8 ms·

It’s more efficient to implement a universal basic income. Having to funnel it through businesses just adds dead weight. Many businesses are no longer economic

It’s more efficient to implement a universal basic income. Having to funnel it through businesses just adds dead weight. Many businesses are no longer economically viable or sustainable, and that will only continue to accelerate as time goes on. We place far too much emphasis on jobs, which doesn’t work in the age of automation as humans become, at least productivity-wise, more and more unnecessary. Once you decouple a person’s worth from their productivity though, then you can start to better see the inherent value that exists in everyone which is both foundational and immutable.

lawrenceyan 7y ago
> Once you decouple a person’s worth from their productivity though, then you can start to better see the inherent value that exists in everyone which is both foundational and immutable. A valuable point.
hyko 7y ago
Not even proponents of UBI pretend that it’s the end of human labor. The original idea is that you replace all welfare programmes with one payment. If you remove human labor from the economy, you’re facing a 50-60% fall in GDP overnight, undermining UBI and ever other human activity. Every person has inherent worth, but that doesn’t mean that everyone can live without being productive in the near future.
- partingshots 7y ago
  I think you might have misread what I’m trying to say. Human labor is becoming increasingly unnecessary, with the key point here being increasingly. The pool of available work will never completely disappear, but as the job pool decreases in size due to being replaced by some combination of machine/computer, providing stimulus through the intermediary of businesses begins to fail as it no longer reaches people efficiently.
  - mntmoss 7y ago
    Yes, this argument is one shared with some arguments for minimum wage. When a sector of the economy can set wage freely, it often races to the bottom on price competitiveness, neglecting automation and training improvements; businesses that attempt to raise their quality get pummelled by the higher costs and risks relative to competition. A rising minimum wage standard therefore encourages modernization of the work environment. With UBI a similar effect is had on the demand side: If you assume a higher base of income, then consumer credit, payday loans, friends-and-family-favors, etc. become less of a necessity for low-income workers. Higher-income workers with long-term debts like mortgages and student loans become free of their debt more quickly, and face fewer consequences if their income takes a hit. The workforce is therefore disentangled from a set of predatory financial interests that chain them to needing their current job and to stay in the good graces of their financial backers. Even a very small amount of UBI will create a substantial reduction in poverty traps, domestic abuse, and labor mistreatment.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
      For similar reasons I have recently been entertaining the idea of government as employer-of-last-resort. Essentially, have the government spend lots of money on creating businesses designed to employ the unemployed, with good working conditions and pay, and don't immediately focus on making the operation profitable. This would, I hope, create positive pressure on wages and conditions in low-skilled jobs: no stream of desparate people they could rely on, and an alternative employer raising the bar. I wasn't thinking of COVID-19 when I contemplated it though. It's not a new idea of course.
  - hyko 7y ago
    Sorry, perhaps I have misunderstood. What I thought you meant was that it would be more efficient to create a UBI for everyone now, rather than pay people via the payrolls of shuttered companies. I’m assuming you meant financially efficient. I was disagreeing with that because it seems like a suboptimal time to attempt something like UBI (both in historic terms and in the midst of a major pandemic), and because we’re going to need a ready made workforce when the pandemic ends. “The pool of available work will never completely disappear” - I would say there’s no evidence the pool of available work for humans will even _decrease_ in a highly automated economy. It’s possible to have a 99% automated economy with human labor many times its present level. Disappointingly–despite all of our best efforts–new work always seems to arise in this universe. My contention about the long term prospects for UBI is that before we spend the proceeds of our massively automated economy, we should first try to create it. The challenge is awesome, and the economics uncertain. Of course, I too would like free money when available :)
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  UBI, by the way, is not necessarily a replacement for all social welfare programs. I don't believe that's the original or modern idea outside of right of center circles. I've seen plenty of folks who advocate for it alongside food stamps, rent control, universal healthcare, social housing, etc.
  - hyko 7y ago
    That’s a fair point, I was conflating it with a negative income tax when I said that. You’re right, there are advocates for UBI that would maintain all social programs too.

lawrenceyan 7y ago

> Once you decouple a person’s worth from their productivity though, then you can start to better see the inherent value that exists in everyone which is both foundational and immutable. A valuable point.

hyko 7y ago

Not even proponents of UBI pretend that it’s the end of human labor. The original idea is that you replace all welfare programmes with one payment. If you remove human labor from the economy, you’re facing a 50-60% fall in GDP overnight, undermining UBI and ever other human activity. Every person has inherent worth, but that doesn’t mean that everyone can live without being productive in the near future.

partingshots 7y ago
I think you might have misread what I’m trying to say. Human labor is becoming increasingly unnecessary, with the key point here being increasingly. The pool of available work will never completely disappear, but as the job pool decreases in size due to being replaced by some combination of machine/computer, providing stimulus through the intermediary of businesses begins to fail as it no longer reaches people efficiently.
- mntmoss 7y ago
  Yes, this argument is one shared with some arguments for minimum wage. When a sector of the economy can set wage freely, it often races to the bottom on price competitiveness, neglecting automation and training improvements; businesses that attempt to raise their quality get pummelled by the higher costs and risks relative to competition. A rising minimum wage standard therefore encourages modernization of the work environment. With UBI a similar effect is had on the demand side: If you assume a higher base of income, then consumer credit, payday loans, friends-and-family-favors, etc. become less of a necessity for low-income workers. Higher-income workers with long-term debts like mortgages and student loans become free of their debt more quickly, and face fewer consequences if their income takes a hit. The workforce is therefore disentangled from a set of predatory financial interests that chain them to needing their current job and to stay in the good graces of their financial backers. Even a very small amount of UBI will create a substantial reduction in poverty traps, domestic abuse, and labor mistreatment.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    For similar reasons I have recently been entertaining the idea of government as employer-of-last-resort. Essentially, have the government spend lots of money on creating businesses designed to employ the unemployed, with good working conditions and pay, and don't immediately focus on making the operation profitable. This would, I hope, create positive pressure on wages and conditions in low-skilled jobs: no stream of desparate people they could rely on, and an alternative employer raising the bar. I wasn't thinking of COVID-19 when I contemplated it though. It's not a new idea of course.
- hyko 7y ago
  Sorry, perhaps I have misunderstood. What I thought you meant was that it would be more efficient to create a UBI for everyone now, rather than pay people via the payrolls of shuttered companies. I’m assuming you meant financially efficient. I was disagreeing with that because it seems like a suboptimal time to attempt something like UBI (both in historic terms and in the midst of a major pandemic), and because we’re going to need a ready made workforce when the pandemic ends. “The pool of available work will never completely disappear” - I would say there’s no evidence the pool of available work for humans will even _decrease_ in a highly automated economy. It’s possible to have a 99% automated economy with human labor many times its present level. Disappointingly–despite all of our best efforts–new work always seems to arise in this universe. My contention about the long term prospects for UBI is that before we spend the proceeds of our massively automated economy, we should first try to create it. The challenge is awesome, and the economics uncertain. Of course, I too would like free money when available :)
Pfhreak 7y ago
UBI, by the way, is not necessarily a replacement for all social welfare programs. I don't believe that's the original or modern idea outside of right of center circles. I've seen plenty of folks who advocate for it alongside food stamps, rent control, universal healthcare, social housing, etc.
- hyko 7y ago
  That’s a fair point, I was conflating it with a negative income tax when I said that. You’re right, there are advocates for UBI that would maintain all social programs too.