3 ms·

I'm still not convinced 90% of jobs won't go unfilled while everyone sits around and watches Netflix all day. I guess we'll see.

glouwbug 7y ago
🧐 More opportunity for the rest of us!
fzingle 7y ago
This kind of concern crops up in UBI discussions all the time, but I think it gets things backwards. Instead of asking if some significant number of jobs will go unfilled because people are paid a poverty line level of income by the government, we should be asking: "Why aren't we paying people who work 40hrs/wk a living wage?" The decision not to work and live off of UBI is only attractive to people who are currently working many hours and earning about the same as what UBI is offering -- and that should give us pause.
- notahacker 7y ago
  > The decision not to work and live off of UBI is only attractive to people who are currently working many hours and earning about the same as what UBI is offering The evidence of people usually choosing to retire upon reaching the age they are able to receive much smaller stipends than their current earnings suggests otherwise. Many people value their free time highly, and a poverty wage to a single parent living in rented accommodation can be quite comfortable when doubled and applied to a homeowning couple with savings for rainy days.
  - fzingle 7y ago
    Sure you can find an edge case in my general statement. > The evidence of people usually choosing to retire The key word in that is "choosing". A huge number of people even in G7 countries comprise the working poor. They cannot, and likely will never be able to "choose" to retire. They work 40hrs/wk, often with two incomes and have no savings. While we can debate the life choices of some of these people, it remains that working 40hrs/wk should not lead to an outcome where you can only just scrape by.
    - notahacker 7y ago
      It's hardly an 'edge case' to point out that in the real world, 90% of people guaranteed to receive a low income for the rest of their life in the form of a pension no longer work. This pretty much unequivocally falsifies the claim that only people on very low incomes would consider accepting a large drop in income in order to cease working.
true_religion 7y ago
Well why don’t you work a minimum wage job? If all you want is food, a roof and Netflix, you can get all that for the minimum wage. As a developer, you could ave your money for 3 years then live the next 10 in a country cabin doing nothing but watching movies. This is the same choice faced by most people in the real middle class. Yet why do we want more? Not just entertainment, but better schools, and the chance to make an impact on the world. Sure some people would take the money and do nothing, but many more will take this guaranteed income as a chance to take risks. Imagine, anyone who wants to can go to community college for free now, but can’t practically do it because they will starve without their job. Now anyone can do it.
grecy 7y ago
I've answered this so many times on HN. In Australia it's perfectly easy to get a bit over a grand a month, plus a bit more for rent, forever. It's note quite UBI, but if the negative consequences were what you're saying, we'd see it in Australia. The fact is less than 5% of people sit around and do nothing, and Australia's economy is doing great.

glouwbug 7y ago

🧐 More opportunity for the rest of us!

fzingle 7y ago

This kind of concern crops up in UBI discussions all the time, but I think it gets things backwards. Instead of asking if some significant number of jobs will go unfilled because people are paid a poverty line level of income by the government, we should be asking: "Why aren't we paying people who work 40hrs/wk a living wage?" The decision not to work and live off of UBI is only attractive to people who are currently working many hours and earning about the same as what UBI is offering -- and that should give us pause.

notahacker 7y ago
> The decision not to work and live off of UBI is only attractive to people who are currently working many hours and earning about the same as what UBI is offering The evidence of people usually choosing to retire upon reaching the age they are able to receive much smaller stipends than their current earnings suggests otherwise. Many people value their free time highly, and a poverty wage to a single parent living in rented accommodation can be quite comfortable when doubled and applied to a homeowning couple with savings for rainy days.
- fzingle 7y ago
  Sure you can find an edge case in my general statement. > The evidence of people usually choosing to retire The key word in that is "choosing". A huge number of people even in G7 countries comprise the working poor. They cannot, and likely will never be able to "choose" to retire. They work 40hrs/wk, often with two incomes and have no savings. While we can debate the life choices of some of these people, it remains that working 40hrs/wk should not lead to an outcome where you can only just scrape by.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    It's hardly an 'edge case' to point out that in the real world, 90% of people guaranteed to receive a low income for the rest of their life in the form of a pension no longer work. This pretty much unequivocally falsifies the claim that only people on very low incomes would consider accepting a large drop in income in order to cease working.

true_religion 7y ago

Well why don’t you work a minimum wage job? If all you want is food, a roof and Netflix, you can get all that for the minimum wage. As a developer, you could ave your money for 3 years then live the next 10 in a country cabin doing nothing but watching movies. This is the same choice faced by most people in the real middle class. Yet why do we want more? Not just entertainment, but better schools, and the chance to make an impact on the world. Sure some people would take the money and do nothing, but many more will take this guaranteed income as a chance to take risks. Imagine, anyone who wants to can go to community college for free now, but can’t practically do it because they will starve without their job. Now anyone can do it.

grecy 7y ago

I've answered this so many times on HN. In Australia it's perfectly easy to get a bit over a grand a month, plus a bit more for rent, forever. It's note quite UBI, but if the negative consequences were what you're saying, we'd see it in Australia. The fact is less than 5% of people sit around and do nothing, and Australia's economy is doing great.