5 ms·

"The other way is thinking of the billions of brains wasted every generation just trying to survive, exactly what humans did 2000 years ago. Now imagine if all

by dahdum 9y ago

"The other way is thinking of the billions of brains wasted every generation just trying to survive, exactly what humans did 2000 years ago. Now imagine if all these brains could be freed and god knows how much innovation, progress and intellectual output can be unlocked into a completely different kind of society. That's a vision." It's not so cut and dry. I don't believe that incentives under UBI will lead to greater innovation. I see it as wonderful gift to the most intelligent and self motivated, while killing the incentives to achieve anything for so many others. I grew up in a poor rural area and have seen many examples of what guaranteed monthly checks does to ambition. I believe kids growing up in the inevitable "UBI communities" will be trapped even more strongly than in disadvantaged communities now. My objection is not about taxes or wealth distribution, but the ethics of giving millions such a choice, much less making it the "default" one.

eanzenberg 9y ago
I think the people who would agree with you are the ones who see this firsthand. The people who back UBI generally live in a bubble or see things from an ivory tower.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I'm not sure, there are a lot of perverse incentives in the welfare system in the UK, I assume they exist in the US as well. If you replace it with a system where the benefits don't disappear when you start work then there is more of an incentive to work. The main problem I see is most people promoting it want to set it so high that the figures just don't add up.
  - eanzenberg 9y ago
    That's my current biggest problem with UBI. We are not even close to post-scarce.
firethief 9y ago
> what guaranteed monthly checks does to ambition Do you think it's a coincidence that that check is only guaranteed in the absence of ambition? You've seen the perverse incentives of means-tested welfare, not the effects of a UBI.
- dahdum 9y ago
  SNAP, section 8 housing, disability, and other programs are still necessary under UBI unless UBI is absurdly high. If is that high, then the sick/elderly/disabled are hugely disadvantaged relative to those who are not - not a desirable outcome for me. We should overhaul our existing programs to provide graduated phase outs instead of creating new entitlement programs. I see UBI in general as having far more perverse incentives than welfare does right now (and they are bad).
  - specialist 9y ago
    When you say "entitlement", I hear "progressive wealth redistribution". Government is the source of all wealth. So administering cashectomies is a fine way to mitigate hoarding. Once our Ginni coefficient is dragged back into the "democracy promoting" realm, we can talk about liberal over reach.
    - dahdum 9y ago
      > Government is the source of all wealth. So administering cashectomies is a fine way to mitigate hoarding. Labor is the source of all wealth, not government. > Once our Ginni coefficient is dragged back into the "democracy promoting" realm, we can talk about liberal over reach What exactly is the democracy promoting range? How does it promote democracy exactly? The richest Americans are nearly split between democrats/republicans, so this isn't a 1 party issue. I don't think UBI is over reach, I think it's bad policy.
      - Suncho 9y ago
        > Labor is the source of all wealth, not government. Neither labor nor government is the source of all wealth. There is no one source of all wealth. Not all wealth is produced in the economy, but for the wealth that is, the source of that wealth is all of the resources (including labor) that collectively go into the production of that wealth. Furthermore, we wouldn't produce wealth if people weren't able to buy it. So in a sense, you could say that the source of wealth is spending. And in the sense that the government funds spending (through a basic income or otherwise), the government is the source of wealth. Depending on your perspective, wealth can have different sources. But figuring out the source of wealth isn't really that important when we know how to maximize people's wealth regardless of its theoretical source. There's a lecture I really like by economist Steve Keen where he describes his own theory for the source of wealth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H1LIr2NMbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H1LIr2NMbE His answer is that energy (a.k.a. the sun) is the source of all wealth. That's certainly a reasonable way of looking at it that you can't really argue with. But it doesn't tell us how to improve human prosperity. My favorite quote from the lecture: "The theory of production has got nothing to do with the theory of remuneration." Basically this means that how much you get paid has very little if anything to do with how much you contribute. And that's exactly the way it's supposed to be. Markets determine the prices of various forms of labor and that's fine. Let supply meet demand and don't worry about whether wages happen to line up with individual incomes that are optimal for the economy. Getting individual incomes to prosperity-maximizing levels what basic income is for.
chesimov 9y ago
A friendly note: 'cut and dried'. As an aside are these kind of remarks welcomed or seen as pedantic?
- felideon 9y ago
  I think appreciated if done tactfully, as you've done. The upvotes/downvotes would decide. TIL. https://english.stackexchange.com/a/34794 https://english.stackexchange.com/a/34794
- hood_syntax 9y ago
  I'm generally on top of my idiom game, but I didn't know about this one. Thanks for pointing it out, if nothing else for satisfying a curiosity I didn't know I had.
- dahdum 9y ago
  I appreciate it!
apercu 9y ago
This might sound radical, but I've always thought it would make sense to bring back some of the programs from the New Deal as part of UBI. In the US and Canada, infrastructure is crumbling. As part of your UBI (if you can't or choose not to work) maybe people should spend a week a month working for the good of their society. It's not perfect but if there is a job skills/training component of these things, and exposure to people of all types it would be good for a lot of people.
- hood_syntax 9y ago
  I've been 100% on board with this kind of thing. Help people who lack a sense of purpose to contribute towards maintaining the things that make their lives better. Infrastructure is exactly the kind of area that needs bodies thrown at it (under skilled supervision, of course)

by dahdum 9y ago

eanzenberg 9y ago

I think the people who would agree with you are the ones who see this firsthand. The people who back UBI generally live in a bubble or see things from an ivory tower.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
I'm not sure, there are a lot of perverse incentives in the welfare system in the UK, I assume they exist in the US as well. If you replace it with a system where the benefits don't disappear when you start work then there is more of an incentive to work. The main problem I see is most people promoting it want to set it so high that the figures just don't add up.
- eanzenberg 9y ago
  That's my current biggest problem with UBI. We are not even close to post-scarce.

firethief 9y ago

> what guaranteed monthly checks does to ambition Do you think it's a coincidence that that check is only guaranteed in the absence of ambition? You've seen the perverse incentives of means-tested welfare, not the effects of a UBI.

dahdum 9y ago
SNAP, section 8 housing, disability, and other programs are still necessary under UBI unless UBI is absurdly high. If is that high, then the sick/elderly/disabled are hugely disadvantaged relative to those who are not - not a desirable outcome for me. We should overhaul our existing programs to provide graduated phase outs instead of creating new entitlement programs. I see UBI in general as having far more perverse incentives than welfare does right now (and they are bad).
- specialist 9y ago
  When you say "entitlement", I hear "progressive wealth redistribution". Government is the source of all wealth. So administering cashectomies is a fine way to mitigate hoarding. Once our Ginni coefficient is dragged back into the "democracy promoting" realm, we can talk about liberal over reach.
  - dahdum 9y ago
    > Government is the source of all wealth. So administering cashectomies is a fine way to mitigate hoarding. Labor is the source of all wealth, not government. > Once our Ginni coefficient is dragged back into the "democracy promoting" realm, we can talk about liberal over reach What exactly is the democracy promoting range? How does it promote democracy exactly? The richest Americans are nearly split between democrats/republicans, so this isn't a 1 party issue. I don't think UBI is over reach, I think it's bad policy.
    - Suncho 9y ago
      > Labor is the source of all wealth, not government. Neither labor nor government is the source of all wealth. There is no one source of all wealth. Not all wealth is produced in the economy, but for the wealth that is, the source of that wealth is all of the resources (including labor) that collectively go into the production of that wealth. Furthermore, we wouldn't produce wealth if people weren't able to buy it. So in a sense, you could say that the source of wealth is spending. And in the sense that the government funds spending (through a basic income or otherwise), the government is the source of wealth. Depending on your perspective, wealth can have different sources. But figuring out the source of wealth isn't really that important when we know how to maximize people's wealth regardless of its theoretical source. There's a lecture I really like by economist Steve Keen where he describes his own theory for the source of wealth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H1LIr2NMbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H1LIr2NMbE His answer is that energy (a.k.a. the sun) is the source of all wealth. That's certainly a reasonable way of looking at it that you can't really argue with. But it doesn't tell us how to improve human prosperity. My favorite quote from the lecture: "The theory of production has got nothing to do with the theory of remuneration." Basically this means that how much you get paid has very little if anything to do with how much you contribute. And that's exactly the way it's supposed to be. Markets determine the prices of various forms of labor and that's fine. Let supply meet demand and don't worry about whether wages happen to line up with individual incomes that are optimal for the economy. Getting individual incomes to prosperity-maximizing levels what basic income is for.

chesimov 9y ago

A friendly note: 'cut and dried'. As an aside are these kind of remarks welcomed or seen as pedantic?

felideon 9y ago
I think appreciated if done tactfully, as you've done. The upvotes/downvotes would decide. TIL. https://english.stackexchange.com/a/34794 https://english.stackexchange.com/a/34794
hood_syntax 9y ago
I'm generally on top of my idiom game, but I didn't know about this one. Thanks for pointing it out, if nothing else for satisfying a curiosity I didn't know I had.
dahdum 9y ago
I appreciate it!

apercu 9y ago

This might sound radical, but I've always thought it would make sense to bring back some of the programs from the New Deal as part of UBI. In the US and Canada, infrastructure is crumbling. As part of your UBI (if you can't or choose not to work) maybe people should spend a week a month working for the good of their society. It's not perfect but if there is a job skills/training component of these things, and exposure to people of all types it would be good for a lot of people.

hood_syntax 9y ago
I've been 100% on board with this kind of thing. Help people who lack a sense of purpose to contribute towards maintaining the things that make their lives better. Infrastructure is exactly the kind of area that needs bodies thrown at it (under skilled supervision, of course)