5 ms·
I'm sorry libertarians, but you can't just throw a equal amount of cash at everybody and say good luck. Society just isn't that simple. Different people have di
by jkelsey 10y ago
I'm sorry libertarians, but you can't just throw a equal amount of cash at everybody and say good luck. Society just isn't that simple. Different people have different needs, and that's where the complex overhead of a bureaucracy comes in.
Stop trying to starve the beast already, and instead, help make it better. Or, admit at least, that you just don't give a damn about people who aren't like you.
- DanBC 10y agoUBI isn't about libertarianism, it's about reducing the fucking stupid disincentives built into current benefits systems. Instead of telling people that they can have this money only if they work less than 16 hours a week, or only if they stay disabled, just give them the money. That way you don't need to employ doctors to see if someone is still as disabled as they were last year, and people who get a part time job can increase their hours without penalty.
- Tycho 10y agoBut it might create even bigger disincentives that have a much more universal effect, which could be disasterous.
- leereeves 10y agoThere are good reasons to think it won't. People continue to work after they have enough money not to; people making $40K per year go to night school to try to increase their income. Most people continue to want more after their basic needs are met. And beyond money, work can give a sense of purpose and a connection to other people.
- Tycho 10y agoBut we're not talking about 'most' people. We're talking about all people. What about the people who think to themselves, I don't want to work, I want to live off welfare. Now there will be more of those people (especially since technology satisfies more and more leisure needs for just the price of an internet connection). Also as people grow up in such a society, they don't have that driving motive in the back of their mind that if they have to eventually find employment to survive. How will such people turn out as adults? The promise of UBI is saving money and unlocking more human potential (by allowing more risk taking, or letting artists pursue their art, or whatever). But if you think of the need to be productive (for survival) as a force/pressure that has shaped the complex system we call society since the dawn of civilisation, then I can imagine that removing that force in a large nation could result in something extremely dysfunctional or even horrifying.
- leereeves 10y ago> But if you think of the need to be productive (for survival) as a force/pressure that has shaped... That's why UBI is only now becoming a possibility. The need for everyone to be productive is diminishing. The labor force participation rate has dropped enormously since 2000. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART
- sambe 10y agoI would expect them to get bored and find something interesting to do. Could be quite a positive. Regardless, most existing small studies and surveys show few people behave like this or intend to.
- Tycho 10y agoI worry that the small studies and surveys tell us nothing about the real dangers - from interaction and scale effects in a complex system.
- maxerickson 10y agoIt would be trivial to implement it slowly and dial it back if you saw adverse outcomes. Giving everyone $20 next year probably wouldn't destroy America. (of course a slow implementation would have to overlap with existing benefits, not replace them)
- bkeroack 10y agoThe people who are likely to drop out of the labor market are almost certainly not the motivated, high-productivity workers that actually benefit society. High achievers tend to be motivated by things like passion, creativity, need for recognition, etc, not purely income.
- JorgeGT 10y ago> The people who are likely to drop out of the labor market are almost certainly not the motivated, high-productivity workers that actually benefit society The people who are likely to drop out of their job are plumbers, dishwashers, garbage collectors, miners, mail carriers, highway maintainers, taxi drivers, manual fruit pickers and the rest of those performing soul-crushing jobs that actually allow society to keep running.
- trbvm2 10y agoAll solvable problems though, no? If no one has to wash dishes in order to survive then you will have to offer a quite decent wage to get people to wash dishes else pay someone to finally make the washing of dishes completely automated. Supply and demand should dictate that the worst issue will end up being the rising cost of having a night on the town. Same thing for any other currently low value jobs. We will have to adjust to paying people properly, even above minimum wage, to do things that suck. I view this as a desirable outcome when considered against the current situation in which only the most glamorous jobs tend to pay well, even if the job is not necessarily most helpful.
- ericd 10y ago13k is still poverty level, I imagine most would not be fully content at that level.
- jkelsey 10y agoIn the context of this article, it is very much about libertarianism (the strain of it that is willing to admit that we're facing a jobs crisis, at least). Check the article's author. They want to throw away any sort of a public social safety net, reduce taxes on the wealthy, throw the rest of us a bone and say good luck. I'm very much for a UBI, but as a part of a comprehensive progressive agenda, and certainly not how the right-wingers want to do it.
- trbvm2 10y agoRight-wingers are mostly absent from this conversation. The question at hand is "can we give people enough to amount to a comprehensive solution and thereby save administrative costs"? I don't think any libertarian minded individuals actually believe in tossing out all safety nets and most likely don't care to reduce taxes on the wealthy either, at least not as a goal in and of itself.
- jkelsey 10y agoYes they do. Read the article and read up on the article's author. It's quite literally based around eliminating the costs of the social programs and instead throwing everybody a flat $10K/year.
- trbvm2 10y agoI'm merely trying to discourage the ambiguous "they" labeling. I think the author is, indeed, a bit to on about the "you should help yourself" mentality. Some people can't or won't even if money is offered and many civilized people want to see those types cared for as well. Even so, he's basically on your side in the sense that whatever UBI ends up being proposed for law, he would probably vote for it. Personally, I think we can definitely eliminate the some of the costs of the social programs by giving everyone a flat $30-$40k per year. The driving difference in thinking being that I believe that the only viable way to make basic income happen is to assess average living expenses across the board and provide that amount to everyone while retaining the former programs at a much smaller scale. One of the big issues with the current system is that there is a lot of trouble in determining whether a person really needs the assistance of a program or not. UBI helps in that only those who can show a need beyond $30-$40k/yr need apply.