5 ms·

If you give people everything, they just won't work as hard. At least, I don't think they will over the long term. It's like retirement: some may learn a skil

by mises 8y ago

If you give people everything, they just won't work as hard. At least, I don't think they will over the long term. It's like retirement: some may learn a skill, volunteer, etc., but most just watch TV and wait to die. This is hard for many of us to realize, because we spend much of our free time tinkering with and leaning technologies. I hear a lot of people saying that society is bound to provide all the needs of a person. I can definitively say for America, that was not the social contract on which she was founded. Lastly, this is sort of conspiratorial, but isn't this commonly the way we see dystopias arise in stories? I think democracies function differently when the average person is a net contributor that expects a return in the form if infrastructure and services, rather than a check.

petra 8y ago
So people won't work as hard. So our consumption levels in the relativelt rich country would decline. So what ?
nickez 8y ago
Having enough money for housing and food is not "everything". People will always want more and this will drive them to work. They will just be a little bit more secure and happy.
Jedi72 8y ago
A huge amount of effort in society is wasted in pointless competition simply because people need income. Imagine 2 farmers selling melons, each with 50% market share. One discovers if she hires a social media marketer she can get to 70% market share. The other farmer now must respond by hiring their own marketing people. These two marketers are both very happy to be employed, but overall we would have been better just giving them free melons and letting them work on something they are truly passionate about.
- montenegrohugo 8y ago
  I very much like your analogy. Competition has its advantages, but it can oftentimes be a destructive force. The entire marketing/advertising industry is enormous and yet nothing of value is being produced. Instead, apps and platforms feel the need to become ever more addictive and receive ever more of our attention share, just because then they can place more ads in front of our eyeballs. Ads that contribute nothing to society except distract and annoy.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  The farmers would still try to hire the markerters even with a UBI, unless you're proposing that the UBI will eliminate the profit motive. It probably won't unless it's so large that it destroys the economy and replaces it with communism.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  Most people aren’t marketers. The most common jobs are waiters, cashiers, retails, food prep, etc. We need those people to do those jobs. Why would they?
sk0g 8y ago
I don't necessarily agree with this. > most just watch TV and wait to die This may be true of older people who feel they may have already lived a full life, and it might be too late to start anything new. What about people who reach financial safety very early, and can afford to experiment and experience a lot more? There's still perks to a job. It's Universal Basic Income, aka (IMO), basic compassion. You shouldn't be able to starve to death, but if you want a Mercedes and a nice house in the city, you're going to have to work for it, one way or another.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  The question you need to ask is what % of the workforce considers their potential extra wealth (for most people, small) worth working for. The more people who choose not to work, the more expensive labor is. The more expensive labor is, the higher prices are, the less effective your basic income is, the more your wealth inequality increases, the more jobs move to China, the more the economy shrinks.
spamizbad 8y ago
Is basic income having “everything”? If that’s the case, why isn’t there more downward pressure on wages? Because if $635 is all it takes, we are drastically overpaying everyone! A (very) modest ammount of health, housing, and food security is more like a foundation for an individual, rather than the entirety of their existence.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  If the minimum wage was abolished, low-end labor might actually sink to being paid that little.
tzs 8y ago
> It's like retirement: some may learn a skill, volunteer, etc., but most just watch TV and wait to die How much of that is due to retirement coming for most people when they are old? I'm pretty sure that if I retire at, say, 67, I'll spend a lot more time watching TV than I would if I had retired at 27.
throw0101a 8y ago
> If you give people everything, they just won't work as hard. But are we talking about giving people "everything" though? The word "Basic" is in the thing's name, so it may be just enough to not die (or turn to crime). One proposal [1] would be to give everyone $US 10K per year starting at age 21, and not having income taxes start until you have an income over US$ 40K. $10K is enough, in many places, to pay rent and food, but not much else. So you won't have the worry / stress of being homeless, but if you want more than subsistence living, you will probably have to work. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...
fxj 8y ago
Talking about scify stories: From the evolutionary point of view it is very bad for a super-organism like a whole country to let parts of its body starve or get sick. Do ants have to pay for food or housing?
- lr4444lr 8y ago
  The philosophical conception of the state as a living organism goes back to Plato's Republic. Not to say your point is invalid, but the implications in those models for individual human freedom are usually pretty bleak.
tremon 8y ago
If you give people everything Easy solution: don't give them everything. There's a lot of difference between "give people everything" and "make sure everyone has enough money for food and shelter". We're already doing the latter part, at least in the more civilized parts of the world. The argument for the U in UBI is that there's currently a whole lot of administration fees spent on determining who should get which handouts. If it's universal, all that management overhead disappears. It's like retirement Your view of retirement doesn't match the retired people around me.

by mises 8y ago

petra 8y ago

So people won't work as hard. So our consumption levels in the relativelt rich country would decline. So what ?

nickez 8y ago

Having enough money for housing and food is not "everything". People will always want more and this will drive them to work. They will just be a little bit more secure and happy.

Jedi72 8y ago

A huge amount of effort in society is wasted in pointless competition simply because people need income. Imagine 2 farmers selling melons, each with 50% market share. One discovers if she hires a social media marketer she can get to 70% market share. The other farmer now must respond by hiring their own marketing people. These two marketers are both very happy to be employed, but overall we would have been better just giving them free melons and letting them work on something they are truly passionate about.

montenegrohugo 8y ago
I very much like your analogy. Competition has its advantages, but it can oftentimes be a destructive force. The entire marketing/advertising industry is enormous and yet nothing of value is being produced. Instead, apps and platforms feel the need to become ever more addictive and receive ever more of our attention share, just because then they can place more ads in front of our eyeballs. Ads that contribute nothing to society except distract and annoy.
whatshisface 8y ago
The farmers would still try to hire the markerters even with a UBI, unless you're proposing that the UBI will eliminate the profit motive. It probably won't unless it's so large that it destroys the economy and replaces it with communism.
b_tterc_p 8y ago
Most people aren’t marketers. The most common jobs are waiters, cashiers, retails, food prep, etc. We need those people to do those jobs. Why would they?

sk0g 8y ago

I don't necessarily agree with this. > most just watch TV and wait to die This may be true of older people who feel they may have already lived a full life, and it might be too late to start anything new. What about people who reach financial safety very early, and can afford to experiment and experience a lot more? There's still perks to a job. It's Universal Basic Income, aka (IMO), basic compassion. You shouldn't be able to starve to death, but if you want a Mercedes and a nice house in the city, you're going to have to work for it, one way or another.

b_tterc_p 8y ago
The question you need to ask is what % of the workforce considers their potential extra wealth (for most people, small) worth working for. The more people who choose not to work, the more expensive labor is. The more expensive labor is, the higher prices are, the less effective your basic income is, the more your wealth inequality increases, the more jobs move to China, the more the economy shrinks.

spamizbad 8y ago

Is basic income having “everything”? If that’s the case, why isn’t there more downward pressure on wages? Because if $635 is all it takes, we are drastically overpaying everyone! A (very) modest ammount of health, housing, and food security is more like a foundation for an individual, rather than the entirety of their existence.

whatshisface 8y ago
If the minimum wage was abolished, low-end labor might actually sink to being paid that little.

tzs 8y ago

> It's like retirement: some may learn a skill, volunteer, etc., but most just watch TV and wait to die How much of that is due to retirement coming for most people when they are old? I'm pretty sure that if I retire at, say, 67, I'll spend a lot more time watching TV than I would if I had retired at 27.

throw0101a 8y ago

> If you give people everything, they just won't work as hard. But are we talking about giving people "everything" though? The word "Basic" is in the thing's name, so it may be just enough to not die (or turn to crime). One proposal [1] would be to give everyone $US 10K per year starting at age 21, and not having income taxes start until you have an income over US$ 40K. $10K is enough, in many places, to pay rent and food, but not much else. So you won't have the worry / stress of being homeless, but if you want more than subsistence living, you will probably have to work. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...

fxj 8y ago

Talking about scify stories: From the evolutionary point of view it is very bad for a super-organism like a whole country to let parts of its body starve or get sick. Do ants have to pay for food or housing?

lr4444lr 8y ago
The philosophical conception of the state as a living organism goes back to Plato's Republic. Not to say your point is invalid, but the implications in those models for individual human freedom are usually pretty bleak.

tremon 8y ago

If you give people everything Easy solution: don't give them everything. There's a lot of difference between "give people everything" and "make sure everyone has enough money for food and shelter". We're already doing the latter part, at least in the more civilized parts of the world. The argument for the U in UBI is that there's currently a whole lot of administration fees spent on determining who should get which handouts. If it's universal, all that management overhead disappears. It's like retirement Your view of retirement doesn't match the retired people around me.