4 ms·

This is a poor implementation of Welfare 2.0 and it will fail just like the first iteration.

monkseal 9y ago
At its heart, UBI sounds like a good thing but it ignore basic human nature and particularly in-group and out-group conflicts. UBI in America would calcify a class system where one group of people works and another lives off their work. The working group will come to resent the non-working group and it will further divide the society. People are living a bubble if they don’t think this would be a major source of political and social friction. Also, I don’t think the proponents of UBI can account for how many people would simply not work if they had the option. I love programming but there are some days where I don’t like my boss and my co-workers. I endure some discomfort but at the end of the day, I’m compensated for that. If you told me I would get 50k per year and free housing, I would probably spend most of my time snowboarding and playing video games rather sit in 1 hour planning meeting. I would probably be much more likely to do this if all my friends were snowboarding and playing video games ….
- LesZedCB 9y ago
  > UBI in America would calcify a class system where one group of people works and another lives off their work Turns out this already exists, it's just that most people, presumably you as well by the tone of your post, thinks that the people who are parasites on the working class is the poor and needy instead of the rich and powerful. need proof? read the paradise papers or panama papers. the rich are making off like bandits without paying their fair share orders of magnitude beyond what the impoverished are consuming.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  Nobody is talking about giving you 50k and free housing. You would likely receive much closer to 15k (federal poverty level) and free housing (if any) would likely not be in a ski town. Good luck affording food and rent in a ski town, plus enough video games to keep you busy all year on 15k. You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part-time programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards, new video games, and trips to other ski towns. Disclaimer: I am currently doing part-time freelance work and living in a ski town. Plus, if you truly love programming, you would still want to work on side projects and assist with open source development that you find interesting or valuable. Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The questions are: 1) How many of these lazy people are there? 2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their workforce. 3) How much economic output is wasted by the systems employers have to create to force the lazy people they do hire to be productive. 4) How much economic output can we gain by giving non-lazy people a safety net that allows them to find ideal vocations for their talents and preferences.
  - monkseal 9y ago
    > 1) How many of these lazy people are there? > 2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their workforce. I am pretty lazy but I'm not lazy all the time. I don't think there exists such a classes of "lazy people" vs "non-lazy people". Laziness is a mood, a state. It can be altered by motivation. Income is one important motivator although arguably not the only one. My point is, if we have welfare state with UBI, we will form in-groups and out-groups just as you describe. The taxes of all the "non-lazy” group will be unbearable high. You will hear choruses of complaints from them. They will resent those “lazy people”. Let’s add some other component like race, language or country of origin and you have society more divided than before. These are just a few of the unintended consequences I would see. And 15k is hardly enough to sell this program politically. You can get that now on disability. > You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part-time programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards I can get by on a used snowboard. I could also steal on from one of those “non-lazy people” :)
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      >I am pretty lazy but I'm not lazy all the time. I don't think there exists such a classes of "lazy people" vs "non-lazy people". Laziness is a mood, a state. It can be altered by motivation. Income is one important motivator although arguably not the only one. Yes, "number of lazy people" is a heuristic to talk about the over effect on the productive effort put in the by population at large. > My point is, if we have welfare state with UBI, we will form in-groups and out-groups just as you describe. Look at the current economic demographics and tell me that we don't already have these groups? The distinctions between these groups have been widening for almost 40 years now. These groups are not based on laziness, but on systemic economic disadvantages. I suspect we will see fairly evenly distributed continium of effort between highly motivated workers (workaholics) and un-motivated mooches (bums). > Let’s add some other component like race, language or country of origin and you have society more divided than before. I would expect to see UBI as a democratizing influence, especially when it comes the the creation of small businesses and the ability of acquire education. I believe UBI would help erase the economic divides that currently exist along racial lines as it would help erase some of the inherent advantages of middle and upper class citizens who already have functional support networks that provide a similar safety net to UBI. > And 15k is hardly enough to sell this program politically. You can get that now on disability. I expect that 15k number to be more of a mid to long term goal with UBI that it's starting point. > the taxes of all the "non-lazy” group will be unbearable high. That is your presumption. Tax rates of 100%, fully redirected to UBI (or spent any other way) would obviously be a huge drag on the economy. Tax rates of 0% are also huge drag on the economy since there is of government spending that stimulate and support economic activity. Thus there is a point past which increasing taxes is ineffective, as the drag on the economy outweighs reduces the taxes collected more than the increased rate increases the taxes collected. Let's call this the point of diminishing revenue. There is also point prior to the point of diminishing revenue. That point is where, given a certain portfolio of spending by the government, the economic boost provided by that spending no longer out weighs the economic drag due to taxes. Let's call this the point of diminishing growth. While where is points lie is hotly debated by politicians, their existence is not particularly controversial (except among communists and anti-tax kooks). I don't claim to know what those points are. Realistically, they will be constantly shifting and should be determined by data gathering and science rather than politicians. Obviously, any taxes beyond the point of diminishing revenue are pointless. For UBI to be to advantageous to all members of society, both lazy and motivated, we also shouldn't tax past the point of diminishing growth. Currently, maybe this is 1000 dollars a year, possibly even as high as 10k. I doubt it is as high as 15k currently but I expect that we will get there as automation increases. The hope is that as lower levels of UBI stimulate economic growth and boost economic efficiency, we will reach the point where higher levels of UBI are affordable and advantageous more quickly. Since we don't know what this point is, it makes sense to introduce UBI gradually and slowly increase it, paired with decreases to welfare, unemployment, disability and the minimum wage. These changes should be triggered by a organization more like the Fed than like our Congress. > I can get by on a used snowboard. I could also steal on from one of those “non-lazy people” :) You can already do all of this. I am proof that this "dream life" of yours is already pretty feasible (without theft even) with our skillsets. The fact that you are not pursuing this leads me to think that you don't have an accurate understanding of your own motivations.
- Romanulus 9y ago
  Tonnes of people are already living in a bubble: welfare (speaking broadly here) is doled out to lots and lots of folks, and thus is a huge source of friction. Welfare was meant to help those poor through/in bad times, not those choosing to be poor. Furthermore, plenty of people are already not working (or hardly at all)... all you need to do is eavesdrop/overhear the conversations single mothers are having; which forms to fill out, available programs, which Ministry to hit up and how (for the Canadians here), etc. Isn't it odd how the ultra-rich trumpet UBI as an amazing godsend from government and society? A Smooth Sea Never Made a Skillful Sailor, and coddling those without the drive to hone their skills (with the money of those using their skills) will result in failure.

At its heart, UBI sounds like a good thing but it ignore basic human nature and particularly in-group and out-group conflicts. UBI in America would calcify a class system where one group of people works and another lives off their work. The working group will come to resent the non-working group and it will further divide the society. People are living a bubble if they don’t think this would be a major source of political and social friction. Also, I don’t think the proponents of UBI can account for how many people would simply not work if they had the option. I love programming but there are some days where I don’t like my boss and my co-workers. I endure some discomfort but at the end of the day, I’m compensated for that. If you told me I would get 50k per year and free housing, I would probably spend most of my time snowboarding and playing video games rather sit in 1 hour planning meeting. I would probably be much more likely to do this if all my friends were snowboarding and playing video games ….

LesZedCB 9y ago
> UBI in America would calcify a class system where one group of people works and another lives off their work Turns out this already exists, it's just that most people, presumably you as well by the tone of your post, thinks that the people who are parasites on the working class is the poor and needy instead of the rich and powerful. need proof? read the paradise papers or panama papers. the rich are making off like bandits without paying their fair share orders of magnitude beyond what the impoverished are consuming.
shkkmo 9y ago
Nobody is talking about giving you 50k and free housing. You would likely receive much closer to 15k (federal poverty level) and free housing (if any) would likely not be in a ski town. Good luck affording food and rent in a ski town, plus enough video games to keep you busy all year on 15k. You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part-time programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards, new video games, and trips to other ski towns. Disclaimer: I am currently doing part-time freelance work and living in a ski town. Plus, if you truly love programming, you would still want to work on side projects and assist with open source development that you find interesting or valuable. Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The questions are: 1) How many of these lazy people are there? 2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their workforce. 3) How much economic output is wasted by the systems employers have to create to force the lazy people they do hire to be productive. 4) How much economic output can we gain by giving non-lazy people a safety net that allows them to find ideal vocations for their talents and preferences.
- monkseal 9y ago
  > 1) How many of these lazy people are there? > 2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their workforce. I am pretty lazy but I'm not lazy all the time. I don't think there exists such a classes of "lazy people" vs "non-lazy people". Laziness is a mood, a state. It can be altered by motivation. Income is one important motivator although arguably not the only one. My point is, if we have welfare state with UBI, we will form in-groups and out-groups just as you describe. The taxes of all the "non-lazy” group will be unbearable high. You will hear choruses of complaints from them. They will resent those “lazy people”. Let’s add some other component like race, language or country of origin and you have society more divided than before. These are just a few of the unintended consequences I would see. And 15k is hardly enough to sell this program politically. You can get that now on disability. > You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part-time programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards I can get by on a used snowboard. I could also steal on from one of those “non-lazy people” :)
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    >I am pretty lazy but I'm not lazy all the time. I don't think there exists such a classes of "lazy people" vs "non-lazy people". Laziness is a mood, a state. It can be altered by motivation. Income is one important motivator although arguably not the only one. Yes, "number of lazy people" is a heuristic to talk about the over effect on the productive effort put in the by population at large. > My point is, if we have welfare state with UBI, we will form in-groups and out-groups just as you describe. Look at the current economic demographics and tell me that we don't already have these groups? The distinctions between these groups have been widening for almost 40 years now. These groups are not based on laziness, but on systemic economic disadvantages. I suspect we will see fairly evenly distributed continium of effort between highly motivated workers (workaholics) and un-motivated mooches (bums). > Let’s add some other component like race, language or country of origin and you have society more divided than before. I would expect to see UBI as a democratizing influence, especially when it comes the the creation of small businesses and the ability of acquire education. I believe UBI would help erase the economic divides that currently exist along racial lines as it would help erase some of the inherent advantages of middle and upper class citizens who already have functional support networks that provide a similar safety net to UBI. > And 15k is hardly enough to sell this program politically. You can get that now on disability. I expect that 15k number to be more of a mid to long term goal with UBI that it's starting point. > the taxes of all the "non-lazy” group will be unbearable high. That is your presumption. Tax rates of 100%, fully redirected to UBI (or spent any other way) would obviously be a huge drag on the economy. Tax rates of 0% are also huge drag on the economy since there is of government spending that stimulate and support economic activity. Thus there is a point past which increasing taxes is ineffective, as the drag on the economy outweighs reduces the taxes collected more than the increased rate increases the taxes collected. Let's call this the point of diminishing revenue. There is also point prior to the point of diminishing revenue. That point is where, given a certain portfolio of spending by the government, the economic boost provided by that spending no longer out weighs the economic drag due to taxes. Let's call this the point of diminishing growth. While where is points lie is hotly debated by politicians, their existence is not particularly controversial (except among communists and anti-tax kooks). I don't claim to know what those points are. Realistically, they will be constantly shifting and should be determined by data gathering and science rather than politicians. Obviously, any taxes beyond the point of diminishing revenue are pointless. For UBI to be to advantageous to all members of society, both lazy and motivated, we also shouldn't tax past the point of diminishing growth. Currently, maybe this is 1000 dollars a year, possibly even as high as 10k. I doubt it is as high as 15k currently but I expect that we will get there as automation increases. The hope is that as lower levels of UBI stimulate economic growth and boost economic efficiency, we will reach the point where higher levels of UBI are affordable and advantageous more quickly. Since we don't know what this point is, it makes sense to introduce UBI gradually and slowly increase it, paired with decreases to welfare, unemployment, disability and the minimum wage. These changes should be triggered by a organization more like the Fed than like our Congress. > I can get by on a used snowboard. I could also steal on from one of those “non-lazy people” :) You can already do all of this. I am proof that this "dream life" of yours is already pretty feasible (without theft even) with our skillsets. The fact that you are not pursuing this leads me to think that you don't have an accurate understanding of your own motivations.
Romanulus 9y ago
Tonnes of people are already living in a bubble: welfare (speaking broadly here) is doled out to lots and lots of folks, and thus is a huge source of friction. Welfare was meant to help those poor through/in bad times, not those choosing to be poor. Furthermore, plenty of people are already not working (or hardly at all)... all you need to do is eavesdrop/overhear the conversations single mothers are having; which forms to fill out, available programs, which Ministry to hit up and how (for the Canadians here), etc. Isn't it odd how the ultra-rich trumpet UBI as an amazing godsend from government and society? A Smooth Sea Never Made a Skillful Sailor, and coddling those without the drive to hone their skills (with the money of those using their skills) will result in failure.