3 ms·

> A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. Unfortunately, I have 2 proble

> A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. Unfortunately, I have 2 problems with this: 1. Of the people that I see in SF who could use UBI, almost none of them seem the type who would clean up their acts with UBI. They have serious mental issues, and money means only 1 thing to them: a means to chemical substances. So what do you do when a guy blows his $2000 monthly stipend on hookers and blow and now is back on the streets? Arrest him? Send him to jail? Put him in a mental hospital? And who pays for that? And who provides him the services, if the bureaucrats who used to do it are gone? 2. What do you do about the millions who are employed in the service-providing sector (bureaucrats, non-profits, etc.) ? Right now they make decent money; you're now going to lay them off. Where will the jobs come from for them?

adventured 10y ago
> Where will the jobs come from for them? That's a pretty weak criticism. Where are the jobs going to come from to employ the millions of people that used to be farmers (in 1875)? Where are the jobs going to come from to employ former delivery milkmen? Or what about the jobs for people that used to handle telephone call switching? The same place they've always come from: economic dynamism. The solar industry, as one basic example, is adding 100,000 new jobs every four years at this point. In 20 years, that one industry will employ a million people - up from almost nothing in 2005. We've got five million job openings presently. The labor market is quite healthy, with the U6 unemployment rate down to where it was before the recession. Besides, unleashing all of that educated labor will result in increased innovation and economic growth, not less.
- fapjacks 10y ago
  This is so right on the money.
- discardorama 10y ago
  > is adding 100,000 new jobs every four years at this point. In 20 years, that one industry will employ a million people I think your math doesn't add up. But going along with your line of thought: will UBI be phased in over 20 years? No. It'll happen over a year or two. Several million people will suddenly be off the rolls. That's not a gradual decline; that's a bloody step function. You will most definitely not have jobs for them. Creating jobs is hard, really hard.
treebeard901 10y ago
1. This sounds like a variation of the welfare argument that has been around forever. Just because some may abuse a system does not make the ideas for the system invalid. As globalization and automation advance you will see others who could benefit from it aside from the stereotypical homeless person. 2. If the premise for UBI is sound then many of the people you mention in the service sector will eventually be without jobs anyway. "Where will the jobs come from then?" is actually a great question to ask when considering the basis for implementing something like UBI. In my opinion, the fundamental problem with UBI has to do with the perceived value of money. If everyone suddenly has $2,000 a month, that $2,000 will quickly have less purchasing power associated with it. On the other hand, if capital controls all of the means of production through automation, business will not have a market for their products as there will be no workers earning a salary to purchase the products. This is the biggest question for capitalism moving forward. I'm reminded of (the myth?) around Henry Ford and paying his workers more money. This may not have been done so his workers can afford a car, but by doubling the pay of his workers, the floor on wages in industrial Detroit followed. Whether or not it was his intention, the effect of workers having more money meant more sales. I feel like there is a lesson here for how we handle automation moving forward.

adventured 10y ago

> Where will the jobs come from for them? That's a pretty weak criticism. Where are the jobs going to come from to employ the millions of people that used to be farmers (in 1875)? Where are the jobs going to come from to employ former delivery milkmen? Or what about the jobs for people that used to handle telephone call switching? The same place they've always come from: economic dynamism. The solar industry, as one basic example, is adding 100,000 new jobs every four years at this point. In 20 years, that one industry will employ a million people - up from almost nothing in 2005. We've got five million job openings presently. The labor market is quite healthy, with the U6 unemployment rate down to where it was before the recession. Besides, unleashing all of that educated labor will result in increased innovation and economic growth, not less.

fapjacks 10y ago
This is so right on the money.
discardorama 10y ago
> is adding 100,000 new jobs every four years at this point. In 20 years, that one industry will employ a million people I think your math doesn't add up. But going along with your line of thought: will UBI be phased in over 20 years? No. It'll happen over a year or two. Several million people will suddenly be off the rolls. That's not a gradual decline; that's a bloody step function. You will most definitely not have jobs for them. Creating jobs is hard, really hard.

treebeard901 10y ago

1. This sounds like a variation of the welfare argument that has been around forever. Just because some may abuse a system does not make the ideas for the system invalid. As globalization and automation advance you will see others who could benefit from it aside from the stereotypical homeless person. 2. If the premise for UBI is sound then many of the people you mention in the service sector will eventually be without jobs anyway. "Where will the jobs come from then?" is actually a great question to ask when considering the basis for implementing something like UBI. In my opinion, the fundamental problem with UBI has to do with the perceived value of money. If everyone suddenly has $2,000 a month, that $2,000 will quickly have less purchasing power associated with it. On the other hand, if capital controls all of the means of production through automation, business will not have a market for their products as there will be no workers earning a salary to purchase the products. This is the biggest question for capitalism moving forward. I'm reminded of (the myth?) around Henry Ford and paying his workers more money. This may not have been done so his workers can afford a car, but by doubling the pay of his workers, the floor on wages in industrial Detroit followed. Whether or not it was his intention, the effect of workers having more money meant more sales. I feel like there is a lesson here for how we handle automation moving forward.