5 ms·

I don't know if companies don't "pay well," but the government certainly pays well enough for people not to need a job. Is that good? :) It is certainly a goal

I don't know if companies don't "pay well," but the government certainly pays well enough for people not to need a job. Is that good? :) It is certainly a goal that some people strive for and we certainly have realized this goal now. Is society satisfied with this result?

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
> It is certainly a goal that some people strive for and we certainly have realized this goal now I'm not so sure we can compare the impact of temporary changes to the goals that proponents of UBI have set out. I suspect there's going to be significant pressure to wind back expansions and allow temporary programs to sunset. And it'll be hard to argue to keep them once vaccine access is high, schools are open, and things can "return to normal." Not working at a time when you have access to significantly increased unemployment funds and in the middle of a pandemic is an extremely rational decision, but I suspect it is not how the long-term would look.
mitchdoogle 5y ago
If a company can't hire anyone at a specified pay rate, either they aren't advertising the position well enough or it doesn't pay well enough. If you've already tried more advertising, it leaves one thing.. It is a great thing when government forces businesses to pay living wages. We can hope and wish for them to do it themselves, but it just doesn't happen otherwise.
- kgantchev 5y ago
  Sure, but is it good for the person to not work? I get that you don't care what happens to the business, but the question isn't about the business - it's about the person. We get that this is the best economic decision for them, but are they happier? Do they feel fulfillment? Is society better-off?
  - varispeed 5y ago
    Some people are just like that. They consume and then they die. Not everyone has to achieve something and for me and you this may be unthinkable, but some people just don't feel the need. They are perfectly happy with spending their life watching TV or similar.
    - kgantchev 5y ago
      Sure, but is that actually good for them?
Jaygles 5y ago
I think its good. The alternative for a lot of people on unemployment is losing that stream of income and becoming homeless. Some of those people will resort to crime, and some of those people will end up costing society more than paying for housing and food many times over.
erikpukinskis 5y ago
We’ve seen a taste of it, I agree with that. But there are a few major ways I see that this isn’t a fair test of UBI: 1) Indoor work is still unsafe, which is messing with the labor markets and making it hard to start a new business 2) If you get a job or side income you lose your benefits 3) The benefits are temporary so you can’t plan around them. But anecdotally my fiancé was able to start a small business during the pandemic. And unemployment benefits helped.
varispeed 5y ago
The thing is - what would be achieved if we didn't have such safety net? People would essentially be forced to work - I would think that forced labour should be a thing of the past, because as a civilisation we can do better. Then other people inevitably would be forced into crime. With this system you can safely go home with your groceries without fear of getting killed for a baguette, because people don't get reduced to animals. There is also a ton of savings when it comes to policing. People have full bellies, so they are less likely to commit violent crime.

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago

> It is certainly a goal that some people strive for and we certainly have realized this goal now I'm not so sure we can compare the impact of temporary changes to the goals that proponents of UBI have set out. I suspect there's going to be significant pressure to wind back expansions and allow temporary programs to sunset. And it'll be hard to argue to keep them once vaccine access is high, schools are open, and things can "return to normal." Not working at a time when you have access to significantly increased unemployment funds and in the middle of a pandemic is an extremely rational decision, but I suspect it is not how the long-term would look.

mitchdoogle 5y ago

If a company can't hire anyone at a specified pay rate, either they aren't advertising the position well enough or it doesn't pay well enough. If you've already tried more advertising, it leaves one thing.. It is a great thing when government forces businesses to pay living wages. We can hope and wish for them to do it themselves, but it just doesn't happen otherwise.

kgantchev 5y ago
Sure, but is it good for the person to not work? I get that you don't care what happens to the business, but the question isn't about the business - it's about the person. We get that this is the best economic decision for them, but are they happier? Do they feel fulfillment? Is society better-off?
- varispeed 5y ago
  Some people are just like that. They consume and then they die. Not everyone has to achieve something and for me and you this may be unthinkable, but some people just don't feel the need. They are perfectly happy with spending their life watching TV or similar.
  - kgantchev 5y ago
    Sure, but is that actually good for them?

Jaygles 5y ago

I think its good. The alternative for a lot of people on unemployment is losing that stream of income and becoming homeless. Some of those people will resort to crime, and some of those people will end up costing society more than paying for housing and food many times over.

erikpukinskis 5y ago

We’ve seen a taste of it, I agree with that. But there are a few major ways I see that this isn’t a fair test of UBI: 1) Indoor work is still unsafe, which is messing with the labor markets and making it hard to start a new business 2) If you get a job or side income you lose your benefits 3) The benefits are temporary so you can’t plan around them. But anecdotally my fiancé was able to start a small business during the pandemic. And unemployment benefits helped.

varispeed 5y ago

The thing is - what would be achieved if we didn't have such safety net? People would essentially be forced to work - I would think that forced labour should be a thing of the past, because as a civilisation we can do better. Then other people inevitably would be forced into crime. With this system you can safely go home with your groceries without fear of getting killed for a baguette, because people don't get reduced to animals. There is also a ton of savings when it comes to policing. People have full bellies, so they are less likely to commit violent crime.