11 ms·

I wouldn't call it a myth, I'd call it a theory. This is why basic income experiments like YC Research, the Ontario one, the finished Namibia one etc are all i

I wouldn't call it a myth, I'd call it a theory. This is why basic income experiments like YC Research, the Ontario one, the finished Namibia one etc are all important. We need to see what happens in different cultures, in different communities, in different economies when we give un-earned income to people with no strings attached. We need to see what will happen. You can absolutely bet if you give enough people free money, there will be ones that opt to do nothing but sit around playing their ninplaybox consuming their drug of choice. You can absolutely bet that some will use it to make positive life changes though like improving their diet or health care, seeking training, starting a side-hustle. We need to do these experiments for years and years in many areas in many populations to see though what exactly will happen. I imagine if you took groups from the same state here in the US and gave those in a rural community money they're going to behave differently than someone living in an urban or downtown setting. Different if one group is in an economically depressed community and one is in a community full of healthy local businesses and corporate jobs. I wouldn't call it a myth, I'd call it a theory with inadequate evidence to support or refute it.

sharemywin 8y ago
The question is what are the percentages? Also, are they different by income level? or age? does addiction play a role? The problem is UBI is a simple solution to a complex problem.
matte_black 8y ago
I would say that while plenty of people in the first generation to receive UBI may continue to work, later generations that are simply born with it have a much higher risk of simply moping around doing nothing of value. Any experiment that doesn’t explore UBI beyond a single generation isn’t rigorous enough IMO.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  That's what I am thinking too. It will be interesting to see how people who have only seen UBI their whole life will behave. In a summer job as a teen I worked at a government welfare agency. Some of the clients were third generation welfare recipients and you could definitely see that they had no idea how a job works because they had never seen anybody who held a job for a long time. They would just skip work for a week without telling anybody or be insulted when the boss told them what to do. A UBI experiment will probably need 50 years or more to determine what the long term consequences will be.
  - sol_remmy 8y ago
    How is it possible to be a third generation welfare recipient? Doesn't unemployment run out after 2-3 years?
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      That was in Germany. They won't let you starve so if you absolutely can't or don't want to work there is a level of assistance to keep you from starving. I think it's the same in the US. You will always get some level of welfare to not starve.
      - sharemywin 8y ago
        It's dated but if anything it's gotten worse. https://scholars.org/brief/what-happens-poor-families-when-they-hit-welfare-time-limits-and-cash-benefits-disappear https://scholars.org/brief/what-happens-poor-families-when-t...
  - kijin 8y ago
    We will also need to see how the job market reacts. If people don't feel like they need to work, employers will have a harder time finding good employees and making them stay. So they might start offering much higher wages and fancy benefits, which in turn will make more people want to work so they can enjoy those perks. Positions that still can't be filled will be automated away. Sooner or later the market will reach a new equilibrium. I'd call it a success if about half the adults end up working and the other half stay at home, just like people used to do 100 years ago... except this time, both men and women should be free to choose which side they want to be on.
- protonimitate 8y ago
  >>simply moping around doing nothing of value while this may be true, I think it's somewhat of a false dichotomy. If we get to the point where UBI is implemented, I don't think the only two choices will be 'continue working or mope around'. There are hundreds of thousands of ways to create value in society, and they don't have to be tied to the notion of working in exchange for money for survival. I think the fear is that a small portion of society will be doing all the work to support the 'lazy ones'. It's understandable, but I think it is entirely possible to avoid that situation. Of course, it would require a fundamental shift in our worldly view (i.e. from individual success to shared success), but those discussions are hard and usually get shut down as 'commie crap'.
CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
> I wouldn't call it a myth, I'd call it a theory with inadequate evidence to support or refute it. I would call any theory that lacks adequate evidence to support it a myth.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  More like any theory without evidence that persistently gets presented as fact.
- nradov 8y ago
  That's called a hypothesis.
- babypistol 8y ago
  Calling it a myth implies that there is adequate evidence to refute it. By your reasoning we could also be talking about the Giving-Free-Cash-To-The-Poor-Will-Make-Them-Productive myth.
- tomp 8y ago
  So dark energy is just a myth?
dahart 8y ago
> I wouldn’t call it a myth, I’d call it a theory with inadequate evidence to support or refute it. So, “hypothesis”? The article did present some evidence to support it’s argument. I’m sure you know that when discussing evidence and science, “theory” means something has been more or less proven. Your hypotheses that a significant number people will do nothing good with the money is the unproven “myth” or common hypothesis the article was talking about. The problem with the belief that unearned income is unhealthy and will lead to laziness and drug use in any significant amount is that it prevents people from trying to see what happens, because if true, it’s seen as at best a waste of money, and at worst doing damage to the participants. The hypothesis that unearned income leads to laziness is a real and significant impediment to the testing of that hypothesis. By and large, people who inherit money don’t end up wasting away high and broke. There are a few, but nobody is suggesting seriously that we need to do lots of studies to see if inherited wealth is different in other countries or rural vs urban settings. Why should money given to the poor be thought of so completely different than money given to the rich? We have some strong pervasive ingrained cultural beliefs that money must be worked for and not given, knowledge must be gained by derivation and struggle and not just told, success and stability must be attained through risk and competition and not cooperation or social programs. These beliefs predate most of science, so it may be worth examining our assumptions about what needs to be tested.
- adwn 8y ago
  > We have some strong pervasive ingrained cultural beliefs that money must be worked for and not given Money that has been earned through work gives the recipient a higher level of satisfaction than money that has been gifted. > knowledge must be gained by derivation and struggle and not just told Knowledge gained through personal experience stays with you longer and more effectively than second-hand knowledge. That's why the traditional, frontal lecture teaching style is falling more and more out of fashion. That's also why you can't just read a book "Learn C++ in 21 days" and expect to be a decent programmer afterwards. > success and stability must be attained through risk and competition and not cooperation or social programs I have no idea why you're mixing success and stability, when those are orthogonal concepts. As for success: A lack of competition leads to stagnation; monopolies lead to rising prices and hinder progress. Look to the Soviet Union and you'll see what coorporation and social programs instead of competition through free markets leads to [1]. As for risk: Risk is what you naturally get once all the lowest hanging fruit are picked and there are still ripe fruits hanging higher up in the tree. [1] Of course, in a competitive environment you'll still need cooperation. Competition on a higher level (i.e., in the market) and cooporation on a lower one (between coworkers) tends to work quite well for companies.
anotherevan 8y ago
I think I'd call it an assumption.

sharemywin 8y ago

The question is what are the percentages? Also, are they different by income level? or age? does addiction play a role? The problem is UBI is a simple solution to a complex problem.

matte_black 8y ago

I would say that while plenty of people in the first generation to receive UBI may continue to work, later generations that are simply born with it have a much higher risk of simply moping around doing nothing of value. Any experiment that doesn’t explore UBI beyond a single generation isn’t rigorous enough IMO.

maxxxxx 8y ago
That's what I am thinking too. It will be interesting to see how people who have only seen UBI their whole life will behave. In a summer job as a teen I worked at a government welfare agency. Some of the clients were third generation welfare recipients and you could definitely see that they had no idea how a job works because they had never seen anybody who held a job for a long time. They would just skip work for a week without telling anybody or be insulted when the boss told them what to do. A UBI experiment will probably need 50 years or more to determine what the long term consequences will be.
- sol_remmy 8y ago
  How is it possible to be a third generation welfare recipient? Doesn't unemployment run out after 2-3 years?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    That was in Germany. They won't let you starve so if you absolutely can't or don't want to work there is a level of assistance to keep you from starving. I think it's the same in the US. You will always get some level of welfare to not starve.
    - sharemywin 8y ago
      It's dated but if anything it's gotten worse. https://scholars.org/brief/what-happens-poor-families-when-they-hit-welfare-time-limits-and-cash-benefits-disappear https://scholars.org/brief/what-happens-poor-families-when-t...
- kijin 8y ago
  We will also need to see how the job market reacts. If people don't feel like they need to work, employers will have a harder time finding good employees and making them stay. So they might start offering much higher wages and fancy benefits, which in turn will make more people want to work so they can enjoy those perks. Positions that still can't be filled will be automated away. Sooner or later the market will reach a new equilibrium. I'd call it a success if about half the adults end up working and the other half stay at home, just like people used to do 100 years ago... except this time, both men and women should be free to choose which side they want to be on.
protonimitate 8y ago
>>simply moping around doing nothing of value while this may be true, I think it's somewhat of a false dichotomy. If we get to the point where UBI is implemented, I don't think the only two choices will be 'continue working or mope around'. There are hundreds of thousands of ways to create value in society, and they don't have to be tied to the notion of working in exchange for money for survival. I think the fear is that a small portion of society will be doing all the work to support the 'lazy ones'. It's understandable, but I think it is entirely possible to avoid that situation. Of course, it would require a fundamental shift in our worldly view (i.e. from individual success to shared success), but those discussions are hard and usually get shut down as 'commie crap'.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago

> I wouldn't call it a myth, I'd call it a theory with inadequate evidence to support or refute it. I would call any theory that lacks adequate evidence to support it a myth.

throwaway2048 8y ago
More like any theory without evidence that persistently gets presented as fact.
nradov 8y ago
That's called a hypothesis.
babypistol 8y ago
Calling it a myth implies that there is adequate evidence to refute it. By your reasoning we could also be talking about the Giving-Free-Cash-To-The-Poor-Will-Make-Them-Productive myth.
tomp 8y ago
So dark energy is just a myth?

dahart 8y ago

> I wouldn’t call it a myth, I’d call it a theory with inadequate evidence to support or refute it. So, “hypothesis”? The article did present some evidence to support it’s argument. I’m sure you know that when discussing evidence and science, “theory” means something has been more or less proven. Your hypotheses that a significant number people will do nothing good with the money is the unproven “myth” or common hypothesis the article was talking about. The problem with the belief that unearned income is unhealthy and will lead to laziness and drug use in any significant amount is that it prevents people from trying to see what happens, because if true, it’s seen as at best a waste of money, and at worst doing damage to the participants. The hypothesis that unearned income leads to laziness is a real and significant impediment to the testing of that hypothesis. By and large, people who inherit money don’t end up wasting away high and broke. There are a few, but nobody is suggesting seriously that we need to do lots of studies to see if inherited wealth is different in other countries or rural vs urban settings. Why should money given to the poor be thought of so completely different than money given to the rich? We have some strong pervasive ingrained cultural beliefs that money must be worked for and not given, knowledge must be gained by derivation and struggle and not just told, success and stability must be attained through risk and competition and not cooperation or social programs. These beliefs predate most of science, so it may be worth examining our assumptions about what needs to be tested.

adwn 8y ago
> We have some strong pervasive ingrained cultural beliefs that money must be worked for and not given Money that has been earned through work gives the recipient a higher level of satisfaction than money that has been gifted. > knowledge must be gained by derivation and struggle and not just told Knowledge gained through personal experience stays with you longer and more effectively than second-hand knowledge. That's why the traditional, frontal lecture teaching style is falling more and more out of fashion. That's also why you can't just read a book "Learn C++ in 21 days" and expect to be a decent programmer afterwards. > success and stability must be attained through risk and competition and not cooperation or social programs I have no idea why you're mixing success and stability, when those are orthogonal concepts. As for success: A lack of competition leads to stagnation; monopolies lead to rising prices and hinder progress. Look to the Soviet Union and you'll see what coorporation and social programs instead of competition through free markets leads to [1]. As for risk: Risk is what you naturally get once all the lowest hanging fruit are picked and there are still ripe fruits hanging higher up in the tree. [1] Of course, in a competitive environment you'll still need cooperation. Competition on a higher level (i.e., in the market) and cooporation on a lower one (between coworkers) tends to work quite well for companies.

anotherevan 8y ago

I think I'd call it an assumption.