3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.