6 ms·

Part of the reason for this lack of interest in the actual outcome is that state benefits are one of the main battlegrounds in the UK's culture war. A lot of th

Part of the reason for this lack of interest in the actual outcome is that state benefits are one of the main battlegrounds in the UK's culture war. A lot of the Tories' base comes from the ideological position that poorer people don't deserve to receive aid at the expense (via taxes) of richer people. Whether or not UBI achieves any of its stated aims is totally irrelevant once you see things that way. All the arguments about disincentivising work are, IMO just convenient filler. If you categorically disproved them, their proponents would surely just find another macro-economic rationalisation for their beliefs, which are in truth fundamentally moral.

secondcoming 5y ago
> All the arguments about disincentivising work are, IMO just convenient filler Not sure, I've read articles online about companies in the US struggling to hire because people are being paid more by the government. The counter to this is that companies should pay more. Undoubtedly some could afford to do this, but others... the mom & pop outfits... may not be able to.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  In the US, it’s not UBI; it’s unemployment which you lose if you work. If UBI isn’t lost via work (other than via taxes, of course), the same issue does not arise at nearly the same magnitude.
  - ssharp 5y ago
    It's a binary choice right now. You either work or you get the enhanced unemployment benefits. With the extra $300 / week benefit, in my state (Ohio), the total benefit works out to a little under $20 / hour. Note that this is a sliding scale and earning that much would require you have at least that high of a wage previously. What you end up seeing is a lot of margin in terms of how much someone is willing to give up in working wages to just collect unemployment. There has also been a lot of interest, and even competition, of workers seeking voluntary layoffs for companies that need some staff reduction. I've heard a number of arguments using this as evidence that UBI will be a huge economic negative because it will reduce the workforce but I'm not sure how this can really be a valid proxy since the unemployment benefits are completely dependent on you not working. It seems pretty reasonable that if people could collect some basic income and also work for an even higher wage, they would.
    - domino24 5y ago
      There are a few instances of being able to collect both right now. I've heard of some people who manage manual labor type companies (painters, tree trimmers, landscapers, etc) that offer to pay laborers cash (which would be in addition to the unemployment benefits) and they cannot get workers. It's like the unemployment is a high enough amount that they'd rather collect just that and not work to earn more. Perhaps there is a magical amount which would convince people to collect benefits and still work to earn additional money.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Or perhaps manual laborers are more ethical than you give them credit for in the post above and choose not to lie and cheat to double-dip unemployment while actually working.
        domino24 5y ago
        This might be the case for some individuals, but in the examples I have been given, this was not the issue.
- rundevilrun 5y ago
  if a company is unable to pay people a wage with which they are able to live comfortably the company should not exist
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    Thank you for deciding for me how much should I work for.
    - rundevilrun 5y ago
      sorry, code monkeys can take as little money as they want everyone else can have livable wages
sokoloff 5y ago
I have significant sympathy for that base’s point of view. It’s one thing to say that we must provide a social safety net for the most vulnerable, whether temporarily or permanently so. It’s quite another to say “work should be optional and the basics of life should be provided for all [via the work of others]”. I think you’ll find a few people who object to my 2nd paragraph, but extending the argument to the 3rd is a jump where you’ll lose a great number of reasonable people.
- miltondts 5y ago
  What do we do when automation reaches most jobs? Create artificial jobs to keep people busy? Now that I think about it, that seems to be what we have been doing for some 30-40 years now. By artificial jobs, I mean jobs that if they disappeared, life would go on pretty much the same. This was in fact quite visible during all the lock-downs. Many many people no longer worked and all the essential and many non-essential things where still produced.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Probably the same thing we did when agriculture went from 70% of the workforce to under 1.5%. People will adapt to fill new demands. If it comes to pass at some future time that machines can do all the work and everyone can live a Garden of Eden existence, goods and services will be so cheap due to their natural abundance, that UBI might be feasible but food and essentials might be almost not worth the trouble of metering. We’re really, really far from that being a reality or concern, IMO.
    - miltondts 5y ago
      But why are we forcing people to work for the essentials when the essentials (water, food, shelter) require a tiny fraction of the population and resources? Is this the kind of society that we want to live in? Where trough automation and first mover advantage we allow people to be ridiculously rich while the rest of the population struggles to get by?
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I agree it's a moral issue, I spent a significant amount of time thinking about the subject and my conclusion is that forcing people to give away their money is immoral, no matter how good the cause you're contributing money to. After interviewing several people, I reached the conclusion most people don't think at all about the issue and have therefore incredibly inconsistent philosophical positions on issues.
cosmodisk 5y ago
There's more to it. The biggest problems,in my opinion,is not the fact that poor Joe is benefiting from not to so poor Jack's tax payments via benefits. The problem starts when there's no end to the support. For instance, you can be on housing benefits for years and that's wrong. The system is poorly implemented and some deeply structural problems never get addressed ( e.g. long term unemployment in a family, single mothers with children and their ability to work+ raise children, etc). Most of these issues require a wide spectrum of solutions,often interlinking with each other,but nobody really want to change anything apart from add/remove a few quid off the benefits payments.

secondcoming 5y ago

> All the arguments about disincentivising work are, IMO just convenient filler Not sure, I've read articles online about companies in the US struggling to hire because people are being paid more by the government. The counter to this is that companies should pay more. Undoubtedly some could afford to do this, but others... the mom & pop outfits... may not be able to.

sokoloff 5y ago
In the US, it’s not UBI; it’s unemployment which you lose if you work. If UBI isn’t lost via work (other than via taxes, of course), the same issue does not arise at nearly the same magnitude.
- ssharp 5y ago
  It's a binary choice right now. You either work or you get the enhanced unemployment benefits. With the extra $300 / week benefit, in my state (Ohio), the total benefit works out to a little under $20 / hour. Note that this is a sliding scale and earning that much would require you have at least that high of a wage previously. What you end up seeing is a lot of margin in terms of how much someone is willing to give up in working wages to just collect unemployment. There has also been a lot of interest, and even competition, of workers seeking voluntary layoffs for companies that need some staff reduction. I've heard a number of arguments using this as evidence that UBI will be a huge economic negative because it will reduce the workforce but I'm not sure how this can really be a valid proxy since the unemployment benefits are completely dependent on you not working. It seems pretty reasonable that if people could collect some basic income and also work for an even higher wage, they would.
  - domino24 5y ago
    There are a few instances of being able to collect both right now. I've heard of some people who manage manual labor type companies (painters, tree trimmers, landscapers, etc) that offer to pay laborers cash (which would be in addition to the unemployment benefits) and they cannot get workers. It's like the unemployment is a high enough amount that they'd rather collect just that and not work to earn more. Perhaps there is a magical amount which would convince people to collect benefits and still work to earn additional money.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Or perhaps manual laborers are more ethical than you give them credit for in the post above and choose not to lie and cheat to double-dip unemployment while actually working.
      - domino24 5y ago
        This might be the case for some individuals, but in the examples I have been given, this was not the issue.
rundevilrun 5y ago
if a company is unable to pay people a wage with which they are able to live comfortably the company should not exist
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Thank you for deciding for me how much should I work for.
  - rundevilrun 5y ago
    sorry, code monkeys can take as little money as they want everyone else can have livable wages

sokoloff 5y ago

I have significant sympathy for that base’s point of view. It’s one thing to say that we must provide a social safety net for the most vulnerable, whether temporarily or permanently so. It’s quite another to say “work should be optional and the basics of life should be provided for all [via the work of others]”. I think you’ll find a few people who object to my 2nd paragraph, but extending the argument to the 3rd is a jump where you’ll lose a great number of reasonable people.

miltondts 5y ago
What do we do when automation reaches most jobs? Create artificial jobs to keep people busy? Now that I think about it, that seems to be what we have been doing for some 30-40 years now. By artificial jobs, I mean jobs that if they disappeared, life would go on pretty much the same. This was in fact quite visible during all the lock-downs. Many many people no longer worked and all the essential and many non-essential things where still produced.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Probably the same thing we did when agriculture went from 70% of the workforce to under 1.5%. People will adapt to fill new demands. If it comes to pass at some future time that machines can do all the work and everyone can live a Garden of Eden existence, goods and services will be so cheap due to their natural abundance, that UBI might be feasible but food and essentials might be almost not worth the trouble of metering. We’re really, really far from that being a reality or concern, IMO.
  - miltondts 5y ago
    But why are we forcing people to work for the essentials when the essentials (water, food, shelter) require a tiny fraction of the population and resources? Is this the kind of society that we want to live in? Where trough automation and first mover advantage we allow people to be ridiculously rich while the rest of the population struggles to get by?

jokethrowaway 5y ago

I agree it's a moral issue, I spent a significant amount of time thinking about the subject and my conclusion is that forcing people to give away their money is immoral, no matter how good the cause you're contributing money to. After interviewing several people, I reached the conclusion most people don't think at all about the issue and have therefore incredibly inconsistent philosophical positions on issues.

cosmodisk 5y ago

There's more to it. The biggest problems,in my opinion,is not the fact that poor Joe is benefiting from not to so poor Jack's tax payments via benefits. The problem starts when there's no end to the support. For instance, you can be on housing benefits for years and that's wrong. The system is poorly implemented and some deeply structural problems never get addressed ( e.g. long term unemployment in a family, single mothers with children and their ability to work+ raise children, etc). Most of these issues require a wide spectrum of solutions,often interlinking with each other,but nobody really want to change anything apart from add/remove a few quid off the benefits payments.