11 ms·

The prevailing view seems to be: robots will take our jobs, therefore we will need UBI, which allows people to live without work. The way I see it, the main pr

The prevailing view seems to be: robots will take our jobs, therefore we will need UBI, which allows people to live without work. The way I see it, the main problem that UBI is solving is inequality, it's a rich to poor transfer. Excessive inequality is bad because the aggregate utility goes down (rich people don't gain much from an additional dollar, so it's more effectively used by a poor person). Transfering cash directly is the most efficient way of decreasing inequality, so UBI is the right approach. At this time, the amount of UBI should be below what allows a comfortable life, because it would lead to a feedback loop in which people would be increasingly demotivated to work. And what about robots? There is a danger that automation will further exacerbate income inequality, so redistribution is a natural response, because it would increase the effective wages of low income jobs. It seems unlikely that robots will literally take our jobs, you can probably always be someone's slave (not literally) for $5 / hour.

nightski 7y ago
I find it hard to believe that it would be effective at reducing inequality. It would make the lives of the poor better for sure, but it will not reduce inequality. When Jeff Bezos' net worth can swing $9B in a day as it did this past Friday, giving the poor enough money to purchase food and bare essentials isn't going to make much of a dent in their net worth. I'm not saying it won't help them out, just that it really won't tip the scales as far as inequality is concerned. It's a more fundamental issue with how the current state of capitalism is structured in the U.S.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  In what way will the direct transfer of money from people who have more to people who have less not be effective at reducing economic inequality?
  - nightski 7y ago
    Because of how they utilize that money. The poor will spend it, because they need to. The rich invest their money since they do not need it all. Those investments are continuing to grow. Even if you transfer some of that money to the poor, they are spending it where? At Amazon etc...
    - developerdylan 7y ago
      Money being spent causes the economy to grow. How is that a bad thing? The investments of rich people often never see the consumer economy. It doesn't matter how they utilize it, UBI is still reducing inequality. You are allowing families to purchase things they wouldn't have had the money for otherwise. Quality of life purchases that the well-off take for granted.
      - nightski 7y ago
        We need to rethink reward structures in this country. The fact that an investor can put up some capital and then gain "dividends" for as long as a company exists is ludicrous to me. They aren't actively doing anything to earn those dividends. It's simply a scheme to reward those with capital and assets. Meanwhile, the employees who work hard to contribute to GDP and grow the company see a fixed salary. They do not see those dividends for the rest of their lives, instead when they leave a company it's over. Why? Why don't employees build up dividend streams from the companies they helped build? Why do Amazon employees get paid minimum wage and are denied bathroom breaks when Bezos' net worth can swing $9B in a single day? Why aren't all employees, from Janitor to CEO receiving dividends from the success of the company? It all seems ridiculous to me. We need to encourage people to work hard and innovate, not sit on piles of capital and assets. I'm someone who invests heavily and takes advantage of the system. But I see the flaws and it really bothers me.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        > The fact that an investor can put up some capital and then gain "dividends" for as long as a company exists is ludicrous to me. This (and other forms of return) is the motivation for the investor to put up the initial capital. Do you have an alternative proposal to handle the common case where someone who wants to work hard and innovate needs capital to do so?
        nightski 7y ago
        My proposal would simply be to make it a legal obligation for all companies to provide ownership in the company proportional to salary each year they are employed. Not only that, it's a special type of stock which is paid dividends on profits before external shareholders. This stock should have exclusive premium benefits over any other stock. A lot of thought would need to be put into how to structure this so it could not be gamed. External shareholders could still see a return. But I think the days of seeing massive returns on capital need to be over. It should be a fight just to beat inflation imho. To be honest though I'm still thinking about this a lot and don't have an exact answer. So this idea is in flux. That doesn't mean it's not a problem though.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  UBI generally needs to be funded by increased taxes, either on wealth, capital, value-added, or income primarily from people who can afford to pay them. As such, it's a wealth transfer that is reducing inequality to a degree, not a magic handout to the poor that comes from thin air.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mdorazio 7y ago
To your last statement, most proponents of UBI emphasize the "Basic" part of it. As in, it's meant to provide a subsistence level of income that a person could survive on, but not in comfort. I'm personally in favor of that level explicitly not being location-specific so that if you want to live solely on UBI, you have to live in a low cost of living area to do so.
- iso947 7y ago
  So those in cheap areas with no jobs can never move to the areas with jobs?
  - paulgb 7y ago
    I don't think it's a static system. Guaranteeing an income to everyone in those cheap areas could also have the effect of creating jobs in those areas because people would have money to spend.
    - iso947 7y ago
      They could. Or those areas could dissolve in a spiral of depression and alcoholism
      - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
        That's happening right now, to a large extent because anybody with any get up and go has got up and gone.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        That assumes these people are incapable of ever being productive. That's a different issue then just missing the economic opportunities to allow the communities to grow.
  - tromp 7y ago
    They can apply to jobs elsewhere and move closer when hired.
thomasfl 7y ago
Good points! People would much more prefer to live in a society with more equality.
meddlepal 7y ago
All the current proposals for UBI seem to be talking about relatively modest anounts of income... between 10-15K a year... that's not going to go very far unless the cost of rent, essentials, and services drops dramatically. The reality is if we end up with a large amount of people that are not working then our economy is going to be totally hosed because it runs on consumption. If people don't have the money to consume then it just stops functioning. Giving people free money is like putting a bunch of taped together printer paper over a hole in the wall and calling it "fixed".
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  "giving people free money" is how the macro-economy has functioned for a long time now, except the people are banks. I fail to see the major disaster if it becomes somebody else instead. E: to the downvoters, look up how money gets "printed" in the USA
- stouset 7y ago
  Are you kidding? Median household income in the US is ~$60,000/yr. $10,000/yr/household would be enormous to over half the population.
  - meddlepal 7y ago
    If nobody has a job because they've all been automated away and you're just getting 10K/yr from the Government then your median income is.... 10K/yr not 60K + 10K.
    - damon_c 7y ago
      His point is that given that half of the population makes less than $60k/year, $10k/year would be a 16% or more income boost for those people.
      - ebg13 7y ago
        The statement was about the people who are no longer earning other income because their labor is not needed.
washadjeffmad 7y ago
Demotivated to work like retirees, spouses in single income households, and people who can live off the fruits of their investments like the wealthy? Perhaps they’d produce art, or seek out experiences and education that wouldn’t otherwise be afforded to them. Maybe they’d take on risk and start that business they’d always dreamed of if they weren’t taking of their parent with dementia or having to work fewer days to watch their newborn. Maybe risking their and their children’s health and educations because they might not be compelled to tirelessly feed their lives into a labor machine like they were once is too simple and dehumanizing a way to think. I’m not for UBI yet because society is still too unbalanced in favor of rent seekers, but I could see it being the next target on the agenda within the decade, assuming a Sanders presidency.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  UBI will be useless unless rent seeking is eliminated with it, because the price of any good or service that profits rent seekers will be inflated almost instantly to maintain differentials. Income inequality is a problem of massively unequal political and economic power, and of insider knowledge and class-cultural arbitrage - not a problem of income. If - hypothetically - all the jobs required to provide food, shelter, and other basics were taken over by robots, there would be no reason at all not to provide them for free, and give everyone the political and economic freedom to do whatever they wanted. It's a fair bet that while most people would do nothing much of interest - including most of those who are currently rent seekers - there would still be enough competitive drive to inspire a decent chunk of the population to excel in art, music, science, math, and other productive activities. That would be real freedom as a birthright - not as the freedom from economic slavery that can only be earned by contributing to that slavery, as now, but as a true inalienable right.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    because the price of any good or service that profits rent seekers will be inflated almost instantly to maintain differentials. Which is why I'd prefer to see UBH (Universal Basic Housing).
silvestrov 7y ago
Food is not enough. People also want a purpose with their life where they are important for other people. Denmark has kind of an UBI: a single mom + one kid, no work for past 20 years, gets more than $2300 per month. Such a person has enough money for food, good apartment, etc. All what UBI wants to provide. But many of these people end up depressed, inactive, feels like a failure, etc. Many just give completely up. They don't feel "UBI" is like having a long vacation and a meaningful life. budget: (notice that the mom can afford a $1000/month apartment) https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/article4062920.ece https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/article...
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  They may feel less depressed if there wasn’t a stigma associated with this. On the other hand a lot of people wouldn’t be working if there wasn’t societal pressure on them.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    Yes, plenty of people retire without loosing all sense of self worth.
    - fegu 7y ago
      The reason for this is maybe captured by the adage "better a have-been than a never-will-be"
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago
    Why does everybody need to work? Less workers ALSO drives up pay because supply/demand. It also could propel the U.S. to a 30 hour work week or even 25 which would be more in tune with our ancestors (Middle Ages averaged 18 hour weeks).
- armitron 7y ago
  Serious citation(s) needed rather than personal conjecture / tabloid posts.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I'd make a slight nitpick that that the purpose of UBI is to decouple work from the ability to have enough money to live on. The "robots will take our jobs" argument is just one of the arguments for why we should do this decoupling, among many good arguments, but is the easiest to swallow.
basch 7y ago
>Transfering cash directly is the most efficient way of decreasing inequality Is there any evidence for this? Is there evidence the money won't go right back into the lottery, consumption of unhealthy food, other vices, or right back into increased rent? What percentage of people will turn around and commit to an unnecessary more expensive car payment? If you hand people cash, but don't correct a lack of financial knowledge, health knowledge, and overcoming marketing, why do you think it will be spent wisely? Aren't lottery windfalls exact evidence of the opposite? At at an extreme minimum UBI should come with a budgeting framework. At a more extreme level it may be better as food stamps, health care, and retirement funding. Remember, the Freedom Dividend is instead of other, more directly allocated forms of social support. For those on SNAP and other cash equivalent programs, it's less than $1000 in net benefit, which makes it more net increase in welfare for the middle class than the poorest. A person who currently gets $600 in welfare will be able to upgrade to $1000, gaining $400, but somebody who currently qualifies for nothing gets $1000 more. So sure, the poorest are getting slightly more, but is it really actually tackling inequality, for the poorest to have the smallest net gain in the program?
- david38 7y ago
  It doesn’t even have to go to vices. Suppose 50% of the population is on UBI. Those 50% all need housing. What do you think the probability of the market generating optimal housing is? I’m guessing close to zero. Planned housing can do far better. The same with food. Let’s assume part of UBI is given as food stamps and only certain items qualify for use of food stamps. Combine this with required education (class you must attend to get UBI) and the quality of food consumed can increase significantly, helping to lower obesity and all the related problems.
  - basch 7y ago
    Plus with some foods, like leafy greens, the "food stamp" could be unlimited consumption. Instead of giving people $300/m for food, just say: from this day forward all spinach, broccoli, Brussel sprouts, peas, beans are fully covered. Eat to your hearts content. A reverse sin tax. Subsidize things more the healthier they are. I'm obviously cynical about regulatory capture and dairy, livestock, etc industries lobbying to get their products certified as healthier than they are. With pizza being a vegetable and all now. I hate the argument that the market will correct with low income housing. The presence of housing alone isn't the problem, it's the desirability of the location and access to infrastructure like groceries and hospitals. Low income housing thrown on the edge of a city causes ghettos. Creating a livable are requires some level of more complex urban planning.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
naravara 7y ago
> And what about robots? There is a danger that automation will further exacerbate income inequality, so redistribution is a natural response, because it would increase the effective wages of low income jobs Why does it make more sense to redistribute the outputs of the robots rather than redistributing the ownership of the robots so that everyone gets and equal share of the output? The latter approach addresses the root cause of inequality (unequal access to resources) rather than trying to put a bandaid over the wound by constantly having to siphon the money back.
m0zg 7y ago
UBI is the typical "utopia" style thinking that's been the cause of most problems in the history of the world. The reason why this is problematic is because when you promise an utopia, the ends will justify _any_ means, including the destruction of the very economic system with which the United States has reached unprecedented levels of economic development and prosperity. _If_ the world saw a significant increase in the amount of automation in the foreseeable future, which is by no means certain at all, a less "utopian" solution would be shorter work weeks, and more guaranteed days off IMO. That would create more jobs than there are people and lead to the increase of the minimum wage through market mechanisms. It has to be coupled with Trump-style protectionist trade policy to be viable, however. Being idle is not a healthy way to live. Being (much) less busy while still being able to support yourself is.
duhejsusjdkd 7y ago
>The prevailing view seems to be: robots will take our jobs, therefore we will need UBI, which allows people to live without work. This is the prevailing view among technologists, a group that includes large swathes of romantic people who view themselves as something akin to wizards. Meanwhile, mainstream economics just sees a lot of business as usual.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The way I see it, the main problem that UBI is solving is inequality, it's a rich to poor transfer. The main problem UBI is solving is expensive duplication of function between status quo means tested social safety net programs and the tax system. A secondary problem that it can solve if benefits are tied to revenues and the right dedicated revenue stream is chosen has to do with calibration of benefits in status quo safety net programs. > At this time, the amount of UBI should be below what allows a comfortable life, because it would lead to a feedback loop in which people would be increasingly demotivated to work. As long as you don't automatically tie UBI to inflation this is self limiting since excessive demotivation causes critical labor shortages driving both wages and final goods prices up which (1) lowers the quality of life which can be maintained on UBI so it isn't as comfortable as the nominal benefit would seem to provide, and (2) raises the marginal benefit from chosing to work, both of which serve to negate demotivation.
- davrosthedalek 7y ago
  Yeah, but there is always the next election, and raising UBI would be such an easy way to buy votes.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > raising UBI would be such an easy way to buy votes. No easier than general tax cuts—or implementing a UBI—are now.

nightski 7y ago

I find it hard to believe that it would be effective at reducing inequality. It would make the lives of the poor better for sure, but it will not reduce inequality. When Jeff Bezos' net worth can swing $9B in a day as it did this past Friday, giving the poor enough money to purchase food and bare essentials isn't going to make much of a dent in their net worth. I'm not saying it won't help them out, just that it really won't tip the scales as far as inequality is concerned. It's a more fundamental issue with how the current state of capitalism is structured in the U.S.

sokoloff 7y ago
In what way will the direct transfer of money from people who have more to people who have less not be effective at reducing economic inequality?
- nightski 7y ago
  Because of how they utilize that money. The poor will spend it, because they need to. The rich invest their money since they do not need it all. Those investments are continuing to grow. Even if you transfer some of that money to the poor, they are spending it where? At Amazon etc...
  - developerdylan 7y ago
    Money being spent causes the economy to grow. How is that a bad thing? The investments of rich people often never see the consumer economy. It doesn't matter how they utilize it, UBI is still reducing inequality. You are allowing families to purchase things they wouldn't have had the money for otherwise. Quality of life purchases that the well-off take for granted.
    - nightski 7y ago
      We need to rethink reward structures in this country. The fact that an investor can put up some capital and then gain "dividends" for as long as a company exists is ludicrous to me. They aren't actively doing anything to earn those dividends. It's simply a scheme to reward those with capital and assets. Meanwhile, the employees who work hard to contribute to GDP and grow the company see a fixed salary. They do not see those dividends for the rest of their lives, instead when they leave a company it's over. Why? Why don't employees build up dividend streams from the companies they helped build? Why do Amazon employees get paid minimum wage and are denied bathroom breaks when Bezos' net worth can swing $9B in a single day? Why aren't all employees, from Janitor to CEO receiving dividends from the success of the company? It all seems ridiculous to me. We need to encourage people to work hard and innovate, not sit on piles of capital and assets. I'm someone who invests heavily and takes advantage of the system. But I see the flaws and it really bothers me.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        > The fact that an investor can put up some capital and then gain "dividends" for as long as a company exists is ludicrous to me. This (and other forms of return) is the motivation for the investor to put up the initial capital. Do you have an alternative proposal to handle the common case where someone who wants to work hard and innovate needs capital to do so?
        nightski 7y ago
        My proposal would simply be to make it a legal obligation for all companies to provide ownership in the company proportional to salary each year they are employed. Not only that, it's a special type of stock which is paid dividends on profits before external shareholders. This stock should have exclusive premium benefits over any other stock. A lot of thought would need to be put into how to structure this so it could not be gamed. External shareholders could still see a return. But I think the days of seeing massive returns on capital need to be over. It should be a fight just to beat inflation imho. To be honest though I'm still thinking about this a lot and don't have an exact answer. So this idea is in flux. That doesn't mean it's not a problem though.
mdorazio 7y ago
UBI generally needs to be funded by increased taxes, either on wealth, capital, value-added, or income primarily from people who can afford to pay them. As such, it's a wealth transfer that is reducing inequality to a degree, not a magic handout to the poor that comes from thin air.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mdorazio 7y ago

To your last statement, most proponents of UBI emphasize the "Basic" part of it. As in, it's meant to provide a subsistence level of income that a person could survive on, but not in comfort. I'm personally in favor of that level explicitly not being location-specific so that if you want to live solely on UBI, you have to live in a low cost of living area to do so.

iso947 7y ago
So those in cheap areas with no jobs can never move to the areas with jobs?
- paulgb 7y ago
  I don't think it's a static system. Guaranteeing an income to everyone in those cheap areas could also have the effect of creating jobs in those areas because people would have money to spend.
  - iso947 7y ago
    They could. Or those areas could dissolve in a spiral of depression and alcoholism
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      That's happening right now, to a large extent because anybody with any get up and go has got up and gone.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      That assumes these people are incapable of ever being productive. That's a different issue then just missing the economic opportunities to allow the communities to grow.
- tromp 7y ago
  They can apply to jobs elsewhere and move closer when hired.

thomasfl 7y ago

Good points! People would much more prefer to live in a society with more equality.

meddlepal 7y ago

All the current proposals for UBI seem to be talking about relatively modest anounts of income... between 10-15K a year... that's not going to go very far unless the cost of rent, essentials, and services drops dramatically. The reality is if we end up with a large amount of people that are not working then our economy is going to be totally hosed because it runs on consumption. If people don't have the money to consume then it just stops functioning. Giving people free money is like putting a bunch of taped together printer paper over a hole in the wall and calling it "fixed".

throwaway2048 7y ago
"giving people free money" is how the macro-economy has functioned for a long time now, except the people are banks. I fail to see the major disaster if it becomes somebody else instead. E: to the downvoters, look up how money gets "printed" in the USA
stouset 7y ago
Are you kidding? Median household income in the US is ~$60,000/yr. $10,000/yr/household would be enormous to over half the population.
- meddlepal 7y ago
  If nobody has a job because they've all been automated away and you're just getting 10K/yr from the Government then your median income is.... 10K/yr not 60K + 10K.
  - damon_c 7y ago
    His point is that given that half of the population makes less than $60k/year, $10k/year would be a 16% or more income boost for those people.
    - ebg13 7y ago
      The statement was about the people who are no longer earning other income because their labor is not needed.

washadjeffmad 7y ago

Demotivated to work like retirees, spouses in single income households, and people who can live off the fruits of their investments like the wealthy? Perhaps they’d produce art, or seek out experiences and education that wouldn’t otherwise be afforded to them. Maybe they’d take on risk and start that business they’d always dreamed of if they weren’t taking of their parent with dementia or having to work fewer days to watch their newborn. Maybe risking their and their children’s health and educations because they might not be compelled to tirelessly feed their lives into a labor machine like they were once is too simple and dehumanizing a way to think. I’m not for UBI yet because society is still too unbalanced in favor of rent seekers, but I could see it being the next target on the agenda within the decade, assuming a Sanders presidency.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
UBI will be useless unless rent seeking is eliminated with it, because the price of any good or service that profits rent seekers will be inflated almost instantly to maintain differentials. Income inequality is a problem of massively unequal political and economic power, and of insider knowledge and class-cultural arbitrage - not a problem of income. If - hypothetically - all the jobs required to provide food, shelter, and other basics were taken over by robots, there would be no reason at all not to provide them for free, and give everyone the political and economic freedom to do whatever they wanted. It's a fair bet that while most people would do nothing much of interest - including most of those who are currently rent seekers - there would still be enough competitive drive to inspire a decent chunk of the population to excel in art, music, science, math, and other productive activities. That would be real freedom as a birthright - not as the freedom from economic slavery that can only be earned by contributing to that slavery, as now, but as a true inalienable right.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  because the price of any good or service that profits rent seekers will be inflated almost instantly to maintain differentials. Which is why I'd prefer to see UBH (Universal Basic Housing).

silvestrov 7y ago

Food is not enough. People also want a purpose with their life where they are important for other people. Denmark has kind of an UBI: a single mom + one kid, no work for past 20 years, gets more than $2300 per month. Such a person has enough money for food, good apartment, etc. All what UBI wants to provide. But many of these people end up depressed, inactive, feels like a failure, etc. Many just give completely up. They don't feel "UBI" is like having a long vacation and a meaningful life. budget: (notice that the mom can afford a $1000/month apartment) https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/article4062920.ece https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/article...

Ididntdothis 7y ago
They may feel less depressed if there wasn’t a stigma associated with this. On the other hand a lot of people wouldn’t be working if there wasn’t societal pressure on them.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  Yes, plenty of people retire without loosing all sense of self worth.
  - fegu 7y ago
    The reason for this is maybe captured by the adage "better a have-been than a never-will-be"
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  Why does everybody need to work? Less workers ALSO drives up pay because supply/demand. It also could propel the U.S. to a 30 hour work week or even 25 which would be more in tune with our ancestors (Middle Ages averaged 18 hour weeks).
armitron 7y ago
Serious citation(s) needed rather than personal conjecture / tabloid posts.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

I'd make a slight nitpick that that the purpose of UBI is to decouple work from the ability to have enough money to live on. The "robots will take our jobs" argument is just one of the arguments for why we should do this decoupling, among many good arguments, but is the easiest to swallow.

basch 7y ago

>Transfering cash directly is the most efficient way of decreasing inequality Is there any evidence for this? Is there evidence the money won't go right back into the lottery, consumption of unhealthy food, other vices, or right back into increased rent? What percentage of people will turn around and commit to an unnecessary more expensive car payment? If you hand people cash, but don't correct a lack of financial knowledge, health knowledge, and overcoming marketing, why do you think it will be spent wisely? Aren't lottery windfalls exact evidence of the opposite? At at an extreme minimum UBI should come with a budgeting framework. At a more extreme level it may be better as food stamps, health care, and retirement funding. Remember, the Freedom Dividend is instead of other, more directly allocated forms of social support. For those on SNAP and other cash equivalent programs, it's less than $1000 in net benefit, which makes it more net increase in welfare for the middle class than the poorest. A person who currently gets $600 in welfare will be able to upgrade to $1000, gaining $400, but somebody who currently qualifies for nothing gets $1000 more. So sure, the poorest are getting slightly more, but is it really actually tackling inequality, for the poorest to have the smallest net gain in the program?

david38 7y ago
It doesn’t even have to go to vices. Suppose 50% of the population is on UBI. Those 50% all need housing. What do you think the probability of the market generating optimal housing is? I’m guessing close to zero. Planned housing can do far better. The same with food. Let’s assume part of UBI is given as food stamps and only certain items qualify for use of food stamps. Combine this with required education (class you must attend to get UBI) and the quality of food consumed can increase significantly, helping to lower obesity and all the related problems.
- basch 7y ago
  Plus with some foods, like leafy greens, the "food stamp" could be unlimited consumption. Instead of giving people $300/m for food, just say: from this day forward all spinach, broccoli, Brussel sprouts, peas, beans are fully covered. Eat to your hearts content. A reverse sin tax. Subsidize things more the healthier they are. I'm obviously cynical about regulatory capture and dairy, livestock, etc industries lobbying to get their products certified as healthier than they are. With pizza being a vegetable and all now. I hate the argument that the market will correct with low income housing. The presence of housing alone isn't the problem, it's the desirability of the location and access to infrastructure like groceries and hospitals. Low income housing thrown on the edge of a city causes ghettos. Creating a livable are requires some level of more complex urban planning.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

naravara 7y ago

> And what about robots? There is a danger that automation will further exacerbate income inequality, so redistribution is a natural response, because it would increase the effective wages of low income jobs Why does it make more sense to redistribute the outputs of the robots rather than redistributing the ownership of the robots so that everyone gets and equal share of the output? The latter approach addresses the root cause of inequality (unequal access to resources) rather than trying to put a bandaid over the wound by constantly having to siphon the money back.

m0zg 7y ago

UBI is the typical "utopia" style thinking that's been the cause of most problems in the history of the world. The reason why this is problematic is because when you promise an utopia, the ends will justify _any_ means, including the destruction of the very economic system with which the United States has reached unprecedented levels of economic development and prosperity. _If_ the world saw a significant increase in the amount of automation in the foreseeable future, which is by no means certain at all, a less "utopian" solution would be shorter work weeks, and more guaranteed days off IMO. That would create more jobs than there are people and lead to the increase of the minimum wage through market mechanisms. It has to be coupled with Trump-style protectionist trade policy to be viable, however. Being idle is not a healthy way to live. Being (much) less busy while still being able to support yourself is.

duhejsusjdkd 7y ago

>The prevailing view seems to be: robots will take our jobs, therefore we will need UBI, which allows people to live without work. This is the prevailing view among technologists, a group that includes large swathes of romantic people who view themselves as something akin to wizards. Meanwhile, mainstream economics just sees a lot of business as usual.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The way I see it, the main problem that UBI is solving is inequality, it's a rich to poor transfer. The main problem UBI is solving is expensive duplication of function between status quo means tested social safety net programs and the tax system. A secondary problem that it can solve if benefits are tied to revenues and the right dedicated revenue stream is chosen has to do with calibration of benefits in status quo safety net programs. > At this time, the amount of UBI should be below what allows a comfortable life, because it would lead to a feedback loop in which people would be increasingly demotivated to work. As long as you don't automatically tie UBI to inflation this is self limiting since excessive demotivation causes critical labor shortages driving both wages and final goods prices up which (1) lowers the quality of life which can be maintained on UBI so it isn't as comfortable as the nominal benefit would seem to provide, and (2) raises the marginal benefit from chosing to work, both of which serve to negate demotivation.

davrosthedalek 7y ago
Yeah, but there is always the next election, and raising UBI would be such an easy way to buy votes.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > raising UBI would be such an easy way to buy votes. No easier than general tax cuts—or implementing a UBI—are now.