[NicuCalcea]

I don't see why UBI would necessarily be an increase of income for everyone. It could be that, but it could also be a decrease in hours worked, or a more equal distribution of wealth, or any combination of these.

I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like.

[estearum]

> I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like.

Why don't you just do that now and work half the amount of hours you're currently working?

[phil21]

> Why don't you just do that now and work half the amount of hours you're currently working?

Show me the job like mine where this is an option, and I'll take it in a second. Hire another me and we'll split duties.

These sorts of "professional job that pays a professional hourly rate but is for 20 hours a week" are exceedingly rare. You'll usually be taking far less than 50% pay - far worse if you include benefits in the calculation.

I've been halfway keeping my eye open for such an opportunity so I could fund the basics of my life, plus have time to do personal projects with utterly no chance of monetary payback. Just stuff like paint the house, teach myself how to weld, work on backyard art, volunteer, etc.

I could certainly find a job that pays 50% of what I get now for working the same number of hours though. Perhaps moderately less stress and no "off hours" chance of being called in for an emergency. But that's not a great tradeoff since I'm looking to trade money for time.

This may not be the point you're making, but it really is sort of frustrating this isn't an option. I get why - I employ folks too and understand the overheads involved - but man it's the dream!

[bombcar]

The biggest opportunity for it is to work for yourself as a consultant or other hired gun at $X an hour; and just only schedule half-work.

[NicuCalcea]

Money.

[estearum]

More precisely: purchasing power.

And that's my point.

Your purchasing power will not change.

[NicuCalcea]

If we worked fewer hours for the same pay, our purchasing power would remain the same. I'm not saying there won't be any disruption at all, but we did it before with the five-day work week.

[estearum]

If "we" means everyone, yes. But the reality is there is a sufficient number of people willing to work more to earn more, and therefore they will raise prices of everything which destroys your purchasing power.

Your purchasing power is defined in a competitive equilibrium with your peers.

If you're assuming you can band everyone together to all decide to work fewer hours for the same pay, fine, but you just invented a union, not an improvement to UBI.

[NicuCalcea]

There are people working 80-hour weeks now. I don't think "some people want as much money as possible" is the basis of how we should think of labour. Plenty of middle-class workers will be happy to work fewer hours if they can maintain their current lifestyles.

> If you're assuming you can band everyone together to all decide to work fewer hours for the same pay, fine, but you just invented a union, not an improvement to UBI.

Why should this come solely via unions? I elect people to represent me, and I want those people to tax AI/tech companies and their beneficiaries, and return some of the wealth they've generated to the people it's been extracted from. The entire point of UBI is that it's universal, including in industries poorer and more vulnerable workers who can't self-organise work in.