(January 6, 2024 at 7:33 am)h4ym4n Wrote: So there would be no incentive to be the top of your field?
Basically it depends, but it's more involved and in the long run, the incentive to work, compete, or get to the top of your field would still exist.
If I knew that I'd get guaranteed money for life to pay my rent, buy food, pay for gas for my car and other bills without having to work, I certainly have no incentive to have a day job.
However, I know this won't happen (until we get automation, robotics, and other advancements in technology to do our work for us), because guaranteed money for life means there's no reason for anyone to have a day job. It's people working day jobs that we use to provide each other with the goods & services we use today.
In the short run, guaranteed money for life may result in a disincentive to work while at the same time still providing us with food, shelter, etc. But in the long run, that's not sustainable, because scarcity of goods and services would skyrocket, so people would have to go back to work to reverse that. BTW being self sufficient is far more work for far less.
Inflation would also undermine the purchasing power of guaranteed money for life that's supposed to be enough to pay for rent, food, etc. The rate would have to be increased & that would just lead to the same result
That's why a UBI shouldn't be a fixed rate and ought to fluctuate with the performance of the economy; by implementing a UBI this way, the incentive loss dilemma is eliminted.
