Universal Basic Income - People don't work less

[lordsphinx]

Why would it adjust upwards? Unless all of that money is just printed into the economy (DSA style) its just redistribution.

Economics 101. If demand for an item rises, so does the price.

Micro example (this will read like a test question, but it’s the easiest way to explain):

There are 150 apartments for rent in a small town. 50 really nice ones (#1) @ $1500 / month, 50 average ones (#2) @ $1000 / month, and 50 shitty ones (#3) @ $500 / month. There are 150 residents in this town. The highest paid 50 live in #1, the middle 50 paid people live in #2, and the lowest 50 live in #3. The poorest 50 can’t afford #2, and the middle 50 can’t afford #1.

Small town government decides to give each resident an extra $500 / month UBI.

Every person except the top 50 try to use their extra money to get a better apartment. The problem is, there is no excess supply of #1 or #2 apartments. If demand rises without increasing supply, then the only thing that will change is price. #1 price goes from $1500 to $2000, #2 goes from $1000 to $1500, and #3 goes from $500 to $1000. All apartments remain filled, all residents are left with the same amount of money as they had before.

This is an economic function that has been known and studied since Adam Smith.

[Kathandira]

Agreed. To be honest, I'm surprised that some WOW players don't see the benefits of welfare programs, given how often often they're employed in this game. Every major patch after launch has catch-up mechanics that allowing newcomers to join their friends at endgame. At the other end of the scale, diminishing returns are often applied to stacking objects, to prevent players from being too OP.

These balance mechanics make the game better as a whole. Removing them would lead to horrible imbalances and isolated social-class communities. Why do so many people want to do this IRL?

Those in the lead usually don't take kindly to being scaled back to be closer to those they once dominated. It would diminish their feeling of superiority.

- - - Updated - - -

Economics 101. If demand for an item rises, so does the price.

This always makes me sneer. It is only that way, because we allow it to be that way. It isn't a universal truth, it is a scheme that is embedded in our society that could change if we as a whole decided it should change.

Though, as I said earlier about wealth caps, it likely won't be happening because those in power will refuse to close the gap between themselves and those they dominate.

[NED funded]

Economics 101. If demand for an item rises, so does the price.

Micro example (this will read like a test question, but it’s the easiest way to explain):

There are 150 apartments for rent in a small town. 50 really nice ones (#1) @ $1500 / month, 50 average ones (#2) @ $1000 / month, and 50 shitty ones (#3) @ $500 / month. There are 150 residents in this town. The highest paid 50 live in #1, the middle 50 paid people live in #2, and the lowest 50 live in #3. The poorest 50 can’t afford #2, and the middle 50 can’t afford #1.

Small town government decides to give each resident an extra $500 / month UBI.

Every person except the top 50 try to use their extra money to get a better apartment. The problem is, there is no excess supply of #1 or #2 apartments. If demand rises without increasing supply, then the only thing that will change is price. #1 price goes from $1500 to $2000, #2 goes from $1000 to $1500, and #3 goes from $500 to $1000. All apartments remain filled, all residents are left with the same amount of money as they had before.

This is an economic function that has been known and studied since Adam Smith.

If we assume that x has stupid high elasticity and that everyone spends their money on x. I guess. But 1 is only true for very few things like housing and 2 it’s kinda of a ridiculous assumption. There are more pressing issues such as health and debts that poor people prioritize first.

[Elegiac]

Economics 101. If demand for an item rises, so does the price.

Micro example (this will read like a test question, but it’s the easiest way to explain):

There are 150 apartments for rent in a small town. 50 really nice ones (#1) @ $1500 / month, 50 average ones (#2) @ $1000 / month, and 50 shitty ones (#3) @ $500 / month. There are 150 residents in this town. The highest paid 50 live in #1, the middle 50 paid people live in #2, and the lowest 50 live in #3. The poorest 50 can’t afford #2, and the middle 50 can’t afford #1.

Small town government decides to give each resident an extra $500 / month UBI.

Every person except the top 50 try to use their extra money to get a better apartment. The problem is, there is no excess supply of #1 or #2 apartments. If demand rises without increasing supply, then the only thing that will change is price. #1 price goes from $1500 to $2000, #2 goes from $1000 to $1500, and #3 goes from $500 to $1000. All apartments remain filled, all residents are left with the same amount of money as they had before.

This is an economic function that has been known and studied since Adam Smith.

More evidence that things like real estate need to be brought into the public sphere to negate the detriments created by capitalism.

[lordsphinx]

This always makes me sneer. It is only that way, because we allow it to be that way. It isn't a universal truth, it is a scheme that is embedded in our society that could change if we as a whole decided it should change.

Though, as I said earlier about wealth caps, it likely won't be happening because those in power will refuse to close the gap between themselves and those they dominate.

It’s that way because otherwise, you’re either A.) asking the seller to voluntarily and artificially reduce a price out of the kindness of their heart, or B.) asking a regulatory body to enforce a price ceiling on something because of feelings and emotion rather than economic sense. If you expect A.) to be true, then you’re living in a fantasy land where people don’t look after their own interests first. If you expect B.) to be true, then you’re advocating for government control over the private sector, you filthy communist you.

[Elegiac]

It’s that way because otherwise, you’re either A.) asking the seller to voluntarily and artificially reduce a price out of the kindness of their heart, or B.) asking a regulatory body to enforce a price ceiling on something because of feelings and emotion rather than economic sense. If you expect A.) to be true, then you’re living in a fantasy land where people don’t look after their own interests first. If you expect B.) to be true, then you’re advocating for government control over the private sector, you filthy communist you.

Let's take a moment to explore the "feelings and emotion" aspect.

What exactly is the purpose of "economic sense" if said "economic sense" doesn't manifestly improve people's lives.

[Kathandira]

It’s that way because otherwise, you’re either A.) asking the seller to voluntarily and artificially reduce a price out of the kindness of their heart, or B.) asking a regulatory body to enforce a price ceiling on something because of feelings and emotion rather than economic sense. If you expect A.) to be true, then you’re living in a fantasy land where people don’t look after their own interests first. If you expect B.) to be true, then you’re advocating for government control over the private sector, you filthy communist you.

I wouldn't say I have any other expectations in a capitalist society other than the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer. I'm not detached from the reality of the way things are, i'm just saying there is another way. But there is no chance in hell those who hold the wealth and power would ever allow those they hold power over get closer to them in wealth or power.

Humans are trash, but the common folk will have to eat shit while the powerful can have their cake.

[cubby]

Source

Some preliminary results are in on a 2 yr Finnish study of universal basic income. Those receiving it don't work less. One thing to note, they were no longer able to receive government benefits like healthcare and the like, so it could be argued it just put them in relatively the same position, just using that money for what normally would be paid by government aid programs.

Also, it could just be too little amount of money to really impact anything. Basically it would be the government covering a few bills. However it would've cover rent and such.

I'd say a true UBI model would always adapt to the market and always be enough for basic needs to be met - rent, food, clothing, and then a bit extra for random expenses that pop up. In America, that would have to be closer to $2000 a month (tax free).

It was my understanding that the Finnish study was actually flawed from the start. Let me see if I can find some material from aways back. But nonetheless, I agree, UBI wasn't really tested here because UBI is about covering all the basics. And we just won't be in a position as a country or world to do that until we fix climate change and get past our consumerism economy (and yes, I realize those don't sound linked, but they are).

I applaud Finland for trying this out though.

[TotallyGenericName]

Nah, I can assure you that it will very much lead to a more complacent workforce. We are pain-pleasure pathway driven creatures who, by nature, pursue the path of least resistance. There is literally no chance it will have a positive impact on work ethic.

However, it will most likely become a necessity as AI begins to displace more and more people over time. After a while, the rate of displacement will outpace the speed at which workers can acquire new skill sets that are relevant to markets emerging around that new disruptive technology.

But let's be real, none of ya'll are really arguing for UBI for that reason anyway

[Independent voter]

There will be plenty of people living 4 or 6 to an apartment and combining their UBI pay. These people will be on permanent vacation.

[Elegiac]

Nah, I can assure you that it will very much lead to a more complacent workforce. We are pain-pleasure pathway driven creatures who, by nature, pursue the path of least resistance. There is literally no chance it will have a positive impact on work ethic.

You can assure me despite no tangible evidence that moral hazard is actually, you know, a thing when it comes to public assistance? Please do.

However, it will most likely become a necessity as AI begins to displace more and more people over time. After a while, the rate of displacement will outpace the speed at which workers can acquire new skill sets that are relevant to markets emerging around that new disruptive technology.

But let's be real, none of ya'll are really arguing for UBI for that reason anyway

Just like you're not actually arguing against it on any practical grounds and more from the viewpoint that people who aren't rich are lazy and deserve poverty for their moral failings.

Funny how assumptions work.

[TotallyGenericName]

You can assure me despite no tangible evidence that moral hazard is actually, you know, a thing when it comes to public assistance? Please do.



Just like you're not actually arguing against it on any practical grounds and more from the viewpoint that people who aren't rich are lazy and deserve poverty for their moral failings.

Funny how assumptions work.

I can assure you on the fact that there are tendencies, or commonalities, that manifest themselves in our behaviors that are about more than our conscious choice and free will. It influences our proclivities and the process is grounded heavily in biology. It's not like this isn't readily apparently in many living animals and observed on a regular basis either.

In regards to you saying I call less fortunate people lazy, I'm saying that less fortunate people are being instilled with a sense of entitlement to where they are above taking an introspective look at their life. They refuse to identify where in their long and varied existence they ventured off the beaten path and made bad choices. This victim mentality is dangerous because it completely ignores the tremendous value that taking accountability for one's actions an do in regards to personal growth.

Statistically speaking, yes, if you find a homeless person, there is a VERY high probability that mistakes were made. Big ones.

Does it make me hate them? No.
Does it make me want them to suffer? No.
Does it make me want to institute a policy that gives a foothold with a vehicle to arbitrarily impose wealth redistribution at a whim to win elections in the hands of what might be the craziest group of individuals in recent American history (Democrats)? Also, no.

It's not entirely clear to me that just giving someone money with a natural propensity for making bad decisions will lead to them doing anything other than most likely making more bad decisions with it. Think more creatively. Come up with better solutions. I'm not the one proposing that we come up with systems to benefit the self proclaimed victims of society. You are. The onus is on you to bring something of meaningful value to the table.

[Elegiac]

I can assure you on the fact that there are tendencies, or commonalities, that manifest themselves in our behaviors that are about more than our conscious choice and free will. It influences our proclivities and the process is grounded heavily in biology. It's not like this isn't readily apparently in many living animals and observed on a regular basis either.

Cool story Felicia; but the tendency for humans is a desire to work if they can do it and find it meaningful.

Again, there's nothing to really suggest moral hazard applies to public assistance - to the point at which the OG Welfare Queen was actually a fictional construct.

In regards to you saying I call less fortunate people lazy, I'm saying that less fortunate people are being instilled with a sense of entitlement to where they are above taking an introspective look at their life. They refuse to identify where in their long and varied existence they ventured off the beaten path and made bad choices. This victim mentality is dangerous because it completely ignores the tremendous value that taking accountability for one's actions an do in regards to personal growth.

Statistically speaking, yes, if you find a homeless person, there is a VERY high probability that mistakes were made. Big ones.

Does it make me hate them? No.
Does it make me want them to suffer? No.
Does it make me want to institute a policy that gives a foothold with a vehicle to arbitrarily impose wealth redistribution at a whim to win elections in the hands of what might be the craziest group of individuals in recent American history (Democrats)? Also, no.

It's not entirely clear to me that just giving someone money with a natural propensity for making bad decisions will lead to them doing anything other than most likely making more bad decisions with it. Think more creatively. Come up with better solutions. I'm not the one proposing that we come up with systems to benefit the self proclaimed victims of society. You are. The onus is on you to bring something of meaningful value to the table.

Yeah, and I have - by pointing out that blaming personal failings is laughable if the social and economic factors aren't controlled for. Which they aren't.

And I was pointing out the foolishness in assuming people arguing for UBI are doing so seeking personal benefit by saying something so obviously reprehensible that a reasonable person could never believe it. And then you had to confirm that yes, you do in fact believe that very thing.

Top kek indeed.

[Maneo]

God damn lazy entitled baby boomers.

Gen X, positioned myself to be able to retire early. Was semi retired from about 38 to 41, and have been pretty much retired since (turning 43 this year) went back to school not for a career but just for the sake of learning (want to keep my mind sharp)

Figured it was a wise choice since my family isn't typically long lived, and want to enjoy life w/the family a bit before I kick the bucket.

[Aenigma84]

Id work less.

i'd use my work to pay off everything 2x faster then work less/not