6 ms·

If we gave people UBI we could have this "creative creation" happening all the time

minikites 7y ago
Or even a less radical step: guaranteeing healthcare for all citizens so it's not tied to employment at a large company.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Agreed. As long as the country is not capable of pulling that off, any discussion of UBI is a waste of time.
- cabaalis 7y ago
  Do this such that I who have the resources can also pay for electives if I want to and we can talk. Put my healthcare decisions in the hands of a government body and its a non-starter.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    That’s how it works in most countries. People with more money can buy better treatment.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    I actually think that government healthcare might be a good opportunity to reduce regulation of private healthcare: if the government is paying for it, they dictate the terms, but for a private transaction, much less oversight would be needed. Of course having this happen would require compromise which appears to be completely absent from our current legislative process...
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Are electives not covered by your insurance? Do you pay for them entirely out of pocket?
  - jen20 7y ago
    This is exactly how it works in the UK - universal coverage of everyone via the NHS, and additional elective procedures covered either via private insurance or direct payment at private facilities.
- M2Ys4U 7y ago
  Civilised countries already do this!
- bigbob2 7y ago
  Genuinely curious: why was this downvoted when the parent comment was not?
aidenn0 7y ago
The one thing I don't get about UBI is who does the "shit" jobs. Those jobs that are low-skill low-pay under the current system. Most people who do those jobs do so only because the alternative is worse. Even in places with generous social-welfare systems there tends to be social pressure against relying on it, but making the payments universal seems likely to remove that stigma. The first order effects are obviously very positive (lookup the term "wage slavery" for some of the moral arguments against such jobs), but it's hard to predict what the higher order effects of a transition away from a system that has basically been in place since the industrial revolution.
- gaze 7y ago
  You pay them more.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  I suppose if those jobs are so terrible that no one who has UBI wants to do them, they'll have to pay a fair wage to attract people. If they're truly necessary, wages will rise until until positions are filled. And yes, you may now have to pay more for work that was woefully underpaid previously. If your scenario comes to pass, it just means we've been taking advantage of the people who currently work those jobs because they have no other alternative.
  - airstrike 7y ago
    > they'll have to pay a fair wage to attract people. Wages aren't defined based on what is fair or unfair. They're decided based on supply and demand for labor, thankfully. A "shit job" is by definition one that creates little value because value is defined as what is lost when someone exits the picture. Workers in those "shit jobs" can be immediately replaced so no value is really lost by their exit, so their value is close to zero.
    - aidenn0 7y ago
      > A "shit job" is by definition one that creates little value because value is defined as what is lost when someone exits the picture. There are two people involved in the transaction: the worker and the employer. The employer will value the work at a value greater than the wage, otherwise they would be more profitable just by firing the worker. Similarly the worker will value the wage more than the job, because otherwise they would quit. When most people talk about the "value" of a job, they tend to not use either local definition, but from a more global definition of "how bad off would society be if nobody did this job" and that more closely aligns with the employer's value than the worker's (e.g. for services jobs the employer makes money on the spread between what customers will pay and what workers will work for, so clearly customers value the job at some margin above the wage, and we can use customers as a proxy for "society") Without UBI, the wage is what lets the worker not end up homeless and starving (or begging), so someone with no better job prospects will value the wage very highly. Once you add UBI into the mixture though, maybe it's "move into a larger apartment" or "eat out somewhere nice once in a while" and suddenly they value the wage much less.

Or even a less radical step: guaranteeing healthcare for all citizens so it's not tied to employment at a large company.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
Agreed. As long as the country is not capable of pulling that off, any discussion of UBI is a waste of time.
cabaalis 7y ago
Do this such that I who have the resources can also pay for electives if I want to and we can talk. Put my healthcare decisions in the hands of a government body and its a non-starter.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  That’s how it works in most countries. People with more money can buy better treatment.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  I actually think that government healthcare might be a good opportunity to reduce regulation of private healthcare: if the government is paying for it, they dictate the terms, but for a private transaction, much less oversight would be needed. Of course having this happen would require compromise which appears to be completely absent from our current legislative process...
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Are electives not covered by your insurance? Do you pay for them entirely out of pocket?
- jen20 7y ago
  This is exactly how it works in the UK - universal coverage of everyone via the NHS, and additional elective procedures covered either via private insurance or direct payment at private facilities.
M2Ys4U 7y ago
Civilised countries already do this!
bigbob2 7y ago
Genuinely curious: why was this downvoted when the parent comment was not?

aidenn0 7y ago

The one thing I don't get about UBI is who does the "shit" jobs. Those jobs that are low-skill low-pay under the current system. Most people who do those jobs do so only because the alternative is worse. Even in places with generous social-welfare systems there tends to be social pressure against relying on it, but making the payments universal seems likely to remove that stigma. The first order effects are obviously very positive (lookup the term "wage slavery" for some of the moral arguments against such jobs), but it's hard to predict what the higher order effects of a transition away from a system that has basically been in place since the industrial revolution.

gaze 7y ago
You pay them more.
nkrisc 7y ago
I suppose if those jobs are so terrible that no one who has UBI wants to do them, they'll have to pay a fair wage to attract people. If they're truly necessary, wages will rise until until positions are filled. And yes, you may now have to pay more for work that was woefully underpaid previously. If your scenario comes to pass, it just means we've been taking advantage of the people who currently work those jobs because they have no other alternative.
- airstrike 7y ago
  > they'll have to pay a fair wage to attract people. Wages aren't defined based on what is fair or unfair. They're decided based on supply and demand for labor, thankfully. A "shit job" is by definition one that creates little value because value is defined as what is lost when someone exits the picture. Workers in those "shit jobs" can be immediately replaced so no value is really lost by their exit, so their value is close to zero.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    > A "shit job" is by definition one that creates little value because value is defined as what is lost when someone exits the picture. There are two people involved in the transaction: the worker and the employer. The employer will value the work at a value greater than the wage, otherwise they would be more profitable just by firing the worker. Similarly the worker will value the wage more than the job, because otherwise they would quit. When most people talk about the "value" of a job, they tend to not use either local definition, but from a more global definition of "how bad off would society be if nobody did this job" and that more closely aligns with the employer's value than the worker's (e.g. for services jobs the employer makes money on the spread between what customers will pay and what workers will work for, so clearly customers value the job at some margin above the wage, and we can use customers as a proxy for "society") Without UBI, the wage is what lets the worker not end up homeless and starving (or begging), so someone with no better job prospects will value the wage very highly. Once you add UBI into the mixture though, maybe it's "move into a larger apartment" or "eat out somewhere nice once in a while" and suddenly they value the wage much less.