6 ms·

Exactly. The key to making people happier is not to give them money, but create more jobs that give people meaning and purpose in their lives.

tomrod 6y ago
Exactly. And to ensure people have the freedom to pursue the training and development, search time, or simply freedom to explore, a UBI would be immensely and wonderfully beneficial. Many folks will end up pursuing that which makes them the most happy, not solely the options on the table (which for many in current society is crumbs).
- AOsborn 6y ago
  Serious question: How will UBI allow this? Over time I would imagine that due to inflation and the increased cashflow that everyone will have the prices of basic necessities will increase to the point that UBI just covers them, or worse that simply living will require UBI + a job? I don't mean that in a snarky tone, it's something I'm trying to wrap my head around as far as UBI discussion goes.
  - stormbrew 6y ago
    The same way all government spending doesn't lead to rampant inflation: by scraping money out of circulation largely with taxes. Money is created by central banks, circulated by the government (including with 'entitlement programs' like UBI would count as, but also through things like spending billions on fancy jet fighters) and other banks (and there multiplied by fractional reserve banking). It's then 'destroyed' by taxes and encouraging people to buy into government bonds and other things that slow down the flow of money. These are all policy instruments that control how much money is flowing through the economy, and inflation is a product of that flow. So the answer is, because they would raise taxes on it. A large portion of the money given out would just go straight into taxes from high income earners also getting UBI. But also they could do things like lower the reserve ratio banks are required to hold to reduce the flow of money into the economy, instead choosing to create money through people instead of banks.
  - Shoreleave 6y ago
    I can absolutely see how it would enable a certain type of very creative, very hard working person to peruse something they couldn't originally due to hard circumstances. But that seems like a minority case. I'm curious what the other 95% are going to do.
    - spyckie2 6y ago
      Drugs and alcohol. They'd probably do it regardless of UBI, but without UBI they do it and are slightly more angry or frustrated at their own situation.
  - jnwatson 6y ago
    There’s no difference in the money supply here. There’s no inflationary pressure.
    - baconandeggs 6y ago
      Inflation is not flat. When the money currently chasing luxury items like exotic cars or fine art switches to rent, produce and other basic goods their price will rise, it just will. Real inflation does not require an expansion in money supply because inflation is not flat across all areas of the economy.
      - jnwatson 6y ago
        The upper end of the housing market frees up, causing everyone, except the rich, to move upmarket. You can see the same effect when luxury housing goes up in a town. Rents go down for everyone.
        baconandeggs 6y ago
        That is not the case. If under UBI, which is reallocation of capital, luxury housing frees up it will not mean the uber rich move away and now the rest of us enjoy more selection without any other repercussions (though that will happen at first to an extent), it will mean they'll relocate to less expensive properties, thus chocking the market from both sides.
shredprez 6y ago
I always hear the argument that UBI will essentially subsidize people's ability to pursue work that gives them meaning/purpose, particularly if it isn't highly valued (economically) by their local market. What does HN think about that?
- tomrod 6y ago
  The US would benefit greatly if the people serving as teachers, daycare workers, healthcare technicians, retail service providers, and similar roles had a UBI.
- spyckie2 6y ago
  It's a bit more nuanced. UBI just gives people more options. The narrative is that people who live paycheck to paycheck are forced into undesirable jobs because they are under time pressure to make money and can't be choosy. UBI will reduce the time pressure and make them be able to be a bit more choosy in what kind of job they get. UBI will also allow them time to invest in themselves to be able to land higher skilled jobs. It will also allow people to more willingly enter low pay, higher calling jobs (teachers, etc) if they enjoy it because it has been bumped up from "too little" to "just enough" with UBI.
jjoonathan 6y ago
If a person doesn't have money, helping him is not a job. If a person has money, helping him is a job. UBI creates jobs by "un-freezing" demand that was previously frozen out of the system due to poverty.
- jnwatson 6y ago
  Macroeconomics 101 shows that public welfare creates a demand floor, reducing the severity of recessions and lessens the boom bust of the business cycle.
yarrel 6y ago
How will those jobs be created without becoming "Bullshit Jobs" and workfare?
Bootwizard 6y ago
Why does someone's purpose in life defined by their job? What if someone wants to make music or art? Or pursue some kind of other field that doesn't pay particularly well. Why do all Americans think that the point of your life is to work at a job for a majority of it?
- logicchains 6y ago
  >Why does someone's purpose in life defined by their job? What if someone wants to make music or art? Or pursue some kind of other field that doesn't pay particularly well. The question is why the people who do work at a potentially unsatisfying job to earn money should be forced to support the people who don't want to do anything in their life that anybody else values enough to willingly pay them for.
  - jnwatson 6y ago
    Because we have certain shared values, including that folks shouldn’t starve to death due to lack of work. The United States already supports millions of citizens via a backdoor welfare: disability. This simply takes away the corruption and bureaucracy and gives it to everyone.
    - eMSF 6y ago
      >This simply takes away the corruption and bureaucracy and gives it to everyone. So to those who need it, and also those who don't. Why not just the first group? It'd be a lot cheaper.
  - bbreier 6y ago
    For the same reason people already work unsatisfying jobs to earn money: to earn money
    - eMSF 6y ago
      But why would they support a policy (UBI) that causes them to earn less money because of more “freeloaders”?
darcys22 6y ago
I would argue that jobs that give meaning to life are the exception not the norm. There is a not insignificant portion of society that would quit their job today if they had any other option. Hobbies and unpaid creative pursuits are more likely to bring meaning than employment in my opinion.
unrealhoang 6y ago
Exactly. The exceed money from UBI will create more demands thus more jobs will be created. The jobs will be much more `meaningful` than those empty, bureaucratic jobs created by a central entity. Isn't it the basis of capitalism?
spyckie2 6y ago
"Create more jobs" the whole reason why Andrew Yang is a proponent of ubi is because he tried doing this for 8 years and realized that the Economy just doesn't work like that.

tomrod 6y ago

Exactly. And to ensure people have the freedom to pursue the training and development, search time, or simply freedom to explore, a UBI would be immensely and wonderfully beneficial. Many folks will end up pursuing that which makes them the most happy, not solely the options on the table (which for many in current society is crumbs).

AOsborn 6y ago
Serious question: How will UBI allow this? Over time I would imagine that due to inflation and the increased cashflow that everyone will have the prices of basic necessities will increase to the point that UBI just covers them, or worse that simply living will require UBI + a job? I don't mean that in a snarky tone, it's something I'm trying to wrap my head around as far as UBI discussion goes.
- stormbrew 6y ago
  The same way all government spending doesn't lead to rampant inflation: by scraping money out of circulation largely with taxes. Money is created by central banks, circulated by the government (including with 'entitlement programs' like UBI would count as, but also through things like spending billions on fancy jet fighters) and other banks (and there multiplied by fractional reserve banking). It's then 'destroyed' by taxes and encouraging people to buy into government bonds and other things that slow down the flow of money. These are all policy instruments that control how much money is flowing through the economy, and inflation is a product of that flow. So the answer is, because they would raise taxes on it. A large portion of the money given out would just go straight into taxes from high income earners also getting UBI. But also they could do things like lower the reserve ratio banks are required to hold to reduce the flow of money into the economy, instead choosing to create money through people instead of banks.
- Shoreleave 6y ago
  I can absolutely see how it would enable a certain type of very creative, very hard working person to peruse something they couldn't originally due to hard circumstances. But that seems like a minority case. I'm curious what the other 95% are going to do.
  - spyckie2 6y ago
    Drugs and alcohol. They'd probably do it regardless of UBI, but without UBI they do it and are slightly more angry or frustrated at their own situation.
- jnwatson 6y ago
  There’s no difference in the money supply here. There’s no inflationary pressure.
  - baconandeggs 6y ago
    Inflation is not flat. When the money currently chasing luxury items like exotic cars or fine art switches to rent, produce and other basic goods their price will rise, it just will. Real inflation does not require an expansion in money supply because inflation is not flat across all areas of the economy.
    - jnwatson 6y ago
      The upper end of the housing market frees up, causing everyone, except the rich, to move upmarket. You can see the same effect when luxury housing goes up in a town. Rents go down for everyone.
      - baconandeggs 6y ago
        That is not the case. If under UBI, which is reallocation of capital, luxury housing frees up it will not mean the uber rich move away and now the rest of us enjoy more selection without any other repercussions (though that will happen at first to an extent), it will mean they'll relocate to less expensive properties, thus chocking the market from both sides.

shredprez 6y ago

I always hear the argument that UBI will essentially subsidize people's ability to pursue work that gives them meaning/purpose, particularly if it isn't highly valued (economically) by their local market. What does HN think about that?

tomrod 6y ago
The US would benefit greatly if the people serving as teachers, daycare workers, healthcare technicians, retail service providers, and similar roles had a UBI.
spyckie2 6y ago
It's a bit more nuanced. UBI just gives people more options. The narrative is that people who live paycheck to paycheck are forced into undesirable jobs because they are under time pressure to make money and can't be choosy. UBI will reduce the time pressure and make them be able to be a bit more choosy in what kind of job they get. UBI will also allow them time to invest in themselves to be able to land higher skilled jobs. It will also allow people to more willingly enter low pay, higher calling jobs (teachers, etc) if they enjoy it because it has been bumped up from "too little" to "just enough" with UBI.

jjoonathan 6y ago

If a person doesn't have money, helping him is not a job. If a person has money, helping him is a job. UBI creates jobs by "un-freezing" demand that was previously frozen out of the system due to poverty.

jnwatson 6y ago
Macroeconomics 101 shows that public welfare creates a demand floor, reducing the severity of recessions and lessens the boom bust of the business cycle.

yarrel 6y ago

How will those jobs be created without becoming "Bullshit Jobs" and workfare?

Bootwizard 6y ago

Why does someone's purpose in life defined by their job? What if someone wants to make music or art? Or pursue some kind of other field that doesn't pay particularly well. Why do all Americans think that the point of your life is to work at a job for a majority of it?

logicchains 6y ago
>Why does someone's purpose in life defined by their job? What if someone wants to make music or art? Or pursue some kind of other field that doesn't pay particularly well. The question is why the people who do work at a potentially unsatisfying job to earn money should be forced to support the people who don't want to do anything in their life that anybody else values enough to willingly pay them for.
- jnwatson 6y ago
  Because we have certain shared values, including that folks shouldn’t starve to death due to lack of work. The United States already supports millions of citizens via a backdoor welfare: disability. This simply takes away the corruption and bureaucracy and gives it to everyone.
  - eMSF 6y ago
    >This simply takes away the corruption and bureaucracy and gives it to everyone. So to those who need it, and also those who don't. Why not just the first group? It'd be a lot cheaper.
- bbreier 6y ago
  For the same reason people already work unsatisfying jobs to earn money: to earn money
  - eMSF 6y ago
    But why would they support a policy (UBI) that causes them to earn less money because of more “freeloaders”?

darcys22 6y ago

I would argue that jobs that give meaning to life are the exception not the norm. There is a not insignificant portion of society that would quit their job today if they had any other option. Hobbies and unpaid creative pursuits are more likely to bring meaning than employment in my opinion.

unrealhoang 6y ago

Exactly. The exceed money from UBI will create more demands thus more jobs will be created. The jobs will be much more `meaningful` than those empty, bureaucratic jobs created by a central entity. Isn't it the basis of capitalism?

spyckie2 6y ago

"Create more jobs" the whole reason why Andrew Yang is a proponent of ubi is because he tried doing this for 8 years and realized that the Economy just doesn't work like that.