Hacker News Reader

I think most people will continue to work, simply because people generally like having more money. What will stop is degrading bullshit jobs for little pay. Businesses that rely on those jobs will disappear, unless they manage to make their jobs more attractive. Businesses will have to work harder to attract employees, because employees are less desperate for work. More of the profit will go to employees, less to upper management and shareholders. I think that's a good thing.

Unless those jobs can be automated completely, of course. But then, GDP is fine, taxes will probably focus more on corporations, and people will be freed from the degrading bullshit jobs, free to look for something better. And that, I think, is also a good thing. Let the robots do the stupid work, while we're off doing more fun stuff.

Make sure technology makes everybody's lives better. Isn't that the entire point?

My concern is perhaps not with this generation but the next. I don't think anybody who is used to working and the lifestyle that it allows would seek a massive reduction in income to pursue something frivolous, but it is easy to imagine an entire group of people entering the job-market for the first time having no inclination to work for a job, when their own hobbies and interests can be sated without the need to be profitable. Which needless to say would be economically damaging in the long run

So then all those businesses raise the cost of their goods and services to attract employees who demand higher wages and better working conditions, effectively wiping out the net benefit of UBI in the first place.

>This could mean a substantial number of people are neither creating wealth through work or taxable business.

How is this any different than what we have currently? It could be argued that many employed persons are currently destroying wealth through unethical practices encouraged by profit/rent seeking that is prevalent in contemporary economy.

A basic income as you have noted will also allow for people to open 'good businesses' without as much of a pressure to turn a profit. Ideally society would start to look down upon the "I work for <expletive>'s people/companies because I need to pay the bills" attitude that is pervasive today and people would start taking their responsibilities to themselves, their community and our greater environment more seriously.

I don't agree that anything close to a majority a people are working unethically or for unethical ends. Most people are doing jobs that have some economic and societal function. This system works so well because if the product you are offering isn't needed by society then it can't exist. I'm just wondering what the consequences of this subversion will be. If everybody opens a "good business" that doesn't make a profit or is needed, the services we do need will be compromised and the money we take to build schools and hospitals will be reduced.

The ethical net gain might be good, and society's impression of jobs may be altered but that doesn't answer the economic problem of how to encourage people to work in fields that are fiscally meaningful

There are currently plenty of things that are needed but are not profitable so they are not delivered and also plenty of things that are wanted and delivered by the market but not needed. Unfortunately the market is not a fix all for humanity.

> they are exempt from the usual capitalist status quo which forces a venture to be good, popular and eventually profitable

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here. Does the pressure to make money force a venture to be good? Certainly some products are not good, and we have many examples open source projects that are fantastic. Plus there is still social pressure to be doing interesting things with your time, but it's my guess that very creative people don't even need any outside encouragement.