[hahooooo]

The danger I see with UBI, is (in addition to possible inflation, etc.) is that commentators on HN tend to be of higher education, curious, and simply "hackers". Most people here would love to be payed money so they could sit and program some cool OSS, start a new company or simply change the world.

For them, UBI is fantastic. How many more Googles/GNUs/Apples would there be if engineers could quit existing companies and form, all while guaranteed basic sustenance.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who don't care for that. You pay them money, they'll sit playing Video games, sports, or simply bum around.

And then you start having issues convincing people to go for higher education (even assuming its free).

Wait, what about lower education?

Go to school, get good grades, or else you'll ... get a livable wage anyways?

Why should I write essays when I can play video games instead?

Then, until everything is automatable, you still need to get people to work under the hot sun, picking potatoes.

If you have a livable wage without it, why would you go? And how much will the farmer need to pay workers to go?

[carapace]

A thought experiment: Assume a near-future world where automation can provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Further assume there is a part of the population that just slacks off. Would you be in favor of some sort of punishment to make those folks conform to your standard of not wasting their lives?

[hahooooo]

My main point is that people tend to view everyone as themselves. So intellectuals tend to view everyone as intellectuals.

So we think that if only I'd have guaranteed income, I'd finally get around to fixing Firefox, or making an Open Source Google, or whatever. Therefore, it would be better for society if people would be free to leave "useless work" and innovate instead.

But once you see the "real world," you realize that it's not going to happen. Most people would just sit at home playing CS or chatting on FB.

Now once humanity is retired, and of no more use (singularity), then sure, why not. It'll be the AIs innovating everything, running everything, and no one will be doing anything useful anyways.

But until that point, I don't know if we can realistically afford three quarters of the population to just go into early retirement.

[carapace]

Heh, cool, I agree with you. :-)

I'm one of those who views UBI as a way of dealing with productivity explosion implied by (some models of) the singularity (as opposed to a form of welfare.) It seems a realistic option, and more desirable than e.g. slavery or genocide, once things are getting closer to the limit, eh?

[jpindar]

In other words, "those proles are so lazy that as long as they don't starve, they'd PREFER being poor"? People living on only UBI will still be relatively poor.

Look at all the lengths people throughout the ages have gone to to make money. People LIKE money. They like it so much they are willing to work for more of it, even when they already have enough to barely survive.

[dragonwriter]

The problem you point to is self-limiting. Regardless of the nominal level of UBI, it won't provide a satisfactory income unless a sufficient number of people remain working to provide the goods and services required to provide a satisfying style of life for the UBI-only recipients and sufficient additional value to workers for them to continue working. Prices will adjust to make this the case.

As the quality of life provided on UBI-only declines, the incentive for additional productive work will increase.

(of course, lots of people now continue to expend additional effort beyond what is necessary for a minimally livable existence, so I don't see this as likely to be a great problem.)

[hahooooo]

In other words, the tragedy of the commons.

My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI (such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century), for every Newton or Voltaire were many more unknown nobles who spent their life grooming their mustaches.

I don't believe our society is that much better now.

[dragonwriter]

> In other words, the tragedy of the commons.

In a sense, but in this particularly case it operates as a negative feedback control mechanism which prevents the actual feared problem from occurring, so is hardly a "tragedy".

> My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI

There are no societies with UBI to look back on.

> such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century

A benefit restricted to a particular social class is not a UBI (or, at least, not much like what modern UBI proposals target, and not likely to serve as a guide as to what one can expect from them), nor, even ignoring that aspect, did the upper class of Europe through any of that time have anything remotely resembling a UBI, which is a flat, equal, unconditional grant to all members of a society.

Now, in much of that period, individual nobles had (either by definition or just disproportionately, depending on the particular time and place) either claims to income from substantial properties or family connections to those who did and who would support junior family members with, often quite conditional, support, but that's more the position of a wealthy capitalist or their associates in the modern era than that of a UBI beneficiary.

[noonespecial]

We'd have to decide how many mustache groomers each Voltaire or Newton is worth before deciding if it's a tragedy, no?

[noonespecial]

>The problem is that there are a lot of people who don't care for that. You pay them money, they'll sit playing Video games, sports, or simply bum around.

Which is cheaper than housing even a small number of them in prisons. One of the hopes is that by eliminating much of the desperateness from poverty, we'll save a bundle from the accompanying reduction in crime.

[yarrel]

Thank you, this is a great conversation.

[robocat]

People over a certain age get a UBI (in many countries).

Maybe extrapolate from what they do...

[dragonwriter]

> People over a certain age get a UBI (in many countries).

> Maybe extrapolate from what they do...

People over the age for drawing public pensions (whether or not those are UBI-like; most I'm familiar with are not) are probably not representative of the broader population in their decisions with regard to engagement in the labor market, entrepreneurship, etc., and how those decisions are impacted by changes in available resources.