Re:If You Think Free Money Kills Work Ethic, Your Definition...
by dragonwriter on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @06:56PM
(#11632641)
> So UBI only makes sense where robots are doing all the work.
A mature UBI (one that can provide an out-of-poverty level benefit) requires more automation and productivity than we have now, but that's not "robots doing all the work".
> I don't think a lot of socialists see that
Most UBI supporters aren't socialists, and many (possibly most) socialists aren't UBI supporters.
> they seem to argue (like in the original article) that we should be able to move that way now.
We can certainly adopt a UBI now, and there are arguments for adopting a low-level UBI that increases with productivity (perhaps "automatically" by tying it to a dedicated tax, or share of an existing tax, that is naturally tied to output growth) as the way to get to a mature UBI.
> Fundamentally, 'value' (goods, services) is produced by someone and consumed by another.
Yes.
> UBI is trying to enable consuming without producing at some level.
Not really. It has the effect of allowing some people to consume greater value than is indicated by the payment they receive from others (not considering the government). In some cases this may be consuming without production, in others it may be people that you acknowledge are already producing more than they consume getting a correction.
And note that it replaces existing systems which already do this with various inefficiencies which it seeks to eliminate.
A mature UBI (one that can provide an out-of-poverty level benefit) requires more automation and productivity than we have now, but that's not "robots doing all the work".
> I don't think a lot of socialists see that
Most UBI supporters aren't socialists, and many (possibly most) socialists aren't UBI supporters.
> they seem to argue (like in the original article) that we should be able to move that way now.
We can certainly adopt a UBI now, and there are arguments for adopting a low-level UBI that increases with productivity (perhaps "automatically" by tying it to a dedicated tax, or share of an existing tax, that is naturally tied to output growth) as the way to get to a mature UBI.
> Fundamentally, 'value' (goods, services) is produced by someone and consumed by another.
Yes.
> UBI is trying to enable consuming without producing at some level.
Not really. It has the effect of allowing some people to consume greater value than is indicated by the payment they receive from others (not considering the government). In some cases this may be consuming without production, in others it may be people that you acknowledge are already producing more than they consume getting a correction.
And note that it replaces existing systems which already do this with various inefficiencies which it seeks to eliminate.