4 ms·

"Could you explain why you mean by "fall flat"? Do you mean that the businesses that currently employ the service workers would close because they would be unab

"Could you explain why you mean by "fall flat"? Do you mean that the businesses that currently employ the service workers would close because they would be unable to find anyone to work for them? It seems likely that they'd need to increase the wages paid for unrewarding positions," No. Coffee Shops etc. already run on pretty low margins -> they'd be out of business. Any business wherein labour is a significant input cost and where wages are low enough that people would quite - would shut down - and that's a lot of businesses. "So more art gets created, the lifestyle is less materialic " That's a choice we can make today - we don't need massive government intervention to make that decision for us. It also means a significantly reduced output: The value of the 'art' getting created is significantly lower than the 'service' they provide making coffee - or else that art would be getting created. It's easy to prove: if their are were 'worth something' to you and I, we'd be buying it. We're not. But we will however hire them to make coffee for us. "Would I be right to guess that you are not currently working a poorly paid job you hate in the service industry while trying to find time to pursue the art you love? I don't mean that last question as an actual attack, but I do wonder if your self-interest might be different than that of the majority of your neighbors." I don't care what my neighbours 'aspirations' are. It is not their right to take my money to pursue their aspirations. If they want to make art that nobody wants to buy, that's fine by me, but I should not have to pay for their rent so they can do that. They can serve coffee, get a better job, make better art that people want to buy - it's entirely their choice, they are entirely capable. They can have whatever lifestyle they want to build for themselves. If they are handicapped, or ill, that's another story, but otherwise, their life is their job, not mine.

nkurz 10y ago
Coffee Shops etc. already run on pretty low margins -> they'd be out of business. Possibly, assuming nothing else changes, and they can't raise their prices or automate so as to require less labor. But others are claiming that the problem with UBI is that all the prices would go up, presumably including those at the coffee shop. And if everyone in the neighborhood had another $1000 per month to spend, don't you think that at least some of the coffee shops would see increased business? The value of the 'art' getting created is significantly lower than the 'service' they provide making coffee - or else that art would be getting created. Maybe, but this bothers me in two ways. First, it assumes only those with the surplus money to buy art are allowed to determine the value of art to society, and that those will the inability to pay for art have no say. Isn't it fair to allow these non-rich art lovers to democratically vote for policies that result in more art? Second, it implies that the value of art can be completely judged by its market value of at the time it was created. The more creative geniuses we have serving coffee to rich folk, the fewer works of art we'll have in the future. Obviously most artists aren't geniuses, but I think this tradeoff at least merits some consideration. if their are were 'worth something' to you and I, we'd be buying it. We're not. But we will however hire them to make coffee for us. There is lots of art I appreciate and would like to encourage, but I don't have money to support it. I've never felt comfortable paying someone to make me hot beverages --- I'd much prefer self-service and greater automation. I don't care what my neighbours 'aspirations' are. Perhaps that's the big difference in our views. I care tremendously about whether those sharing my society feel they are living fulfilling lives. UBI might not be the best way to accomplish this, but I guess I hadn't considered that you might not consider this to be a benefit.

nkurz 10y ago

Coffee Shops etc. already run on pretty low margins -> they'd be out of business. Possibly, assuming nothing else changes, and they can't raise their prices or automate so as to require less labor. But others are claiming that the problem with UBI is that all the prices would go up, presumably including those at the coffee shop. And if everyone in the neighborhood had another $1000 per month to spend, don't you think that at least some of the coffee shops would see increased business? The value of the 'art' getting created is significantly lower than the 'service' they provide making coffee - or else that art would be getting created. Maybe, but this bothers me in two ways. First, it assumes only those with the surplus money to buy art are allowed to determine the value of art to society, and that those will the inability to pay for art have no say. Isn't it fair to allow these non-rich art lovers to democratically vote for policies that result in more art? Second, it implies that the value of art can be completely judged by its market value of at the time it was created. The more creative geniuses we have serving coffee to rich folk, the fewer works of art we'll have in the future. Obviously most artists aren't geniuses, but I think this tradeoff at least merits some consideration. if their are were 'worth something' to you and I, we'd be buying it. We're not. But we will however hire them to make coffee for us. There is lots of art I appreciate and would like to encourage, but I don't have money to support it. I've never felt comfortable paying someone to make me hot beverages --- I'd much prefer self-service and greater automation. I don't care what my neighbours 'aspirations' are. Perhaps that's the big difference in our views. I care tremendously about whether those sharing my society feel they are living fulfilling lives. UBI might not be the best way to accomplish this, but I guess I hadn't considered that you might not consider this to be a benefit.