3 ms·

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

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.

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.