4 ms·

Not sure but maybe because it's not that politicians of all stripes want people to starve but that there is disagreement on how to bring that about. It's a pai

by H99189 9y ago

Not sure but maybe because it's not that politicians of all stripes want people to starve but that there is disagreement on how to bring that about. It's a painfully true reality that there are people who when given every opportunity, trust funds, etc, they are still immense drags on their community and economy as a whole with the destruction they leave behind in their wake. How will UBI deal with it's empowerment of such people or such tendencies in people? Until you do, you don't have workable system but an absolutely disaster in the making that will amplify suffering rather than decrease it.

shkkmo 9y ago
Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The dispute is whether that is actually a problem for UBI. The questions we need answered to know this are: 1) How many (what proportion) 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 whom 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. Proponents of UBI generally maintain 1) is low enough to be out-weighted by 2-4) while skeptics claim it is high enough to out-weight 2-4) Really, these questions can only be answered by data. While 2) and 3) will be very hard to measure with small/medium studies, we can start getting a pretty good idea of how big 1) and 4) are respectively. So far there have been promising indications that 1) may well be out-weighted 4), but we need more, better and larger studies to be sure. UBI's biggest challenge will likely not be finding ways to minimize 1) vs. 4) sufficiently, but will be finding ways to overcome people's cultural and political fear of 1)

by H99189 9y ago

shkkmo 9y ago

Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The dispute is whether that is actually a problem for UBI. The questions we need answered to know this are: 1) How many (what proportion) 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 whom 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. Proponents of UBI generally maintain 1) is low enough to be out-weighted by 2-4) while skeptics claim it is high enough to out-weight 2-4) Really, these questions can only be answered by data. While 2) and 3) will be very hard to measure with small/medium studies, we can start getting a pretty good idea of how big 1) and 4) are respectively. So far there have been promising indications that 1) may well be out-weighted 4), but we need more, better and larger studies to be sure. UBI's biggest challenge will likely not be finding ways to minimize 1) vs. 4) sufficiently, but will be finding ways to overcome people's cultural and political fear of 1)