5 ms·

Because living a basic existence isn't very attractive to the vast majority of people. Spending your days in recreation isn't very fun when you don't have a lot

Because living a basic existence isn't very attractive to the vast majority of people. Spending your days in recreation isn't very fun when you don't have a lot of money to spend.

echaozh 9y ago
How arrogant. There are 2 points: 1. If people can get a lot of money just by working hard, why don't they already have a lot of money, but rely on the UBI? 2. For people that's really poor and can only live on UBI, well, more money is never a bad thing, but they can live without the money. That's what they had been doing all this time after all.
- clavalle 9y ago
  Great questions poorly framed. 1) Because, right now, there is a huge market distortion that is difficult to see because we've been living with it since we've invented agriculture and specialization -- people must earn money to live. This is a market singularity with a rapid drop off. If you need water within the next hour or you will die, you will pay anything to get it from whomever has it. If you will be homeless in three weeks unless you come up with rent it loses a bit of urgency but you might find yourself selling your time for less than it is worth under conditions that aren't so existentially dire. If that horizon is pushed out to three months then it might be remote enough that it only occurs to you every once in a while how important it is to keep a steady income. Those that are continually on the brink of disaster constantly have to worry about a very short time horizon until their existence, or, at the very least, living without pain, is threatened. It is like a weight on the other side of the scale for them. And worse, the people and entities negotiating on that side of the scale know it. So, they offer just enough to keep them alive and struggling. It is not in their best interest to offer more. So these people on the brink remain on the brink, selling what little they have (time , usually) for less than it would be worth without that distorting weight on the other side of the scale. This is very difficult for people who have not been in that situation or who have not been in that situation or who have outside support structures to keep them from that state to understand. If they don't think about the full context of the decision and the invisible but very real cost of the alternative to a negotiated agreement then it is very easy to think that everyone is making the same choices with the same freedoms. Most need to work to eat, after all, right? But they discount the time horizon, the urgency, and the expectations of future income that they might enjoy compared to someone else. 2: Anyone can live without money much money as long as basic needs are met. Some might enjoy their free time so much that no matter how much they can make if they give some up they would refuse. But, for the reason of the distortion I described above, a huge swath of the poor and working poor aren't being offered enough to get ahead, just enough to keep afloat. So now the choice is 'work your ass off and barely stay afloat or have lots of free time and barely stay afloat'. I know which I'd choose.
dahdum 9y ago
The thing about rural living is that it doesn't take a lot of money to lead a satisfying life - at least while you're young. I had a blast hunting, fishing, hiking, playing disc golf and other activities that required very little money. I knew that it couldn't last forever, that I needed an education / skill and a career. UBI changes that and IMO, incentivizes failure to launch. Ultimately, I think UBI is both a launchpad for high performers and a cage for those not so talented. I think our focus should be on building employment opportunities for everyone, instead of giving up prematurely and creating such a bright lined class system.
- clavalle 9y ago
  I don't think we should be creating menial jobs just to take up people's time because we think they are untalented. If people want to live on the bare minimum and hunt and fish with the rest of their time, more power to them. They value their time doing those activities more than the money they can trade for it. But when they get tired of it or want something more they'll have the freedom to pull themselves out. There might be a bright line, but it will be easy for anyone that wants to step over whenever they feel like it.
walterstucco 9y ago
> Because living a basic existence isn't very attractive to the vast majority of people The vast majority of people are already living a fulfilling basic existence It's the minority of people from big cities and great ambitions that maybe would not like it

Because living a basic existence isn't very attractive to the vast majority of people. Spending your days in recreation isn't very fun when you don't have a lot of money to spend.

echaozh 9y ago

How arrogant. There are 2 points: 1. If people can get a lot of money just by working hard, why don't they already have a lot of money, but rely on the UBI? 2. For people that's really poor and can only live on UBI, well, more money is never a bad thing, but they can live without the money. That's what they had been doing all this time after all.

clavalle 9y ago
Great questions poorly framed. 1) Because, right now, there is a huge market distortion that is difficult to see because we've been living with it since we've invented agriculture and specialization -- people must earn money to live. This is a market singularity with a rapid drop off. If you need water within the next hour or you will die, you will pay anything to get it from whomever has it. If you will be homeless in three weeks unless you come up with rent it loses a bit of urgency but you might find yourself selling your time for less than it is worth under conditions that aren't so existentially dire. If that horizon is pushed out to three months then it might be remote enough that it only occurs to you every once in a while how important it is to keep a steady income. Those that are continually on the brink of disaster constantly have to worry about a very short time horizon until their existence, or, at the very least, living without pain, is threatened. It is like a weight on the other side of the scale for them. And worse, the people and entities negotiating on that side of the scale know it. So, they offer just enough to keep them alive and struggling. It is not in their best interest to offer more. So these people on the brink remain on the brink, selling what little they have (time , usually) for less than it would be worth without that distorting weight on the other side of the scale. This is very difficult for people who have not been in that situation or who have not been in that situation or who have outside support structures to keep them from that state to understand. If they don't think about the full context of the decision and the invisible but very real cost of the alternative to a negotiated agreement then it is very easy to think that everyone is making the same choices with the same freedoms. Most need to work to eat, after all, right? But they discount the time horizon, the urgency, and the expectations of future income that they might enjoy compared to someone else. 2: Anyone can live without money much money as long as basic needs are met. Some might enjoy their free time so much that no matter how much they can make if they give some up they would refuse. But, for the reason of the distortion I described above, a huge swath of the poor and working poor aren't being offered enough to get ahead, just enough to keep afloat. So now the choice is 'work your ass off and barely stay afloat or have lots of free time and barely stay afloat'. I know which I'd choose.

dahdum 9y ago

The thing about rural living is that it doesn't take a lot of money to lead a satisfying life - at least while you're young. I had a blast hunting, fishing, hiking, playing disc golf and other activities that required very little money. I knew that it couldn't last forever, that I needed an education / skill and a career. UBI changes that and IMO, incentivizes failure to launch. Ultimately, I think UBI is both a launchpad for high performers and a cage for those not so talented. I think our focus should be on building employment opportunities for everyone, instead of giving up prematurely and creating such a bright lined class system.

clavalle 9y ago
I don't think we should be creating menial jobs just to take up people's time because we think they are untalented. If people want to live on the bare minimum and hunt and fish with the rest of their time, more power to them. They value their time doing those activities more than the money they can trade for it. But when they get tired of it or want something more they'll have the freedom to pull themselves out. There might be a bright line, but it will be easy for anyone that wants to step over whenever they feel like it.

walterstucco 9y ago

> Because living a basic existence isn't very attractive to the vast majority of people The vast majority of people are already living a fulfilling basic existence It's the minority of people from big cities and great ambitions that maybe would not like it