3 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 pro

>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

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