3 ms·

I also think that UBI would be generally a good thing, at least because it would help trim down the size of the bureaucracy administering the benefits. But if

I also think that UBI would be generally a good thing, at least because it would help trim down the size of the bureaucracy administering the benefits. But if it's a given that the proportion of working people is going down, it's not clear to me why UBI would be any help with "the remaining workers being worked harder and longer than ever before and taxed more heavily". UBI has to come from somewhere. And by removing the "moralistic approach", it's likely that some people who work tough jobs making a pittance would probably just stop.

LatteLazy 3y ago
There are a few reasons. Firstly people getting a pittance now for job X would also get ubi, so they'd be better off. And second, when that crappy job ceases to exist, they'd have something to fall back on (the UK where I am has basically no benefits for people who lose their jobs). If they quit, I am content for the free market to increase wages or otherwise make those jobs better. Separately if like to see shorter working hours (and so more people working). But that's not a ubi change.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  > There are a few reasons. Firstly people getting a pittance now for job X would also get ubi, so they'd be better off. Sure, but the value proposition of the shitty job would be lower, which would help decide in favor of stopping it altogether. But this doesn't show how those still working would be under any less pressure, and especially less taxation. The only way this could be improved I can imagine is by n-order effects. Some of the people who stop working would pick up some other activity that they enjoy, which would, directly or indirectly, produce some kind of riches, at least for them, at best that could be spread around society. But I don't think this can be reliably approximated beforehand.

3 ms·

I also think that UBI would be generally a good thing, at least because it would help trim down the size of the bureaucracy administering the benefits. But if

by vladvasiliu 3y ago

LatteLazy 3y ago
There are a few reasons. Firstly people getting a pittance now for job X would also get ubi, so they'd be better off. And second, when that crappy job ceases to exist, they'd have something to fall back on (the UK where I am has basically no benefits for people who lose their jobs). If they quit, I am content for the free market to increase wages or otherwise make those jobs better. Separately if like to see shorter working hours (and so more people working). But that's not a ubi change.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  > There are a few reasons. Firstly people getting a pittance now for job X would also get ubi, so they'd be better off. Sure, but the value proposition of the shitty job would be lower, which would help decide in favor of stopping it altogether. But this doesn't show how those still working would be under any less pressure, and especially less taxation. The only way this could be improved I can imagine is by n-order effects. Some of the people who stop working would pick up some other activity that they enjoy, which would, directly or indirectly, produce some kind of riches, at least for them, at best that could be spread around society. But I don't think this can be reliably approximated beforehand.