4 ms·
Because, if it turns out that most people are just fine with fucking off all day and living off their UBI check then UBI is unworkable (pardon the pun). The cy
by ryandvm 10y ago
Because, if it turns out that most people are just fine with fucking off all day and living off their UBI check then UBI is unworkable (pardon the pun).
The cycle would go something like this:
* UBI checks start getting sent out
* Large droves of people quit the shitty jobs
* Due to reduced labor supply, cost of producing goods rises
* The increased cost of living means that now we need to send out even bigger UBI checks (i.e. raise taxes)
This feedback loop continues until even the most motivated individual cannot rationally continue to pay into the system.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoStraw man. No data to support that; just a scare story. How about: cost of goods continues to drop as automation continues to expand explosively (as it has in the last 10 years). Standard of living rises steadily as the workforce decreases. What's the difference in the two scenarios? Data. Which we don't have. So certainly a UBI should be carefully introduced to keep the economy stable.
- importantbrian 10y agoThis is why we need more experiments like the one in Finland. It would be irresponsible to implement a UBI until we know which of these two scenarios is most likely. Although, I suspect the reality will fall somewhere between the two.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoOr, just implement it and adjust the payment for stability.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoThere's not any data to support it because there's no data around a nationwide, long-term UBI, period. All we have are little experiments where people know it could end at any time.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoQualify that enough, you can make the point. But UBI has been around long enough to collect data (pensions, Alaska, experiments). What people 'know' has no place in economics. We can measure - did prices rise in those places? No? Yes? How much?