In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want, and instead will engage in hobbies that provide little value to the world?
Your phrasing suggests you favor a UBI, yet your actual claims echo mine (and I'm a UBI opponent). I'm intrigued.
A UBI might make us all poorer because we will no longer be able to get dirt cheap goods like McDonald's food produced by people in situations that amount to wage slavery made survivable only by welfare. Without the hidden subsidy of welfare and the stronger bargaining power that comes from the other party being desperate, McDonald's would have to charge a more realistic price that many customers would find makes their food even less palatable. But does this change make the market more or less efficient? I don't think it's a foregone conclusion either way—that's why it's a fun topic to consider.
Welfare is a subsidy for people, not for companies. It raises the cost of labor for companies since it gives potential workers th - in fact ie "stay home and play video games but get money anyway" option.
Absent welfare we'd have far more people working since they'd have no other choice, which would lower prices for companies and create more value for consumers.
I'm also not sure why you are so dismissive of the fact that McDonald's will become more expensive and less available to consumers. Is it because McD's customers are mostly low status poor people that it's so easy to ignore their utility? If the result of a UBI was less healthy organic GMO free vegetables sold to starving artists at farmers markets (or less child care for working women) would that change things?
> Welfare is a subsidy for people, not for companies. It raises the cost of labor for companies since it gives potential workers th - in fact ie "stay home and play video games but get money anyway" option.
When a restaurant pays its full-time employees a wage so low that they need to be on food stamps to survive, that's a subsidy for the company as much as anyone. Since we have a minimum wage, McDonald's can't legally get labor any cheaper than they currently do, no matter how much the labor supply increases.
> Playing with the market causes deadweight losses
Only a diehard capitalist thinks this. We already have a name for this type of pure capitalism. It's called anarchy. I.e. zero government interference.
>In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want, and instead will engage in hobbies that provide little value to the world?
>Your phrasing suggests you favor a UBI, yet your actual claims echo mine (and I'm a UBI opponent). I'm intrigued
Your phrasing, with respect to the GP, suggests that you consider "things like further education and the arts" to be "hobbies that provide little value to the world", and "the things that others actually want" to be "stuff like McDonalds".
As a consequence, I'd encourage supporters of UBI to avoid engaging you on the topic. Your revealed worldview speaks more eloquently than any argument you could come up with.
Unless, of course, that's not your position in re higher education/McDonalds, and you're just mocking him. Either way!
> Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values.
Most people should agree that things that "market value" is a means to obtain things people intrinsically value, such as comfort, security, happiness, meaning, procreation, etc.
If, on a macro level, there is a more efficient means to achieve these end goals other than creating things the market values, theres no reason to incentivize that by itself.
In some cases creating things the market values can actively work against these goals, such as many types of advertising and consumer product marketing.
You can't provide comfort, happiness, and meaning without the market to offer those goods. If we have UBI, people are still going to want their toilet unplugged and who will do that if UBI eliminates the need for plumbers to seek income plumbing?
It's likely going to drive the cost of everything up so quickly (because of a massive goods and labor shortage) that the UBI will quickly become useless.
Getting sick of this argument. Just look around you. Tons of people do tons of things all the time even though they don't get paid or don't need the money, or could get by on less.
If a minimal UBI (say, $700/month, similar to today's SSI in the US) is enough in your view to deter people from seeking employment, then how on earth is it that so many people today make more than that, even though they didn't need that much? (You can change the amount around and rerun the thought experiment. Whatever the amount of UBI would be, the existence of many people currently willingly working for more than that amount is proof that people will still strive to make more than UBI)
Enough with this tired argument, think a little before repeating it or at least state a version that explains why somehow we have people today who willingly work for more than the bare minimum
>Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values
What?! That's crazy! Even if I were intending on debating any of you guys, I could hardly do it being prompted by this intentional strawman. But, of course, you're one of them! By which I mean an arch-capitalist, or whatever, who cares, whose internal value system precludes the understanding of what UBI might accomplish because, of course, people are just going to "do anything they want[ed] without contributing to society" [0] rather than behave differently under a system whose fundamental assumptions have changed. Just because you're absolutely certain that people would stop taking jobs in "construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, etc if they can choose to do nothing instead" [0] doesn't mean it's true, and dropping that slimy ostensible fact instead of an actual argument is hardly adding value to the discussion, either! At least my actions provided some value to those intending on discussing UBI in good faith -- ie, do it somewhere else, these guys don't seem capable.
>Hinting that someone's argument is absurd adds no value to the discussion unless you illustrate why
I think I'm doing a pretty good job, but just in case, said argument attempted to imply that higher education is a stupid hobby, those seeking higher education without the material means to pay for it in fact desire McDonalds, and for those reasons UBI upsets the natural order of things and deserves throwaway comment mockery. Am I really bound to provide something more substantive? I think I've made the 'response' that 'argument' deserves.
No, you haven't provided anything of value beyond personal attacks at people that had the gall to suggest that UBI might not align well with economics.
Nobody implied that someone would desire to work at McDonald's instead of attend school. However, there is no evidence that people would attend school if they were free from work. If that were true, colleges would be packed with retired people auditing classes.
>No, you haven't provided anything of value beyond personal attacks at people that had the gall to suggest that UBI might not align well with economics
Without some evidence that it is true, the claim that started this all, namely that people who would use UBI to "pursue things like further education and the arts [that are much harder when you're working two jobs to put food on the table]" [0] are in fact "hobbies that provide little value to the world" [1], is insane. The things that "others actually want" [1] are implied to be "stuff like McDonalds" [0]. The comment authored by 'yummyfajitas [1] is a direct reply to the comment authored by 'mason55 [0]; the correlation of arguments are clearly outlined above. Unless you take issue with my interpretation, or unless you believe that 'yummyfajitas was just fucking with 'mason55, his reply is hardly a suggestion that "UBI might not align well with economics" and more "the rightful place of poor people is to provide low-pay services like McDonalds; those who couldn't aspire to higher education without UBI will provide little value to the world with their taxpayer-supported hobbies".
>Nobody implied that someone would desire to work at McDonald's instead of attend school
I never claimed this, but it sure would be handy for you if someone had. Coupled with your apparent belief that casting aspirations on those who can't afford higher education is not only acceptable but self-evident economic theory, the intentional twisting of my words in this way is a pretty clear indicator of what you're trying to do with this reply.
>However, there is no evidence that people would attend school if they were free from work. If that were true, colleges would be packed with retired people auditing classes
Ah yes, retirees -- the very people who might benefit from release from their low-income McDonalds wage-slavery, and who, with UBI, might aspire to go to college in order to bec-- wait, wait, wait. Why are you talking about retirees? That has little bearing on the discussion at hand, unless, of course, retirees are the people we've been talking about all along and I've missed it somehow.
>You are using your assumption that your position is objectively correct as an excuse to not even defend it
I'm making no claim to correctness, and I don't think you could actually state my position, because I haven't yet elaborated it; somehow, this didn't stop you. Please read this [2]. I'm ridiculing the sort of person who can, without the slightest twinge of conscience, drop two smug paragraphs detailing how UBI will make us all poorer by stating his hunches about the behaviour of the poor and the uneducated as objectively correct facts.
I suppose it's possible that the notion that UBI will lead to a new era of sloth, economic chaos, job loss and plagues of frogs is actually factually correct. But that claim is just as untested as my "claim", which is merely NOT(prevClaim). The illustration of the classist notion that people who couldn't aspire to higher education without UBI will become hobbyists who won't produce value is all the point I'm trying to make -- if you don't immediately see how that's intuitively wrong, our conflicting perspectives probably can't allow us to have a meaningful discussion about UBI and the poor and higher education, either.
>In short, a UBI will make us all poorer because people will refuse to provide the things that others actually want
People being forced to "provide the things that others actually want" in a job they hate or hurts them, just to make a living and feed themselves is what makes us really poor.
>If everyone were allowed to do anything they wanted without contributing to society, things would collapse very quickly.
Citation needed.
Especially one that takes into account increasing automation and software, not merely medieval society needs, and which solves a large part of grunt jobs.
Besides, there are people genuinely love working in the fields you mentioned: construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, and that would do them over nothing. Especially with a pay increase over UBI, so that they do them as a choice, not merely because they're forced to not starve.
Maybe not so many for things like sewage cleaning, garbage disposal and burger flipping, but again a pay increase over UBI would help with that too.
This will also help compensate those jobs according to the value they offer to society, not according to how many people starve and can do them at piss poor compensation to feed themselves.
Very few people do construction because they love it. (source: worked in construction after high school) The same applies to most labor intensive jobs with little room for creativity (all of the ones I mentioned).
There is no citation needed to show that society would collapse if essentially all manual labor stopped overnight. To suggest otherwise is silly.
I think there's a big question of what "allowed to" means here.
"We throw them in jail if they don't"? We don't do that presently.
What we're talking about is "in addition to anything they earn, they choose the disposition of $X/yr", for various values for X. If X is $1, clearly everyone is still working. I agree with you that the $40k figure you cite downthread is extremely likely to be higher than we can support. I think there are intermediate values that might work substantially better than $0. Based on toying with numbers that I've done in the past, my guess is that the optimum value $4k and $9k/yr (though I'm not all that confident in that and would probably want to see it ramped up gradually). If you claim that this would mean "essentially all manual labor stopped overnight", that certainly needs a citation.
Ah, so it's a hand-wave of us somehow getting to a point where everyone was perfectly incentivized to automate everything (without price gouging in the case of monopolies) and pay enough taxes to cover the 12 trillion dollars to give 300 million people $40,000 anum? Last year the US brought in a bit over 3 trillion in tax receipts to put that in perspective.
People being forced to give the fruits of their labor to others who are unwilling to do anything in return is also harmful. Strangely, your calculus seems to exclude them.
Take this analogy. Some people have rare diseases. However, because the diseases are rare and not common, not enough resources go into finding cures for this disease. Should no one work on the cure for a rare disease because it will provide little value to the world, in comparison to a more common one?
I'm not saying this directly translates to UBI, but it is something to think about.
Heck, the way capitalism works, people wont invest in cures even for popular diseases killing tens of millions, if they can't make a nice buck from them (e.g. if the majority victims are poor Africans).
And by the same token, they will milk a cure that they've found as much as possible, even if that means that millions (who can't afford it at the price) will die or get bankrupt etc. (Of course if they could sell it a two different prices to different groups (price differentation) they wouldn't say no to poorer people's money, but they can't).
(And the massive profits from such drugs and of such companies overall, reveal that it's not just "recuperating" money spend on R&D).
> the way capitalism works, people wont invest in cures even for popular diseases killing tens of millions, if they can't make a nice buck
1) You're wrong. Bill Gates, etc, are counter-examples.
but,
2) The problem is the word "invest". You're saying in the same sentence that the investment is a loser. That you won't be able to eat if you take it. So change the word to donate, where it's clear the money is gone, and you'll see that people do indeed donate to things that don't help them. All the time.
3) It's not "how capitalism works", it's how any self-sustaining system of value allocation works.
How would they afford to stay open, to give the drug away, if it cost them more to develop and produce it than they made? Literally, how do they pay their suppliers and employees so they can eat and keep producing the drug, if they don't make as much or more than they expend?
The short-term example of this is the guideline that you should put your own oxygen mask on before helping others.
>1) You're wrong. Bill Gates, etc, are counter-examples.
Bill Gates is an example only of (a) the kindness of his heart, or (b) tax-incentives for philanthropy, depending on your level on cynicism.
Both tell us nothing about the system he operates in though (well, except the (b), which tells us something about the government and IRS).
Obviously anybody in any era and system could arbitrary out of kindess/a whim or for some hidden motive give money for a good cause. The question was whether the system encourages such a behaviour, not whether it can happen in some counter-examples.
>2) The problem is the word "invest". You're saying in the same sentence that the investment is a loser.
No, I'm saying that an investment shouldn't necessarily aim for the maximum profit, everything else be damned. I'm saying what enterprises only pay lip service to in their ads and brochures, their "social responsibility". I'm saying that if you can have a lesser profit (still profit mind you) but do far more good, you should do it instead of being a greedy bastard.
As for charity and donations, those existed both before and after capitalism. (In fact they predate capitalism by some millenia), so are no argument pro or against to our topic.
>3) It's not "how capitalism works", it's how any self-sustaining system of value allocation works.
There have been tons of "self-sustaining system of value allocation" (which pretty much means: any society) that didn't value profit first and foremost, or at least better juggled it with other concerns.
That doesn't mean that tons individuals or leaders in these didn't value profit first and foremost -- only that the societies at large had other moral/ethical/etc priorities and, err, values. In Ancient Athens for example, it was all about being a good citizen.
>How would they afford to stay open, to give the drug away, if it cost them more to develop and produce it than they made?
Nobody asked them to give it "away" or to have it cost them more to develop than they made.
That said, an organization can also operate at zero or marginal profit. Amazon did it for more than a decade, and not even for a good cause, just to gain market share.
No, that's the way humans work in a specific belief and motivational system.
Historically societies have had many incentives and motives for behaviour, advancement, job production, etc, outside of profit, that were as or more important to it. This includes religion, morals, ideals, customs, laws, etc.
Christians, for example, were for centuries not loaning with interest, not because they weren't humans, but because they valued a moral code more than profit.
As a fact, we do such stuff too, and have even put it in laws, e.g. against child labour, slavery etc. All those could bring huge profit too, but we value our morals (e.g. anti-slavery) more. People certainly didn't stop doing them because they weren't profitable.
> Christians, for example, were for centuries not loaning with interest, not because they weren't humans, but because they valued a moral code more than profit.
That confuses who's making the choices with who they're making them for.
There were always christians willing to lend for interest, what stopped them was the other xians who thought it was bad.
Also, look as islamic banking as a modern example. It charges almost exactly as much as a system with interest would but the payments are structured as fees, etc.
There's still usury, it's just in the form of ruinous collateral-backed fees, instead of compound interest. A late-payment fee, on the capital plus a previous late-payment fee, is economically identical.
> Should no one work on the cure for a rare disease because it will provide little value to the world, in comparison to a more common one?
Well obviously. We should invest in whatever saves the most expected quality adjusted life years per unit of resource spent. Investing in rare diseases is just silly and missing a huge opportunity cost. Usually.
With or without UBI, people actually don't want crappy mcdo food. They want good food. But good food cost money and and/or takes time to prepare.
So instead of having minimum wage workers working their asses to make some owner millionaire, we may actually get chefs and cooks paid what they deserves.
So, bring UBI, at least it will stop this stupid race to the bottom. And then lets cancel UBI, I don't believe it is anymore sustainable than the current narcissistic/corporatism regime going own, but it cold be a buffer, while we move forward without back-pedaling.
Your phrasing suggests you favor a UBI, yet your actual claims echo mine (and I'm a UBI opponent). I'm intrigued.