• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    To be the devils advocate here, how would that system be fair to workers not replaced by robots? Like if im a plumber i still gotta put in my 40+ hrs/week but a factory worker just gets UBI now?

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      8 months ago

      The thing about a UBI is that it’s universal. You’d get a UBI despite still working as a plumber. For you, it would be extra cash - for the factory worker laid off, it would be a lifeline.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Everyone would get UBI. Nobody would be forcing you to keep your plumbing job. And even if you stuck around, you wouldn’t have to work 40+ hours plumbing weeks because UBI would give you the ability to chose what dmjobs youd want to take on. And maybe now that those factory workers aren’t stuck in factories, some of them might actually want to learn how to be plumbers, meaning more plumbers to take on jobs.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        I highly doubt most people are just going to pick up a trade as if it is a hobby if they are getting a UBI

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          No, but plenty would pick up a trade to get more money, for the same reason that people still overwhelmingly seek full-time jobs instead of only part-time jobs in areas with low CoL.

        • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I know this is a popular perception, but it doesn’t allign with the results of experiments where random citizens were granted an UBI.

            • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              A monthly universal basic income (UBI) empowered recipients and did not create idleness. They invested, became more entrepreneurial, and earned more. The common concern of “laziness” never materialized, as recipients did not work less nor drink more.

              Mein gott, such a terrible policy.

            • jj4211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Well, no, we’ve never been able to test UBI. That would require the entire population of significant geographic areas to receive UBI levels of income in a way they start believing it’s a safe thing to expect for the foreseeable future, and to model how it’s funded rather than just how it pays out.

              What we’ve done is frequently means test the experiments, deliberately select low income people, but only a tiny portion of a larger low income population. Also, the participants know very well that the experiment might be a few months or a year, but after that they’ll be on their own again, so they need to take any advantage it gives them. So all the experiments prove is that if you give some, but not all, low income people a temporary financial benefit, they can and will out compete others without the benefit.

              UBI might be workable, or it might need certain other things to make it workable, or it might not be workable, but it’s going to be pretty much impossible to figure it out in a limited scope experiment.

              The Alaska permanent fund is about as close to UBI as we’ve gotten, but the amounts are below sustenance living so it’s not up to the standard either.

              • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                What we’ve done is frequently means test the experiments, deliberately select low income people, but only a tiny portion of a larger low income population.

                So what you’re saying it we explicitly looked at the most extreme examples and seen how UBI has greatly benefitted the people in those extreme situations, and every single time the experiments are conducted the results are pretty consistent, but we can’t extrapolate that it won’t work in less extreme situations because… reasons…

                • jj4211@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Because you still have the element of differential compared to others. In true UBI, the UBI recipient would represent the ‘low point’ for any citizen. Let’s take Seattle for example as they recent had an ‘experiment’ about UBI. If you had true UBI, then 750,000 people would all get same benefit, of which 75,000 were unemployed. In the UBI experiment, 100 of that 75,000 people had the benefit temporarily, and have an advantage over 74,900 people without that benefit, and the experiment only influences 0.01% of the population in general and then only by a meager amount, so the general local economy won’t even register the activity as a blip. Those 100 people can have a breather but know that time is short. So they take advantage to maybe take a class, get nice interview clothes, and show up better prepared for a job than maybe the other dozen applicants that couldn’t afford to buy the clothes, take time off for the right interview, or take that class. They might not have any particular advantage if everyone had UBI, and the experiment measured success in terms of relative success over those not in the cohort.

                  So we are missing:

                  • What is the behavior if UBI is taken for granted as a long term benefit for the forseeable future, rather than a temporary benefit.
                  • What is the competitive picture if 100% of the population have the same benefit rather than 0.01%. i.e. how much of it was success owing to better resources versus success owing to others needing to fail to allow that relative success.
                  • What is the overall economic adjustment if 100% of the population has this income and participants in the economy may adjust
                  • What does it look like when the funding model in terms of taxation resembles what is needed in a UBI

                  Just like all sorts of stuff in science, at scale does not necessarily map to small scale observations. Especially in economic and social science. That’s not to say UBI is definitely not going to work, it’s that we can’t know how it will work/not work until done “for real” at the appropriate scale.

        • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m probably a minority but i would in a heartbeat. I stopped doing residential AC because the bills didn’t get paid that often (people just don’t like paying bills) and honestly i couldn’t compete with larger companies while still having to maintain my epa certs, gas reclamation charges and the cost of refrigerant alone .

        • Kedly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          UBI is to cover the basics, its not going to let everyone live in luxury, you’d still want for extra cash, you just wouldnt NEED it. Thus people would still be willing to work

        • Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I would love to learn to weld, be a mechanic, electrician… basically all the things I’ve had to pickup up in a triage capacity. I would love to give up my 9-5 rat race job and learn to do something beneficial well. I can’t justify the current expense of taking 18-24 months off to go back to school though when I make enough to stay alive at this point.

          You are probably right, but at the same time we might be surprised. UBI becomes the catalyst for this experiment to take off though.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          UBI is generally proposed as a basic sustenance income, a fairly austere lifestyle that is “enough” but likely not fulfilling.

          Of course if you don’t have enough “work” to go around, that vision of UBI becomes pretty dystopian, as some people are stuck with bare bones living with zero opportunity for better. If we do get there, then that sort UBI isn’t going to be enough, but as you say it it’s too much and you still need human work some, well, is a tough question…

    • zout@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Or you put in 16 hours a week, and some other people do the rest of the hours.

      On the other hand, we could also train the factory workers to become assistant consultants, or give them some other bullshit job…

    • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      40+ hrs/week

      Isn’t that the thing? We automatize so much and instead of getting the 20hrs/week, we struggel so much to improve efficiency. But for what? There are sectors I agree with that approach (like medicine, climate impact and so on). But if I have to use the same smartphone technology for 10 years or don’t upgrade to an 8k TV in the next 20 years, that is utterly fine by me, if that means that I’ll have to wrk 20hours less per week.

    • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      To be another devil’s advocate here, who’s paying for all the free shit these people are getting while they’re not working?

      • TequilaMockingbird@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 months ago

        Tax companies a % of what they save by reducing head count. Salary, benefits, insurance, everything. They still save $, but not as much - they pay into a fund for UBI. And eliminate loan interest tax deductions for loans (totalling) over $X (some reasonable threshold that doesn’t penalize middle class mortgage holders).

        And to the poster above, UBI is for everyone, so those still working get UBI plus a paycheck - that’s how it’s fair.

        We are NOT economically prepared for the renaissance coming. And our octogenarian leaders don’t even understand how to set up a printer. Something’s gotta give or the economy will collapse. Some estimates are up to 25% of jobs in the next 10 years.

      • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        The basics of Supply and Demand. If automation means more consistent and bigger Supply, then prices will* come down and more of the Demand will be able to afford the goods and services in the Supply. Larger supply means cheaper prices, possibly to the point where value becomes basically meaningless.

        *assuming that Supply isn’t artificially limited by the owners of industry to protect their own profits. If only someone wrote a series of books and pamphlets about how the owners would do everything they can to protect their profits.

        • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          But, you say “afford” like it’s something people will freely be able to achieve. My question again is- if no one is working- nothing is afforded by anyone.

          The entitled masses today are the same as they’ve ever been. Ask the one question the refuse to answer, and get drivel and theory in return.

          Anti-work is a ridiculous notion that some kids unfortunately took seriously.

          • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’ll take “How to completely miss the point of what I wrote” for 1000 Alex.

            I never said anything about anti-work* and I literally addressed the point about how high production and automation and plentiful Supply drives prices down.

            *Which it seems like you’re assuming people won’t do any labor and instead it’s people won’t work bullshit jobs that don’t actually do anything productive and can actually more choose what they work on instead of working for the benefit of the industry owners

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Well, the hypothetical is essentially a post scarcity “economy”, if there is zero demand for “work”, then work would have to be uncoupled from livelihood in some way.

            A crap outcome would be to meaninglessly keep toiling at work that we could automate because we are afraid of dealing with consequences of a big labor surplus.

            However, this is a hypothetical, and even if it starts becoming a reality, it’s going to be awkward when we can’t meaningfully have “work” for everyone but we still need work for some people.

            I will agree that the hard core antiwork folks that say today we could get by with everyone only doing what they wanted for fun are unrealistic. However it’ll be… Interesting to see how we might navigate possibilities.

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The folks that don’t want them building guillotines in their spare time. Remember kids, guillotines cure economic anxiety.