You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Stupid questions thread, October 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: philh 13 October 2015 07:39PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (223)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 October 2015 07:28:12PM 2 points [-]

If you can have a paying job and some of your 'welfare' on top of it, the incentive is obviously greater than if getting a paying job meant giving up all welfare.

Not at all. If the UBI is meaningfully large (there is really no point in something like $100/month), you would be able to live on it. If you can live on UBI, the incentive to find a job is less because the alternatives are MUCH more pleasant.

The carrot is slightly larger, but the stick becomes almost non-existent.

Comment author: bogus 16 October 2015 07:42:51PM *  1 point [-]

Are you comparing UBI recipients to people who get no subsidy/welfare at all? I'm not sure that's a meaningful comparison. And one can structure the UBI amount such that utility of income is still steeply increasing at the margin - or, phrased differently, such that folks will most likely want to supplement their UBI by doing some work on the side. It's a lot harder to do that if the premise is that you're "looking for work at this time" but not actually getting market income.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 October 2015 07:59:13PM *  2 points [-]

Are you comparing UBI recipients to people who get no subsidy/welfare at all? I'm not sure that's a meaningful comparison.

UBI recipients, by the virtue of that "U", are also known as "the entire population". I am a bit confused which "comparing" are you talking about.

one can structure UBI such that utility of income is still steeply increasing at the margin

Can you demonstrate? If you increase the marginal utility of earned income at some level, you will by the same token decrease that marginal utility at some different level. Unless you want UBI to monotonously increase with the amount earned, of course...

people will want to supplement their UBI by doing some work

Humans are satisficers. If UBI is sufficient to pay for a room, an internet connection, and enough pizzas, why should I work? Work takes an awful lot of time, is often unpleasant, the bosses are not the nicest people, etc. Much easier to spend time in front of a screen or hanging out with your friends.

And by the time your low-motivation teenager figures out that money is useful and that advancing in life could be worthwhile, he is in his late 20s and basically unemployable -- not only because of lack of skills, but also because of lack of work ethic.