3 ms·

First of all, if ~50% of people work in a country (from age 0 to pensioners), they continued to work, and got 2k extra 'free money', they'd have to pay more tha

First of all, if ~50% of people work in a country (from age 0 to pensioners), they continued to work, and got 2k extra 'free money', they'd have to pay more than those 2k back in taxes, to cover the 2k for people who don't work at all. If we somehow took 2k/person/month from some nonexisting trillionaire, who has the money to finance it for everyone, then probably yes, prices would go up, because everybody has now 2k/month more to spend.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
andarleen 7y ago
Not if the extra “free” money are covered by increased productivity due to automation, as it happened over the past decades. Typically the main beneficiaries from increased productivity are shareholders or company founders, and that is why money gets clogged in a few hands. Workers should also benefit more from from it as it is also their productivity that grew 10x along with that of the company. So we are not really talking about free money, we are talking about money you are entitled to anyway. Sure it is your company that invested in new tech to grow productivity, but it is the society as a whole that enabled it - try making robots or new tech in a society ridden by unemployment, inequality, civil unrest and so on. Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society.
- luckylion 7y ago
  The issue is that we all already benefit from increased automation and new technologies. We all carry computers with us with powerful batteries and access to the internet. It's the (much rarer) high-skill workers whose productivity has shot through the roof by using technology as leverage. The individual low-skill worker's productivity hasn't really increased by a lot, unless you say "we've built a robot that does 95% of the work, but let's attribute all of the output to the remaining 3 humans". > Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society. The issue with "fair" is that it's very subjective. Some may say "it's fair when everyone has the same", others may argue that it's unfair when somebody who works hard gets the same as someone who chooses not to work at all.
  - andarleen 7y ago
    UBI doesn't mean we all get the same - it just means none of us starve, and can live with dignity no matter what we do ...or don't do. We can explore a different mindset where a slice of tech improvements and automation also benefit us as a society in that sense. Is it really that bad a thought that the goal of tech is to finance a society where no one is left without food and basic, decent, shelter? In the sense that we take a radical turn where we don't motivate people through fear but rather through need? The need of having more than just food or shelter as oppose to the the fear of starving or homelessness? Why does it have to be a struggle for so many when we can just build tech that covers basic needs.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      > UBI doesn't mean we all get the same - it just means none of us starve, and can live with dignity no matter what we do ...or don't do. By that definition, most of Europe has UBI and then some ;) > Is it really that bad a thought that the goal of tech is to finance a society where no one is left without food and basic, decent, shelter? That's a very US-centric view. Food insecurity is a solved problem in Europe and has been for decades. Basic, decent shelter? How about 450sqft, utilities included and we'll buy you a TV, throw in free health care, free higher education and 400€ a month in cash? Yet still, people will claim that this does not allow for genuine self-actualization because somebody else will have 900sqft and two TVs or a car. > Why does it have to be a struggle for so many when we can just build tech that covers basic needs. Because people don't want to be limited to basic needs, they want what they see others having. They want smartphones, microwaves, computers, internet, entertainment, transportation etc. And as society, we still need somebody to actually create all of that and keep it running. Incentivizing opting out of contribution is, from society's perspective, counter-productive, and the more you redistribute, the more you encourage the contributing members to leave. Consider this: Germany is at or near the top for total taxation of working individuals. At the same time, top salaries for high-skilled workers are significantly lower than in the US. Say we add some more taxes to redistribute more towards the unemployed and remove the rest of incentive to work for low-skilled workers. We'll increase the number of people opting to not work, further increasing the required taxes on those that do. And we'll increase the earning-gap for high-skilled workers compared to e.g. the US, increasing the reward of emigration for that group. That's a vicious circle and it's going to be hard to stop once it reinforces itself.
jonkho 7y ago
If the average worker had to pay for those that didn’t via increased taxes of $1000 a month (to balance that budget), I cannot see that happening without a revolt. Would you even agree to pay an extra $500 per month in taxes to pay for someone else’s living expenses? Most workers are living almost paycheck to paycheck as is.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

andarleen 7y ago

Not if the extra “free” money are covered by increased productivity due to automation, as it happened over the past decades. Typically the main beneficiaries from increased productivity are shareholders or company founders, and that is why money gets clogged in a few hands. Workers should also benefit more from from it as it is also their productivity that grew 10x along with that of the company. So we are not really talking about free money, we are talking about money you are entitled to anyway. Sure it is your company that invested in new tech to grow productivity, but it is the society as a whole that enabled it - try making robots or new tech in a society ridden by unemployment, inequality, civil unrest and so on. Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society.

luckylion 7y ago
The issue is that we all already benefit from increased automation and new technologies. We all carry computers with us with powerful batteries and access to the internet. It's the (much rarer) high-skill workers whose productivity has shot through the roof by using technology as leverage. The individual low-skill worker's productivity hasn't really increased by a lot, unless you say "we've built a robot that does 95% of the work, but let's attribute all of the output to the remaining 3 humans". > Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society. The issue with "fair" is that it's very subjective. Some may say "it's fair when everyone has the same", others may argue that it's unfair when somebody who works hard gets the same as someone who chooses not to work at all.
- andarleen 7y ago
  UBI doesn't mean we all get the same - it just means none of us starve, and can live with dignity no matter what we do ...or don't do. We can explore a different mindset where a slice of tech improvements and automation also benefit us as a society in that sense. Is it really that bad a thought that the goal of tech is to finance a society where no one is left without food and basic, decent, shelter? In the sense that we take a radical turn where we don't motivate people through fear but rather through need? The need of having more than just food or shelter as oppose to the the fear of starving or homelessness? Why does it have to be a struggle for so many when we can just build tech that covers basic needs.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > UBI doesn't mean we all get the same - it just means none of us starve, and can live with dignity no matter what we do ...or don't do. By that definition, most of Europe has UBI and then some ;) > Is it really that bad a thought that the goal of tech is to finance a society where no one is left without food and basic, decent, shelter? That's a very US-centric view. Food insecurity is a solved problem in Europe and has been for decades. Basic, decent shelter? How about 450sqft, utilities included and we'll buy you a TV, throw in free health care, free higher education and 400€ a month in cash? Yet still, people will claim that this does not allow for genuine self-actualization because somebody else will have 900sqft and two TVs or a car. > Why does it have to be a struggle for so many when we can just build tech that covers basic needs. Because people don't want to be limited to basic needs, they want what they see others having. They want smartphones, microwaves, computers, internet, entertainment, transportation etc. And as society, we still need somebody to actually create all of that and keep it running. Incentivizing opting out of contribution is, from society's perspective, counter-productive, and the more you redistribute, the more you encourage the contributing members to leave. Consider this: Germany is at or near the top for total taxation of working individuals. At the same time, top salaries for high-skilled workers are significantly lower than in the US. Say we add some more taxes to redistribute more towards the unemployed and remove the rest of incentive to work for low-skilled workers. We'll increase the number of people opting to not work, further increasing the required taxes on those that do. And we'll increase the earning-gap for high-skilled workers compared to e.g. the US, increasing the reward of emigration for that group. That's a vicious circle and it's going to be hard to stop once it reinforces itself.

jonkho 7y ago

If the average worker had to pay for those that didn’t via increased taxes of $1000 a month (to balance that budget), I cannot see that happening without a revolt. Would you even agree to pay an extra $500 per month in taxes to pay for someone else’s living expenses? Most workers are living almost paycheck to paycheck as is.