3 ms·

If you can make half to 3/4 your salary doing whatever you want, or an extra 25 to 50% by working 40 hours a week, a lot of people don't feel the need to work.

If you can make half to 3/4 your salary doing whatever you want, or an extra 25 to 50% by working 40 hours a week, a lot of people don't feel the need to work. Also an argument against UBI. If people have their bills paid, many don't feel like working.

Majromax 6y ago
You're overestimating the generosity of unemployment benefits, and you're underestimating people's work ethic when given unrestricted (strings-free) transfers. In the first instance, unemployment benefits do not typically replace "half to 3/4 of your salary," and under ordinary circumstances US benefits are greatly limited in duration. Those for whom the "half to 3/4 of salary" replacement is more correct are also those who started on the low end of the salary scale, and I daresay the working poor should not be the subject of your ire. On the second point, your assumption -- while common enough -- has not been replicated in modern-day UBI trials. On the balance, those have shown somewhere between no change and small positive changes to work intention over the existing set of social benefits, which on one hand tend to require demonstrating job-search effort but on the other hand tend to be withdrawn beginning with a low earned salary level. In particular, I have seen no modern-day research demonstrating that providing a fixed benefit creates an indolent class.
biggestdummy 6y ago
We (in the US, at least) are paying able bodied people not to work, precisely in order to have them not work. The policy being that it is better for the entire society if all the laid-off service economy people (retail, hospitality, entertainment, restaurants, etc.) stay home. If we did not pay them, they would find other work, which would require them to leave home. Which would be counter to the public health policies. Staying home is the _point_ of the policy, not a side-effect.
- seibelj 6y ago
  Right, I said still paying. We have vaccines and everyone is out and about, and schools are in-person again. Why are we still paying?
  - oivey 6y ago
    Why are interest rates still so low?
  - biggestdummy 6y ago
    Have you seen India this week? Michigan? Airlines are still working at skeleton staff. Most of the country has little/no indoor restaurant seating. Sporting events are highly limited. Concerts and Conferences aren't happening - or even scheduled to happen in most cases. The current federal Unemployment extension is thru Sept 6. Which might be a bit pessimistic, but IMO better to leave some margin for safety.
jjoonathan 6y ago
You don't lose UBI if you start working. This is very important, because otherwise UBI would have the bad incentives of our current unemployment program. Avoiding those bad incentives is the entire point of the "U" in "UBI."

Majromax 6y ago

You're overestimating the generosity of unemployment benefits, and you're underestimating people's work ethic when given unrestricted (strings-free) transfers. In the first instance, unemployment benefits do not typically replace "half to 3/4 of your salary," and under ordinary circumstances US benefits are greatly limited in duration. Those for whom the "half to 3/4 of salary" replacement is more correct are also those who started on the low end of the salary scale, and I daresay the working poor should not be the subject of your ire. On the second point, your assumption -- while common enough -- has not been replicated in modern-day UBI trials. On the balance, those have shown somewhere between no change and small positive changes to work intention over the existing set of social benefits, which on one hand tend to require demonstrating job-search effort but on the other hand tend to be withdrawn beginning with a low earned salary level. In particular, I have seen no modern-day research demonstrating that providing a fixed benefit creates an indolent class.

biggestdummy 6y ago

We (in the US, at least) are paying able bodied people not to work, precisely in order to have them not work. The policy being that it is better for the entire society if all the laid-off service economy people (retail, hospitality, entertainment, restaurants, etc.) stay home. If we did not pay them, they would find other work, which would require them to leave home. Which would be counter to the public health policies. Staying home is the _point_ of the policy, not a side-effect.

seibelj 6y ago
Right, I said still paying. We have vaccines and everyone is out and about, and schools are in-person again. Why are we still paying?
- oivey 6y ago
  Why are interest rates still so low?
- biggestdummy 6y ago
  Have you seen India this week? Michigan? Airlines are still working at skeleton staff. Most of the country has little/no indoor restaurant seating. Sporting events are highly limited. Concerts and Conferences aren't happening - or even scheduled to happen in most cases. The current federal Unemployment extension is thru Sept 6. Which might be a bit pessimistic, but IMO better to leave some margin for safety.

jjoonathan 6y ago

You don't lose UBI if you start working. This is very important, because otherwise UBI would have the bad incentives of our current unemployment program. Avoiding those bad incentives is the entire point of the "U" in "UBI."