6 ms·

UBI only sounds good if you don’t understand human motivation and game theory. If 10% of the population doesn’t have to work I can justify I’m helping those in

UBI only sounds good if you don’t understand human motivation and game theory. If 10% of the population doesn’t have to work I can justify I’m helping those in need. If 70% of the population doesn’t have to work there’s zero chance I’m working.

elygre 5y ago
Looking at what drives pretty much everybody I know, there is about a zero percent chance that any sizable portion of the population will chose to not work.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Then there’s no need for UBI.
  - wmf 5y ago
    If everybody wants to work but nobody will employ them then UBI is still needed.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      Sure. Now let's imagine you're in the top 10% of competence that has to work and I'm in the 15th percentile so I don't have to work because the robots outcompete me. Why would you work all day at a traditional job knowing that I get to do whatever I want all day? I get to travel, spend time with my family, enjoy my hobbies, focus on romantic relationships, all while you're working. And not just me, 90% of everyone on the planet gets to just do whatever we want while you must work. Would you accept that deal? Do you think the majority of the most competent people on the planet would accept that kind of deal?
- jimmaswell 5y ago
  Looking at people I know, they'd just sit around and smoke weed all day if they didn't have to work. I'd be interested to know what portion of the population is which.
noT1 5y ago
Depends on your definition of work. Culturally it tends to lean in a direction I’d call “make some richer person happy for a portion of nation-state scrip.” If you take a more scientific, physical, definition, raising kids is work. Learning anything is work.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  I feel it only makes sense to stick to the definition implied in the original post. If you change the definition, you’re having a completely different discussion.
  - noT1 5y ago
    Then why are you bringing up game theory?
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      The point is to apply game theory to the given premise, not change the premise in some way. Once you consider, even for a moment, how all the players in the proposed system would respond to their situation it obviously would not work.
      - noT1 5y ago
        I get what you mean, but you would expect people to import game theory yet importing anything yourself just confuses the whole thing? Politics aren’t manipulated and how things work are organic. So we should just be happy since look at this math, cause behavior and statistics aren’t game-able.
okareaman 5y ago
I think you are under-estimating the number of people who like having a job. Many retired people report not liking having nothing to do. The challenge will be to create more opportunities for people to learn, socialize, do something creative, find a hobby or some outdoor activity. I think it will be a better world when we transition people away from being wage slaves and enjoy the benefits of the creative activities of newly freed people.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Retirement is instructive as the intention of the retired to stay busy doesn’t match what they, in aggregate, actually do. We should expect similar difficulty with younger ages if we expand retirement to them.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  It's not about what the "non-productive" people will do to entertain themselves. They will socialize, pick up a hobby, spend time with their family, etc. There's no concern about them whatsoever. It's the rest of the population, the minority that is the most competent. These people, by definition laid out in the premise, cannot be replaced by one of the non-productive people because the non-productive cannot outcompete the robots. Let's imagine that robots get so good that only the most competent 30% of the population must work, in the traditional sense of the word work, to maintain the infrastructure, keep the robots going, whatever that looks like. Why would anyone in the most competent 30% of the population be willing to accept a deal where they must work because they are the most competent, but the less competent people get to spend all their time traveling, socializing, enjoying romantic relationships, etc? And remember, they must ALL accept this deal because if any significant percentage of them drops out the infrastructure isn't maintained.
  - wmf 5y ago
    Maybe they could live in Elysium.
  - mynameishere 5y ago
    Once you get down to 30 percent, you have an inner party/outer party situation within the 30 percent itself, in which society (as far as they are concerned) is mostly limited to those two groups, and their interplay. I mean: The 30 percent aren't really aware of the 70 percent, even when their upkeep comes out of every paycheck. When you add up everyone on social security, disability, government make-work jobs (which includes 95 percent of the military) and the assemblage of programs (section 8, EBT, medicaid) that constitute modern welfare, you are pretty much at 30/70 now. So...to answer your question, why are you accepting the deal as we speak?
gumby 5y ago
I struggle to understand the problem you’re trying to describe. So what if you don’t feel like working?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
llimos 5y ago
That's the 'B' in the UBI. If people want more than the basic, they'll work. Just like today, most people don't stop building a career once they have a basic salary.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  You’ve broken the premise. We instituted UBI because robots are so good nobody can justify paying you for your work. You don’t get to come behind that and say you’ll work for additional compensation. And the place it falls apart is the other side. Why would the 10% most competent people work a traditional job when everyone else can leisure travel, take up hobbies, spend time with family, or focus on romantic relationships?
  - llimos 5y ago
    > We instituted UBI because robots are so good nobody can justify paying you for your work Not nobody. There's enough work for some people. Just not enough for everyone, working 45 hours a week. > Why would the 10% most competent people work a traditional job when everyone else can leisure travel, take up hobbies, spend time with family, or focus on romantic relationships? Because they want a bigger house/car/yacht

elygre 5y ago

Looking at what drives pretty much everybody I know, there is about a zero percent chance that any sizable portion of the population will chose to not work.

Consultant32452 5y ago
Then there’s no need for UBI.
- wmf 5y ago
  If everybody wants to work but nobody will employ them then UBI is still needed.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Sure. Now let's imagine you're in the top 10% of competence that has to work and I'm in the 15th percentile so I don't have to work because the robots outcompete me. Why would you work all day at a traditional job knowing that I get to do whatever I want all day? I get to travel, spend time with my family, enjoy my hobbies, focus on romantic relationships, all while you're working. And not just me, 90% of everyone on the planet gets to just do whatever we want while you must work. Would you accept that deal? Do you think the majority of the most competent people on the planet would accept that kind of deal?
jimmaswell 5y ago
Looking at people I know, they'd just sit around and smoke weed all day if they didn't have to work. I'd be interested to know what portion of the population is which.

noT1 5y ago

Depends on your definition of work. Culturally it tends to lean in a direction I’d call “make some richer person happy for a portion of nation-state scrip.” If you take a more scientific, physical, definition, raising kids is work. Learning anything is work.

Consultant32452 5y ago
I feel it only makes sense to stick to the definition implied in the original post. If you change the definition, you’re having a completely different discussion.
- noT1 5y ago
  Then why are you bringing up game theory?
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    The point is to apply game theory to the given premise, not change the premise in some way. Once you consider, even for a moment, how all the players in the proposed system would respond to their situation it obviously would not work.
    - noT1 5y ago
      I get what you mean, but you would expect people to import game theory yet importing anything yourself just confuses the whole thing? Politics aren’t manipulated and how things work are organic. So we should just be happy since look at this math, cause behavior and statistics aren’t game-able.

okareaman 5y ago

I think you are under-estimating the number of people who like having a job. Many retired people report not liking having nothing to do. The challenge will be to create more opportunities for people to learn, socialize, do something creative, find a hobby or some outdoor activity. I think it will be a better world when we transition people away from being wage slaves and enjoy the benefits of the creative activities of newly freed people.

1123581321 5y ago
Retirement is instructive as the intention of the retired to stay busy doesn’t match what they, in aggregate, actually do. We should expect similar difficulty with younger ages if we expand retirement to them.
Consultant32452 5y ago
It's not about what the "non-productive" people will do to entertain themselves. They will socialize, pick up a hobby, spend time with their family, etc. There's no concern about them whatsoever. It's the rest of the population, the minority that is the most competent. These people, by definition laid out in the premise, cannot be replaced by one of the non-productive people because the non-productive cannot outcompete the robots. Let's imagine that robots get so good that only the most competent 30% of the population must work, in the traditional sense of the word work, to maintain the infrastructure, keep the robots going, whatever that looks like. Why would anyone in the most competent 30% of the population be willing to accept a deal where they must work because they are the most competent, but the less competent people get to spend all their time traveling, socializing, enjoying romantic relationships, etc? And remember, they must ALL accept this deal because if any significant percentage of them drops out the infrastructure isn't maintained.
- wmf 5y ago
  Maybe they could live in Elysium.
- mynameishere 5y ago
  Once you get down to 30 percent, you have an inner party/outer party situation within the 30 percent itself, in which society (as far as they are concerned) is mostly limited to those two groups, and their interplay. I mean: The 30 percent aren't really aware of the 70 percent, even when their upkeep comes out of every paycheck. When you add up everyone on social security, disability, government make-work jobs (which includes 95 percent of the military) and the assemblage of programs (section 8, EBT, medicaid) that constitute modern welfare, you are pretty much at 30/70 now. So...to answer your question, why are you accepting the deal as we speak?

gumby 5y ago

I struggle to understand the problem you’re trying to describe. So what if you don’t feel like working?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

llimos 5y ago

That's the 'B' in the UBI. If people want more than the basic, they'll work. Just like today, most people don't stop building a career once they have a basic salary.

Consultant32452 5y ago
You’ve broken the premise. We instituted UBI because robots are so good nobody can justify paying you for your work. You don’t get to come behind that and say you’ll work for additional compensation. And the place it falls apart is the other side. Why would the 10% most competent people work a traditional job when everyone else can leisure travel, take up hobbies, spend time with family, or focus on romantic relationships?
- llimos 5y ago
  > We instituted UBI because robots are so good nobody can justify paying you for your work Not nobody. There's enough work for some people. Just not enough for everyone, working 45 hours a week. > Why would the 10% most competent people work a traditional job when everyone else can leisure travel, take up hobbies, spend time with family, or focus on romantic relationships? Because they want a bigger house/car/yacht