6 ms·

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 t

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).
  - ta999999171 7y ago
    Cool, Judge Dredd.
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    Universal Basic Housing just sounds like ghettos with extra steps.
    - tsukikage 7y ago
      So don't build ghettos. A modest proposal: make every builder donate a proportion of the flats/houses they build to local government, but decide which ones are to be donated by random lot after building work is complete.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- flukus 7y ago
  > because the price of any good or service that profits rent seekers will be inflated almost instantly to maintain differentials. Only if there is insufficient competition to keep prices down and the market is already broken, which is the case in some areas but not most. In the more notable cases like housing UBI still helps by freeing people to live anywhere instead of cities with plentiful jobs, and even that is largely an artificial problem in developed countries with birth rates below replacement levels.
- bhl 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. I've heard this concern before, but what's the assumption that is being made? That UBI will drive more people to cities and increase demand? That landlords would simply increase rent knowing renters have a larger income? That people's long term expectations of inflation changes?
  - robotresearcher 7y ago
    > That landlords would simply increase rent knowing renters have a larger income? This one seems a serious problem. Home sales too, since sellers know people could make larger mortgage payments. Is there a good argument for why this will not inevitably transfer much of the money to landowners?
    - enraged_camel 7y ago
      >>Is there a good argument for why this will not inevitably transfer much of the money to landowners? I regularly rent out the guest bedroom in my house. When I do so, I do not run complex formulas to figure out what a particular tenant might be able to afford. I simply look at rents for similar units in the area, and bump it up or down slightly based on the various features and amenities the room has. I don't charge a corporate executive higher rent than I charge a college student. Their ability to pay is not relevant. You might be thinking "okay, but what if everyone's income went up in an UBI scenario?" Honestly, unless literally all the landlords in a city came together and colluded, you wouldn't see much increase, because we would have the same level of competition we have today.
      - horomeme 7y ago
        >Honestly, unless literally all the landlords in a city came together and colluded, you wouldn't see much increase. The market is all the collusion necessary.
      - robotresearcher 7y ago
- horomeme 7y ago
  I was worried I would read the entire thread without finding the only sound answer. Thanks for proving my worries unwarranted. UBI is a farce. Redistribution of basic commodities like housing and healthcare are the answer.
ryandvm 7y ago
> Perhaps they’d produce art, or seek out experiences and education that wouldn’t otherwise be afforded to them. Honestly, I find this idea laughable. If the last 10 years have taught me anything, it's that people will spend every spare minute they have staring at their phones or streaming TV.
- Smoosh 7y ago
  So, the demand for entertainment such as streaming TV increases, and provides a larger marketplace for the actual content producers.
- LeoTinnitus 7y ago
  I have to totalky disagree. Look at GPL, DeviantArt, Twitch, steam mods. People will labor for free for the purpose of leisure or enjoyment. While those people are in a minority in terms of population since most consume as opposed to produce with an actual skill. I think if the culture was ingrained to gain a source of prestige based off of what they contribute for free, that would incentivize people to pursue those Nobel endeavors. But that sort of culture shift would take Star trek levels of time to get to.
- chopin 7y ago
  I could do this in my spare time yet I play piano.

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).
- ta999999171 7y ago
  Cool, Judge Dredd.
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  Universal Basic Housing just sounds like ghettos with extra steps.
  - tsukikage 7y ago
    So don't build ghettos. A modest proposal: make every builder donate a proportion of the flats/houses they build to local government, but decide which ones are to be donated by random lot after building work is complete.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
flukus 7y ago
> because the price of any good or service that profits rent seekers will be inflated almost instantly to maintain differentials. Only if there is insufficient competition to keep prices down and the market is already broken, which is the case in some areas but not most. In the more notable cases like housing UBI still helps by freeing people to live anywhere instead of cities with plentiful jobs, and even that is largely an artificial problem in developed countries with birth rates below replacement levels.
bhl 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. I've heard this concern before, but what's the assumption that is being made? That UBI will drive more people to cities and increase demand? That landlords would simply increase rent knowing renters have a larger income? That people's long term expectations of inflation changes?
- robotresearcher 7y ago
  > That landlords would simply increase rent knowing renters have a larger income? This one seems a serious problem. Home sales too, since sellers know people could make larger mortgage payments. Is there a good argument for why this will not inevitably transfer much of the money to landowners?
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    >>Is there a good argument for why this will not inevitably transfer much of the money to landowners? I regularly rent out the guest bedroom in my house. When I do so, I do not run complex formulas to figure out what a particular tenant might be able to afford. I simply look at rents for similar units in the area, and bump it up or down slightly based on the various features and amenities the room has. I don't charge a corporate executive higher rent than I charge a college student. Their ability to pay is not relevant. You might be thinking "okay, but what if everyone's income went up in an UBI scenario?" Honestly, unless literally all the landlords in a city came together and colluded, you wouldn't see much increase, because we would have the same level of competition we have today.
    - horomeme 7y ago
      >Honestly, unless literally all the landlords in a city came together and colluded, you wouldn't see much increase. The market is all the collusion necessary.
    - robotresearcher 7y ago
horomeme 7y ago
I was worried I would read the entire thread without finding the only sound answer. Thanks for proving my worries unwarranted. UBI is a farce. Redistribution of basic commodities like housing and healthcare are the answer.

ryandvm 7y ago

> Perhaps they’d produce art, or seek out experiences and education that wouldn’t otherwise be afforded to them. Honestly, I find this idea laughable. If the last 10 years have taught me anything, it's that people will spend every spare minute they have staring at their phones or streaming TV.

Smoosh 7y ago
So, the demand for entertainment such as streaming TV increases, and provides a larger marketplace for the actual content producers.
LeoTinnitus 7y ago
I have to totalky disagree. Look at GPL, DeviantArt, Twitch, steam mods. People will labor for free for the purpose of leisure or enjoyment. While those people are in a minority in terms of population since most consume as opposed to produce with an actual skill. I think if the culture was ingrained to gain a source of prestige based off of what they contribute for free, that would incentivize people to pursue those Nobel endeavors. But that sort of culture shift would take Star trek levels of time to get to.
chopin 7y ago
I could do this in my spare time yet I play piano.