6 ms·

What happens if you don’t show up to your UBJ? Do you starve... or do you get... UBI anyway? The point of the U in UBI is that you can discard the expensive bu

by gaius 9y ago

What happens if you don’t show up to your UBJ? Do you starve... or do you get... UBI anyway? The point of the U in UBI is that you can discard the expensive bureaucracy. The article proposes keeping it as well as UBJs! Literally missing the entire point. But providing lots more jobs for bureaucrats to administer both...

simonsarris 9y ago
You starve. If you're totally incapable of work, the US has a program for that today, its called SSI, Supplemental Security Income. Not to be confused with Social Security or SSDI, this program is paid for with income taxes, not social security taxes. There are ~5 million people in the US on SSI.
- phaemon 9y ago
  You're going to let little kids starve because their parents refuse to do your shitty government assigned job for the rest of their lives? Are you looking forward to your mandatory assigned job? Or are you imagining that it's just for other people?
  - simonsarris 9y ago
    Where did you get mandatory? Imagine a future that includes the options today + a few additional options for employment. That is all I'm describing. Very few people starve in the US: https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/937204945379454978 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/937204945379454978
    - geezerjay 9y ago
      > Where did you get mandatory? You were the one coming up with government-mandated jobs for people who are deemed unable to work. If you frame your policy as government jobs for those who have no alternative, what else would you call it?
DanAndersen 9y ago
>The point of the U in UBI is that you can discard the expensive bureaucracy. Has there been any research into how to set up UBI that actually remains politically/bureaucratically stable? It seems like any implementation would be extremely vulnerable to media cycles highlighting the plight of some poor single mother who didn't spend her UBI wisely and now can't feed her kids, or a rich billionaire who pocketed his UBI rather than giving it to charity. It doesn't matter how infrequent these cases are, it would happen a nonzero amount of times and that's enough to get media stories trending about it. In the face of that, people would start wanting to build in exceptions or adjustments, at which point you end up with the expensive bureaucracy again.
- Lewton 9y ago
  Part of the answer is to make it a fixed percentage of the GDP. That would make it politically harder to change, while having a natural fail-safe if it turns out UBI kills productivity
lr4444lr 9y ago
There's an argument made by some psychologists that human satisfaction from earning a wage rather confers irreplaceable benefits and would result in better outcomes of self-sufficiency over living on handouts at an even higher monetary value. I'm not saying your point isn't valid, or that I even disagree with it, but the article does raise this issue, and claims there is data to back it up.
- wolfram74 9y ago
  Then maybe we should raise the estate tax to 100% to make sure everybody get's these irreplaceable benefits regardless of who their parents are. We're depriving those poor Walden's knowledge of an honest days work.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    Why do you want to steel all the possessions of any dying man? More importantly, why do you believe such petty policies benefit society?
- philipkglass 9y ago
  I've often seen that argument in articles about UBI, but the supporting examples are usually unconvincing. If "people suffer from lack of work, not lack of money," why are the examples offered e.g. communities full of impoverished people subsisting on disability, not luxury retirement communities? Surely the residents of the latter are deprived of weeding a field all day with hand tools, too. If not-having a boss directing you to perform tasks is what's ailing the unemployed, and money is secondary, then Jim Moneybags should be roughly as bad off as Joe Welfare, so long as neither Jim nor Joe go to work each weekday.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say that the retirees as a sub-community can be found anywhere not working. They're old, and they are enjoying their senescence basking in their life accomplishments and family. Also, those retirement communities are supported by a network of health care and leisure industry workers, which are paid for out of value the old people saved from their productive activity during their working years.
wehadfun 9y ago
Also UBI let people do what they wanted. If someone wants to study cockroaches they can without worrying how to monetize it. If they have to spend all day at their UBJ
- fvdessen 9y ago
  And if people want to do drugs all day ? In Belgium there's no time limit to unemployment benefits and the government doesn't really check if you're looking for work. The result is a lot of people who have spent decades unemployed, spending most of their time drinking and watching TV. The result hasn't been a scientific & creative boom, but a massive social disaster.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > And if people want to do drugs all day ? They’ll need to find a job, since drugs tend to be expensive luxuries.
    - philipkglass 9y ago
      Absent the markup from prohibition, a day's supply of drugs would be cheaper than a day's supply of food. Though if prohibition stays you're right. If people freed from the necessity of work can't figure out anything better to do with their lives than consume entertainment and get high all day, I find that rather sad. It's still not as sad as forcing them to LARP at obsolete agriculture on arable land that used to be productively mechanized. At least if people who can't be matched with genuinely productive jobs stay on their couches all day they're not actively sabotaging the productivity of the remaining market economy. I'm ok with governments employing people to do productive tasks that still require human labor -- many others have mentioned elder care or fixing aging infrastructure, for example -- but I think that the specific agricultural proposal floated in the original article is terrible. Unlike the author, I'm also not anxious on behalf of other people who might end up "deprived" of a time clock and obeying a boss 5 days a week. I'm not going to tell them that I know better if they think that games are more enjoyable than farming like it's 1899.
smokeyj 9y ago
> Do you starve... or do you get... UBI anyway? And the people who misallocate their UBI and can't afford food? It seems what UBI supporters truly desire is a maternal figure in their lives.
- gaius 9y ago
  And the people who misallocate their UBI and can't afford food? At the end of the day, there has to be some personal responsibility, true. It seems what UBI supporters truly desire is a maternal figure in their lives. Not really; if I had UBI I'd almost certainly donate it to charity while I was working. My interest in UBI is as a low-overhead, efficient mechanism for social stability.

by gaius 9y ago

simonsarris 9y ago

You starve. If you're totally incapable of work, the US has a program for that today, its called SSI, Supplemental Security Income. Not to be confused with Social Security or SSDI, this program is paid for with income taxes, not social security taxes. There are ~5 million people in the US on SSI.

phaemon 9y ago
You're going to let little kids starve because their parents refuse to do your shitty government assigned job for the rest of their lives? Are you looking forward to your mandatory assigned job? Or are you imagining that it's just for other people?
- simonsarris 9y ago
  Where did you get mandatory? Imagine a future that includes the options today + a few additional options for employment. That is all I'm describing. Very few people starve in the US: https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/937204945379454978 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/937204945379454978
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > Where did you get mandatory? You were the one coming up with government-mandated jobs for people who are deemed unable to work. If you frame your policy as government jobs for those who have no alternative, what else would you call it?

DanAndersen 9y ago

>The point of the U in UBI is that you can discard the expensive bureaucracy. Has there been any research into how to set up UBI that actually remains politically/bureaucratically stable? It seems like any implementation would be extremely vulnerable to media cycles highlighting the plight of some poor single mother who didn't spend her UBI wisely and now can't feed her kids, or a rich billionaire who pocketed his UBI rather than giving it to charity. It doesn't matter how infrequent these cases are, it would happen a nonzero amount of times and that's enough to get media stories trending about it. In the face of that, people would start wanting to build in exceptions or adjustments, at which point you end up with the expensive bureaucracy again.

Lewton 9y ago
Part of the answer is to make it a fixed percentage of the GDP. That would make it politically harder to change, while having a natural fail-safe if it turns out UBI kills productivity

lr4444lr 9y ago

There's an argument made by some psychologists that human satisfaction from earning a wage rather confers irreplaceable benefits and would result in better outcomes of self-sufficiency over living on handouts at an even higher monetary value. I'm not saying your point isn't valid, or that I even disagree with it, but the article does raise this issue, and claims there is data to back it up.

wolfram74 9y ago
Then maybe we should raise the estate tax to 100% to make sure everybody get's these irreplaceable benefits regardless of who their parents are. We're depriving those poor Walden's knowledge of an honest days work.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  Why do you want to steel all the possessions of any dying man? More importantly, why do you believe such petty policies benefit society?
philipkglass 9y ago
I've often seen that argument in articles about UBI, but the supporting examples are usually unconvincing. If "people suffer from lack of work, not lack of money," why are the examples offered e.g. communities full of impoverished people subsisting on disability, not luxury retirement communities? Surely the residents of the latter are deprived of weeding a field all day with hand tools, too. If not-having a boss directing you to perform tasks is what's ailing the unemployed, and money is secondary, then Jim Moneybags should be roughly as bad off as Joe Welfare, so long as neither Jim nor Joe go to work each weekday.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say that the retirees as a sub-community can be found anywhere not working. They're old, and they are enjoying their senescence basking in their life accomplishments and family. Also, those retirement communities are supported by a network of health care and leisure industry workers, which are paid for out of value the old people saved from their productive activity during their working years.

wehadfun 9y ago

Also UBI let people do what they wanted. If someone wants to study cockroaches they can without worrying how to monetize it. If they have to spend all day at their UBJ

fvdessen 9y ago
And if people want to do drugs all day ? In Belgium there's no time limit to unemployment benefits and the government doesn't really check if you're looking for work. The result is a lot of people who have spent decades unemployed, spending most of their time drinking and watching TV. The result hasn't been a scientific & creative boom, but a massive social disaster.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > And if people want to do drugs all day ? They’ll need to find a job, since drugs tend to be expensive luxuries.
  - philipkglass 9y ago
    Absent the markup from prohibition, a day's supply of drugs would be cheaper than a day's supply of food. Though if prohibition stays you're right. If people freed from the necessity of work can't figure out anything better to do with their lives than consume entertainment and get high all day, I find that rather sad. It's still not as sad as forcing them to LARP at obsolete agriculture on arable land that used to be productively mechanized. At least if people who can't be matched with genuinely productive jobs stay on their couches all day they're not actively sabotaging the productivity of the remaining market economy. I'm ok with governments employing people to do productive tasks that still require human labor -- many others have mentioned elder care or fixing aging infrastructure, for example -- but I think that the specific agricultural proposal floated in the original article is terrible. Unlike the author, I'm also not anxious on behalf of other people who might end up "deprived" of a time clock and obeying a boss 5 days a week. I'm not going to tell them that I know better if they think that games are more enjoyable than farming like it's 1899.

smokeyj 9y ago

> Do you starve... or do you get... UBI anyway? And the people who misallocate their UBI and can't afford food? It seems what UBI supporters truly desire is a maternal figure in their lives.

gaius 9y ago
And the people who misallocate their UBI and can't afford food? At the end of the day, there has to be some personal responsibility, true. It seems what UBI supporters truly desire is a maternal figure in their lives. Not really; if I had UBI I'd almost certainly donate it to charity while I was working. My interest in UBI is as a low-overhead, efficient mechanism for social stability.