If You Think Free Money Kills Work Ethic, Your Definition of “Work” Is Horrible
crossingenres.com
crossingenres.com
And that cook who makes a meal for a whole restauant? Who cleans his dishes and tables when he's done? And almost nobody would volunteer to be a shoe salesman.
This cherry-picked utopian view works for a 5% of the economy and workers out there. But not in reality that I've experienced.
Perhaps no one would be a dishwasher for a price people are willing to pay, and restaurants have people bring or wash their own dishes. Would that be terrible? I would feel good about that, personally.
Or people would wash dishes because they wanted more money, as I did in high school, despite being provided with food, clothes, shelter, a computer, and access to a car by my parents.
And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm
Basic income wouldn't mean the end of work— just the end of people being forced to work by fear of homelessness. That just means people would clean septic tanks because they'd get paid a lot of money so they can buy motorcycles or take awesome vacations or whatever, and septic tank installers would have to compete to offer good working conditions so that an unpleasant but necessary task is palatable enough that people would be glad to do it in exchange for good enough money.
>And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm
How many would sit in the mall for 40 hours per week? That's the fallacy -- that enough people like doing something so much that they would do it enough to make up for the hordes of people that would stop doing it if not paid.
> people bring or wash their own dishes
Who will make the dishes? And the dish washing detergent? And the bottles to hold the detergent? And the refinery to make the plastic for the bottles? And dig up the stuff to supply the refinery? And construct the refinery?
This is why so many -ism's are a seductive idea, but don't work in reality, because the narrative focuses on just the last step or so of a very long supply chain full of unpleasant work for someone else.
This article is arguing against the wrong point. If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. Some people would be lazy, because humans are inherently pretty lazy, but a lot of people would work on things they're passionate about.
Work sucks for most people:
“Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.” -George Carlin
If everyone had free money but garbage collection wasn't fully automated first, garbage collectors would have higher pay and/or better working conditions and opportunities for advancement, because people aren't going to want to sit around in their own garbage, they are going to want it picked up, and be willing to pay to have that done (and, if it stops getting done in the short term, there going to be willing to pay more to have it done.)
Free money doesn't remove the motivation to work when you can get more money for working. (Now, if you lose the free money when you work, then, sure, that kills motivation to work, which is actually one of the problems with means-tested welfare programs that UBI seeks to address.)
Would we get less garbage men? Not necessarily. I don't think people will be any less inclined to do unpleasant jobs per se - they still pay the same.
What we will see however, is a massive change in employment at >underpaid< jobs. "Picking lettuces for $2/hour? Fuck that, I won't starve if I don't, any more. Come back when you have a business model that doesn't involve abuse."
I don't see any problem with that. Industries that rely on making their employees choose between penury and destitution need to go the way of the slave plantations. It's our duty as humans to move forward.
If the prices of things are being kept artificially low, due to the duress of the employees producing it, then the market will fix the problem. We might see a short term rise in certain commodities. But, unfettered, this just induces more efficiencies, such as automation, into the system. Efficiencies produced by upper middle class engineers, who would now, thanks to UBI, have the same earning power as their upper middle class parents did.
UBI isn't wage inflation for many reasons, such as the actual value of money isn't equal to people with different incomes. It isn't going to become more expensive to live, because people don't go out and buy twice as many groceries when the have twice as much money - the money is used for different priorities.
More money chasing the same goods increases prices.
Imagine each family has $15K more than they do now. Some would upgrade their living conditions, causing more competition in the strata they are moving up to, which would increase prices. Some would buy cars they couldn't previously, causing more demand for cars, and increasing prices. Some would go for luxuries they couldn't previously, causing more demand.
There is no way around supply and demand.
The only way prices don't increase is if demand doesn't increase. If some people create more demand, others have to have less demand.
Realistically, in the short-run, basically the same people doing it now: even a "just out of poverty level" UBI isn't yet sustainable with the current level of productivity and automation. So, the people that can't get a better job than lettuce picking will still need to work, and will still be picking lettuce. They'll have slightly higher total income. (From the UBI itself; whether their wages will change and in which direction is less clear.)
> What does that do to the price of lettuce?
Not a lot in the short run, though maybe small increases.
> If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food prices?
Likewise. A "mature" UBI that would be at a level that would substantially change this would also require levels of productivity and automation where you probably wouldn't have people picking lettuce (though you'd have a few maintaining the lettuce-picking bots) in the first place.
Fundamentally, 'value' (goods, services) is produced by someone and consumed by another. We all trade our efforts. UBI is trying to enable consuming without producing at some level. But it only works if someone (or something - robots) are producing without consuming. Right now the working poor are filling the role of producing more than they can consume, which is not right. But someone/thing has to do the producing, and more cannot be consumed than is produced.
No, that's you just making assumptions. It's not one thing or another.
Goods and services are finite, and at the level of a society/world/country are being consumed at the level they are produced (notice we don't have warehouses continually filling decade after decade of anything). UBI means everyone would be able consume more than they are now -- it doesn't matter what they consume, but it would be more. And it might allow some that are producing to produce less (work less). That imbalance can't exist for very long at all until prices rise to get back to equilibrium. There's no way around it.
The administrators of the current welfare system, that currently costs us more that UBI would.
A mature UBI (one that can provide an out-of-poverty level benefit) requires more automation and productivity than we have now, but that's not "robots doing all the work".
> I don't think a lot of socialists see that
Most UBI supporters aren't socialists, and many (possibly most) socialists aren't UBI supporters.
> they seem to argue (like in the original article) that we should be able to move that way now.
We can certainly adopt a UBI now, and there are arguments for adopting a low-level UBI that increases with productivity (perhaps "automatically" by tying it to a dedicated tax, or share of an existing tax, that is naturally tied to output growth) as the way to get to a mature UBI.
> Fundamentally, 'value' (goods, services) is produced by someone and consumed by another.
Yes.
> UBI is trying to enable consuming without producing at some level.
Not really. It has the effect of allowing some people to consume greater value than is indicated by the payment they receive from others (not considering the government). In some cases this may be consuming without production, in others it may be people that you acknowledge are already producing more than they consume getting a correction.
And note that it replaces existing systems which already do this with various inefficiencies which it seeks to eliminate.
> Labor _costs_ are now very high, high enough that I think prices would have to rise significantly
Your assertion is not supported by data: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2Xa
Labor costs have been shrinking for years, much more drastically so since the mid 1970's. This is also supported by data about effective wage stagnation (approximate 6% growth over the last 35 years, most of that going to the top quintile)
Regarding your original assertion about rising prices - that may be true to some degree if we're talking about consumables, but you could argue that some of the current welfare systems are doing the same thing.
Menial jobs will still be done. But you may not have full-time staff for it. Garbage collection will still be done, you'll just pay better. People will still go to med school, because they'll get prestige (major motivator today) and more money (major motivator today).
The main difference (assuming affordability of a UBI, I'm not addressing that), between a non-UBI and a UBI situation is that people have a guaranteed subsistence income. Not a guaranteed life of leisure. We can't promise $50k/year/person. We can't even reasonably promise $5k/year/person (in the US). I don't know whether a UBI makes any sense (fiscally) or what level to set it at, but dismissing it because "people won't work" or "people won't become doctors" is, frankly, moronic.
If you think someone who works for the sake of money is a "horrible" person, you have to step outside your bubble for a tiny bit and look at the world, you will notice so many important jobs in society no one would really want to do unless money was an intensive.
Don't get me wrong, I am one of those people who are lucky enough to work in an industry I am honestly excited to work in. But you can't say the same about many jobs, doubt you can find a janitor who loves cleaning piss and vomit, its an absolutely important job in our society, the only reason I could think of why someone would do it is because of their situation in life and how the money earned from it can give them a partial answer to their problems.
Seriously HN what hell are you guys up-voting to the front page these days.
BUT
If you think someone who works for the sake of money is
a "horrible" person
But I still think when it comes to this article this should not be up-voted to the front, the main argument in this article is just fundamentally wrong. I feel the author is in a bubble and has no idea what so many people around the world have to go through, and that not everyone is lucky enough to work on things they love.
So free money doesn't kill a person's work ethic, it merely removes a person's motivation to work. I don't see how that alters the argument against free money (basic income).
If I could afford to retire from my job today, I would. I could stay busy the rest of my life, no problem.
Really, the people advocating basic-income are those who think 'if only I had the money so that I had the time, to do what I really want to do!', but if they dug a little deeper, they'd realize that's just an excuse.
Anyone who wants to work their ass off, and sacrifice the near future for the long term payoff - USA/Canada are incredible incredible places to do it.
You can live in a basement, work night shift security where you get to do whatever you want, for the majority of your shift.
There are 100 other examples of making it work where you sacrifice in the short term for your long term goal but truth is - people who are wishing for basic income, are wishing they didn't have to struggle so much.
When you get over the hump and see how much more understanding you have of the world around you and of yourself as a result of the struggle, you'll feel differently.
Again, there's nothing wrong with wishing it were easier, but don't believe the fairytale of some outside factor making it or breaking it in you achieving success - it is all you. And it'll always be all you. Nobody else. Not the government, not your boss. You.
No, you're just wrong. There are lots of different reasons people support UBI, and "if only I had the money so that I had the time, to do what I really want to do" isn't particularly high on the list.
E.g., many proponents like UBI because they see it as more efficient than means- and behavior-tested benefit programs that consume lots of resources and make life miserable for potential beneficiaries with high-touch bureaucracies designed to apply the means- and behavior-testing.
I don't think you understand UBI, how it is intended to work, or the economics around it.
> Let's say we give everyone $50K.
$50K is ludicrously high for an early UBI implementation. The ambitious advocates target a per-person level that would hit at or near the federal poverty line (the more cautious advocates see getting up even to that level as a longer-term goal.)
> Why not $50 billion? I'm being serious - the same effect ends up happening -- prices increase proportionately
No, they don't. First, because all actual UBI proposals are redistributive (whether the money comes from existing social benefit programs including the government employees/contractors managing them being cut, or whether it comes from new taxes, or from some combination. So it doesn't change the supply of money, just where it is.)
Its true that goods disproportionately demanded by the portion of the population receiving a net benefit from the implementation of the UBI can be expected to increase, but under any reasonable expectations these increases will generally be less, proportionally, than the increase in income. So, there will be a net increase in utility for the net income gainers, though somewhat less than would be expected if you considered pre-UBI price levels.
But also because one purpose of UBI is to reduced the disincentive to work created by means-tested social benefit programs, where some portion of the income provided by work is lost in benefits. (In some proposals, UBI would also reduce the barrier to mutually-beneficial employment at low wages provided by minimum wage laws.)
Sure, I was just picking a number. Let's say it's $5K per person? $25K? (Not sure how it works with families with kids).
> actual UBI proposals are redistributive
Honest question: is there actually that much in the system without requiring massively raising taxes? A quick look at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spe... seems to show the Federal Budget is maybe 75% social programs in a broad sense, so I assume that's the money that would ultimately get retargeted. Is that enough to give everyone in the US a living income? And I don't mean in the early implementation but 20 years in when it's humming along as envisioned.
> these increases will generally be less, proportionally, than the increase in income.
How can that be when everyone would be making more money because UBI is added to their income as well. All labor costs would rise for everything. Everyone can't suddenly have more money and all want to go on a cruise without cruise prices increasing to the point that the same number of people that can afford it now will afford it then.
I just don't see anyway this works at scale. It only works temporarily but once things hit equilibrium, we're back when we started.
A UBI moving from a low level to a mature, robust level able to provide a living wage -- as a matter of basic economic necessity -- requires advances in productivity. There's not productivity in the economy now to support a robust UBI.
> > these increases [in the prices of goods and services] will generally be less, proportionally, than the increase in income.
> How can that be when everyone would be making more money because UBI is added to their income as well.
To start with, everyone will not be making more (after tax and public benefits) money. The money for a UBI (under most actual proposals) will come from reducing existing means- and behavior-tested public benefits (and associated administration) and/or increased taxes on some people. Either of these will reduce the effective income of some portion of the population -- and necessarily decrease at least some people's income by an amount greater than the UBI. Before considering the effects the redistribution has on promoting or inhibiting economic growth (e.g., by increasing domestic velocity because of where money is distributed and how and what the people receiving spend it on vs. those losing it), the average net impact on incomes should be approximately $0.
> All labor costs would rise for everything.
No, they won't, and those that do rise won't rise equally. And, in any case, labor costs aren't the only costs of production, so even if labor costs in the domestic market rose as a result of UBI, prices of completed goods and services would rise by less (proportionally) than the increase in labor costs. (In the long term, for goods provided in a competitive markets, where prices are driven by competition down to the cost of production.)
At the end of the day, people want happy feelings and fewer sad feelings.
That's it. Whatever else they claim is born out of the basics. Basic-income is 'the society needs to change for me to have happy feelings and fewer sad feelings'.
That's the bottom line.
And my point is don't waste your life hoping for society to do something for you. Make your life work in whatever environment you're in.
If you're a political entity and can actually push towards implementing basic income - I'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, go live your life :)
UBI isn't about 'success'. It's about providing an environment in which people can choose to do productive, fruitful things. Or silly, pointless things. Whichever they choose doesn't matter, there's no metric other than it's interesting and fulfilling to them.
No boss doing an end-of-year report saying 'well Bill, you contributed to 100 open-source programming projects but none of them contributed to increasing our bottom-line, so unfortunately...'
Those who are really fired-up chasing 'success' can go ahead and enrich themselves financially just like they do today. Many, many people don't measure success like that but are forced into behaving as if they do just to achieve the basics of the needs-triangle.
The assumption the author is making is that there is only one extreme or the other. Either you work for some sense of meaning or you work for money out of fear but both cannot be true at the same time. Its the spectrum of these two things which allow for work ethic.
If a job allows for a range of differing amounts of effort and some employees decide to put forth more effort because or work ethic then regardless of the fact that everyone fears a lack of money there is still potential for work ethic.
>It’s like saying the only reason you don’t rape and murder is for fear of going to prison.
While most humans have empathy, to write off the importance of fear is extremely naive. Prison is in fact the only reason why some people would not do these things, or if they end up doing so we incur that penalty to hopefully create more fear.
Your definition of "money" is horrible. [ducks and covers]