6 ms·

In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want, and instead will engage in hobbies that prov

In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want, and instead will engage in hobbies that provide little value to the world? Your phrasing suggests you favor a UBI, yet your actual claims echo mine (and I'm a UBI opponent). I'm intrigued.

justratsinacoat 10y ago
>In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want, and instead will engage in hobbies that provide little value to the world? >Your phrasing suggests you favor a UBI, yet your actual claims echo mine (and I'm a UBI opponent). I'm intrigued Your phrasing, with respect to the GP, suggests that you consider "things like further education and the arts" to be "hobbies that provide little value to the world", and "the things that others actually want" to be "stuff like McDonalds". As a consequence, I'd encourage supporters of UBI to avoid engaging you on the topic. Your revealed worldview speaks more eloquently than any argument you could come up with. Unless, of course, that's not your position in re higher education/McDonalds, and you're just mocking him. Either way!
- hueving 10y ago
  Your comment implies you have a critique of the poster's argument, but you fail to provide one. Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values. Hinting that someone's argument is absurd adds no value to the discussion unless you illustrate why.
  - ssalazar 10y ago
    > Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values. Most people should agree that things that "market value" is a means to obtain things people intrinsically value, such as comfort, security, happiness, meaning, procreation, etc. If, on a macro level, there is a more efficient means to achieve these end goals other than creating things the market values, theres no reason to incentivize that by itself. In some cases creating things the market values can actively work against these goals, such as many types of advertising and consumer product marketing.
    - hueving 10y ago
      You can't provide comfort, happiness, and meaning without the market to offer those goods. If we have UBI, people are still going to want their toilet unplugged and who will do that if UBI eliminates the need for plumbers to seek income plumbing? It's likely going to drive the cost of everything up so quickly (because of a massive goods and labor shortage) that the UBI will quickly become useless.
      - galdosdi 10y ago
        Getting sick of this argument. Just look around you. Tons of people do tons of things all the time even though they don't get paid or don't need the money, or could get by on less. If a minimal UBI (say, $700/month, similar to today's SSI in the US) is enough in your view to deter people from seeking employment, then how on earth is it that so many people today make more than that, even though they didn't need that much? (You can change the amount around and rerun the thought experiment. Whatever the amount of UBI would be, the existence of many people currently willingly working for more than that amount is proof that people will still strive to make more than UBI) Enough with this tired argument, think a little before repeating it or at least state a version that explains why somehow we have people today who willingly work for more than the bare minimum
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    >Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values What?! That's crazy! Even if I were intending on debating any of you guys, I could hardly do it being prompted by this intentional strawman. But, of course, you're one of them! By which I mean an arch-capitalist, or whatever, who cares, whose internal value system precludes the understanding of what UBI might accomplish because, of course, people are just going to "do anything they want[ed] without contributing to society" [0] rather than behave differently under a system whose fundamental assumptions have changed. Just because you're absolutely certain that people would stop taking jobs in "construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, etc if they can choose to do nothing instead" [0] doesn't mean it's true, and dropping that slimy ostensible fact instead of an actual argument is hardly adding value to the discussion, either! At least my actions provided some value to those intending on discussing UBI in good faith -- ie, do it somewhere else, these guys don't seem capable. >Hinting that someone's argument is absurd adds no value to the discussion unless you illustrate why I think I'm doing a pretty good job, but just in case, said argument attempted to imply that higher education is a stupid hobby, those seeking higher education without the material means to pay for it in fact desire McDonalds, and for those reasons UBI upsets the natural order of things and deserves throwaway comment mockery. Am I really bound to provide something more substantive? I think I've made the 'response' that 'argument' deserves. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12245629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12245629
    - hueving 10y ago
      No, you haven't provided anything of value beyond personal attacks at people that had the gall to suggest that UBI might not align well with economics. Nobody implied that someone would desire to work at McDonald's instead of attend school. However, there is no evidence that people would attend school if they were free from work. If that were true, colleges would be packed with retired people auditing classes. You are using your assumption that your position is objectively correct as an excuse to not even defend it. Please read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
      - 10y ago
simplify 10y ago
Take this analogy. Some people have rare diseases. However, because the diseases are rare and not common, not enough resources go into finding cures for this disease. Should no one work on the cure for a rare disease because it will provide little value to the world, in comparison to a more common one? I'm not saying this directly translates to UBI, but it is something to think about.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  > Should no one work on the cure for a rare disease because it will provide little value to the world, in comparison to a more common one? Well obviously. We should invest in whatever saves the most expected quality adjusted life years per unit of resource spent. Investing in rare diseases is just silly and missing a huge opportunity cost. Usually.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Heck, the way capitalism works, people wont invest in cures even for popular diseases killing tens of millions, if they can't make a nice buck from them (e.g. if the majority victims are poor Africans). And by the same token, they will milk a cure that they've found as much as possible, even if that means that millions (who can't afford it at the price) will die or get bankrupt etc. (Of course if they could sell it a two different prices to different groups (price differentation) they wouldn't say no to poorer people's money, but they can't). (And the massive profits from such drugs and of such companies overall, reveal that it's not just "recuperating" money spend on R&D).
  - Scea91 10y ago
    It's not about how capitalism works, it's about how humans work. Capitalism is not stopping anyone from investing into anything.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      No, that's the way humans work in a specific belief and motivational system. Historically societies have had many incentives and motives for behaviour, advancement, job production, etc, outside of profit, that were as or more important to it. This includes religion, morals, ideals, customs, laws, etc. Christians, for example, were for centuries not loaning with interest, not because they weren't humans, but because they valued a moral code more than profit. As a fact, we do such stuff too, and have even put it in laws, e.g. against child labour, slavery etc. All those could bring huge profit too, but we value our morals (e.g. anti-slavery) more. People certainly didn't stop doing them because they weren't profitable.
wtallis 10y ago
A UBI might make us all poorer because we will no longer be able to get dirt cheap goods like McDonald's food produced by people in situations that amount to wage slavery made survivable only by welfare. Without the hidden subsidy of welfare and the stronger bargaining power that comes from the other party being desperate, McDonald's would have to charge a more realistic price that many customers would find makes their food even less palatable. But does this change make the market more or less efficient? I don't think it's a foregone conclusion either way—that's why it's a fun topic to consider.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  It makes it less efficient. Playing with the market causes deadweight losses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss Granted, many argue that there are more objectives than sum total economic efficiency.
  - jcoffland 10y ago
    > Playing with the market causes deadweight losses Only a diehard capitalist thinks this. We already have a name for this type of pure capitalism. It's called anarchy. I.e. zero government interference.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      If that's true, then almost all mainstream economists are diehard capitalists/anarchists. (Hint: They're not.)
      - jcoffland 10y ago
        This is an appeal to authority.
        Tycho 10y ago
        I don't think it is. It's just a counter to your implication that 'only diehards' take this position.
Amygaz 10y ago
With or without UBI, people actually don't want crappy mcdo food. They want good food. But good food cost money and and/or takes time to prepare. So instead of having minimum wage workers working their asses to make some owner millionaire, we may actually get chefs and cooks paid what they deserves. So, bring UBI, at least it will stop this stupid race to the bottom. And then lets cancel UBI, I don't believe it is anymore sustainable than the current narcissistic/corporatism regime going own, but it cold be a buffer, while we move forward without back-pedaling.
coldtea 10y ago
>In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want People being forced to "provide the things that others actually want" in a job they hate or hurts them, just to make a living and feed themselves is what makes us really poor.
- hueving 10y ago
  If everyone were allowed to do anything they wanted without contributing to society, things would collapse very quickly. You won't find people willing to take jobs in construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, etc if they can choose to do nothing instead.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >If everyone were allowed to do anything they wanted without contributing to society, things would collapse very quickly. Citation needed. Especially one that takes into account increasing automation and software, not merely medieval society needs, and which solves a large part of grunt jobs. Besides, there are people genuinely love working in the fields you mentioned: construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, and that would do them over nothing. Especially with a pay increase over UBI, so that they do them as a choice, not merely because they're forced to not starve. Maybe not so many for things like sewage cleaning, garbage disposal and burger flipping, but again a pay increase over UBI would help with that too. This will also help compensate those jobs according to the value they offer to society, not according to how many people starve and can do them at piss poor compensation to feed themselves.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Very few people do construction because they love it. (source: worked in construction after high school) The same applies to most labor intensive jobs with little room for creativity (all of the ones I mentioned). There is no citation needed to show that society would collapse if essentially all manual labor stopped overnight. To suggest otherwise is silly.

justratsinacoat 10y ago

>In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want, and instead will engage in hobbies that provide little value to the world? >Your phrasing suggests you favor a UBI, yet your actual claims echo mine (and I'm a UBI opponent). I'm intrigued Your phrasing, with respect to the GP, suggests that you consider "things like further education and the arts" to be "hobbies that provide little value to the world", and "the things that others actually want" to be "stuff like McDonalds". As a consequence, I'd encourage supporters of UBI to avoid engaging you on the topic. Your revealed worldview speaks more eloquently than any argument you could come up with. Unless, of course, that's not your position in re higher education/McDonalds, and you're just mocking him. Either way!

hueving 10y ago
Your comment implies you have a critique of the poster's argument, but you fail to provide one. Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values. Hinting that someone's argument is absurd adds no value to the discussion unless you illustrate why.
- ssalazar 10y ago
  > Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values. Most people should agree that things that "market value" is a means to obtain things people intrinsically value, such as comfort, security, happiness, meaning, procreation, etc. If, on a macro level, there is a more efficient means to achieve these end goals other than creating things the market values, theres no reason to incentivize that by itself. In some cases creating things the market values can actively work against these goals, such as many types of advertising and consumer product marketing.
  - hueving 10y ago
    You can't provide comfort, happiness, and meaning without the market to offer those goods. If we have UBI, people are still going to want their toilet unplugged and who will do that if UBI eliminates the need for plumbers to seek income plumbing? It's likely going to drive the cost of everything up so quickly (because of a massive goods and labor shortage) that the UBI will quickly become useless.
    - galdosdi 10y ago
      Getting sick of this argument. Just look around you. Tons of people do tons of things all the time even though they don't get paid or don't need the money, or could get by on less. If a minimal UBI (say, $700/month, similar to today's SSI in the US) is enough in your view to deter people from seeking employment, then how on earth is it that so many people today make more than that, even though they didn't need that much? (You can change the amount around and rerun the thought experiment. Whatever the amount of UBI would be, the existence of many people currently willingly working for more than that amount is proof that people will still strive to make more than UBI) Enough with this tired argument, think a little before repeating it or at least state a version that explains why somehow we have people today who willingly work for more than the bare minimum
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  >Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values What?! That's crazy! Even if I were intending on debating any of you guys, I could hardly do it being prompted by this intentional strawman. But, of course, you're one of them! By which I mean an arch-capitalist, or whatever, who cares, whose internal value system precludes the understanding of what UBI might accomplish because, of course, people are just going to "do anything they want[ed] without contributing to society" [0] rather than behave differently under a system whose fundamental assumptions have changed. Just because you're absolutely certain that people would stop taking jobs in "construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, etc if they can choose to do nothing instead" [0] doesn't mean it's true, and dropping that slimy ostensible fact instead of an actual argument is hardly adding value to the discussion, either! At least my actions provided some value to those intending on discussing UBI in good faith -- ie, do it somewhere else, these guys don't seem capable. >Hinting that someone's argument is absurd adds no value to the discussion unless you illustrate why I think I'm doing a pretty good job, but just in case, said argument attempted to imply that higher education is a stupid hobby, those seeking higher education without the material means to pay for it in fact desire McDonalds, and for those reasons UBI upsets the natural order of things and deserves throwaway comment mockery. Am I really bound to provide something more substantive? I think I've made the 'response' that 'argument' deserves. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12245629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12245629
  - hueving 10y ago
    No, you haven't provided anything of value beyond personal attacks at people that had the gall to suggest that UBI might not align well with economics. Nobody implied that someone would desire to work at McDonald's instead of attend school. However, there is no evidence that people would attend school if they were free from work. If that were true, colleges would be packed with retired people auditing classes. You are using your assumption that your position is objectively correct as an excuse to not even defend it. Please read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
    - 10y ago

simplify 10y ago

Take this analogy. Some people have rare diseases. However, because the diseases are rare and not common, not enough resources go into finding cures for this disease. Should no one work on the cure for a rare disease because it will provide little value to the world, in comparison to a more common one? I'm not saying this directly translates to UBI, but it is something to think about.

Houshalter 10y ago
> Should no one work on the cure for a rare disease because it will provide little value to the world, in comparison to a more common one? Well obviously. We should invest in whatever saves the most expected quality adjusted life years per unit of resource spent. Investing in rare diseases is just silly and missing a huge opportunity cost. Usually.
coldtea 10y ago
Heck, the way capitalism works, people wont invest in cures even for popular diseases killing tens of millions, if they can't make a nice buck from them (e.g. if the majority victims are poor Africans). And by the same token, they will milk a cure that they've found as much as possible, even if that means that millions (who can't afford it at the price) will die or get bankrupt etc. (Of course if they could sell it a two different prices to different groups (price differentation) they wouldn't say no to poorer people's money, but they can't). (And the massive profits from such drugs and of such companies overall, reveal that it's not just "recuperating" money spend on R&D).
- Scea91 10y ago
  It's not about how capitalism works, it's about how humans work. Capitalism is not stopping anyone from investing into anything.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    No, that's the way humans work in a specific belief and motivational system. Historically societies have had many incentives and motives for behaviour, advancement, job production, etc, outside of profit, that were as or more important to it. This includes religion, morals, ideals, customs, laws, etc. Christians, for example, were for centuries not loaning with interest, not because they weren't humans, but because they valued a moral code more than profit. As a fact, we do such stuff too, and have even put it in laws, e.g. against child labour, slavery etc. All those could bring huge profit too, but we value our morals (e.g. anti-slavery) more. People certainly didn't stop doing them because they weren't profitable.

wtallis 10y ago

A UBI might make us all poorer because we will no longer be able to get dirt cheap goods like McDonald's food produced by people in situations that amount to wage slavery made survivable only by welfare. Without the hidden subsidy of welfare and the stronger bargaining power that comes from the other party being desperate, McDonald's would have to charge a more realistic price that many customers would find makes their food even less palatable. But does this change make the market more or less efficient? I don't think it's a foregone conclusion either way—that's why it's a fun topic to consider.

paulddraper 10y ago
It makes it less efficient. Playing with the market causes deadweight losses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss Granted, many argue that there are more objectives than sum total economic efficiency.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  > Playing with the market causes deadweight losses Only a diehard capitalist thinks this. We already have a name for this type of pure capitalism. It's called anarchy. I.e. zero government interference.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    If that's true, then almost all mainstream economists are diehard capitalists/anarchists. (Hint: They're not.)
    - jcoffland 10y ago
      This is an appeal to authority.
      - Tycho 10y ago
        I don't think it is. It's just a counter to your implication that 'only diehards' take this position.

Amygaz 10y ago

With or without UBI, people actually don't want crappy mcdo food. They want good food. But good food cost money and and/or takes time to prepare. So instead of having minimum wage workers working their asses to make some owner millionaire, we may actually get chefs and cooks paid what they deserves. So, bring UBI, at least it will stop this stupid race to the bottom. And then lets cancel UBI, I don't believe it is anymore sustainable than the current narcissistic/corporatism regime going own, but it cold be a buffer, while we move forward without back-pedaling.

coldtea 10y ago

>In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want People being forced to "provide the things that others actually want" in a job they hate or hurts them, just to make a living and feed themselves is what makes us really poor.

hueving 10y ago
If everyone were allowed to do anything they wanted without contributing to society, things would collapse very quickly. You won't find people willing to take jobs in construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, etc if they can choose to do nothing instead.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >If everyone were allowed to do anything they wanted without contributing to society, things would collapse very quickly. Citation needed. Especially one that takes into account increasing automation and software, not merely medieval society needs, and which solves a large part of grunt jobs. Besides, there are people genuinely love working in the fields you mentioned: construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, and that would do them over nothing. Especially with a pay increase over UBI, so that they do them as a choice, not merely because they're forced to not starve. Maybe not so many for things like sewage cleaning, garbage disposal and burger flipping, but again a pay increase over UBI would help with that too. This will also help compensate those jobs according to the value they offer to society, not according to how many people starve and can do them at piss poor compensation to feed themselves.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Very few people do construction because they love it. (source: worked in construction after high school) The same applies to most labor intensive jobs with little room for creativity (all of the ones I mentioned). There is no citation needed to show that society would collapse if essentially all manual labor stopped overnight. To suggest otherwise is silly.