
If You Think Free Money Kills Work Ethic, Your Definition of “Work” Is Horrible - joeyespo
https://crossingenres.com/if-you-think-free-money-kills-work-ethic-your-definition-of-work-is-horrible-c2747300028d#.4iffjjani
======
DougN7
How many kids would slog through college and medical school out of purely
altruistic reasons? I think 5% of those that enter the medical profession?

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.

~~~
akgerber
In the context of a basic income, being a doctor will still convey wealth and
status, in addition to altruistic satisfaction.

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.

~~~
DougN7
I guess I'm not talking about basic income as much as money not being a good
motivator for work. Basic income might become necessary if there aren't enough
jobs to go around to keep people alive. But until that point, where machines
do all the work, it's not feasible.

>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.

------
kdamken
Of course most people only work to make money. Why else would they spend 8-12
hours of their day doing something they don't want/like to do?

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

~~~
dragonwriter
> If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men.

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.)

~~~
WalterSear
If garbage men made $50k, and everyone got $50k, the choice would be, do
nothing for $50k or make $100k as a garbage man.

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.

~~~
DougN7
But who does pick the lettuce? What does that do to the price of lettuce? If
we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food
prices? I think you've hit on the problem -- UBI is not anything more than
wage inflation, which will force people to work again to keep up with the
spiraling prices.

~~~
dragonwriter
> But who does pick the lettuce?

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.

~~~
DougN7
So UBI only makes sense where robots are doing all the work. I don't think a
lot of socialists see that -- they seem to argue (like in the original
article) that we should be able to move that way now.

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.

~~~
WalterSear
>So UBI only makes sense where robots are doing all the work.

No, that's you just making assumptions. It's not one thing or another.

~~~
DougN7
OK, then who gets to receive less value for their efforts so that others can
receive more? That's what it boils down to.

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.

~~~
WalterSear
>OK, then who gets to receive less value for their efforts so that others can
receive more? That's what it boils down to.

The administrators of the current welfare system, that currently costs us more
that UBI would.

~~~
DougN7
Really? Do you really mean _Universal_ Basic Income, which I understand to be
everyone in a country? I admit I don't know the numbers but it's hard to
believe the current system has enough for 330 million of us in the US.

------
Jtsummers
This article author and their parents seem to think that there will be no
income other than a UBI. Which is, well, bizarre.

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.

------
oolongCat
tldr of this article to me screams, "If you don't hold the same opinion about
this as me, you are horrible."

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.

~~~
Jtsummers
I don't think this author has articulated their point well. If they have, then
their point is poorly reasoned and considered.

BUT

    
    
      If you think someone who works for the sake of money is
      a "horrible" person
    

This is not, at all, in the article. The author's thesis is that "money is
motivation for work" is a horrific definition of _work_. Not that the people
who hold that view, or the people who are motivated to work for money, are
horrible people.

~~~
oolongCat
You are right, I have made a mistake on my part.

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.

------
criddell
> If the only reason you work is to make money, I don’t call that work ethic
> at all. I call it a fear of being broke. It’s like saying the only reason
> you don’t rape and murder is for fear of going to prison.

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.

------
alexashka
I had a change of heart about this recently - from realizing that overcoming
challenges, is what's had the most positive impact on me, and those around me.

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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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!'

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.

~~~
DougN7
I've been sort of in favor of UBI, but these discussions have made me realize
it can never work. Let's say we give everyone $50K. Why not $50 billion? I'm
being serious - the same effect ends up happening -- prices increase
proportionately. I'm basing that on the idea that 90+% of work that happens
today really does need to happen. That means that 90%+ of those working today
will need to be enticed to keep working by giving them more money. Now almost
everyone has more money, but the same limited supply of goods and services are
available. Prices will rise -- simple supply and demand. Those on UBI will
fall behind if they don't work.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I've been sort of in favor of UBI, but these discussions have made me
> realize it can never work.

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.)

~~~
DougN7
> $50K is ludicrously high for an early UBI implementation.

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...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-
the-numbers-2014) 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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> is there actually that much in the system without requiring massively
> raising taxes? [...] And I don't mean in the early implementation but 20
> years in when it's humming along as envisioned.

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.)

------
jjn2009
> If the only reason you work is to make money, I don’t call that work ethic
> at all. I call it a fear of being broke.

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.

------
emeraldd
A refresher on [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZG9NQQ/ref=dp-kindle-
re...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZG9NQQ/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1) is in order.

------
snockerton
Was hoping for good read on economics, found guy whining about his parents'
views.

------
paulus_magnus2
“If we gave free money to everyone, no one would have any motivation to work.”

Your definition of "money" is horrible. [ducks and covers]

