pull down to refresh
202 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 10 May \ on: IF there was UBI who would fund it? econ
I'm not exactly a UBI proponent, although I think it could be part of a reform plan.
The thinking on the scenario you describe is that productivity would have to be so heightened, to cause that degree of unemployment, that the real cost of living would be reduced to a tiny fraction of what it currently is. So, a UBI would not cost nearly as much in that world as it would in ours.
I think it's very unlikely that we'll see that kind of static unemployment, though. More likely, in my mind, is that we'll see people reduce their work hours on other margins: fewer hours per week, more time off between jobs, retiring earlier, etc.
While labor force participation may be much lower, it wouldn't be that there's a huge class of unemployable people. Rather, there would be more people between jobs and working parttime.
i mean we already have a lot of people (outside of gov jobs, of course!) getting put on reduced hours, zero hour contracts, being reclassified as contractors etc and usually this money isn't alone to afford any kind of life, or you have working poor with 3 jobs etc
maybe a ubi would be a top up to this , i still wonder how it would be funded tho
reply
We're in an early intermediate stage. There will be lots of adjustments in the labor market and many will be painful for people, especially those trying to continue on with business as usual.
One of the interesting things about UBI that I haven't seen discussed very widely is how different the impacts will be on different kinds of jobs.
What a UBI does is raise people's "reservation wages", which is why it's expected to increase unemployment. However, I expect people will mostly be happy to continue earning normal wages from jobs they enjoy. Where higher reservation wages will really have an impact is on unpleasant and dangerous jobs, which are often low wage jobs now.
So, those working class folks with several jobs would probably see the most dramatic positive impact, while people like me will probably continue on as though not much changed.
reply
i mean yeah, i suppose the way i imagine it is basically like some kind of welfare where the goc would say if you're under this income level you need it, if you are already in a good job etc, then you wouldn't need it
kind of like super welfare
reply
That's not UBI, though.
Part of the logic of UBI is that it's much easier to administer and it justifies cutting lots of specific government expenditures because everyone is receiving funds to pay for the market versions.
Another part is that UBI allows more job transitions for everyone, which amongst other things puts pressure on employers to make their workplaces better for employees.
reply
I think historically what we've seen with massive productivity gains is simply a shift in human labor hours to other industries.
So with AI, I'm predicting we'll see a reduction in human labor-hours spent on knowledge work, and an increase in the types of physical activities that aren't yet able to be replicated by AI, like personal care.
It's really hard to predict what new industries and technologies might emerge, too.
reply
This was the first relevant search result. People seem to have worked fewer hours as the Industrial Revolution unfolded, stabilizing around the modern 40 hours for the past 80 years or so. It may depend on just how revolutionary we expect this productivity gain to be.
A very recent trend, that's entirely new for labor economists, is that male labor force participation has begun declining. My advisor liked to joke about how simple men were to model in labor: "They work as much as they can and then they die."
reply
Hmm, interesting that it's been stable even through the computer and internet revolutions... which is where I think I was getting my thoughts about this from.
Hard to say how much of it is driven by market supply & demand vs. regulatory distortions. (Not sure if the 40 hour work week has any regulatory significance)
As to male labor force decline, I think I read that it correlates well with disability claims and video games.
reply
Yeah, video games are one of the leading explanations.
During the New Deal (I think), a bunch of labor regulations were put in place that somewhat entrenched the 40 hour work week.
As with much government do-goodery, a long-running beneficial trend stopped as soon as the government decided to help.
reply