3 ms·

> so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your work. I think you're mistaken on some parts. The problem that UBI is trying to solve i

> so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your work. I think you're mistaken on some parts. The problem that UBI is trying to solve is that we're quickly approaching a situation where we don't need people to 'contribute to society with their work' anymore. On some basic level the economy works because companies produce products and services and the consumer pays for those products and services. Currently the consumer side is in large part financed by wages. This means that a large part of the economy is dependent on a large part of the consumers being employed. This will be a problem when there is a very high possibility of mass unemployment when advances in AI will make most jobs obsolete. The solution is to decouple the consumer income from employment, through something like UBI. This allows people that are jobless to still contribute to the economy and keep (local) businesses alive. For this to work UBI actually does need to be able to provide a comfortable (desirable) life. This doesn't mean luxury, but it should allow someone to have a house, buy groceries, visit friends and family, use (public) transport, go on a 2 week (national) vacation every year, save a little bit. If the UBI is not enough to provide a comfortable life, people will still need to work which doesn't solve the problem. I think making the UBI low enough that most people will still work is exactly what would cause inflation. If the UBI replaces wage, the amount of money in circulation wouldn't change, so no inflationary pressure. If people keep working but get an extra UBI on top, the amount of currency would greatly increase thus lead to inflation. Personally I think we all should just accept that if we allow people to truly choose what they want to do, some of them will choose to do nothing. But in general people are productive creatures, and most if not all, have some limit to the time they don't want to do anything. Besides that UBI would be a great incentive for people to start their own business, volunteering, or doing valuable things that are inherently unprofitable

carlmr 2y ago
>This will be a problem when there is a very high possibility of mass unemployment when advances in AI will make most jobs obsolete. We've been here a few times. Not with AI, but with the agricultural revolution (hunting and gathering became almost obsolete), the industrial revolution (physical force became almost obsolete, if it was not needed in conjunction with intelligence), the computer revolution (tedious data processing became obsolete), the internet (messengers and mail, as well as local businesses became almost obsolete)... Every time, large swaths of human work were made nigh-obsolete, but societal progress needed people to find other niches to work in to expand our societal wealth. If everybody just laid down their work and didn't look for anything new, some other civilization would have taken over, because somebody there would. >UBI. This allows people that are jobless to still contribute to the economy and keep (local) businesses alive. If the money they use is not backed by value production it will make everything more expensive, since the purchasing power of that currency depends on less value. Local business will be the last to be kept alive, because UBI will need to be lower than working wages to motivate others to continue working whose work is still needed. Local businesses have the habit of being more expensive. UBI receivers will be the last people able to afford that luxury. >I think making the UBI low enough that most people will still work is exactly what would cause inflation. Why? The more people work, the more value is being produced by this society, the less inflation there should be, due to costs being lower. >If the UBI replaces wage, the amount of money in circulation wouldn't change, so no inflationary pressure. But nobody worked for this money, since it's a redistribution it will have inflationary effects. Because there's the same amount of money, with less things to buy for it.

carlmr 2y ago

>This will be a problem when there is a very high possibility of mass unemployment when advances in AI will make most jobs obsolete. We've been here a few times. Not with AI, but with the agricultural revolution (hunting and gathering became almost obsolete), the industrial revolution (physical force became almost obsolete, if it was not needed in conjunction with intelligence), the computer revolution (tedious data processing became obsolete), the internet (messengers and mail, as well as local businesses became almost obsolete)... Every time, large swaths of human work were made nigh-obsolete, but societal progress needed people to find other niches to work in to expand our societal wealth. If everybody just laid down their work and didn't look for anything new, some other civilization would have taken over, because somebody there would. >UBI. This allows people that are jobless to still contribute to the economy and keep (local) businesses alive. If the money they use is not backed by value production it will make everything more expensive, since the purchasing power of that currency depends on less value. Local business will be the last to be kept alive, because UBI will need to be lower than working wages to motivate others to continue working whose work is still needed. Local businesses have the habit of being more expensive. UBI receivers will be the last people able to afford that luxury. >I think making the UBI low enough that most people will still work is exactly what would cause inflation. Why? The more people work, the more value is being produced by this society, the less inflation there should be, due to costs being lower. >If the UBI replaces wage, the amount of money in circulation wouldn't change, so no inflationary pressure. But nobody worked for this money, since it's a redistribution it will have inflationary effects. Because there's the same amount of money, with less things to buy for it.