Something I should say more often

[wufwugy]

Universal Basic Income might have some viability even if it resulted in millions of additional unemployed. The Pareto principle is a real phenomenon in everything. As long as the economy is sufficiently privately owned, high achievers will probably still achieve highly even if doing so harder and even if low achievers achieve lower and low-middle achievers achieve less. UBI could also create positive social/economic disruption, resulting in new types of goods and services. It would make the most common kinds of labor and human capital skills less viable, but it could possibly create some new areas too.

[boost]

Universal Basic Income might have some viability even if it resulted in millions of additional unemployed. The Pareto principle is a real phenomenon in everything. As long as the economy is sufficiently privately owned, high achievers will probably still achieve highly even if doing so harder and even if low achievers achieve lower and low-middle achievers achieve less. UBI could also create positive social/economic disruption, resulting in new types of goods and services. It would make the most common kinds of labor and human capital skills less viable, but it could possibly create some new areas too.

There's a strange injustice intuition that kicks in when UBI is talked about. People instinctively feel there's something wrong with people getting something for nothing. But as you said, it seems likely high achievers will still achieve, mid achievers might be a little less productive, and low achievers will play video games-- and the jobs that tended to be filled by low achievers will be automated. If a mid achiever and high achiever's life is essentially the same and overall productivity is essentially the same or increased, what's the issue?

random thought: UBI combined with a 100% inheritance tax (and closing all the loopholes) could be an interesting setup. If you know that your child will never truly want for any necessities, then what is the purpose of leaving them an inheritance aside from vanity? In 1000 years people may well look back at generational wealth the way we look at hereditary monarchies.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm in favor of UBI.

I think people are a bit fanatical when it comes to "lazy people wont work" attitudes. Or, "No one will work if you feed and house them for free."

Is that why you work? To meet some bare minimum of physical needs?
You've never sought a raise? or sought to improve your value to your job in some other way to increase your pay?
Even though you could already make ends meet with your current pay?

Does anyone do that?

I would work if I just needed the money, but I have spent many years making it so that I can work where I enjoy the job in a way that makes the money irrelevant.

I think if you take away the fetters of needing to meet basic needs, you unleash people to be creative with their time. That can have good and bad outcomes, but it sure feels like the most American way to move forward in an age of automation.

[wufwugy]

random thought: UBI combined with a 100% inheritance tax (and closing all the loopholes) could be an interesting setup. If you know that your child will never truly want for any necessities, then what is the purpose of leaving them an inheritance aside from vanity? In 1000 years people may well look back at generational wealth the way we look at hereditary monarchies.

I agree that eventually generational wealth will become a thing of the past. It mostly has already. After 3 or 4 generations, nearly all generational wealth has disappeared. Anecdote: my family was possibly the wealthiest in all of Washington about 100 years ago, but my grandparents' generation wasted literally all of it. Such loss of generational wealth is extremely common once the generation that didn't earn it has it.


The main drawback to inheritance tax I know of is how it incentivizes consumption (profligately).

Generally we'd want things that incentivize greater savings and investment. We discuss welfare and social programs ultimately because people don't save; instead they spend (profligately). Taxes on savings come in all sorts of types, and they can be thought of as penalizing good behavior to reward bad behavior.

[boost]

I agree that eventually generational wealth will become a thing of the past. It mostly has already. After 3 or 4 generations, nearly all generational wealth has disappeared. Anecdote: my family was possibly the wealthiest in all of Washington about 100 years ago, but my grandparents' generation wasted literally all of it. Such loss of generational wealth is extremely common once the generation that didn't earn it has it.


The main drawback to inheritance tax I know of is how it incentivizes consumption (profligately).

Generally we'd want things that incentivize greater savings and investment. We discuss welfare and social programs ultimately because people don't save; instead they spend (profligately). Taxes on savings come in all sorts of types, and they can be thought of as penalizing good behavior to reward bad behavior.

Good points. It's really hard to know how things would shake out with something as drastic as UBI, similar to how it's hard to know exactly how the shockwaves from Covid shutdown will ripple through the economy. I think what we do know is that if we don't do something, if we just keep on with business as usual, shit ain't gonna be peachy.