5 ms·

I'm arguing that there are many industries that would not survive workers having an alternative that provides for their basic needs, or would be transformed int

I'm arguing that there are many industries that would not survive workers having an alternative that provides for their basic needs, or would be transformed into niche, artisanal goods/services that would be out of reach of ordinary people.

danaris 5y ago
If an industry cannot survive without forcing workers into degrading conditions and poverty wages, then it does not deserve to survive.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Right, but the people who will suffer first and most from an industry dying out, or costs increasing, would be the poorest people.
  - danaris 5y ago
    The people who will suffer most from continuing the way we're going are also the poorest people. If the industry is dying out because we introduce universal basic income, then the poorest people will still be at least as well off as they are now, and in many cases much better, because they are guaranteed to continue to be able to pay their bills, no matter what happens with their employment status.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      If an industry dies out/becomes more expensive due to UBI, then the first people to lose access to the goods/services provided by that industry are the most economically constrained people. > guaranteed to continue to be able to pay their bills This all depends on how well your UBI keeps up with inflation. If you trigger runaway inflation, then you won't be able to buy bread with a wheelbarrow full of cash. Fundamentally, it's not about how much money people have, but about how much work they do. If UBI reduces the amount of work done overall in the economy, it will contract said economy and make everyone poorer as a result.
      - danaris 5y ago
        > This all depends on how well your UBI keeps up with inflation. Well, sure. That's more or less a given, but it's also an implementation detail, not a problem with UBI as a concept.
      - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
        So the conclusion of this study was that UBI would not reduce amount of work done overall in the economy. Another study discussed here showed only a mild net reduction in amount of paid work being done on the short term; and arguably the unpaid work being done instead was also beneficial to society. Interestingly, in general, UBI studies don't show really alarming reductions in amount of work done. Sadly they also don't show hoped for amazing increases in productivity either. It seems like the advantages and disadvantages of UBI for stimulating work seem to balance each other out. I think people's arguments don't need to be about the work aspect so much.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        As it has been pointed out, the studies are fundamentally flawed in that the participants know they are of a limited duration. Getting a stipend for a few months isn't enough to quit your job. Being promised one for the rest of your life certainly can be. UBI is basically communism lite - with all its flaws. People who are provided for tend to behave just like animals who are provided for - after all, people are animals - they mainly lounge around and try to amuse themselves. This isn't a moral judgement, just an observation. I've not seen any study that has conclusively refuted this. It is the rare, exceptional, person that will spend their free time on something truly productive and constructive. We can see examples of this already - we've made it very easy to get a loan and go to college, partially socializing college education. As a result, we have a surplus of college graduates and a shortage of labourers and trades. Introducing UBI would simply magnify this effect. When people have alternatives, they don't tend to want to go work on farms, construction sites, or in restaurants or shops. People work these jobs primarily because they would otherwise be destitute. I know that's why I did.
        5y ago
- bryan_w 5y ago
  If that industry is farming or construction or heck, even Tv manufacturing and HVAC, then what? Should we go back to living like it's 1789?
  - danaris 5y ago
    Let's be clear about something here: The only way an industry "can't survive" is if there is no price for their product/service at which both of these are true: 1) People can afford to pay for it 2) The employees can afford a living wage If an industry is vital to our modern way of life, but it fails to meet those criteria, there's a third option: government subsidies, ensuring that the price can stay affordable while not shortchanging the employees. However, as critical as I generally am of market-based solutions, in this case I genuinely believe that at least in the vast majority of cases, the second-order effects of the safety net offered by UBI will not require additional government subsidies for any vital industries. Some things may get more expensive, but overall, life will get better.

danaris 5y ago

If an industry cannot survive without forcing workers into degrading conditions and poverty wages, then it does not deserve to survive.

thegrimmest 5y ago
Right, but the people who will suffer first and most from an industry dying out, or costs increasing, would be the poorest people.
- danaris 5y ago
  The people who will suffer most from continuing the way we're going are also the poorest people. If the industry is dying out because we introduce universal basic income, then the poorest people will still be at least as well off as they are now, and in many cases much better, because they are guaranteed to continue to be able to pay their bills, no matter what happens with their employment status.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    If an industry dies out/becomes more expensive due to UBI, then the first people to lose access to the goods/services provided by that industry are the most economically constrained people. > guaranteed to continue to be able to pay their bills This all depends on how well your UBI keeps up with inflation. If you trigger runaway inflation, then you won't be able to buy bread with a wheelbarrow full of cash. Fundamentally, it's not about how much money people have, but about how much work they do. If UBI reduces the amount of work done overall in the economy, it will contract said economy and make everyone poorer as a result.
    - danaris 5y ago
      > This all depends on how well your UBI keeps up with inflation. Well, sure. That's more or less a given, but it's also an implementation detail, not a problem with UBI as a concept.
    - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
      So the conclusion of this study was that UBI would not reduce amount of work done overall in the economy. Another study discussed here showed only a mild net reduction in amount of paid work being done on the short term; and arguably the unpaid work being done instead was also beneficial to society. Interestingly, in general, UBI studies don't show really alarming reductions in amount of work done. Sadly they also don't show hoped for amazing increases in productivity either. It seems like the advantages and disadvantages of UBI for stimulating work seem to balance each other out. I think people's arguments don't need to be about the work aspect so much.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        As it has been pointed out, the studies are fundamentally flawed in that the participants know they are of a limited duration. Getting a stipend for a few months isn't enough to quit your job. Being promised one for the rest of your life certainly can be. UBI is basically communism lite - with all its flaws. People who are provided for tend to behave just like animals who are provided for - after all, people are animals - they mainly lounge around and try to amuse themselves. This isn't a moral judgement, just an observation. I've not seen any study that has conclusively refuted this. It is the rare, exceptional, person that will spend their free time on something truly productive and constructive. We can see examples of this already - we've made it very easy to get a loan and go to college, partially socializing college education. As a result, we have a surplus of college graduates and a shortage of labourers and trades. Introducing UBI would simply magnify this effect. When people have alternatives, they don't tend to want to go work on farms, construction sites, or in restaurants or shops. People work these jobs primarily because they would otherwise be destitute. I know that's why I did.
        5y ago
bryan_w 5y ago
If that industry is farming or construction or heck, even Tv manufacturing and HVAC, then what? Should we go back to living like it's 1789?
- danaris 5y ago
  Let's be clear about something here: The only way an industry "can't survive" is if there is no price for their product/service at which both of these are true: 1) People can afford to pay for it 2) The employees can afford a living wage If an industry is vital to our modern way of life, but it fails to meet those criteria, there's a third option: government subsidies, ensuring that the price can stay affordable while not shortchanging the employees. However, as critical as I generally am of market-based solutions, in this case I genuinely believe that at least in the vast majority of cases, the second-order effects of the safety net offered by UBI will not require additional government subsidies for any vital industries. Some things may get more expensive, but overall, life will get better.