š¾ Archived View for idiomdrottning.org āŗ ubi captured on 2023-11-04 at 11:21:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
ā¬ ļø Previous capture (2023-05-24)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I believe we need UBI.
Itās one of the few policy proposals Iāve seen in many years that has the option to make life drastically better and safer for millions of citizens.
You might, like me, have some long term qualms about this. Iāve long seen UBI as maybe more of a short-term āpatchā solution (it doesnāt fix all externalites and environmental problems of market economies), but a desperately needed one.
If it also does end up working out long term, thatād be gravy.
Unconditional Basic Income is money everyone gets. Itās what you need to live, which is the ābasic incomeā part. Itās not tested. Everyone can get it. Which is the āunconditionalā part.
Thatās also where huge savings can be made for the state finances. Thereās a lot of expensive bureaucracy that can be simplified.
There are a lot of debates and issues and problems that pretty much gets a gordian solution with UBI. Poverty, begging, labor market insecurities, art and copyright, software financing, advertisingā¦
Itās a foundation for a whole new kind of market of ideas that isnāt based on medieval qui-pro-quo market ideas. A world of giving. Comics and apps and music that arenāt dependent on ads and merch.
Academiaās dog-eat-dog backstabbing for tenured positions. Now everyone can think and write. Free to invent new thoughts and tools, unbound by ābut what is the business model?ā type dream-killing.
From one of Amelia Earhartās speeches:
Obviously, research regarding technological unemployment is as vital today as further refinement or production of labor-saving and comfort-giving devices.
The purpose of tech is to make our lives easier and cozier, but the forces of the quid-pro-quo labor market means that people still need to break their backs or hearts to put food on the table.
Without UBI, at best, we could invent better tools. More efficient shovels and hammers and rakes that let us dig deeper, hammer harder, rake faster. Without UBI, tech would let us get more done in a day, but it would not let us cut into that 40 hour workweek.
With UBI, the cornucopia might finally get within reach. The right to laziness, as Paul Lafargue put it in 1883. The right to dream and work and create and share and give freely without strings.
The time is now.
So many lives have been wrecked by the pandemic and the bailouts (at least where I am, in Sweden) have been haphazard and skewed and geared towards preserving the existing social hierarchy, with more money offered to those who were already making money.
I mentioned in the opening paragraph how I see UBI as a short-term patch while we figure out something better.
Letās dig into that a little bit more.
Today I got the question about UBI: āWonāt people just become lazy and do nothing?ā
Letās examine three categories of people:
ā¢ the down-and-outers ā¢ the owner class ā¢ the working class
Iām already lazy and I donāt wanna die. I donāt think laziness should have to lead to death.
People who arenāt working should still get food and shelter, and putting humiliating, means-testing hoops in front of such aid is more costly than the benefits.
So the society as a whole benefits from UBI as a more efficient and dignified way to treat down-and-outers.
One idea Iāve sometimes heard is that the more painful it is to not have a normal paying job, the more motivated people are, extrinsically.
This benefits the owner class who are eager to see its workers on the brink of starvation so they will fall in line out of desperation. So obviously, among the owner class, UBI is only appealing to the subset of them who is more eager to sell than to employ.
So yes, UBI, to the extent that extrinsic motivators are valid, has some drawbacks for the employer class in this regard. (To be weighed agaisnt the advantages in other sections.)
How about for everyone else? Is there really nothing to the argument that there are labor tasks in a society that need to be done and wonāt get done without extrinsic motivation? So that even if a UBI appeals to me as an invididual worker, it scares me because society is gonna collapse if people just laze around watching cartoons instead of being nurses and street sweepers?
Yes, actually. That might happen. But the problem is that society is gonna collapse anyway.
Owner concentration, wealth gaps, global warmingā¦ weāre seeing ownership of comfort-giving and labor-saving devices (like AI or data centers) becoming incredibly concentrated.
Thatās why I always call UBI just a stepping stone or a temporary life raft. We can have food on the table while we figure out a more sustainable way to live. UBI isnāt the permanent solution, but as a stop-gap, itās a pretty urgent one because we are seeing peopleās livelihoods getting all jacked up.
I talk about externalities and exploitation all the time but quick recap: the problem is that when I sell you a gallon of gas, neither of us pays directly (as part of that transaction) for the cost to the Earth that ensues as you burn that gas. This is a glitch (or leak) in market capitalism as a system, that those costs arenāt accounted for. Market capitalism is a bountiful and rich paradise of iPhones and ice cream, but much of that wealth is borrowed from our own future selves as weāre gnawing off our own environment, and much of it is off the back of desperate workers who canāt afford what theyāre forced to manufacture.
As we try to deal with these external costs, we might find ourselves in a situation similar to ÅrÄ« Laį¹ kÄ where farmers had to try to shoulder the move to organic, and couldnāt. Or to the pandemic, where celebrities and hotel owners got paid where down-and-outers werenāt.
UBI can help to tide us over while we sober up and get our priorities in line.
We live in such a rich-gets-richer society with so many feedback loops that keep benefitting those who have benefitted in the past, and those benefits arenāt out of thin air.
Market capitalism has one jobāto distribute resources and tasksāand itās messing that up completely.
Take a look at the jobs around you. Some are about growing plants, turning the plants into food or housing, helping sick people, and so on.
Other jobs are just meta-jobs about owning and selling. Ultimately about shuffling numbers around, but with a very real cost, like a blaring ad campaign or an unnecessary but climate-wrecking product or a mortgage trench scam that left thousands homeless, or gas-burning crypto mining.
Which of these two categories does our exisiting labor market extrinsically motivate the most? The latter. If ad sellers or tech CEOs or gas guzzlers would instead be a liāl bit ālazierā and just chill out with some UBI and chess puzzles, the world might be better off.
The fear is that UBI wonāt do a good enough job to motivate tasks that are vital to society. But market capitalism is already doing an absolutely awful job in that regard. Wrecking the Earth puts your name on skyscrapers while mopping a hospital floor gets you on oatmeal and painkillers.
The quaint wealth gaps of history