4 ms·

I'd argue that UBI would unlock latent productivity of all the people doing shitty jobs who would otherwise being doing something they love, and thus contribute

by jchrisa 11y ago

I'd argue that UBI would unlock latent productivity of all the people doing shitty jobs who would otherwise being doing something they love, and thus contribute to society instead of seeing the world as a zero sum game that they got the short stick of. Opposition to UBI comes mostly from people stuck in a zero sum mindset.

sillygoose 11y ago
Taking away someone's money to give it to someone else IS actually a zero-sum game. Of course, bureaucratic waste and/or graft makes it actually a negative-sum game. Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade. Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere. Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.
- ncallaway 11y ago
  I would argue that wealth redistribution (which UBI absolutely is) is not a zero sum game. First, let's talk about utility. Utility of capital is non-linear. So, if we take $100 out of a millionaire's pocket, and distribute it evenly to 10 people who each have $100. The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. The ten other members of society each had their ability to contribute to society increase by 2 units. We've generated a net-gain for society by redistributing wealth. Second, we can look at the dollar value of the system. Yes, I would argue that even the dollar value of this redistribution is not a zero sum game. Obviously the basic transfer of wealth was zero sum. But it made our enonomy slightly more efficient by improving the capacity of the 10 citizens. Let's say the economy grows $10 more than it would have without the redistribution. Suddenly, even in just dollar-value the redistribution was not zero-sum. It's important to realize that UBI is a response to extreme income inequality, which can cause large ineffeciencies in a market. Automation obsoleting jobs only needs to lead to UBI if that automation leads to rising income inequality. If we find a way to work with technology that keeps income disparities at a reasonable and efficient value, then there's no need for UBI. However, income inequality has reached to pretty significant heights and continues to grow.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    > The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. Are you taking into account the fact that 10 people now have a means to convey to entrepreneurs that some new product or service would solve a problem they have? Does doing this on a larger scale increase the ability of an entrepreneur to bootstrap a company through revenue rather than acquiring capital from now-poorer millionaire (whom we'll assume was an investor)?
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      I generally agree with this reasoning. You'll notice each member of society had their ability to contribute go up by 2 units. So the overall gain was 20 units, and the overall loss was 10 units, for a net gain of 10 units of "ability to contribute".
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    There's too much to unpack in what you wrote. Again, define "efficiency", and while you're at it, define "utility" too and what it means that it's "non-linear" for capital.
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      Efficiency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency (specifically in this context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency) Utility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility Non-Linearity: This suggests that the utility that someone derives from wealth is not linearly proportional to their wealth. A simple example may demonstrate this more clearly: We give both an extremely wealthy person and an extremely poor person $10. The poor person will get more utility out of that $10 than the rich person will.
      - sillygoose 11y ago
        You're talking about something like marginal utility. The first $10 used towards satisfying a certain want are more effective than the next $10. For example, if you're really hankering for an apple and you eat one, that apple will be more satisfying than the second one, because the first apple satisfied your strongest craving. The same can be applied to resources etc. But more importantly, why would anyone else have the right to decide how your property is allocated or used, even if you do happen to be rich? Besides, even if you redistribute people's property based on the idea that the end justifies the means, what if the poor people you're helping through harming others don't use the money wisely? What if someone gets $10 and uses it to maintain his alcoholism? -Did your grand vision of increased Societal Utility come true? Even disregarding morality, which would be.. rather psychopathic, how can you know if people will use the money wisely? What about Rational Actors® and Efficiency®? :)
Spooky23 11y ago
UBI is bread and circuses to allow the present economic system to continue a little longer. End of the day, we're making lots of technological advances that aren't advancing people in a meaningful way. We've already devastated the working class so much. Truck driving is a key "success" job for many people. Take that away without prospects for something new, and you're going to have an uprising. People need an occupation. 50 years of the welfare state should have taught that lesson.

by jchrisa 11y ago

sillygoose 11y ago

Taking away someone's money to give it to someone else IS actually a zero-sum game. Of course, bureaucratic waste and/or graft makes it actually a negative-sum game. Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade. Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere. Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.

ncallaway 11y ago
I would argue that wealth redistribution (which UBI absolutely is) is not a zero sum game. First, let's talk about utility. Utility of capital is non-linear. So, if we take $100 out of a millionaire's pocket, and distribute it evenly to 10 people who each have $100. The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. The ten other members of society each had their ability to contribute to society increase by 2 units. We've generated a net-gain for society by redistributing wealth. Second, we can look at the dollar value of the system. Yes, I would argue that even the dollar value of this redistribution is not a zero sum game. Obviously the basic transfer of wealth was zero sum. But it made our enonomy slightly more efficient by improving the capacity of the 10 citizens. Let's say the economy grows $10 more than it would have without the redistribution. Suddenly, even in just dollar-value the redistribution was not zero-sum. It's important to realize that UBI is a response to extreme income inequality, which can cause large ineffeciencies in a market. Automation obsoleting jobs only needs to lead to UBI if that automation leads to rising income inequality. If we find a way to work with technology that keeps income disparities at a reasonable and efficient value, then there's no need for UBI. However, income inequality has reached to pretty significant heights and continues to grow.
- afarrell 11y ago
  > The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. Are you taking into account the fact that 10 people now have a means to convey to entrepreneurs that some new product or service would solve a problem they have? Does doing this on a larger scale increase the ability of an entrepreneur to bootstrap a company through revenue rather than acquiring capital from now-poorer millionaire (whom we'll assume was an investor)?
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    I generally agree with this reasoning. You'll notice each member of society had their ability to contribute go up by 2 units. So the overall gain was 20 units, and the overall loss was 10 units, for a net gain of 10 units of "ability to contribute".
- sillygoose 11y ago
  There's too much to unpack in what you wrote. Again, define "efficiency", and while you're at it, define "utility" too and what it means that it's "non-linear" for capital.
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    Efficiency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency (specifically in this context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency) Utility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility Non-Linearity: This suggests that the utility that someone derives from wealth is not linearly proportional to their wealth. A simple example may demonstrate this more clearly: We give both an extremely wealthy person and an extremely poor person $10. The poor person will get more utility out of that $10 than the rich person will.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      You're talking about something like marginal utility. The first $10 used towards satisfying a certain want are more effective than the next $10. For example, if you're really hankering for an apple and you eat one, that apple will be more satisfying than the second one, because the first apple satisfied your strongest craving. The same can be applied to resources etc. But more importantly, why would anyone else have the right to decide how your property is allocated or used, even if you do happen to be rich? Besides, even if you redistribute people's property based on the idea that the end justifies the means, what if the poor people you're helping through harming others don't use the money wisely? What if someone gets $10 and uses it to maintain his alcoholism? -Did your grand vision of increased Societal Utility come true? Even disregarding morality, which would be.. rather psychopathic, how can you know if people will use the money wisely? What about Rational Actors® and Efficiency®? :)

Spooky23 11y ago

UBI is bread and circuses to allow the present economic system to continue a little longer. End of the day, we're making lots of technological advances that aren't advancing people in a meaningful way. We've already devastated the working class so much. Truck driving is a key "success" job for many people. Take that away without prospects for something new, and you're going to have an uprising. People need an occupation. 50 years of the welfare state should have taught that lesson.