12 ms·

Some of it is whataboutism, sure. A direct line can be drawn to bank bailouts, airline bailouts, no bid government contracts, military spending and UBI. Our gov

Some of it is whataboutism, sure. A direct line can be drawn to bank bailouts, airline bailouts, no bid government contracts, military spending and UBI. Our government has decided to supplement the income of some and not others and expected something in return. UBI can be viewed in the same light. You can deduct that much from social security, welfare and government college programs. Those are easy ones, right there. Now it gets more difficult, but that's no small amount - and I'm only talking about the proposed 12K per year UBI. You seem to be under the assumption that people are just going to kick back and retire in Cabo on this, for some reason. You can cut some treatment subsidy programs, because at that point, if a junkie wants to get clean that's where that money should go. Prisoner's payouts get cut, and in America that's not a small amount. This is a 5 minute budget analysis and not even a real thought process, but people get so emotional about these things that all rational thought goes by the wayside of any benefits that might occur. People might not have so much worry about job insecurity of being one bill away from homelessness. Higher education would be more attainable for so many people. A single income family might be able to take care of a child while one of the parents focused on educating and helping the child become a decent member of society. If you don't want to help fix the present and the future then you shouldn't complain about it. If you're fine with the direction everything is going, then that's great.

ethbr0 5y ago
One thing that I've always been curious about with UBI is why not aim to self-sufficiency? In that, say the US pays UBI, which people use to purchase basic goods, which come from non-US manufacturers. (and I realize this next flies in the face of 200 years of economic theory) ... But if UBI is a bridge to a post-scarcity society, then shouldn't the emphasis be on post-scarcity? Not just redirecting funds? Which is to say, funding highly automated manufacturing of basic, non-customized, functional good to zero?
- avidiax 5y ago
  You'll never get the prices of food, warmth and shelter down to zero, even if these commodities are no longer scarce. The present system requires you to have active hands in the creation of these commodities or you don't get a share. In the face of increasing efficiencies, offshoring, etc. people's offer of labor may not find a buyer, making them unemployable. That's where UBI comes in, to assure that post-scarcity is enjoyed by all, not just those that have marketable labor. Where this gets complicated is the moralizing. But it's not the moral thing to let your neighbor starve when you've got surplus food, even if there's some game theory that you will generate free riders, or some of these people aren't "deserving", or working folks divert a little bit more of the fruits of their labor than they already do, or other societies that are a race to the bottom of human welfare will out-compete us.

ethbr0 5y ago

One thing that I've always been curious about with UBI is why not aim to self-sufficiency? In that, say the US pays UBI, which people use to purchase basic goods, which come from non-US manufacturers. (and I realize this next flies in the face of 200 years of economic theory) ... But if UBI is a bridge to a post-scarcity society, then shouldn't the emphasis be on post-scarcity? Not just redirecting funds? Which is to say, funding highly automated manufacturing of basic, non-customized, functional good to zero?

avidiax 5y ago
You'll never get the prices of food, warmth and shelter down to zero, even if these commodities are no longer scarce. The present system requires you to have active hands in the creation of these commodities or you don't get a share. In the face of increasing efficiencies, offshoring, etc. people's offer of labor may not find a buyer, making them unemployable. That's where UBI comes in, to assure that post-scarcity is enjoyed by all, not just those that have marketable labor. Where this gets complicated is the moralizing. But it's not the moral thing to let your neighbor starve when you've got surplus food, even if there's some game theory that you will generate free riders, or some of these people aren't "deserving", or working folks divert a little bit more of the fruits of their labor than they already do, or other societies that are a race to the bottom of human welfare will out-compete us.