5 ms·

I think that's the best argument for UBI. If people aren't constantly worried about being homeless and not having food, they are happier, healthier, more produc

I think that's the best argument for UBI. If people aren't constantly worried about being homeless and not having food, they are happier, healthier, more productive and live more fulfilling lives.

pydry 5y ago
Unfortunately policy is formed from a balance of competing powers, not as a result of an idea for doing what is best for people. I think it's a mistake to think that captains of industry want productivity above all else. They'll happily sacrifice productivity for certainty and compliance.
- Kye 5y ago
  Only having people working for them who want to work for them seems like an easy way to be sure of certainty and compliance.
  - gkop 5y ago
    That doesn’t ring true in my decade of management. Some people are just incapable of doing a bad job, and others just incapable of doing a good job. Whether or not they want to work for you.
    - Kye 5y ago
      A decade of management under a system where people have to work whatever job is available to them just to survive. That's a huge, screaming confounding variable. If the people you've managed have a meaningful choice in where to work, then they aren't the primary target of UBI.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Considering we’ve never (to my knowledge) had a system where People didn’t have to work to survive at some level - how would anyone know? Even idle noblity had expectations (military service, patrons of arts and society, etc).
adwn 5y ago
No, that's an argument for a proper social safety net, as implemented in many European countries. Most fulltime jobs pay better than a UBI ever could, so if you have a job, a) either your standard of living is so high that a change to UBI-only would be very disruptive and you'd still be worried about losing your job, b) or your standard of living is so low that you'd quickly accumulate enough of a financial buffer that you wouldn't have to worry about losing your job. Therefore, a UBI wouldn't be better than a social safety net in this regard. In both cases you wouldn't have to worry about starving, but you'd still have to worry about losing your income.
- newaccount74 5y ago
  The "social security net" we have in Europe isn't perfect, though. At least here in Austria they make you jump through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops to get assistance. There's not a single type of assistance you get, there's like 10 different things you can apply for, they all have different preconditions and navigating them is almost a full time job. And before people take a job, they have to think about which aid they are going to lose, etc. At the sametime they have to deal with the stigma of depending on social security. With UBI you wouldn't need any bureaucracy, you would always get more money if you worked even a shitty job, and noone would be jealous that you are freeloading because everyone gets UBI.
  - adwn 5y ago
    > The "social security net" we have in Europe isn't perfect, though. You're comparing the imperfect reality of an actual situation (unemployment benefits) against the utopian fantasy of an imagined best case scenario (UBI) – of course the imagined scenario will come out on top. The real result of a UBI will almost certainly look less rosy than the picture you paint, just like every other plan once it gets implemented. For example, this: > noone would be jealous that you are freeloading because everyone gets UBI would likely be wrong, because people would instead be jealous because you're "freeloading" by not working and therefore not paying taxes. Other ways a UBI could conceivably be bad or even worse than the current status quo: * Prices rise due to increased consumer spending capability, to the point where you have to work again to get above the poverty line. * Any realistic UBI is too low for people with special needs (like disabilities), so you'll again need a bureaucracy to deal with those cases. * If the UBI is independent of local cost-of-living, it'll most likely be too low to survive on it in high COL areas, like most large cities. If it's dependent on COL, the exact implementation won't please everyone.

I think that's the best argument for UBI. If people aren't constantly worried about being homeless and not having food, they are happier, healthier, more productive and live more fulfilling lives.

pydry 5y ago

Unfortunately policy is formed from a balance of competing powers, not as a result of an idea for doing what is best for people. I think it's a mistake to think that captains of industry want productivity above all else. They'll happily sacrifice productivity for certainty and compliance.

Kye 5y ago
Only having people working for them who want to work for them seems like an easy way to be sure of certainty and compliance.
- gkop 5y ago
  That doesn’t ring true in my decade of management. Some people are just incapable of doing a bad job, and others just incapable of doing a good job. Whether or not they want to work for you.
  - Kye 5y ago
    A decade of management under a system where people have to work whatever job is available to them just to survive. That's a huge, screaming confounding variable. If the people you've managed have a meaningful choice in where to work, then they aren't the primary target of UBI.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Considering we’ve never (to my knowledge) had a system where People didn’t have to work to survive at some level - how would anyone know? Even idle noblity had expectations (military service, patrons of arts and society, etc).

adwn 5y ago

No, that's an argument for a proper social safety net, as implemented in many European countries. Most fulltime jobs pay better than a UBI ever could, so if you have a job, a) either your standard of living is so high that a change to UBI-only would be very disruptive and you'd still be worried about losing your job, b) or your standard of living is so low that you'd quickly accumulate enough of a financial buffer that you wouldn't have to worry about losing your job. Therefore, a UBI wouldn't be better than a social safety net in this regard. In both cases you wouldn't have to worry about starving, but you'd still have to worry about losing your income.

newaccount74 5y ago
The "social security net" we have in Europe isn't perfect, though. At least here in Austria they make you jump through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops to get assistance. There's not a single type of assistance you get, there's like 10 different things you can apply for, they all have different preconditions and navigating them is almost a full time job. And before people take a job, they have to think about which aid they are going to lose, etc. At the sametime they have to deal with the stigma of depending on social security. With UBI you wouldn't need any bureaucracy, you would always get more money if you worked even a shitty job, and noone would be jealous that you are freeloading because everyone gets UBI.
- adwn 5y ago
  > The "social security net" we have in Europe isn't perfect, though. You're comparing the imperfect reality of an actual situation (unemployment benefits) against the utopian fantasy of an imagined best case scenario (UBI) – of course the imagined scenario will come out on top. The real result of a UBI will almost certainly look less rosy than the picture you paint, just like every other plan once it gets implemented. For example, this: > noone would be jealous that you are freeloading because everyone gets UBI would likely be wrong, because people would instead be jealous because you're "freeloading" by not working and therefore not paying taxes. Other ways a UBI could conceivably be bad or even worse than the current status quo: * Prices rise due to increased consumer spending capability, to the point where you have to work again to get above the poverty line. * Any realistic UBI is too low for people with special needs (like disabilities), so you'll again need a bureaucracy to deal with those cases. * If the UBI is independent of local cost-of-living, it'll most likely be too low to survive on it in high COL areas, like most large cities. If it's dependent on COL, the exact implementation won't please everyone.