5 ms·

It also matters what jobs they change to. There is a documentary out there showing someone who could quit their regular job and become an artist thanks to an U

It also matters what jobs they change to. There is a documentary out there showing someone who could quit their regular job and become an artist thanks to an UBI pilot (Canada IIRC). It is presented as a positive example in that they did not become lazy, but just work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art. How many people will become artists with UBI introduced nationally? Who is going to buy all that art?

ForHackernews 1y ago
Who cares if anyone buys the art? In a world with basic income where people didn't have to worry about survival wages, people could make art just because they were moved to make art.
- unclad5968 1y ago
  And where will the money for UBI come from when everyone quits their job for non-income generating hobbies?
  - ForHackernews 1y ago
    Tax the AI companies? Their bots are built on the plundered wealth of all mankind and that wealth belongs to the commonweal by right. It's funny that this board can easily imagine AI destroying humanity but can't imagine a world where it enables them to quit their job.
- bko 1y ago
  I don't know, they went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work. This is the old Keynesian argument I never bought that you can pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in and it would stimulate the economy.
  - h2zizzle 1y ago
    "still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art." Read more closely.
  - ludston 1y ago
    To be fair, there is a massive percentage of non-productive jobs that are mostly security guards for goods and locations, and many inefficient roles related to ticket clipping, inefficient distribution and marketing that all stimulate the economy without being productive.
  - toss1 1y ago
    >>went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work. Umm, that is literally wrong, by your own definition. >>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art. I.e., they went from an employer paying them to do work to a variety of clients/customers paying them to do different work of nearly the same value. OFC, if everyone did it, the price of art might decline. Or demand might go up. Or both, or neither. We don't know. But either way, the example subject did NOT convert from productive to unproductive work.
    - floxy 1y ago
      Was it: $X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig or: $X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig + $Z from UBI
      - toss1 1y ago
        Good qstn. The phrasing does leave room for ambiguity, but "make revenue close to" certainly indicates meaning closer to "$X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig" >>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art
  - specialist 1y ago
    Arts & entertainment is (at least) 1% of USA's GDP. Roughly $1 trillion / year. Production of culture seems important and worthwhile to me. Probably apocryphal: UK's (then generous) dole led to the British Invasion (eg The Beatles).
1024core 1y ago
What I'm worried about is: who will produce our food? Who will fix our potholes? Who will fix our cars?
- xboxnolifes 1y ago
  The economic incentive doesn't just vanish because people have a little more money. Notwithstanding, a lot of people enjoy the work of being a mechanic.
  - Ferret7446 1y ago
    Is there enough to sustain the entire economy though?
    - xboxnolifes 1y ago
      Well, we're apparently significantly more wealthy as a society and individuals than XXX years ago. Yet, most people still seem to be working and the economy is stronger than ever (On a multi-century scale).
  - marcusverus 1y ago
    > The economic incentive doesn't just vanish because people have a little more money. The incentives are changed dramatically, though. The unworkability of the plan comes down to a very simple question: Why work for forty years, scrimping and saving to afford a meagre retirement, when a meagre retirement is on offer the moment you turn 18?
    - xboxnolifes 1y ago
      People have the option now to live like the meagre retirement of this proposed UBI while working, saving a ton more, and retire with a lot more than this UBI in far fewer years than 40. Instead, they spend more, because people always want more stuff. A meager retirement is not appealing to most 18 year olds. Or with this proposed UBI, why wouldn't people work 20 years and have a good retirement instead of the a meager one out of the gate? Why not work 40 for a great one?
dclowd9901 1y ago
There's lots of different kinds of art, some of it more commercially viable than others. Consider 3D designers selling print models, people like myself who are interested in restoring old cars or other endeavors that are artistically rewarding and aren't just painting or sculpting. Hell, people seem to do pretty well currently as content creators on YouTube. My point is immediately jumping to the idea everyone's going to be pumping out shitty paintings and music that no one will want is lacking in imagination.

ForHackernews 1y ago

Who cares if anyone buys the art? In a world with basic income where people didn't have to worry about survival wages, people could make art just because they were moved to make art.

unclad5968 1y ago
And where will the money for UBI come from when everyone quits their job for non-income generating hobbies?
- ForHackernews 1y ago
  Tax the AI companies? Their bots are built on the plundered wealth of all mankind and that wealth belongs to the commonweal by right. It's funny that this board can easily imagine AI destroying humanity but can't imagine a world where it enables them to quit their job.
bko 1y ago
I don't know, they went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work. This is the old Keynesian argument I never bought that you can pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in and it would stimulate the economy.
- h2zizzle 1y ago
  "still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art." Read more closely.
- ludston 1y ago
  To be fair, there is a massive percentage of non-productive jobs that are mostly security guards for goods and locations, and many inefficient roles related to ticket clipping, inefficient distribution and marketing that all stimulate the economy without being productive.
- toss1 1y ago
  >>went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work. Umm, that is literally wrong, by your own definition. >>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art. I.e., they went from an employer paying them to do work to a variety of clients/customers paying them to do different work of nearly the same value. OFC, if everyone did it, the price of art might decline. Or demand might go up. Or both, or neither. We don't know. But either way, the example subject did NOT convert from productive to unproductive work.
  - floxy 1y ago
    Was it: $X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig or: $X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig + $Z from UBI
    - toss1 1y ago
      Good qstn. The phrasing does leave room for ambiguity, but "make revenue close to" certainly indicates meaning closer to "$X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig" >>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art
- specialist 1y ago
  Arts & entertainment is (at least) 1% of USA's GDP. Roughly $1 trillion / year. Production of culture seems important and worthwhile to me. Probably apocryphal: UK's (then generous) dole led to the British Invasion (eg The Beatles).

1024core 1y ago

What I'm worried about is: who will produce our food? Who will fix our potholes? Who will fix our cars?

xboxnolifes 1y ago
The economic incentive doesn't just vanish because people have a little more money. Notwithstanding, a lot of people enjoy the work of being a mechanic.
- Ferret7446 1y ago
  Is there enough to sustain the entire economy though?
  - xboxnolifes 1y ago
    Well, we're apparently significantly more wealthy as a society and individuals than XXX years ago. Yet, most people still seem to be working and the economy is stronger than ever (On a multi-century scale).
- marcusverus 1y ago
  > The economic incentive doesn't just vanish because people have a little more money. The incentives are changed dramatically, though. The unworkability of the plan comes down to a very simple question: Why work for forty years, scrimping and saving to afford a meagre retirement, when a meagre retirement is on offer the moment you turn 18?
  - xboxnolifes 1y ago
    People have the option now to live like the meagre retirement of this proposed UBI while working, saving a ton more, and retire with a lot more than this UBI in far fewer years than 40. Instead, they spend more, because people always want more stuff. A meager retirement is not appealing to most 18 year olds. Or with this proposed UBI, why wouldn't people work 20 years and have a good retirement instead of the a meager one out of the gate? Why not work 40 for a great one?

dclowd9901 1y ago

There's lots of different kinds of art, some of it more commercially viable than others. Consider 3D designers selling print models, people like myself who are interested in restoring old cars or other endeavors that are artistically rewarding and aren't just painting or sculpting. Hell, people seem to do pretty well currently as content creators on YouTube. My point is immediately jumping to the idea everyone's going to be pumping out shitty paintings and music that no one will want is lacking in imagination.