[fictioncircle]

> It's funny how boredom, vice, and the indignity of receiving income without continual labor loom in importance if and only if we're talking about technological unemployment. What of people receiving Social Security, pensions, inherited wealth, royalties from patents and copyrights, rents collected on real estate...?

It is largely a desire for a control mechanism where the sheep are inherently dependent on the mechanism to eat.

The retired pensioners and independently wealthy are both largely willing to sustain the status quo without substantial, rapid change.

The scary thing to people at the top of the ladder is what happens when it isn't just those two segments of the population? What happens when you have millions of rebellious young people completely free of the 9-5 to grind to survive?

They don't know if the answer supports the status quo and to them its a scary unknown.

[roryisok]

I'm not against Universal Basic Income, but there are some things about it which worry me, and which don't seem to come up very much in these discussions.

leverage

If we're all on basic income, we no longer have any leverage if our "wages" are reduced. The ruling classes can decide to drop the amount we earn, and there's not much we can do about it. Sure, we can "vote", but we can't strike, which is a far more powerful way to fight against pay decreases.

education

the main driving force behind education is the need for employment. of course plenty of people seek education purely for their own fulfilment, and we imagine with the free time that will come with joblessness, more people will do this. but we'll almost certainly see a drop in the number of young people attending college, since there's no "need". with less people in college, the overall level of education around the world will drop.

[dragonwriter]

> If we're all on basic income, we no longer have any leverage if our "wages" are reduced. [...] Sure, we can "vote", but we can't strike, which is a far more powerful way to fight against pay decreases.

Actually, if no one needs your labor (which is the only situation in which you have BI but not actual wages) you can't strike, whether or not you are getting BI. The loss of leverage is a result of the declining demand for labor, not the presence of UBI redistributing income.

[fictioncircle]

> If we're all on basic income, we no longer have any leverage if our "wages" are reduced. The ruling classes can decide to drop the amount we earn, and there's not much we can do about it. Sure, we can "vote", but we can't strike, which is a far more powerful way to fight against pay decreases.

You could still strike. UBI has nothing to do with employment and it enables you to sustain strikes longer as you are guaranteed income regardless of employment status. (i.e. you won't starve)

> the main driving force behind education is the need for employment. of course plenty of people seek education purely for their own fulfilment, and we imagine with the free time that will come with joblessness, more people will do this. but we'll almost certainly see a drop in the number of young people attending college, since there's no "need". with less people in college, the overall level of education around the world will drop.

Tbh, I think many "creative" majors go into creative majors (despite the economic practicality) because they want to. (i.e. Art, English)

[thatguy0900]

What exactly are you striking if the robots create everything? I'm not sure what you could withhold that would upset the government. I guess you could stop consuming things, but you don't have the money to consume very much anyway on just UBI.

[fictioncircle]

We are a long way from SkyNet and self maintaining robots.

Realistically, the robots are simply going to replace Fast Food workers and such like they do in factories. (i.e. massively reduced but non-0 employment) UBI assumes people work but not nesc. full time and sufficient to take care of all of their needs.

If it gets to the point where you have no ability to earn any money for anyone, well, no offense you are probably screwed no matter the government unless its very benevolent. The forces you are talking about are wholly independent of UBI's existence.

Frankly, the belief that "lowering UBI" will be tolerated amuses me because the US has a UBI-esque system for the retired and it has the largest, most powerful lobbying organization in the US.

[AnthonyMouse]

> but we'll almost certainly see a drop in the number of young people attending college, since there's no "need".

More likely the opposite. Making $12K/year sucks. You can make $12K/year + 17K/year by flipping burgers, but that still sucks. Much better to go to college and then make $12K/year + 70K/year.

And a UBI allows more people to do that because it reduces the risk of quitting a bad job to go to school.

[Bombthecat]

The jobs for that would still be not there...

So, why go to school?

[AnthonyMouse]

> The jobs for that would still be not there...

> So, why go to school?

You would obviously go to school for the jobs that are still there.

And if there hypothetically aren't any then what difference would a UBI make to that?

[e12e]

Why do you read hn? Is part of the motivation to learn something new?

[dvtv75]

As far as leverage goes, my present employer relies entirely on there being little alternative to what he offers. If I had a UBI, that would remove his leverage and I could leave - and I would, in a heartbeat.

Why work for almost no money every week, why work extra hours for free just to satisfy an incompetent's power lust if you don't have to?

[jacobolus]

Wait, what? If people don’t need to work full time to nominally survive, that gives them much more leverage vs. employers.

The BATNA during labor negotiations is now “live a spare lifestyle on basic income” vs. “let your whole family die starving in a gutter”.

[the_watcher]

He's speaking about leverage against the provider of UBI, who can simply lower or remove it.

[jacobolus]

Aha. Well that’s no different from any other public service, subsidy, or restriction then. The “leverage” is voting, the specific content of legislation/regulation, and the legal system, and if those don’t work mass protest.

For instance, “the ruling classes” could just as easily decide tomorrow to cut road maintenance, police response to violent crime, fire departments, emergency rooms, public schools, food stamps, public pension plans, access to parks, agricultural subsidies, grants for scientific research, government-backed loan programs, access to wifi spectrum, air pollution controls, carefully controlled monetary policy, bank deposit insurance, ....

[finnh]

OP is talking about leverage against the government should they decide to lower the BI level.

[Stanleyc23]

Speaking of leverage, if UBI money can be used towards credit cards, we might expect to see even more people get hooked in perpetual credit card debt. Always just enough cash to swipe the plastic, never enough to wipe away the debt.

[fictioncircle]

Yes, but no more than we do with social security and our existing system realistically. And the threat of repeated bankruptcies by UBI folks is likely enough of a threat to keep it from getting out of hand (and if it does, its the credit card companies that get burned by the bankruptcies).

[sokoloff]

If UBI is garnishable/attachable, credit card companies could simply wait to get paid from a slice of future UBI payments, meaning there might be increased risk of over-extension.

(I haven't thought deeply enough about whether it should or shouldn't be garnishable. I lean towards the idea that it shouldn't, but then that makes it less valuable in certain ways.)

[fictioncircle]

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/sally-herigstad-...

> Another rule is that they cannot take more than the excess of your earnings over 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage (currently $7.25 per hour). That means $217.50 per week (30 X $7.25) is safe from any garnishment at all.

307.2552 = $11,310

You are largely immune to garnishment on a $12k/year UBI (for instance) under existing law. Bankruptcy would likely remove any garnishment if you only had UBI. I'm not a lawyer but the impression I have is pretty much under $20k, very little garnishment will occur due to:

A) Costs of recovery

B) The bankruptcy process favors the poor person declaring bankruptcy in terms of who walks away with "more".

I highly suspect the current floor on how much of your wages can be garnished would be kept equal to UBI and no one extends substantial credit to people on UBI for that reason.

[sokoloff]

Thanks for that data!

[ryanmarsh]

LOL. Millions of young men with housing and food and nothing to do. You just described a standing army.

[fictioncircle]

That is the traditional method of UBI. Military expansionism. ;)

[pizza]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Economy