11 ms·

"People don't stop working if you give them basic income." They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people. "Basic income" is just another way of saying "rece

"People don't stop working if you give them basic income." They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people. "Basic income" is just another way of saying "receive a state pension at 18". The alternative is obvious - ensure that everybody can always sell their labour hours at a fixed rate. If you have to give up your hours to earn money, then that is the same as everybody else. There is no longer a differential between the "unemployed rate" and the "employed rate" which eliminates the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something".

marcus_holmes 5y ago
> They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people. A lot of retired people still work, despite not needing the income. > the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something". There's this myth again. People don't need to be attracted from "doing nothing". The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning. We don't need to be "attracted" to that. That's the default.
- mantas 5y ago
  And a lot of retired people do not work. Can society sustain a big portion of people of any age leaving the job market? Who will put together funds to pay UBI?
  - Stranger43 5y ago
    The answer is actually yes. But only if you drop the current crop of disproved morality based economic models that make up the bulk of the curriculum at most schools of business. The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become without necessarily impacting the real world industrial/agricultural output, but because of dogmatic policies designed to facility wealth hording we pretend that we cannot really end poverty. Another problem is that we measure societal success based on how well the 20% richest lives rather then on how well the 20% poorest live. which again support wealth hording policies that will eventually clash with the ideal that democracy, freedom and equally, should be available to everyone not just an small elite as was the case in ancient Rome or Greece(and to some extend The American south until ca 1970).
    - mantas 5y ago
      That doesn't explain at all what would happen if 50% workforce walked out the door tomorrow and expected the rest of workforce to provide them. Stopping money printing is an interesting idea though.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > Stopping money printing is an interesting idea though. If I'm reading it right, that's the opposite of what the person you replied to was suggesting: > The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become
        mantas 5y ago
        I'm not sure how to read it TBH. When you print money, value of assets keep going up with the inflation. So the rich who have assets would stay rich, the poor would loose. If OP wanted to claim the opposite, I don't see how it makes sense.
      - dagw 5y ago
        if 50% workforce walked out the door tomorrow You could always import more, UBI exempt, workers if that becomes a problem. Of course that might bring some of its own problems.
        mantas 5y ago
        Why would you come to work to a country with super high taxes? On the other hand, workforce may be coming from another UBI territory with same taxation. What would happen in their former country? Would they still pay UBI taxes to it?
        dagw 5y ago
        Why would you come to work to a country with super high taxes? Because even with the "super high taxes" you'll probably still earn more than you would in your home country of Honduras or Mozambique or wherever labor will be imported from. People are crossing the border today for a chance to illegally pick produce or work low level construction. Making that easier will only make it more popular. Plus adding a clear path to Citizenship (say after working 7-10 years on a non-UBI visa) will only make it easier to attract people. As to who gets UBI what happens when you leave a country with UBI, that is an interesting question. My initial reaction would be that you can only get UBI if you are a citizen or permanent resident AND live in the country (say a minimum of 4-6 month out of the year). If you emigrate you lose UBI, but that is a separate discussion.
- dbsmith83 5y ago
  > The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning... The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning. I disagree. That rosy perspective comes off as being really naive
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    It's based on extensive experience. I've been homeless, long-term unemployed, manual labourer, company director, CEO, and everything in between. I also have an MBA, but that's probably irrelevant here. People really don't want to sit around doing nothing. They want to be useful, contribute, lead productive lives. Sitting around on the porch drinking beer is really boring after a relatively short while. Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.
    - dbsmith83 5y ago
      Great, but I also have extensive life experience too meeting people from all walks of life, and I know plenty of people who would rather sit around and get loaded than work. Hell, there's enough of them already without UBI such that it is already a burden upon our healthcare system. The last thing we need is more of them. > Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable. reminds me of a great Office Space quote: Michael Bolton : No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars. Please tell me, who actually works because they enjoy cleaning shit up and not to just get paid?
      - marcus_holmes 5y ago
        The cleaner at my old office in the UK. Loved her job. Semi-retired old lady, came in, chatted to everyone, only worked a few hours a week, great cleaner. Ex-girlfriend worked as a maid in a hotel in Broome while travelling. Perfect job, no responsibility, you could do it with a hangover, free accommodation, enough money to drink, an instant social life with the other employees. Stayed there for months until she decided she had to see other places. I'm not saying they'd do it for free - well, possibly the cleaner in the UK (forgotten her name). But they definitely weren't stuck there doing a job they hated just for the money.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
That's just wrong. A Basic Income is nothing like a retirement pension. The 'B' stands for 'Basic'. Most of us already work to get better things. That won't change. Its a strawman that won't die - that the Basic Income is going to make people well-off for no work.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  I try to assume good faith with these people – that it's not a straw argument –, but in doing so, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place: • I can assume they're just wrong, and don't understand the implications of what they're saying, ignoring other people because they're profoundly confused • or I can assume, instead, that they believe the basic entitlement of all people is less than the staying alive threshold – i.e., that human life doesn't have inherent value. I hope this is a false dichotomy.
  - someguy321 5y ago
    I can try to provide a perspective. From what moral authority do positive rights originate? (a right that requires someone to provide you with a good or service) From what moral authority do negative rights originate? (a right that prevents somebody from interfering with you or harming you) Over the course of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, negative rights have been developed successfully in legal systems around the world. We've seen demonstrable evidence that enforcing protections of negative rights results in a happier and more productive population. Different countries have also, generally more recently, brought forth positive rights by various means- welfare programs, socialism, full communism, or otherwise. People that tend to care more about negative rights than positive rights tend toward right-libertarianism. Positive rights, in a sense, require those who can provide to forfeit some of their freedom, in order to help those who require it. There is a non-zero risk that a well-meaning welfare or socialist policy fails in its mission despite good intentions. Many of the communist states with the most heartfelt populist movements have seen the deepest failures. So in the right-libertarian mindset, there is a risk of a two-fold (or perhaps threefold) failure: -It promised to provide (positive rights) prosperity to all, and it didn't -It had to trample on the negative rights of the wealthy to try to redistribute their wealth -(more vague)It eroded many individuals' notion of self-determination in the process, and in doing so left them less likely to work towards their own values. Separately, there's the important notion of what the "staying alive threshold" is. Almost nobody in G7 countries dies of hunger or thirst, and those who do were likely in a crisis not determined by lack of access. Statistically, life expectancy increases with income up to and past $100,000/yr. The spectrum in between is fraught.
username90 5y ago
> They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people. Most software engineers or equivalent workers could retire right now or within a few years with their savings if they kept their expenses at what basic income would give. Yet basically none of them do it, why?
- foogazi 5y ago
  Because there is no guarantee that future expenses (medical, food, housing) will be fixed in cost
  - username90 5y ago
    There you go, there is no guarantee of future UBI either.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

> They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people. A lot of retired people still work, despite not needing the income. > the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something". There's this myth again. People don't need to be attracted from "doing nothing". The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning. We don't need to be "attracted" to that. That's the default.

mantas 5y ago
And a lot of retired people do not work. Can society sustain a big portion of people of any age leaving the job market? Who will put together funds to pay UBI?
- Stranger43 5y ago
  The answer is actually yes. But only if you drop the current crop of disproved morality based economic models that make up the bulk of the curriculum at most schools of business. The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become without necessarily impacting the real world industrial/agricultural output, but because of dogmatic policies designed to facility wealth hording we pretend that we cannot really end poverty. Another problem is that we measure societal success based on how well the 20% richest lives rather then on how well the 20% poorest live. which again support wealth hording policies that will eventually clash with the ideal that democracy, freedom and equally, should be available to everyone not just an small elite as was the case in ancient Rome or Greece(and to some extend The American south until ca 1970).
  - mantas 5y ago
    That doesn't explain at all what would happen if 50% workforce walked out the door tomorrow and expected the rest of workforce to provide them. Stopping money printing is an interesting idea though.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      > Stopping money printing is an interesting idea though. If I'm reading it right, that's the opposite of what the person you replied to was suggesting: > The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become
      - mantas 5y ago
        I'm not sure how to read it TBH. When you print money, value of assets keep going up with the inflation. So the rich who have assets would stay rich, the poor would loose. If OP wanted to claim the opposite, I don't see how it makes sense.
    - dagw 5y ago
      if 50% workforce walked out the door tomorrow You could always import more, UBI exempt, workers if that becomes a problem. Of course that might bring some of its own problems.
      - mantas 5y ago
        Why would you come to work to a country with super high taxes? On the other hand, workforce may be coming from another UBI territory with same taxation. What would happen in their former country? Would they still pay UBI taxes to it?
        dagw 5y ago
        Why would you come to work to a country with super high taxes? Because even with the "super high taxes" you'll probably still earn more than you would in your home country of Honduras or Mozambique or wherever labor will be imported from. People are crossing the border today for a chance to illegally pick produce or work low level construction. Making that easier will only make it more popular. Plus adding a clear path to Citizenship (say after working 7-10 years on a non-UBI visa) will only make it easier to attract people. As to who gets UBI what happens when you leave a country with UBI, that is an interesting question. My initial reaction would be that you can only get UBI if you are a citizen or permanent resident AND live in the country (say a minimum of 4-6 month out of the year). If you emigrate you lose UBI, but that is a separate discussion.
dbsmith83 5y ago
> The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning... The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning. I disagree. That rosy perspective comes off as being really naive
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  It's based on extensive experience. I've been homeless, long-term unemployed, manual labourer, company director, CEO, and everything in between. I also have an MBA, but that's probably irrelevant here. People really don't want to sit around doing nothing. They want to be useful, contribute, lead productive lives. Sitting around on the porch drinking beer is really boring after a relatively short while. Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.
  - dbsmith83 5y ago
    Great, but I also have extensive life experience too meeting people from all walks of life, and I know plenty of people who would rather sit around and get loaded than work. Hell, there's enough of them already without UBI such that it is already a burden upon our healthcare system. The last thing we need is more of them. > Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable. reminds me of a great Office Space quote: Michael Bolton : No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars. Please tell me, who actually works because they enjoy cleaning shit up and not to just get paid?
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
      The cleaner at my old office in the UK. Loved her job. Semi-retired old lady, came in, chatted to everyone, only worked a few hours a week, great cleaner. Ex-girlfriend worked as a maid in a hotel in Broome while travelling. Perfect job, no responsibility, you could do it with a hangover, free accommodation, enough money to drink, an instant social life with the other employees. Stayed there for months until she decided she had to see other places. I'm not saying they'd do it for free - well, possibly the cleaner in the UK (forgotten her name). But they definitely weren't stuck there doing a job they hated just for the money.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

That's just wrong. A Basic Income is nothing like a retirement pension. The 'B' stands for 'Basic'. Most of us already work to get better things. That won't change. Its a strawman that won't die - that the Basic Income is going to make people well-off for no work.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
I try to assume good faith with these people – that it's not a straw argument –, but in doing so, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place: • I can assume they're just wrong, and don't understand the implications of what they're saying, ignoring other people because they're profoundly confused • or I can assume, instead, that they believe the basic entitlement of all people is less than the staying alive threshold – i.e., that human life doesn't have inherent value. I hope this is a false dichotomy.
- someguy321 5y ago
  I can try to provide a perspective. From what moral authority do positive rights originate? (a right that requires someone to provide you with a good or service) From what moral authority do negative rights originate? (a right that prevents somebody from interfering with you or harming you) Over the course of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, negative rights have been developed successfully in legal systems around the world. We've seen demonstrable evidence that enforcing protections of negative rights results in a happier and more productive population. Different countries have also, generally more recently, brought forth positive rights by various means- welfare programs, socialism, full communism, or otherwise. People that tend to care more about negative rights than positive rights tend toward right-libertarianism. Positive rights, in a sense, require those who can provide to forfeit some of their freedom, in order to help those who require it. There is a non-zero risk that a well-meaning welfare or socialist policy fails in its mission despite good intentions. Many of the communist states with the most heartfelt populist movements have seen the deepest failures. So in the right-libertarian mindset, there is a risk of a two-fold (or perhaps threefold) failure: -It promised to provide (positive rights) prosperity to all, and it didn't -It had to trample on the negative rights of the wealthy to try to redistribute their wealth -(more vague)It eroded many individuals' notion of self-determination in the process, and in doing so left them less likely to work towards their own values. Separately, there's the important notion of what the "staying alive threshold" is. Almost nobody in G7 countries dies of hunger or thirst, and those who do were likely in a crisis not determined by lack of access. Statistically, life expectancy increases with income up to and past $100,000/yr. The spectrum in between is fraught.

username90 5y ago

> They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people. Most software engineers or equivalent workers could retire right now or within a few years with their savings if they kept their expenses at what basic income would give. Yet basically none of them do it, why?

foogazi 5y ago
Because there is no guarantee that future expenses (medical, food, housing) will be fixed in cost
- username90 5y ago
  There you go, there is no guarantee of future UBI either.