Current Events > the pro-work case for a UBI

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/ubi-pro-work/

depending on how it is paid for a UBI could strongly encourage work (if it replaces means-tested programs)

A wise tweeter once said it’s dangerous to make bad arguments for a good idea. In the case of UBI, the worst argument of all is the notion that it can spare us from the drudgery of work, and usher in an era of post-scarcity. Fortunately, only a fringe element of UBI supporters actually suggest using it in this way. Much more common is the idea that Artificial Intelligence and automation are about to eliminate most forms of work anyway, leaving UBI as an insurance policy of last resort.

This futurist focus has unfortunately given UBI an anti-work association, making it the perfect foil for champions of a culture of work to signal their virtuosity. But in lieu of the technological singularity, a UBI is still far and away a superior way of arranging the social safety-net compared to the status quo. UBI’s critics should stop attacking what they think UBI represents and instead begin to grapple with its substance.

---

while Matt Bruenig responded by pointing out all the ways the rich receive vastly more “passive income” than the poor (like from interest and capital gains) without an apparent loss of purpose.

good article but this point is really dumb lol
---

Tag for later
---

Exactly. Most people will choose to work to enjoy the more luxurious things in life, and rich people stay richer from their capital gains anyways.

The thing is in the future when most jobs are lost people are going to get UBI or just file for Social Security and food stamps, it's the same thing thing but in a different name or spread out programs.

Romulox28 posted...

while Matt Bruenig responded by pointing out all the ways the rich receive vastly more “passive income” than the poor (like from interest and capital gains) without an apparent loss of purpose.

good article but this point is really dumb lol

What's dumb about it?

People like Bill Gates would get millions of dollars a week just for sitting on his ass and yet he still works super hard.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

There will always be jobs, and if people aren't working they won't be able to afford a lifestyle outside of bare essential surviving. Automation and UBI will not change that at all.

In fact, the idea that automation is going to eliminate jobs is completely silly. The only models suggesting that are faulty ones that assume the amount of economic output that can be completed is finite. At some point, there will always be a need and a price for human labor, and businesses who don't employ it will be outperformed by those that do. We've seen this as technology has improved over and over and over again.

As such, UBI is pretty pointless.

That's not true. Industrialization was the first massive shift in labor relations due to technology (well, at least since the invention of farming). Firms as we think of them didn't even exist, because people were in a guild or subsistence farming.

I. don't think automaton will get rid of work in the sense of productive labor people are. willing to purchase, but it might end employment as we currently experience it
---

fenderbender321 posted...

There will always be jobs, and if people aren't working they won't be able to afford a lifestyle outside of bare essential surviving. Automation and UBI will not change that at all.

In fact, the idea that automation is going to eliminate jobs is completely silly. The only models suggesting that are faulty ones that assume the amount of economic output that can be completed is finite. At some point, there will always be a need and a price for human labor, and businesses who don't employ it will be outperformed by those that do. We've seen this as technology has improved over and over and over again.

As such, UBI is pretty pointless.

Economic growth is finite since there are a finite amount of resources. All economic growth comes from the utilization of more resources or more efficient use of existing ones.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Romulox28 posted...

while Matt Bruenig responded by pointing out all the ways the rich receive vastly more “passive income” than the poor (like from interest and capital gains) without an apparent loss of purpose.

good article but this point is really dumb lol

What's dumb about it?

People like Bill Gates would get millions of dollars a week just for sitting on his ass and yet he still works super hard.

operates under the assumption that the very rich are all happier and feel a greater sense of purpose than us normie wage slaves. i am sure you could find tons of very rich trust fund kids, actors, socialites, etc that have more money than they could ever need but have a very depressed existence. look at someone like Notch, the dude is a billionaire and spends all day on reddit writing about how much he hates his life.

it's one of the far left ideas that confuses me. they believe that money is detrimental to human happiness/progress/etc yet simultaneously believe that having lots of money buys you the best life possible at the expense of others.
---

Romulox28 posted...

they believe that money is detrimental to human happiness/progress/etc yet simultaneously believe that having lots of money buys you the best life possible at the expense of others.

I don't see that first view espoused very often, if at all. The second is a basic fact; having money allows you far greater opportunities than not having money. Now, depression and mental illness and sadness can hit you no matter your income, but not having to worry about how you'll keep the lights on is a relief.
---

Antifar posted...

Romulox28 posted...

they believe that money is detrimental to human happiness/progress/etc yet simultaneously believe that having lots of money buys you the best life possible at the expense of others.

I don't see that first view espoused very often, if at all. The second is a basic fact; having money allows you far greater opportunities than not having money.

i have some far left friends (like communist) and they always talk about how money is basically just a tool for exploitation, in an ideal utopia it'd be "for each according to his needs from each according to his ability" or whatever the phrase is, etc.

but then they act like money is everything, so money is simultaneously the most important and least important thing to exist.

the way i look at it, if everyone were able to have their basic needs met (i.e. you will never have to worry about food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc again), would it matter if one person was a billionaire and you weren't? at that point itd be just jealousy (IMO) because the billionaire has a cooler car and can go on more luxurious vacations than you
---

Romulox28 posted...

i have some far left friends (like communist) and they always talk about how money is basically just a tool for exploitation, in an ideal utopia it'd be "for each according to his needs from each according to his ability" or whatever the phrase is, etc.

but then they act like money is everything, so money is simultaneously the most important and least important thing to exist.

I think the distinction you're missing here is between "is" (money is deeply important in our current society) and "should" (it should not be like this)
---

Antifar posted...

Romulox28 posted...

i have some far left friends (like communist) and they always talk about how money is basically just a tool for exploitation, in an ideal utopia it'd be "for each according to his needs from each according to his ability" or whatever the phrase is, etc.

but then they act like money is everything, so money is simultaneously the most important and least important thing to exist.

I think the distinction you're missing here is between "is" (money is deeply important in our current society) and "should" (it should not be like this)

good point. i think i get tripped up when i hear most far left (or even far right) rhetoric because so much of it is rooted in (their versions of) utopian societies and how things "should" be, when how things really are is the more or less centerist reality we live in
---

Romulox28 posted...

good point. i think i get tripped up when i hear most far left (or even far right) rhetoric because so much of it is rooted in (their versions of) utopian societies and how things "should" be, when how things really are is the more or less centerist reality we live in

"For each according to his needs from each according to his ability" all comes completely apart when there's a disagreement over "need" and "ability" between someone who "needs" anything other than bread and claims to be "unable" to work in a tank factory for sixteen hours a day, and the ruling elites who need tanks and are vaguely able to supply bread-lines.