I used to be a huge UBI person until 2020 and rereading Hoffer True Believer. Now I think UBI is a recipe for violent revolution, because it creates a caste of comfortable bored poor.
I know you weren't asking me, but I'll throw in a thought: UBI implies an income you can live on. Having the government fund lazy hippies is annoying.
This is why I use Citizen Dividend. There are lots of people who get dividends who still go to work. I'm shooting for Citizen Dividend + Market Minimum Wage = Living Wage. And by living, I mean enough to frugally support a family and pay for normal medical and legal expenses. Special government aid or charity should be for special situations.
Thanks. It's a definition issue; I think a UBI can be any amount, and thought maybe the wording was changed to uncouple it from Andrew Yang. Just having something to count on and the ability to work part-time would be good. Unpaid emotional labor is real!
It's a combination of what's probably basic old school protestant work ethic and some notion that the math doesn't work out in the end. Though frankly, it might if we got rid of the Fed and the stupid fiat currency and the inflation effects. Still, I think subsidizing sloth is probably overall a poor idea.
I dunno. I have been *in the dirt* at times. It is currently still less than 30 days since I stopped being homeless. But I still think that it is best to encourage people to be in some way productive. At least until we get to a point where we hit true post-scarcity. But that's basically AI style singularity, so who can say what happens then or if the species even survives it.
So I guess the short answer is "I think the social incentives and mathematics don't work out". I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I have seen a lot of arguments both for and against and I am still on the "against" side. I know that's not a very concrete of an explanation for my position.
A lot of it is probably personal sense of not being particularly happy *myself* when I'm being supported and not supporting myself. So I recognize that this is very much an "anecdote and not data" position, in some ways. I am simply a happier person when I pay my own rent and buy my own food. I feel more accomplished and more successful at being an adult human.
Thanks, that's actually helpful. Some years ago there was a focus group on this of truck drivers, back when they thought autonomous trucks would replace them, and they said the same thing. They didn't want something for nothing. One remedy that was proposed was National Service. But $500 a month might get someone through until they find a new job, or enable them to get training. Or it might be enough to keep a couple together.
Funnily enough, I'm both a truck driver and a computer jock, so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the autonomous vehicle thing. I even applied for a position with a company that's working locally on the issue, though they decided not to hire me for whatever reason. I guess they must have found some *other* truck driving linux sysadmin in town... ;)
I agree that $500 a month might get someone through, but I don't think it makes sense to provide it when it's not needed. I guess that's the distinction I make between "regular" welfare and UBI, particularly the difference between "unemployment" and UBI. I've been on unemployment before. I think the emphasis that unemployment places on finding another job is valuable. I do also realize that it's got some holes in it, for people who are trying to get started from an even lower position.
I certainly understand that people's lives stumble sometimes, and sometimes you end up flat on your face and need some help standing back up again. But (again, this is now fully personal opinion) you have to actually be trying to stand back up. On the flip side, I also grasp that's getting more and more difficult. Wages versus GDP used to track pretty closely, but it's been basically flat since 1970. I can't say for *certain* that's because Nixon fully took us off the gold standard, although it's certainly a theory I like for that.
So that's sort of another point against a UBI, it'd make inflation worse. When government expenditures are decoupled from actual production, especially with a fiat currency that's just being pulled out of the Fed's ass to make the payments, the value of the currency is going to fall.
The beauty of the UBI is if you make more than a certain amount it gets taxed away, so nobody gets it that doesn't need it, but if you do need it- to leave a bad job or an abusive relationship, say, or take care of a sick relative- it's right there every month. Yes, the rent on low cost housing might go up, but developers would be more open to building it if it paid off. Then, more supply, lower price. And people get housing. Pretty sure it's not that simple, but maybe it's a step in the right direction.
That is actually a pretty good argument in favor of it, though I still don't care for the "you don't have to even be trying to get on your feet" aspect of it. Still, I am definitely not set on my tastes being necessarily correct, it may be that the benefits outweigh the costs.
If you have time, would you mind elaborating on your opposition to UBI? I'm debating pro and wd. like to hear some con ideas.
I used to be a huge UBI person until 2020 and rereading Hoffer True Believer. Now I think UBI is a recipe for violent revolution, because it creates a caste of comfortable bored poor.
“a recipe for violent revolution, because it creates a caste of comfortable bored poor.”
Might we not also say this about Substack?
I can see that, but I'd say that depends on the size of it and how incentivizing it is to work.
I know you weren't asking me, but I'll throw in a thought: UBI implies an income you can live on. Having the government fund lazy hippies is annoying.
This is why I use Citizen Dividend. There are lots of people who get dividends who still go to work. I'm shooting for Citizen Dividend + Market Minimum Wage = Living Wage. And by living, I mean enough to frugally support a family and pay for normal medical and legal expenses. Special government aid or charity should be for special situations.
yes, consideration of the behaviours that get incentivized should always be considered when looking at ongoing social benefits.
Thanks. It's a definition issue; I think a UBI can be any amount, and thought maybe the wording was changed to uncouple it from Andrew Yang. Just having something to count on and the ability to work part-time would be good. Unpaid emotional labor is real!
It's a combination of what's probably basic old school protestant work ethic and some notion that the math doesn't work out in the end. Though frankly, it might if we got rid of the Fed and the stupid fiat currency and the inflation effects. Still, I think subsidizing sloth is probably overall a poor idea.
I dunno. I have been *in the dirt* at times. It is currently still less than 30 days since I stopped being homeless. But I still think that it is best to encourage people to be in some way productive. At least until we get to a point where we hit true post-scarcity. But that's basically AI style singularity, so who can say what happens then or if the species even survives it.
So I guess the short answer is "I think the social incentives and mathematics don't work out". I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I have seen a lot of arguments both for and against and I am still on the "against" side. I know that's not a very concrete of an explanation for my position.
A lot of it is probably personal sense of not being particularly happy *myself* when I'm being supported and not supporting myself. So I recognize that this is very much an "anecdote and not data" position, in some ways. I am simply a happier person when I pay my own rent and buy my own food. I feel more accomplished and more successful at being an adult human.
Thanks, that's actually helpful. Some years ago there was a focus group on this of truck drivers, back when they thought autonomous trucks would replace them, and they said the same thing. They didn't want something for nothing. One remedy that was proposed was National Service. But $500 a month might get someone through until they find a new job, or enable them to get training. Or it might be enough to keep a couple together.
Funnily enough, I'm both a truck driver and a computer jock, so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the autonomous vehicle thing. I even applied for a position with a company that's working locally on the issue, though they decided not to hire me for whatever reason. I guess they must have found some *other* truck driving linux sysadmin in town... ;)
I agree that $500 a month might get someone through, but I don't think it makes sense to provide it when it's not needed. I guess that's the distinction I make between "regular" welfare and UBI, particularly the difference between "unemployment" and UBI. I've been on unemployment before. I think the emphasis that unemployment places on finding another job is valuable. I do also realize that it's got some holes in it, for people who are trying to get started from an even lower position.
I certainly understand that people's lives stumble sometimes, and sometimes you end up flat on your face and need some help standing back up again. But (again, this is now fully personal opinion) you have to actually be trying to stand back up. On the flip side, I also grasp that's getting more and more difficult. Wages versus GDP used to track pretty closely, but it's been basically flat since 1970. I can't say for *certain* that's because Nixon fully took us off the gold standard, although it's certainly a theory I like for that.
So that's sort of another point against a UBI, it'd make inflation worse. When government expenditures are decoupled from actual production, especially with a fiat currency that's just being pulled out of the Fed's ass to make the payments, the value of the currency is going to fall.
The beauty of the UBI is if you make more than a certain amount it gets taxed away, so nobody gets it that doesn't need it, but if you do need it- to leave a bad job or an abusive relationship, say, or take care of a sick relative- it's right there every month. Yes, the rent on low cost housing might go up, but developers would be more open to building it if it paid off. Then, more supply, lower price. And people get housing. Pretty sure it's not that simple, but maybe it's a step in the right direction.
That is actually a pretty good argument in favor of it, though I still don't care for the "you don't have to even be trying to get on your feet" aspect of it. Still, I am definitely not set on my tastes being necessarily correct, it may be that the benefits outweigh the costs.