3 ms·

> an abusive employer would be more severely punished by the labor market if the economic cost to the worker is diminished > workers would also be more likely

by zeteo 9y ago

> an abusive employer would be more severely punished by the labor market if the economic cost to the worker is diminished > workers would also be more likely to create new businesses entirely if the personal financial risks associated with doing so were diminished What kind of UBI are we talking about? If it's the one funded by dismantling the social safety net then no - you won't get more income when losing your job, because the same money is now spread among more people (most of whom still have a job). If it's in addition to the existing safety net, you'd get more of the same advantages by expanding unemployment benefits instead (make them higher / longer lasting / easier to obtain).

rconti 9y ago
maybe it falls under "Easier to obtain" but you're not going to collect uninsurance in the US today if you quit your job.
darawk 9y ago
> you won't get more income when losing your job, because the same money is now spread among more people He didn't say that. The things he said: > an abusive employer would be more severely punished by the labor market if the economic cost to the worker is diminished > workers would also be more likely to create new businesses entirely if the personal financial risks associated with doing so were diminished Are absolutely correct for either type of UBI.
cassowary 9y ago
I've always assumed a UBI would involve reducing (or removing) the tax free threshold, so a person on an average or greater income would actually have no net change in their position, or may even be worse off. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? The advantage of the UBI comes from reduced administrative costs — at the moment, governments spend huge amounts of money on welfare departments to make sure welfare recipients are members of the worthy poor. By giving the UBI to everyone these costs get cut back. It also smooths the transition from jobless welfare payments to employment with a tax free threshold, so that we don't have to worry about whether or not a particular person would be worse off if they picked up another five hours. They would always be better off (because they'll pick up e.g. 87c of every extra dollar they earn, instead of having welfare payments worth e.g $500/month cut but being able to keep $1 of every extra dollar). I fear the advantages of a UBI go to the right-wing (neo-)liberal elites. They can get the government out of morality, cut costs, and pretend to be doing something for the poor. Whether it actually does something for the poor or not compared to welfare is, as you say, conditional. And in the absence of widespread community organisations (like churches in the olden days) throughout much of the west, it's not clear that taking the government out of morality is safe at this point. The article here wants me to believe that my concerns are illegitimate, but Iran is no secular western country.

by zeteo 9y ago

rconti 9y ago

maybe it falls under "Easier to obtain" but you're not going to collect uninsurance in the US today if you quit your job.

darawk 9y ago

> you won't get more income when losing your job, because the same money is now spread among more people He didn't say that. The things he said: > an abusive employer would be more severely punished by the labor market if the economic cost to the worker is diminished > workers would also be more likely to create new businesses entirely if the personal financial risks associated with doing so were diminished Are absolutely correct for either type of UBI.

cassowary 9y ago

I've always assumed a UBI would involve reducing (or removing) the tax free threshold, so a person on an average or greater income would actually have no net change in their position, or may even be worse off. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? The advantage of the UBI comes from reduced administrative costs — at the moment, governments spend huge amounts of money on welfare departments to make sure welfare recipients are members of the worthy poor. By giving the UBI to everyone these costs get cut back. It also smooths the transition from jobless welfare payments to employment with a tax free threshold, so that we don't have to worry about whether or not a particular person would be worse off if they picked up another five hours. They would always be better off (because they'll pick up e.g. 87c of every extra dollar they earn, instead of having welfare payments worth e.g $500/month cut but being able to keep $1 of every extra dollar). I fear the advantages of a UBI go to the right-wing (neo-)liberal elites. They can get the government out of morality, cut costs, and pretend to be doing something for the poor. Whether it actually does something for the poor or not compared to welfare is, as you say, conditional. And in the absence of widespread community organisations (like churches in the olden days) throughout much of the west, it's not clear that taking the government out of morality is safe at this point. The article here wants me to believe that my concerns are illegitimate, but Iran is no secular western country.