Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
You may not have said it per se, but it's a prevalent attitude that tends to be present in people who are against UBI.
Again going back to the motivation video I posted earlier... based on your feedback on the video, it seems like you ignored the bulk of what was actually said in it. It explicitly said that money is a tremendous motivator for grunt-work jobs; jobs that are physically demanding. This means jobs like construction, farm work, power plants, water treatment plants, etc. Make these jobs well paying (emphasis on well paying), and people will work them. As for the skilled trades, they are a mixture of menial and non-menial work, so money is still a strong motivator for those tasks as well.
Another key take away from the video that you seem to have missed, is the fact that people are driven by purpose. People aren't just going to constantly sit at home and tinker, when they could collaborate with others to achieve greater things and contribute to society in a more meaningful way.
There's nothing modest about it. It would be a game changer in terms of giving people the power to say no to any situation where they feel they are being exploited
It would cause a shift in society's focus from its current rampant consumerism, exploitation of one another, and destruction of the planet, to a healthy balance between consumerism and modesty...
|
I don’t think I am actually against UBI entirely. I think that it’s proponents hand wave away the risks and ignore the fundamental question of if the disincentive to work is greater then the amount of work society has required to do. It doesn’t disappear because of a video on motivation Why I specifically addressed the non grunt work is that I though the premise is that grunt levels jobs are being automated away therefore the jobs that need staffing are not the ones where increasing pay increases performance. However if the grunt jobs are still around you still have the problem outlined above.
In a world with UBI how do you calibrate UBI such that their is sufficient incentive for the work that needs to be done gets done while at the same time providing a suitable living wage. It is not guaranteed that it is possible to accomplish both.
Tinkering is purpose, for example I changed the brakes on my car this weekend, not because I can’t afford to but because it is fulfilling. I put a new roof on my garage in the spring not because I couldn’t afford to but because I hadn’t done it before. I also did a ton of hiking this summer when I wasn’t working. What I didn’t do in this spare time was contribute to society in any meaningful way. You are assuming that the Mastery concept is equivalent to making society better. It isn’t, it’s just having new experiences, learning and getting good at things. These may or may not be beneficial to society at large. We clearly disagree with the level of risk and the human response
It’s the bolder where I don’t follow your logic.
Why wouldn’t people who currently max out there ability to spend money so they have to work continue to do that with an additional 20k in their pocket. Why would this behaviour change.
Why would there be a shift in focus from exploitation and consumption? Economic analysis shows giving money to poor people acts as really good stimulus precisely because it increases consumption.
Throughout history the Energy consumed per person is rising. Transferring money from rich to poor doesn’t change this. If you want to change this you need to increase the cost of energy. There is no other solution.