Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less? I think, for those who imagine AI taking a vast swath of jobs (like Altman), the aim for basic income is to get people working less but without this resulting social/work disengagement (whether AI will have that effect is a different matter).
This strikes me as such an out-of-touch idea right now.
Maybe in the distant future we do not need people to work. But we are currently dealing with the largest retiree population our country has ever had, and more money chasing after fewer goods and services nearly crippled our economy with stagflation. It takes two weeks to get a plumber right now in our area.
If you also hope to implement UBI nationwide, you need some expectation that it pays for itself with productivity gains. Otherwise it will all get inflated away into nothing.
It would also be nice if people could stay longer in the work force. The way I read the results, recipients had more access to health care, abused substances less and had more time to recover after work.
Having an hour less in the work week should be balanced against being productive for longer.
Yeah and what’s more you’re contributing more to society, whether or not you can measure it in money. You have some spare time and energy to help your family, your neighbors, the person you see once a week.
I want to live in a society where people have time to actually live.
Devil's advocate: why do you get to have what you want?
For almost all of human history, you had to work to survive. Working is living. And yet you want to not work? So all of the resources you will need, who is going to provide them? I'm sorry, but I'd rather I not work and you work to provide the resources I need.
> Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less?
Because significant portion of UPI proponents argue that it will promote working more and higher productivity. The typical argument is that it will remove barriers that prevent better worker-job matching.
A significant proportion that is not the majority? I think the vibe about UBI was always "people will work less and employers will have stricter competition when hiring employees".
hard to say either way without statistics on actual UBI proponents. I would argue most, but my opinion is also based on cumulative vibes from vocal proponents like Andrew Yang and random internet commenters.
> Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less?
Working less is not so bad, but their income (before transfers) also went down. That means they did not replace poorly paying jobs with better paying ones (or they did with net decrease), nor started a business.
The issue is that social safety net is meant for people who's income is seemingly too low. If the net effect is to decrease that even lower, then yes its a concern.
It's not a surprise to most people, but UBI proponents often explain the unworkable economics by saying it would make people earn more... or something.
I don't think realists really needed any evidence that normal people would love to quit their job and play computer games all day, but I guess this study wasn't for them.
