4 ms·
>but it's a somewhat limited solution to capping how far down someone can fall in society That's welfare's job. UBI is to provide a living wage when its not po
by drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>but it's a somewhat limited solution to capping how far down someone can fall in society
That's welfare's job. UBI is to provide a living wage when its not possible or difficult to do so (depressed areas, automation taking jobs, etc).
As a social safety net UBI does nothing welfare doesn't, and in most cases does worse. Welfare can be controlled via food stamps that stop people from wasting their money on alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and casinos. UBI is just a cash handout which absolutely will go to those things as well as illegal drugs and other vices. Why shouldn't it? Forcing people to spend responsibly is not solved with UBI. As someone who has lived in Chicago's not so great neighborhoods, this is a common sight. Cash handouts do not suddenly make good people.
>including starting businesses which may change the world.
If the government guaranteed me $100k a year I wouldn't work. I mean I'd "work" but at being a rock musician or comic book artist or a non-practical technical pursuit. I think UBI would lead to leisure lifestyles, not nose-to-the-grindstone business stuff that we're used to in the startup world. Look at the wealthy who don't run their own businesses and who live off their investments or trust fund kids in general. Sure a few engage the business world and do interesting things, but its mostly do nothing lifestyles of learning to paint, kinda sorta finishing that phd, being an 'author' or 'photographer', etc. In fact, I know several people like this.
One of the things UBI advocates don't like to talk about is that the carrot approach isn't usually effective. The stick gets most of the results. In capitalist society the stick is failing economically and living a poor and unsatisfying lifestyle. People work to stay out of the ghetto, if not more so, than for nice things.
Middle-class life is pretty nice. If UBI lets me keep mine, I really see no incentive to work and I suspect many agree with me. A UBI society will be a lot of things, but it will not be productive or innovative like modern society is. I think that's just something you need to accept if you truly advocate for UBI.
Not to mention, how price gouging will match UBI. If the poor go from making $8,000 a year to $50,000 then their rent and cost of food, etc will go up to match. So you can't have an 'income floor' where everything 'just works.' Unless you want to move into a command economy with authoritarian control of all pricing and labor. At that point you've just re-invented authoritarian communism, which history has shown absolutely doesnt work.
--
The system won't let me post (posting too much?), so here' my reply to novia:
>Why are you so opposed to allowing people to spend money on mood altering substances?
Because many are physically addictive and when money runs out the rational move is to rob/murder your neighbor for more. Addiction is that powerful. The idea that all drugs are perfectly fine and addiction doesn't happen is naive fairly naive. I don't think we can assume that a UBI society will be people just smoking pot and doing shrooms the same way modern drug use is not just those things.
>And maybe your artistic pursuits would help make others happier and motivated and inspired to work on their projects that would qualify as real "work" to you.
That's fine, I made that argument I believe, but productivity and innovation will absolutely not be the same. We'll make great strides in 3 chord rock and super hero storytelling, but not much else. In the off chance we do better in any realm, it will be the Arts, which is nice but not nice for the guy waiting on a parkinson's or alzheimer's treatment. The gal who would have cured it is instead a harp player and romance novelist. Or maybe she did try but where are the billion dollar investments for her startup going to come from when everyone lives in what is going to be like a retirement arts community because of UBI?
I don't think we can assume there are no tradeoffs with UBI. I think you need to accept a certain level of lack of innovation. The capitalist system works as-is because of many incentives and disincentives which will largely disappear with UBI. I'm not sure why we're assuming that innovation, investment, and progress will be exactly the same. It seems very unlikely. The culture and system UBI brings may not be to our liking at all, especially those of us who saw so much progress and innovation in our lifetimes.
- chris_t 10y ago> food stamps that stop people from wasting their money on alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and casinos Are you certain they are effective at that? It isn't hard to imagine that a secondary market for food stamps could exist wherein they're traded for cash at some reduced rate.
- drzaiusapelord 10y agoIt "stops" it within a margin of error. Of course, no system is perfect. Just because there's abuse doesn't mean that handing out cash is just as good. The same way murder is illegal but still happens, but no one wants to live somewhere where murder is legal.
- novia 10y ago>Welfare can be controlled via food stamps that stop people from wasting their money on alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and casinos. UBI is just a cash handout which absolutely go to those things and drugs. Why are you so opposed to allowing people to spend money on mood altering substances? >If the government guaranteed me $100k a year I wouldn't work. I mean I'd "work" but at being a rock musician or comic book artist or a non-practical technical pursuit. And maybe your artistic pursuits would help make others happier and motivated and inspired to work on their projects that would qualify as real "work" to you. For example: Lots of people listen to music to get in the groove when they are working on something that requires them to block out the distracting real world.
- Karunamon 10y agoThere will naturally be tradeoffs; where we differ is whether those tradeoffs will be worth it. There already is a secondary market for welfare benefits, to the point where someone who wants to squander it is able to do so, and worth mentioning that the end result to someone who burns their benefits irresponsibly is the same either way, crime or starvation. Administering the bureaucracy necessary to enforce these controls (of varying effectiveness) carries a very real cost outlay. With that in mind, UBI carries the promise of significantly less overhead with the idea of identical societal goals. The alternative is a great ramp-up in the scope and size of welfare systems, like what you might see in the Nordic countries. This idea also has its proponents, but I don't think it would fly in the USA.