| > Where can you live that life without being an outcast? Germany, for example. Yeah, sure, on paper you have to be "looking for work", but it's really on paper only. > In an UBI society, those people could do something else and reduce the work load for everybody else. They won't though. I live in a mixed income apartment complex, including lots of people on perpetual welfare with no desire to change their situation. I keep reading about UBI from well-meaning people who explain how it will totally work and I believe that they actually believe that. I also believe that they have no experience with the people that live off of government transfers not because of necessity but because of laziness. It's enough for a nice apartment (50+ square meters for one person), a flat screen TV, an X-Box, a smart phone, internet, food, cigarettes and the occasional alcoholic beverage, healthcare etc included obviously. And that's enough for quite a significant amount of people. They won't "make the world better" if you give them more money, they'll just buy a bigger TV and throw more parties. > At one point, you will be able feed the entire world from the work of a few persons. Possibly. Let's talk about UBI when we're there. We're not, we're not close, and we won't be for decades, unless you're talking about 4 square meters per person and 2500 calories of nutrious slime with no extras. And nobody is talking about that. Drop UBI and replace it with a job guarantee and you'll have my attention. That gets you essentially the same: everybody has enough, but it doesn't come with the moral hazards. On the other hand, it also doesn't reward the lazy. |
>>In an UBI society, those people could do something else
I meant that the administrative layer could be used for other processes than managing welfare.
Why bother how many people don't work? There are 9 billions on this world. Even if 8 billions don't work, you can still run societies with 1 billion.
>we're not close,
Check how many people have to work on farms to create food. We are at a point where providing basic stuff is possible.
>unless you're talking about 4 square meters per person and 2500 calories of nutrious slime with no extras.
Why not? It doesn't have to be slime. Fast food, cereals, sweets, people actually crave cheap food. On the other hand, offering healthy cheap slime with all nutritions, if you look at soylent, that's something people are actually paying for.
Likewise, 50 square meters don't have to be expensive.
With UBI, you cannot make scarce resources affordable to everybody. On the other hand, you can make UBI affordable by reducing the costs of basic goods. If people can live on $100 a month, in a society with an average pre-tax income of $3000, then one working person can take care of 10 non-working citizens.
>Drop UBI and replace it with a job guarantee and you'll have my attention.
There is no way that a government can create meaningful jobs. How cruel is a society where 90% of people only earn the money to buy nutrious slime after having worked on a meaningless job for 8 hours? Allow those people to stay at home and come up with better ways to spend their time. Even if they just play video games, that's less corrupting for the entire society than forcing them to shovel gravel from one ditch into another. They are essentially prisoners and a society is best judged by the way it treats its prisoners.
Life will be better for everybody because the people who work, they know that it is their choice.