4 ms·

My chief complaint with that argument is the 50-year olds that are replaced by automation are unlikely to find new jobs, especially if the price is artificially

My chief complaint with that argument is the 50-year olds that are replaced by automation are unlikely to find new jobs, especially if the price is artificially raised. In other words, it doesn’t solve the transitional issues. Most UBI proposals do not seek to be an income replacement. The bigger question then is what do we do with the 50-year olds that can’t find jobs due to reduced demand if they can’t live solely off UBI and have years before retirement age? I agree we should discourage reliance on labor that can be automated, but there’s also the empathy and humanity side that isn’t being addressed.

FussyZeus 7y ago
Why do we need 50 year olds to work in the first place? We're automating more jobs than ever, and I don't even think I've ever held a job that actually had 40 hours of work to do per 40 hour work week. We seem to be maintaining the idea that full time employment is necessary for life long after that's no longer been the case. We've arrived at a point and time where the productivity of every able bodied person is not needed to sustain us, so when do we start reaping the rewards of that?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- smileysteve 7y ago
  > We've arrived at a point and time where the productivity of every able bodied person is not needed to sustain us One of the lowest unemployment rates in history and not enough people picking crops seems to disagree with your premise.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    That's a very small subset of the total labor pool to focus on with which you deliver a point that is, at best, muddy.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      I kinda thought your point above was pretty muddy: > We seem to be maintaining the idea that full time employment is necessary for life long after that's no longer been the case.
  - Retric 7y ago
    The percentage of total people employed is fairly low in the US. Retirement, Education, Prison, Disability, etc all remove many people from the workforce.
cheschire 7y ago
That’s why I prefer negative income tax as a solution that disproportionately supports the lower class without universally raising the cost of living by the exact amount of UBI nationwide.
- Retric 7y ago
  UBI does not create any money and thus has zero long term impact on inflation. Remember even 2.5% inflation still means money is worth 1/2 as much every 30 years. That can only happen if either the economy is smaller every 30 years or new money is created every 30 years.
  - gbear605 7y ago
    It doesn’t as long as you’re financing it without using debt/printing new money
    - Retric 7y ago
      Debt and printing money are two different things with very different impacts on inflation. Critically debt requires the money to already exist in circulation. Government bonds can act like currency, but can’t cycle endlessly. EX: Government in 2525 may need to borrow more money each day than currently exists, if they never print any money nobody can lend that much to them on a given day. PS: The velocity of money is one of those odd things that seems irrelevant in simple models but turns out to be really critical.
- fwip 7y ago
  If you pay for UBI with a progressive tax, it works out basically the same.

FussyZeus 7y ago

Why do we need 50 year olds to work in the first place? We're automating more jobs than ever, and I don't even think I've ever held a job that actually had 40 hours of work to do per 40 hour work week. We seem to be maintaining the idea that full time employment is necessary for life long after that's no longer been the case. We've arrived at a point and time where the productivity of every able bodied person is not needed to sustain us, so when do we start reaping the rewards of that?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
smileysteve 7y ago
> We've arrived at a point and time where the productivity of every able bodied person is not needed to sustain us One of the lowest unemployment rates in history and not enough people picking crops seems to disagree with your premise.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  That's a very small subset of the total labor pool to focus on with which you deliver a point that is, at best, muddy.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    I kinda thought your point above was pretty muddy: > We seem to be maintaining the idea that full time employment is necessary for life long after that's no longer been the case.
- Retric 7y ago
  The percentage of total people employed is fairly low in the US. Retirement, Education, Prison, Disability, etc all remove many people from the workforce.

cheschire 7y ago

That’s why I prefer negative income tax as a solution that disproportionately supports the lower class without universally raising the cost of living by the exact amount of UBI nationwide.

Retric 7y ago
UBI does not create any money and thus has zero long term impact on inflation. Remember even 2.5% inflation still means money is worth 1/2 as much every 30 years. That can only happen if either the economy is smaller every 30 years or new money is created every 30 years.
- gbear605 7y ago
  It doesn’t as long as you’re financing it without using debt/printing new money
  - Retric 7y ago
    Debt and printing money are two different things with very different impacts on inflation. Critically debt requires the money to already exist in circulation. Government bonds can act like currency, but can’t cycle endlessly. EX: Government in 2525 may need to borrow more money each day than currently exists, if they never print any money nobody can lend that much to them on a given day. PS: The velocity of money is one of those odd things that seems irrelevant in simple models but turns out to be really critical.
fwip 7y ago
If you pay for UBI with a progressive tax, it works out basically the same.