3 ms·

For one, it removes pathological situations where people are disincentivised to work because it would mean they lose means-tested support. The great unknown is

For one, it removes pathological situations where people are disincentivised to work because it would mean they lose means-tested support. The great unknown is whether it also disincentivises work itself in a way that would be a negative overall. The general idea is that it removes the threat of poverty, which potentially allows people to make more rational decisions, and negates the need for cruder solutions like minimum wage, regulations, unions etc.

macspoofing 6y ago
>it removes pathological situations where people are disincentivised to work because it would mean they lose means-tested support. That's a problem with how welfare is structured, that can be fixed with changing welfare. >The great unknown is whether it also disincentivises work itself in a way that would be a negative overall Why would you think it wouldn't? >which potentially allows people to make more rational decisions, and negates the need for cruder solutions like minimum wage, regulations, unions etc If you think you can get leftist/progressive support for UBI by cutting ANY social program, you are in for quite an awakening. Welfare state employes hundreds of thousands of people, they will not support UBI either. The libertarian view of UBI replacing social programs has ZERO chance of passing. So what's left is UBI being just another expense of top of the huge welfare state costs.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  > "That's a problem with how welfare is structured, that can be fixed with changing welfare." That's what UBI is...? UBI is changing welfare to not be means-tested. > "Why would you think it wouldn't?" There are many reasons to think it wouldn't. For example, lots of people work two jobs. People work full time when they could work part time. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc all still work. The vast majority of people in a modern economy work more than they need to in order to earn what a UBI would pay. The rest of your post is not relevant to the question you originally asked ("What is the actual case for Basic Income?")
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    > There are many reasons to think it wouldn't. For example, lots of people work two jobs. People work full time when they could work part time. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc all still work. The vast majority of people in a modern economy work more than they need to in order to earn what a UBI would pay. Bill Gates works, but he doesn't work as a janitor. Who is going to scrub the toilets for a meager supplement to a guaranteed living wage?
    - 3131s 6y ago
      You almost understand. They'll have to raise the wage to get anyone to scrub those toilets, and that's the whole point. UBI reduces the power asymmetry between employer and employee, and gives the employee more leverage to negotiate better wages and conditions.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        Ok, and if they raise wages, they'll need to raise prices. The price level at which it's economical to pay someone wages that incentive them to work as a janitor rather than investing in themselves is the price level at which the janitor cannot afford to invest in themselves without work. I'd buy that the janitor might be a bit better off in this situation, but you haven't solved any critical problems. Your basic income quickly becomes insufficient. Without controls for rent, debt, medical, schooling, etc. it's not hard to imagine that in real terms the poor become poorer.
        JoeSmithson 6y ago
        > Ok, and if they raise wages, they'll need to raise prices. No, not necessarily. In fact if they were able raise prices, surely they would have done so already? What they would actually do is either go without a janitor, or go without something else - a coffee machine, or computer upgrades or something. The point is, unskilled labour is currently priced against desperation on the part of the worker. With a UBI it's priced against the actual benefit to the consumer. The question is, what value is having clean toilets? If a company in an office block doesn't value clean toilets more than anyone is willing to clean the toilets for, then they will just be dirty. In actual fact they are likely to value clean toilets highly - more than what someone is willing to clean them for.

macspoofing 6y ago

>it removes pathological situations where people are disincentivised to work because it would mean they lose means-tested support. That's a problem with how welfare is structured, that can be fixed with changing welfare. >The great unknown is whether it also disincentivises work itself in a way that would be a negative overall Why would you think it wouldn't? >which potentially allows people to make more rational decisions, and negates the need for cruder solutions like minimum wage, regulations, unions etc If you think you can get leftist/progressive support for UBI by cutting ANY social program, you are in for quite an awakening. Welfare state employes hundreds of thousands of people, they will not support UBI either. The libertarian view of UBI replacing social programs has ZERO chance of passing. So what's left is UBI being just another expense of top of the huge welfare state costs.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
> "That's a problem with how welfare is structured, that can be fixed with changing welfare." That's what UBI is...? UBI is changing welfare to not be means-tested. > "Why would you think it wouldn't?" There are many reasons to think it wouldn't. For example, lots of people work two jobs. People work full time when they could work part time. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc all still work. The vast majority of people in a modern economy work more than they need to in order to earn what a UBI would pay. The rest of your post is not relevant to the question you originally asked ("What is the actual case for Basic Income?")
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  > There are many reasons to think it wouldn't. For example, lots of people work two jobs. People work full time when they could work part time. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc all still work. The vast majority of people in a modern economy work more than they need to in order to earn what a UBI would pay. Bill Gates works, but he doesn't work as a janitor. Who is going to scrub the toilets for a meager supplement to a guaranteed living wage?
  - 3131s 6y ago
    You almost understand. They'll have to raise the wage to get anyone to scrub those toilets, and that's the whole point. UBI reduces the power asymmetry between employer and employee, and gives the employee more leverage to negotiate better wages and conditions.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      Ok, and if they raise wages, they'll need to raise prices. The price level at which it's economical to pay someone wages that incentive them to work as a janitor rather than investing in themselves is the price level at which the janitor cannot afford to invest in themselves without work. I'd buy that the janitor might be a bit better off in this situation, but you haven't solved any critical problems. Your basic income quickly becomes insufficient. Without controls for rent, debt, medical, schooling, etc. it's not hard to imagine that in real terms the poor become poorer.
      - JoeSmithson 6y ago
        > Ok, and if they raise wages, they'll need to raise prices. No, not necessarily. In fact if they were able raise prices, surely they would have done so already? What they would actually do is either go without a janitor, or go without something else - a coffee machine, or computer upgrades or something. The point is, unskilled labour is currently priced against desperation on the part of the worker. With a UBI it's priced against the actual benefit to the consumer. The question is, what value is having clean toilets? If a company in an office block doesn't value clean toilets more than anyone is willing to clean the toilets for, then they will just be dirty. In actual fact they are likely to value clean toilets highly - more than what someone is willing to clean them for.