision a strong push from some political groups for this already. > if too many people drop out of the work force because the benefit level is too generous given the current level of productivity, it will accelerate inflation, reducing the real level of the benefit, leading more people back into the workforce. This is a good point, but in this case, everyone essentially loses value from savings to pay the UBI. Definitely not a hit I'm interested in taking.
refurb 11y ago
Without the need to work, there is a greater incentive to automate jobs. How do you figure? If that were true then that means companies are currently thinking "I could automate all these human jobs, but these guys need work so I won't"? Not sure I've ever heard a business make that decision.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  I think the idea is that a UBI would increase the cost of labor by removing some people and some motivations from the work force and thus forcing a higher level of competition between employers. Increasing the cost of labor increases the incentive for automation to remove the need for the labor.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    Why is the idea of a permanent underclass unable to work appealing to anyone?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I think the idea is that a UBI would increase the cost of labor Different UBI proponents (which come from across the left-right spectrum) have different ideas, but none of them that I've heard from has favored UBI for the purpose of increasing the cost of labor generally. Especially on the right, but also usually on the left as well, reducing the disincentive to work inherent in means-tested social benefit programs, and avoiding the same problems that minimum wages seek to address while not limiting the minimum economic value a job can produce and be worth offering are frequently cited motivations.
    - ultramancool 11y ago
      > favored UBI for the purpose of increasing the cost of labor generally But is this still an effect which needs to be considered? I can only see it increasing the cost of labor if people are only willing to work for the luxuries they desire and no longer for the basic living expenses. By what other means would it encourage automation at all? Or is that not an intention or benefit at all?

maaku 11y ago

Why wouldn't I just let someone else figure out how to automate jobs? I've got my income. Let someone else figure that out.

lintiness 11y ago
that other person was a lot more likely to figure it out anyway.
- maaku 11y ago
  I suppose he is also more likely to clean the public toilets too?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Why wouldn't I just let someone else figure out how to automate jobs? I've got my income. Empirically, people often expend effort to increase their income when there are opportunities available, even if their current income meets basic survival needs. I don't see why that wouldn't continue to be the case with basic income. What, people are going to stop wanting luxuries?
- ultramancool 11y ago
  > What, people are going to stop wanting luxuries? Not sure about you, but most of the luxuries I own, I've basically only bought because I had money for them. If I didn't have money to blow on them, they really don't bring me that much joy, relatively basic items would suffice. So many things I think of as the real luxuries these days are free or basically free. I can spend hours watching youtube or playing games for extremely little cost. I would not exert extra effort to buy better phone or a 4k monitor and a 980ti instead of settling for a weaker setup. Instead I only have these things because the money was there already and I had nothing better to do with it. Basically, I'd drop out of the workforce in a heartbeat if I could afford living and a few minimal luxuries. $15-20k/year would do the job to split a cheap apartment with a friend and keep the rest under control. This is half of what some people have proposed as a UBI.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    You might accurately describe what you would do, but I think the evidence from the world around us is that most people in the US do see sufficient marginal utility in things beyond what it takes $15K-$20K -- or even $30K-$40K -- to afford to exert additional effort to earn beyond that level given the opportunity. So even if we could somehow establish a UBI that would (after accounting for whatever inflationary effect the UBI itself had) provide a standard of living comparable to $30K-$40K in current dollars (which I don't think we can come anywhere close to today), I don't think you'd see a whole lot of people who were had job prospects not working.
    - ultramancool 11y ago
      > I think the evidence from the world around us is that most people in the US do see sufficient marginal utility in things beyond what it takes $15K-$20K -- or even $30K-$40K Do we actually have evidence for this? If you're comparing working a skilled vs unskilled labor I think there's a lot more difference than just pay there that must be considered. In a lot of ways the skilled job is lower effort, even if the up front effort requirement was higher, the daily effort requirement is often lower. You also have to consider than even a relatively low effort job 8 hours a day is a massive effort difference from zero, which is the alternative you're actually comparing to. Basically, if you need to exert several hours a day worth of effort to get by, you better optimize the value you get back from them. But if you don't need to exert any at all to get by, that's a very different situation. But maybe I'm just an uncommonly lazy turd. It's possible. I just don't have evidence to say it for certain.

ultramancool 11y ago

> Meanwhile, basic income puts more money in the pockets of consumers, creating more market opportunities I worry that it would be a lot worse than that - that we could create a class of non-workers and workers. Some products would only be affordable to workers and if, like you're saying, those workers are only those working high paying jobs, this is probably how it'd work out. It could perpetually shrink the labor force while forcing those people who aren't working into a lower class in society and overall dropping our productivity at large - setting back the kinds of automation that such a society could require. Personally I'd almost immediately attempt to drop out of the workforce. And well, software developers are often pretty heavily involved in this sort of automation. So maybe I'm just speaking to my own situation here more than anything. Of course, this is only speculation, and probably one of the worst possible outcomes I can envision for such a program. I definitely agree with you about experimentation though, and if the main funds for it are coming from donors voluntarily and not out of the tax payer's pockets then that's all the better. It would be great to have both private and public researchers in on this though, I'll take as many eyes as we can get on the data.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> I worry that it would be a lot worse than that - that we could create a class of non-workers and workers. UBI is intended to alleviate the problem with means-tested social welfare programs in doing that by reducing the disincentive to taking action which would produce additional income faced by those on means-tested benefits where any additional income results in substantial (sometimes even dollar-for-dollar or greater) reduction in value of benefits received. And, in any case, economically its somewhat self-limiting (unless you explicitly inflation index the benefit, in which case you are just asking for disaster if you set it wrong initially -- which is why I prefer tying benefits to a defined revenue stream, rather than a set benefit level): if too many people drop out of the work force because the benefit level is too generous given the current level of productivity, it will accelerate inflation, reducing the real level of the benefit, leading more people back into the workforce.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  > unless you explicitly inflation index the benefit You can be 100% sure that unless this is specified you'll have people lobbying for it every year. Or just flat rate increasing the UBI, etc. I can envision a strong push from some political groups for this already. > if too many people drop out of the work force because the benefit level is too generous given the current level of productivity, it will accelerate inflation, reducing the real level of the benefit, leading more people back into the workforce. This is a good point, but in this case, everyone essentially loses value from savings to pay the UBI. Definitely not a hit I'm interested in taking.

refurb 11y ago

Without the need to work, there is a greater incentive to automate jobs. How do you figure? If that were true then that means companies are currently thinking "I could automate all these human jobs, but these guys need work so I won't"? Not sure I've ever heard a business make that decision.

ultramancool 11y ago
I think the idea is that a UBI would increase the cost of labor by removing some people and some motivations from the work force and thus forcing a higher level of competition between employers. Increasing the cost of labor increases the incentive for automation to remove the need for the labor.
- danielweber 11y ago
  Why is the idea of a permanent underclass unable to work appealing to anyone?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I think the idea is that a UBI would increase the cost of labor Different UBI proponents (which come from across the left-right spectrum) have different ideas, but none of them that I've heard from has favored UBI for the purpose of increasing the cost of labor generally. Especially on the right, but also usually on the left as well, reducing the disincentive to work inherent in means-tested social benefit programs, and avoiding the same problems that minimum wages seek to address while not limiting the minimum economic value a job can produce and be worth offering are frequently cited motivations.
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    > favored UBI for the purpose of increasing the cost of labor generally But is this still an effect which needs to be considered? I can only see it increasing the cost of labor if people are only willing to work for the luxuries they desire and no longer for the basic living expenses. By what other means would it encourage automation at all? Or is that not an intention or benefit at all?