We can't possibly re-allocate the trillions of dollars the federal government spends, or the more trillions the collective states spend, because it would lead inevitably to mass die-offs comparable to soviet-era famine conditions.
Existing UBI programs don't directionally move that way? Pandemic productivity actually rose, despite a couple of quarters of setbacks? The actual evidence doesn't support gloom and doom? Just make the claims of potential harm bigger! Nobody can counter hyperinflation, civil unrest, or world war!
Covid did not create Universal Basic Income. Everyone knew that Covid money will run out, so most people didn't quit their jobs (although still many did, which was GP's point). Also, the amount of debt raised during covid was no joke, and we don't know the long term effects. But even disregarding that last point Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's claim. The fundamental issue is with UBI is people will not want to work and that is GP's central claim.
If Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's hysterical claims, then it definitely isn't a useful datapoint for supporting them.
The number of people who quit their jobs to depend on "Covid money" rounds down to zero. There just wasn't enough "Covid money" for that. Many people were unemployed during the early days of the pandemic, but not voluntarily.
Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence and the counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. But carry on. Civil unrest and a world war await.
Obviously, becasue the cause is unemployment, not whether it is voluntary or not.
>but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did?
Yes, because it is a logical error, as I explained above.
>Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence
The evidence is that most people don't like working. I've never met anyone who went to work on a day off; I've seen countless people to get out of it.
>counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way.
They are as you say: limited. We would only see the effects after UBI becomes "a thing" that allows people to slack off, not a trial. And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot.
> And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot.
From the misspelling of education to the apparent breathlessness with which this prognostication is offered up as a fait accompli, it's perfection itself!
We live in a world in which for some strange reason people try to educate children and work at jobs making more than subsistence wage, and even try to get raises and promotions, and even when they get a job making six times the average, they keep working and advancing, but no, if UBI is enacted, civil unrest and world war will be the least of our problems. CHILDREN WILL CEASE TO LEARN!
Hahahahahahahaha! Okay, NOW carry on.
[0]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiv...
Amen.
A slightly different version of the arguments you write here could have been made against pensions or a 40h work week when they were introduced. I'm not saying UBI would not massively change society and potentially include risks, I am just questioning your certainty that implementing it would lead to disaster.
Oh, and it's Viktor Frankl by the way.
But I agree that with UBI people who have actually important jobs might also quit, or demand higher salaries.
Some would say that sounds fair and sensible compared to the current status quo.
About software development specifically: Note how many of the most valuable software projects have grown not from profit driven corporations, but from open source maintainers working in their spare time.
I'm not saying that nationwide UBI would be a good thing but your logic isn't clear.
UBI is a yearly recurring expense in the trillions.
Lots of people would work less, (remember COVID?) lowering tax revenue.
This means higher demand for workers, who will require even higher pay because of supply constraints and high taxes.
Unlocked demand, decreased labor supply and higher taxes means inflation. Lots of inflation, specially in services.
Businesses will offshore or automate to try and reduce cost, but that will push even more workers onto UBI.
What will the new equilibrium be? Nobody knows. It could stabilize with extreme income inequality creating a permanent underclass, It could drive the United States into hyperinflation, creating civil unrest and destabilizing world security. Nobody knows. It would be a society wide experiment that would be politically impossible to undo democratically.
If you think BS jobs are bad, how about no jobs in a bankrupt United States, sliding into Venezuelan hyper inflation?
Imagine China, Russia, and North Korea undeterred and the death and human suffering that would follow.
The US may not be perfect, but the world is a harsh harsh place and people have no idea how good they have it right here, right now.
So good that professionals not only demand high pay from their employers, but think it's totally reasonable to require "meaning" as well.
Were he still alive, I would pay good money to see the author try and read his essay out loud to Victor Frankel.