3 ms·

UBI might work in the short-term, but as more and more people are having kids (and learning from parents on UBI, to also get UBI), we would run out of people ac

UBI might work in the short-term, but as more and more people are having kids (and learning from parents on UBI, to also get UBI), we would run out of people actually working and paying the taxes to support it.

conception 1y ago
This assumes that most people would be satisfied with UBI and not attempt to make more money.
marcus_holmes 1y ago
Which is exactly the thing they tested multiple times and found to be wrong. People get bored doing nothing, and enjoy contributing to their community. No, they're not going to go get shitty factory jobs. But that's OK, because all those jobs are now automated and done by robots. But they are going to go and do something useful, because that's what people do. The anti-UBI trope that "given basic income, everyone will just sit around on their arses watching TikTok videos" has been proven wrong in every study that measured it.
- porridgeraisin 1y ago
  > No, they're not going to go get shitty factory jobs. But that's OK, because all those jobs are now automated and done by robots. Nonsense. There are tens of millions of jobs that cannot be automated in the near future, which people would certainly never do if they had UBI. America just outsources them to poorer countries, so you're clueless.
  - p_v_doom 1y ago
    The key to universal basic income is that it is basic. There are many jobs that cannot be automated but with the right incentive even under UBI people will do them.
    - porridgeraisin 1y ago
      What incentive exists for someone to work in a coal mine - which is both physically taxing and guarantees lung problems by 40 - other than earning enough money so that their kids do not have to do the same thing? You can replace coal mines above with a million other things, I chose a dramatic, niche example. The fact is that in recorded history, there have been almost no instances of economic setups without the downtrodden. I like efforts like UBI being made to address that, but it is important to address the fact that UBI itself is not the final solution. It is still possible that we reach a working solution eventually(who knows when?) by exploring things like UBI though. A lot of online discourse simply lies in a narrow band of "UBI = communism which didn't work in the specific instance of the soviet union" and on the other side "opposing UBI = oligarch".
      - marcus_holmes 1y ago
        So you're saying that shitty, dangerous, or unpleasant jobs would need to be paid a high enough wage that doing them is a valid option for people? I totally agree. And that in turn, would drive the economics of building robots to replace the people because the people are so expensive.
        porridgeraisin 1y ago
        These are time-lagged processes. According to your version of things, - $UNPLEASANT_JOB is costing too much! Let us start making robots - Let us continue to bear the cost of paying $UNPLEASANT_JOB a high wage for the decade+ it takes to develop the automation for that task. Nope, here is what will happen: - $UNPLEASANT_JOB is costing too much! Let us figure out how to automate this task. In the meanwhile, let us dump the wages for this role. Otherwise, our company closes down. - 10-15 years later, the same automation needs to be cheaper than the dumped wage for it to be feasible, which is a completely different challenge. First of all, the automation has to be cheaper than your "high enough wage", which is more than you can say for robotics products today.
        marcus_holmes 1y ago

conception 1y ago

This assumes that most people would be satisfied with UBI and not attempt to make more money.

marcus_holmes 1y ago

Which is exactly the thing they tested multiple times and found to be wrong. People get bored doing nothing, and enjoy contributing to their community. No, they're not going to go get shitty factory jobs. But that's OK, because all those jobs are now automated and done by robots. But they are going to go and do something useful, because that's what people do. The anti-UBI trope that "given basic income, everyone will just sit around on their arses watching TikTok videos" has been proven wrong in every study that measured it.

porridgeraisin 1y ago
> No, they're not going to go get shitty factory jobs. But that's OK, because all those jobs are now automated and done by robots. Nonsense. There are tens of millions of jobs that cannot be automated in the near future, which people would certainly never do if they had UBI. America just outsources them to poorer countries, so you're clueless.
- p_v_doom 1y ago
  The key to universal basic income is that it is basic. There are many jobs that cannot be automated but with the right incentive even under UBI people will do them.
  - porridgeraisin 1y ago
    What incentive exists for someone to work in a coal mine - which is both physically taxing and guarantees lung problems by 40 - other than earning enough money so that their kids do not have to do the same thing? You can replace coal mines above with a million other things, I chose a dramatic, niche example. The fact is that in recorded history, there have been almost no instances of economic setups without the downtrodden. I like efforts like UBI being made to address that, but it is important to address the fact that UBI itself is not the final solution. It is still possible that we reach a working solution eventually(who knows when?) by exploring things like UBI though. A lot of online discourse simply lies in a narrow band of "UBI = communism which didn't work in the specific instance of the soviet union" and on the other side "opposing UBI = oligarch".
    - marcus_holmes 1y ago
      So you're saying that shitty, dangerous, or unpleasant jobs would need to be paid a high enough wage that doing them is a valid option for people? I totally agree. And that in turn, would drive the economics of building robots to replace the people because the people are so expensive.
      - porridgeraisin 1y ago
        These are time-lagged processes. According to your version of things, - $UNPLEASANT_JOB is costing too much! Let us start making robots - Let us continue to bear the cost of paying $UNPLEASANT_JOB a high wage for the decade+ it takes to develop the automation for that task. Nope, here is what will happen: - $UNPLEASANT_JOB is costing too much! Let us figure out how to automate this task. In the meanwhile, let us dump the wages for this role. Otherwise, our company closes down. - 10-15 years later, the same automation needs to be cheaper than the dumped wage for it to be feasible, which is a completely different challenge. First of all, the automation has to be cheaper than your "high enough wage", which is more than you can say for robotics products today.
        marcus_holmes 1y ago