5 ms·

> 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' require

> 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.
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    > weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare Why would this happen? The rich and powerful do not have tons of cash. They have tons of assets, like houses, land, buildings, companies, boats, cars, etc. Inflation simply makes all of those things more valuable, so their wealth is not affected. Meanwhile all the extra free money that everybody else has is still not enough to buy those actual assets. Aren’t you pretending that supply and demand doesn’t exist?
    - Stranger43 5y ago
      All of this is assets that can loose value when inflation goes up, as they are denoted in the same currency that's inflating the reason they don't now is that we deliberately tie the value of money to the value of land. The problem for the wannabe feudalists is the same that killed off the landed gentry, when workers got rights and privileges in the 18th century, is that land not worked is not really worth anything so they will have to spend more and more of their profit maintaining the productivity as people gain more economic power to live elsewhere or differently. And cheap land is around especially if you break free of the large cities.
      - jtbayly 5y ago
        So... yeah, you're ignoring supply and demand. We haven't tied the value of money to the value of land. Land has value. If you want it, you have to pay for it. (Unless you are advocating for the government to seize all property.) If the value of money goes down (which is what you said to let happen), then the cost of land goes up. On what basis do you claim that hard assets will decrease in value as cash decreases in value? Can you name some examples where this has happened? Edit: I don't think you can, because the definition of inflation means that the costs of things are going up.
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.

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.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  > weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare Why would this happen? The rich and powerful do not have tons of cash. They have tons of assets, like houses, land, buildings, companies, boats, cars, etc. Inflation simply makes all of those things more valuable, so their wealth is not affected. Meanwhile all the extra free money that everybody else has is still not enough to buy those actual assets. Aren’t you pretending that supply and demand doesn’t exist?
  - Stranger43 5y ago
    All of this is assets that can loose value when inflation goes up, as they are denoted in the same currency that's inflating the reason they don't now is that we deliberately tie the value of money to the value of land. The problem for the wannabe feudalists is the same that killed off the landed gentry, when workers got rights and privileges in the 18th century, is that land not worked is not really worth anything so they will have to spend more and more of their profit maintaining the productivity as people gain more economic power to live elsewhere or differently. And cheap land is around especially if you break free of the large cities.
    - jtbayly 5y ago
      So... yeah, you're ignoring supply and demand. We haven't tied the value of money to the value of land. Land has value. If you want it, you have to pay for it. (Unless you are advocating for the government to seize all property.) If the value of money goes down (which is what you said to let happen), then the cost of land goes up. On what basis do you claim that hard assets will decrease in value as cash decreases in value? Can you name some examples where this has happened? Edit: I don't think you can, because the definition of inflation means that the costs of things are going up.

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.