3 ms·

I think that you stretched the game analogy far beyond what reality allows for. Virtual avatars don't actually "need" anything. Sure, there are things you _want

by dolni 5y ago

I think that you stretched the game analogy far beyond what reality allows for. Virtual avatars don't actually "need" anything. Sure, there are things you _want_ in the game. You won't freeze to death without clothing, you won't starve to death if you don't eat, and even if you did, you would just respawn. I think UBI as a model sucks, for a bunch of reasons. 1. It allows people to do nothing. People who are able should work. People who can't, we can help. But it shouldn't be an abusable system where one can simply say "I can't work" and no questions are asked. Everybody in society can't just say "I don't want to work" -- everything would fall apart if we did that. In the interest of fairness, then, all who are able should contribute. 2. What do you do when someone blows their UBI on drugs or gambles it away? Do you just let them starve to death? Maybe they don't have a drug or gambling problem, but they just suck at managing money and routinely overextend themselves. How do you handle that? If your answer is "just give them more money", then we have a big problem where now anybody can game the system for as much money as they want. If your answer is "tough shit", I think you will miss some nuanced situations. 3. Do people with children get more? Can we put a cap on that, or do people just get to have as many children as they like, and everyone else has to pay? Kids in the US are already fairly heavily subsidized through tax breaks. 4. All the people who are doing the work to make UBI viable get nothing from it (sure they get a check, but that's just going to be some amount less than whatever extra they pay in tax to support the system). There's nobody there to ask questions and keep people honest. And yes, there is administrative overhead for social services you need to qualify for, but I'd argue that has its benefit in encouraging people to be productive members of society and not moochers. I don't think UBI would result in mass unemployment but I do think we'd have a good number of people at the bottom doing absolutely nothing productive with their lives. All that said, I do think that social services need an overhaul. I just don't think UBI is the way.

thomastjeffery 5y ago
> 1. It allows people to do nothing. People who are able should work. People who can't, we can help. But it shouldn't be an abusable system where one can simply say "I can't work" and no questions are asked. Everybody in society can't just say "I don't want to work" -- everything would fall apart if we did that. This is GP's entire point. Given the freedom to choose what to do, "do nothing" is not a common choice. In a world where everyone has the option to say, "I don't want to work", most won't actually say that, especially in the long term. > In the interest of fairness, then, all who are able should contribute. Why fairness? The system we have now is incredibly unfair. UBI would at least provide more fairness by removing wage slavery. Points 2 and 3 are about trivial implementation details: 2. Addictions are already putting people in poverty, and the best solution is recovery from those addictions. That recovery requires access to healthcare. 3. Children are people who can't really manage finances yet, so it's pretty obvious that their caretakers would be recipient to their income. People aren't having that many children, and wealthier parents tend to have significantly fewer children than parents who experience poverty. Remember you were a child once, too. 4. Of course people who are working will earn more than they have to pay in taxes. It will look like less than they make today if you don't include their universal basic income, but it will be entirely (by definition) disposable income. 4. There's no need to keep people honest in the first place. That's a key feature. You can only cheat social security if you aren't entitled to it, and literally everyone is entitled to UBI. > I don't think UBI would result in mass unemployment but I do think we'd have a good number of people at the bottom doing absolutely nothing productive with their lives. Prove it. I don't see any evidence to support that conclusion, and I see a wealth of evidence that contradicts it. The reality is that most people don't need to be working in the first place. Right now, half of the wealth in the US is concentrated to only 50 individuals, yet most of the rest of us aren't experiencing scarcity. Those who are don't choose to out of laziness.
- dolni 5y ago
  > This is GP's entire point. Given the freedom to choose what to do, "do nothing" is not a common choice. In a world where everyone has the option to say, "I don't want to work", most won't actually say that, especially in the long term. Absolutely wrong? The U-3 unemployment rate always lags 3-7% behind the U-6: https://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/ https://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/ To suggest up to 7% of people just not looking for a job is "not a common choice" is terribly misleading. Even during good periods for the economy, the number sits around 4%. I don't expect that number to get smaller by adding UBI. Do you? > Why fairness? The system we have now is incredibly unfair. UBI would at least provide more fairness by removing wage slavery. Why not fairness? How many individuals can you speak to who have done _literally anything_ to invest in their career skills who are earning "wage slavery" levels of pay? If you're 30 years old, and the best thing you can do is make Subway sandwiches... what are you doing with your life? > 2. Addictions are already putting people in poverty, and the best solution is recovery from those addictions. That recovery requires access to healthcare. Access to healthcare and UBI are different discussions entirely. And often "access to healthcare" by itself is not sufficient to get people to stop being addicted. You actually have to hold them accountable. I recommend watching a documentary called "Seattle is Dying" [1] to see why just being nice is not a solution. > 3. Children are people who can't really manage finances yet, so it's pretty obvious that their caretakers would be recipient to their income. People aren't having that many children, and wealthier parents tend to have significantly fewer children than parents who experience poverty. Remember you were a child once, too. Ah, so we just give people more money to have more children. I don't see any problem with that - it clearly can't be abused. > 4. Of course people who are working will earn more than they have to pay in taxes. It will look like less than they make today if you don't include their universal basic income, but it will be entirely (by definition) disposable income. What point are you even making here? The money to pay for UBI has to come from somewhere. If it comes from taxes, the people who are working and making beyond some threshold will now be making less. And what is that threshold? $70k? $80k? $100k? If the government just prints more money, inflation becomes a concern and that impacts everybody. > 4. There's no need to keep people honest in the first place. That's a key feature. You can only cheat social security if you aren't entitled to it, and literally everyone is entitled to UBI. Uh... lol? Are you aware of many fradulent benefits were claimed over the last year or so of the pandemic [2]? Many of those claims were people stealing _other peoples'_ benefits, viable either because the recipient was dead, incapacitated, or in prison. There is no "feature" here. > Prove it. I don't see any evidence to support that conclusion, and I see a wealth of evidence that contradicts it. If you don't see the evidence, you haven't really been looking very hard. At any given moment in the US, 3% or more of our population could be working and isn't even looking for a job. > The reality is that most people don't need to be working in the first place. Says who? > Right now, half of the wealth in the US is concentrated to only 50 individuals, yet most of the rest of us aren't experiencing scarcity. Wealth concentration is an entirely different problem than UBI. > Those who are don't choose to out of laziness. There are absolutely people who are living in poverty because they are lazy. I can tell you that with certainty because I know people who fit that mold. And I can tell you, knowing people who actually work in social service roles, there are more than you think. UBI is a non-starter for the same reason communism is. Humans are inherently greedy, and any system we operate in must account for that. Capitalism is effective precisely because it exploits that greed. It's not without its drawbacks, but nothing is. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw [2] https://reason.com/2021/02/22/there-has-been-a-mind-boggling-amount-of-unemployment-fraud-since-the-cares-act-passed https://reason.com/2021/02/22/there-has-been-a-mind-boggling...

by dolni 5y ago

thomastjeffery 5y ago

> 1. It allows people to do nothing. People who are able should work. People who can't, we can help. But it shouldn't be an abusable system where one can simply say "I can't work" and no questions are asked. Everybody in society can't just say "I don't want to work" -- everything would fall apart if we did that. This is GP's entire point. Given the freedom to choose what to do, "do nothing" is not a common choice. In a world where everyone has the option to say, "I don't want to work", most won't actually say that, especially in the long term. > In the interest of fairness, then, all who are able should contribute. Why fairness? The system we have now is incredibly unfair. UBI would at least provide more fairness by removing wage slavery. Points 2 and 3 are about trivial implementation details: 2. Addictions are already putting people in poverty, and the best solution is recovery from those addictions. That recovery requires access to healthcare. 3. Children are people who can't really manage finances yet, so it's pretty obvious that their caretakers would be recipient to their income. People aren't having that many children, and wealthier parents tend to have significantly fewer children than parents who experience poverty. Remember you were a child once, too. 4. Of course people who are working will earn more than they have to pay in taxes. It will look like less than they make today if you don't include their universal basic income, but it will be entirely (by definition) disposable income. 4. There's no need to keep people honest in the first place. That's a key feature. You can only cheat social security if you aren't entitled to it, and literally everyone is entitled to UBI. > I don't think UBI would result in mass unemployment but I do think we'd have a good number of people at the bottom doing absolutely nothing productive with their lives. Prove it. I don't see any evidence to support that conclusion, and I see a wealth of evidence that contradicts it. The reality is that most people don't need to be working in the first place. Right now, half of the wealth in the US is concentrated to only 50 individuals, yet most of the rest of us aren't experiencing scarcity. Those who are don't choose to out of laziness.

dolni 5y ago
> This is GP's entire point. Given the freedom to choose what to do, "do nothing" is not a common choice. In a world where everyone has the option to say, "I don't want to work", most won't actually say that, especially in the long term. Absolutely wrong? The U-3 unemployment rate always lags 3-7% behind the U-6: https://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/ https://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/ To suggest up to 7% of people just not looking for a job is "not a common choice" is terribly misleading. Even during good periods for the economy, the number sits around 4%. I don't expect that number to get smaller by adding UBI. Do you? > Why fairness? The system we have now is incredibly unfair. UBI would at least provide more fairness by removing wage slavery. Why not fairness? How many individuals can you speak to who have done _literally anything_ to invest in their career skills who are earning "wage slavery" levels of pay? If you're 30 years old, and the best thing you can do is make Subway sandwiches... what are you doing with your life? > 2. Addictions are already putting people in poverty, and the best solution is recovery from those addictions. That recovery requires access to healthcare. Access to healthcare and UBI are different discussions entirely. And often "access to healthcare" by itself is not sufficient to get people to stop being addicted. You actually have to hold them accountable. I recommend watching a documentary called "Seattle is Dying" [1] to see why just being nice is not a solution. > 3. Children are people who can't really manage finances yet, so it's pretty obvious that their caretakers would be recipient to their income. People aren't having that many children, and wealthier parents tend to have significantly fewer children than parents who experience poverty. Remember you were a child once, too. Ah, so we just give people more money to have more children. I don't see any problem with that - it clearly can't be abused. > 4. Of course people who are working will earn more than they have to pay in taxes. It will look like less than they make today if you don't include their universal basic income, but it will be entirely (by definition) disposable income. What point are you even making here? The money to pay for UBI has to come from somewhere. If it comes from taxes, the people who are working and making beyond some threshold will now be making less. And what is that threshold? $70k? $80k? $100k? If the government just prints more money, inflation becomes a concern and that impacts everybody. > 4. There's no need to keep people honest in the first place. That's a key feature. You can only cheat social security if you aren't entitled to it, and literally everyone is entitled to UBI. Uh... lol? Are you aware of many fradulent benefits were claimed over the last year or so of the pandemic [2]? Many of those claims were people stealing _other peoples'_ benefits, viable either because the recipient was dead, incapacitated, or in prison. There is no "feature" here. > Prove it. I don't see any evidence to support that conclusion, and I see a wealth of evidence that contradicts it. If you don't see the evidence, you haven't really been looking very hard. At any given moment in the US, 3% or more of our population could be working and isn't even looking for a job. > The reality is that most people don't need to be working in the first place. Says who? > Right now, half of the wealth in the US is concentrated to only 50 individuals, yet most of the rest of us aren't experiencing scarcity. Wealth concentration is an entirely different problem than UBI. > Those who are don't choose to out of laziness. There are absolutely people who are living in poverty because they are lazy. I can tell you that with certainty because I know people who fit that mold. And I can tell you, knowing people who actually work in social service roles, there are more than you think. UBI is a non-starter for the same reason communism is. Humans are inherently greedy, and any system we operate in must account for that. Capitalism is effective precisely because it exploits that greed. It's not without its drawbacks, but nothing is. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw [2] https://reason.com/2021/02/22/there-has-been-a-mind-boggling-amount-of-unemployment-fraud-since-the-cares-act-passed https://reason.com/2021/02/22/there-has-been-a-mind-boggling...