https://www.covidmoneytracker.org
b) Who will do the work? All the automation will do the work. They have kiosks up in McDonalds right now that mean they only need one person needs to be at a register. But as far as it disincentivizes work..nit has been show it does not, but still people cannot believe this.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/no-strings-attac...
"Overall, the programs analyzed suggest either no effect on labor market supply or a slight reduction in work and earnings. The evidence does not suggest an average worker will drop out of the labor force when provided with unconditional cash, even when the transfer is large."
We did that on a one-off basis responding to an unprecedented-within-generations public health emergency. No-one is seriously talking about that as investment; most every source that I have read suggests that the spending was poorly and indiscriminately targeted because it was done in such a headlong rush.
Nor do we "have the money". Deficit spending tripled from 2019 to 2020 and was only down from that level by 12% into 2021. This is the definition of "not having the money".
Even a "large" transfer in this s context is not nearly as much as UBI. The Alaska oil dividend was less than $1000 last year. The Gulf oil nations are the only ones that give enough free money for citizens to live off of, and in these countries are extremely dependent on cheap foreign labor.
They are not "dependent" on cheap labor. They can afford to buy cheap labor with no sacrifice to their own people. This is a benefit of UBI in a world that does not have universal UBI.
Saudi Arabia literally butchered a major journalist. They have frequent public beatings and executions if actual citizens for minor infractions.
The modern Arab world's treatment of their imported SE Asian workforce is absolutely horrendous.
The official figure is that 6500 workers have died building the Qatar world cup stadiums. Applying a 10x multiple to that may still be low balling.
Ok, that's fair. So the average income earner won't stop working. But what about the bottom end of the spectrum i.e someone just above UBI but who has to get up early and travel two hours each way to get to work, or who is just working to put food on the table - with UBI they now have a great reason to stay home.
So... what happens if a good chunk of people earning just above UBI rates just stops working because it's just not worth the ROI. You've ended up creating a vacuum which has to be filled. And how do you fill it? Traditionally you either import cheap labor or raise pay to incentivise applicants. Congratulations, you've just started the inflation engine.
Australia already has this - you can earn up to (somewhere around) $18k per year and you won't get taxed. This applies to everyone. Is this what you're talking about? Because as far as I can see, there are still people under the poverty line here.
But if you're not talking about that, and you're saying that ALL should get $18k (for example) no questions asked, when someone earned $19k before UBI, do they now do the same hours for $1k, or do they keep their whole $19k? If the former, why bother working, but if the latter, you've now just given them $36k not $18k.
These are all just talking points.
> The evidence does not suggest an average worker will drop out of the labor force
That's for the average worker. Show me what happens at the lower scale. Sorry, I'm not going to read a 25 page report right now, but as this does interest me, I am going to put this in my TOREAD list - genuinely, thanks for the link.
Edit: if you want evidence of disincentivising workers when there's no-questions-asked government handouts, look at food aid programs in Africa. There's no point to be a farmer when Free is your competition.
https://cals.arizona.edu/classes/arec514/groupproject/does%2...
b) Who pays for the jobs that are entirely parasitic and remove value - and add friction - today?
I don't think UBI implements a particularly good safety net without other measures - at the very least open education at all levels, open healthcare, open culture, open media, and open democracy.
But if you're implying that money exists to force people to work I'd consider the possibility that you're describing what is essentially a form of slavery. Or at least extreme political control.
It stops being slavery when people are free to choose what to do with their talents, abilities, ambitions, and interests, and when job markets value that contribution instead of - quite literally - attempting to minimise its value.
The fundamental difference is between finding and promoting people who are good at inventing and organising the future, and finding and promoting people who are good at controlling everyone else's time for their own personal benefit.
The latter is what we have now, and it's showing very clear signs of making far less sense as a stable system with a future than some UBI-adjacent scheme would be.
Bingo. Many people do =not realize that calling money for labor "wage slavery" was a term used in the 1700's and was common even into the 1940's. It was even uttered by Hiddy in the 1940's movie "His Girl Friday".
-- Hildy Johnson : The next time you see me, I shall be riding in a Rolls Royce giving interviews on success.
Murphy , McCue, reporter , Wilson, reporter , Bensinger , Endicott : Goodbye.
Hildy Johnson : So long, you wage slaves.
Murphy , McCue, reporter , Wilson, reporter , Bensinger , Endicott : Bye.
Hildy Johnson : Well, when you're climbing up fire escapes and getting kicked out of front doors and eating Christmas dinners at one-arm joints - don't forget your pal, Hildy Johnson. --
So are people who do not want UBI are pro slavery? That is a good question. If you think about the one common complaint that UBI will mean people will not work, just this about that in the terms of a plantation owner talking about his slaves.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&...
"Because slaves had no direct incentive to work hard, slaveowners combined harsh penalties with positive incentives. Some masters denied passes to disobedient slaves. Others confined recalcitrant slaves to private jails."
They even tried instilling a "positive mindset" in the slave!
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2716797
How is this that much different than our current system?
A system is a function of its output. If the the enforcement of law represent the denial of physical access under threat of violence, markets represent the denial of economic access under threat of labor. In some ways this is more insidious, but less overtly violent and many parallel constructions hold. The simultaneous creation of race, and the theological justification for chattel slavery mirrors the creation of capital and the economic justification for wage slavery. The supporters of each alienate their involvement and perpetuation as "the natural order" when in fact it is a social system constantly recreated and socially reproduced.
You can start to see the same patterns play out in the digital space. Human agency is exported to computers in a way that builds systems that re-enforce this dynamic. "Computer says, 'No'"[1], is a perfect summation of this disavowment of human agency and human empaty from the systems we build.
Are you able to point to some sources for both answers? From an economics PoV I'm genuinely interested, yet haven't seen any resources take those two problems together seriously.
e.g. "our oil industry will pay for it", but then who would work the oil rigs?