UBI Is the Wrong Answer to the Right Problem

fragmede

This resonates with me. I don't see how the underlying "money is exchanged for good and services" foundational concept of civilization as we know it goes away without drastic cultural changes that we're not ready for.

ktoo_

This is terrific work. Thank you for writing and sharing it. It captures the unease I have felt about UBI. It describes the feeling of regret I get about the state of public works. I'm sure I'm going to keep coming back to this.

two_handfuls

This attacks the strawman of people living off of UBI alone and choosing not to work. But even with UBI, working affords you a lot more money and thus goods. As the article eventually concedes, UBI is more of a safety net than a rejection of work. Work and UBI are not mutually exclusive.

2noame

Poor understanding of UBI. It's a floor. A foundation. All income is earned on top of it. It does nothing to discourage work, unlike welfare that disappears with work. UBI is activating. It is empowering. People fund the work that's best for them, paid or unpaid. They start their own business. They go to school to learn something. They pursue volunteer work and caring for others. Over and over again, the evidence shows that UBI is activating not demotivating. No one wants to do nothing. People want to feel like they are contributing to society in some way. And people definitely want to earn as much as they can to spend what they want to spend. UBI is not the only thing we need to do. It is just a key thing we need to do because it makes other things easier to do. It's the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. It's money to buy boots with straps. It reduces poverty, insecurity, and inequality. That leads to less crime, better health, and more productivity. The spending of UBI creates jobs. It grows the economy due to people with lower incomes spending it mostly locally on local goods and services. If you don't support UBI, you either don't understand it, refuse to study the mountain of evidence, or simply distrust others and/or want to control them. UBI is the power to say no. It is power to the People. It is a redistribution of power. People will use that power in so many good ways you can't imagine and aren't giving them credit for. UBI is the correct answer. It is not the only answer. But it is a very important one.

lotsoweiners

> No one wants to do nothing. People want to feel like they are contributing to society in some way. Speak for yourself. I want to do nothing and have no interest in contributing anything to society. If I won the lottery tomorrow I’d guarantee a net negative for society.

sph

Given the tone of the article, especially its second chapter, I am surprised not to read “Arbeit macht frei” (work sets you free) Interestingly, this phrase associated with concentration camps, initially was used in programs implemented to combat mass unemployment in Germany.

samantp

Yes. Initially it was conjectured that, when people have basic security, they often become more politically active, take risks (start businesses, organize, protest) or demand better services. But unfortunate that we have come to this conclusion on UBI/UBS. Given the current state of affairs, the objective of UBI/UBS seems to be governments (aka representatives elected to office due to funding by those seeking serious ROI) and their political patrons to pacify agitated masses moving out of the workforce due to hyper-automation. At most, UBI plus clear net-zero work like digging and filling back holes in the ground. Else, more and more useful enterprises are moving toward being handled by private players (political patrons), and governments stay out of it more and more. Not just public education, health, infra, but slowly, even defence and public security. And the roads are to be cleared for private enterprise to pick up because they are supposed to be more efficient at growth than governments. And roads cleared with much more than classical 'laissez faire'. Via policies that spur 'fast and efficient growth', subsidies in natural resource usage, favorable labor laws, tax holidays, and more. Private players will try to grow, spread, takeover over earth as much as they can, with all the automation that can be used, on the other hand plucking the minimal needed labor from this residual workforce. At terms that are in line with "market demand-supply dynamics". The remaining ones have will have lost the right (worse, even the will) to complain because they are well fed without needing to do work! It is expected they will not intrude into or complain about the subsidies given to those players running the show. Not complain about the reducing per-capita-resource restrictions they would be slowly cordoned/quarantined to. They would be expected to patiently wait for development to continue and some of its fruits (mainly numbing entertainment like politics/sports/games/media) to be thrown to them. Occasionally get chances to participate in ceremonies to express gratitude to the generous govt-business society leaders for taking care of them. Otherwise fighting against each other to grab the limited fruits, never organize, continue being vulnerable to society bosses who prefer servile in-fighting masses.

vannevar

The article's central premise is based on a false assumption, which is that people taking UBI will be idle. There is no significant evidence to support that claim. The scant evidence we have so far on UBI is largely limited to relatively small numbers of people in poverty given small amounts of money insufficient to provide any opportunity for savings, and even that evidence is at best mixed. On the other hand, there are many people who receive an inheritance large enough that they never need to work again, yet the vast majority of those people are not idle but actively create new businesses and take on other projects or hobbies. And the reason that our infrastructure is crumbling is not some social problem, nor some intrinsic "undervaluing of the future," but something simpler and more pragmatic: our taxation has not kept up with our necessary spending, particularly taxation of the wealthy as wealth has concentrated at the top. Everyone's talking about abundance as if it is something that is yet to come, but we've had rapidly increasing abundance for 50 years, as technology has made the individual worker more productive. And the vast majority of that increase in productivity has been turned into increased wealth for the top 10%. UBI would be the first reversal of that trend, requiring a massive tax on the productivity of AI and robotic infrastructure that in all likelihood will be 90% owned by the wealthiest top 10%. Naturally, they are concerned about that prospect, and so we see articles like this one.