33 ms·

$1000/month jobs aren't just limited to cashiers and janitors... They're also starting youtubers, musicians, artists, models, freelance programmers and designer

$1000/month jobs aren't just limited to cashiers and janitors... They're also starting youtubers, musicians, artists, models, freelance programmers and designers etc, startups and small businesses. A lot of people would be more empowered to become entrepreneurs and start their path to joining the capital owning class if there wasn't a disincentive to work.

krapp 7y ago
>A lot of people would be more empowered to become entrepreneurs and start their path to joining the capital owning class if there wasn't a disincentive to work. OR if those people could survive on UBI and didn't have to work whatever menial job they could find just to live, they could spend their time freely doing whatever entrepreneurial thing they would rather be doing.
- KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
  What do you mean OR? That's exactly what I'm saying.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment. Never mind.
coldtea 7y ago
>$1000/month jobs aren't just limited to cashiers and janitors... They're also starting youtubers, musicians, artists, models, freelance programmers and designers etc, startups and small businesses. How that plays into the UBI/NIT discussion? A person in a shitty $1000 job might quit because of UBI, and that's OK. An entrepreneur starting a "startup and small businesses" obviously doesn't do it to just get to make $1000/month or close. So UBI wont be a deterrent for them to not start and keep going at their business idea. If anything, it would help MORE people try out business ideas, with the knowledge that even if they fail and lose all their money, they'll still have the UBI to fall back to. And musicians/artists do it for the passion. If $1000/months allowance stops someone from trying to be a musician, then they shouldn't be a musician in the first place. Where they in it just for the money, and for so little money in fact that they're OK to not be musicians for $1000/month? As for $1000/month preventing aspiring "youtubers" and "models" from attempting a career, that would be a net benefit of UBI!
- KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
  Wait what, I was saying UBI doesn't have the major flaw but NIT does. I am pro UBI anti NIT. Are you sure you're following the conversation correctly.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Is there much of a difference? People consider UBI a "disincentive to work" itself. Would a entrepreneur with a startup aspiration really drop it to become poor and be entitled for NIT?
    - KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
      Of course there's a difference. In NIT you literally get less money as you make more money. UBI you don't. No people do not consider UBI a disincentive to work and it's the major argument for UBI. Not all startups are by people like you and me. Sometimes there are people who poor and trapped in a scarcity mindset and whose economic thinking is governed by fear. Those people could never reach their full potential. UBI really helps.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> $1000/month jobs aren't just limited to cashiers and janitors So? > A lot of people would be more empowered to become entrepreneurs and start their path to joining the capital owning class if there wasn't a disincentive to work. UBI (or NIT, which is equivalent) doesn't have a disincentive to work. That's actually central to the concept as an alternative to means-tested welfare.
- KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
  You are the third guy who's trying to debate me like I'm arguing against UBI when my comment that you are replying to is for UBI. I wonder if there's something confusing about my comment. Or maybe people really think NIT == UBI when it really doesn't. There's a dramatic difference.
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    Some people think NIT is UBI, and EITC is different. Some people think EITC is NIT, and UBI is different. I'm loosely in the first group. While the goals and rhetoric and proposed levels are different, the math is pretty much the same for UBI and NIT, provided the UBI is funded by an income tax (which isn't all UBI, and IIUC isn't Yang's proposal, but is one sort of UBI). The cutoff observed in EITC was a compromise that (in my reading) made it no longer NIT.

krapp 7y ago

>A lot of people would be more empowered to become entrepreneurs and start their path to joining the capital owning class if there wasn't a disincentive to work. OR if those people could survive on UBI and didn't have to work whatever menial job they could find just to live, they could spend their time freely doing whatever entrepreneurial thing they would rather be doing.

KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
What do you mean OR? That's exactly what I'm saying.
- krapp 7y ago
  Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment. Never mind.

coldtea 7y ago

>$1000/month jobs aren't just limited to cashiers and janitors... They're also starting youtubers, musicians, artists, models, freelance programmers and designers etc, startups and small businesses. How that plays into the UBI/NIT discussion? A person in a shitty $1000 job might quit because of UBI, and that's OK. An entrepreneur starting a "startup and small businesses" obviously doesn't do it to just get to make $1000/month or close. So UBI wont be a deterrent for them to not start and keep going at their business idea. If anything, it would help MORE people try out business ideas, with the knowledge that even if they fail and lose all their money, they'll still have the UBI to fall back to. And musicians/artists do it for the passion. If $1000/months allowance stops someone from trying to be a musician, then they shouldn't be a musician in the first place. Where they in it just for the money, and for so little money in fact that they're OK to not be musicians for $1000/month? As for $1000/month preventing aspiring "youtubers" and "models" from attempting a career, that would be a net benefit of UBI!

KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
Wait what, I was saying UBI doesn't have the major flaw but NIT does. I am pro UBI anti NIT. Are you sure you're following the conversation correctly.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Is there much of a difference? People consider UBI a "disincentive to work" itself. Would a entrepreneur with a startup aspiration really drop it to become poor and be entitled for NIT?
  - KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
    Of course there's a difference. In NIT you literally get less money as you make more money. UBI you don't. No people do not consider UBI a disincentive to work and it's the major argument for UBI. Not all startups are by people like you and me. Sometimes there are people who poor and trapped in a scarcity mindset and whose economic thinking is governed by fear. Those people could never reach their full potential. UBI really helps.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> $1000/month jobs aren't just limited to cashiers and janitors So? > A lot of people would be more empowered to become entrepreneurs and start their path to joining the capital owning class if there wasn't a disincentive to work. UBI (or NIT, which is equivalent) doesn't have a disincentive to work. That's actually central to the concept as an alternative to means-tested welfare.

KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
You are the third guy who's trying to debate me like I'm arguing against UBI when my comment that you are replying to is for UBI. I wonder if there's something confusing about my comment. Or maybe people really think NIT == UBI when it really doesn't. There's a dramatic difference.
- dllthomas 7y ago
  Some people think NIT is UBI, and EITC is different. Some people think EITC is NIT, and UBI is different. I'm loosely in the first group. While the goals and rhetoric and proposed levels are different, the math is pretty much the same for UBI and NIT, provided the UBI is funded by an income tax (which isn't all UBI, and IIUC isn't Yang's proposal, but is one sort of UBI). The cutoff observed in EITC was a compromise that (in my reading) made it no longer NIT.