Or retirees who have plenty of money but still choose to work because they're bored.
If getting your needs met was a disincentive for work then why are all the multi-millionaires still working instead of downsizing their lives and playing video games / smoking weed for 40 years?
I think the "at that point" is the crucial element. An extra 20k to work a physically and mentally taxing job for inconsistent hours, no benefits, and no flexibility -- the calculus is garbage. But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily.
If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at that point. These are "inferior jobs" in an economic sense and it's up to the employer to do better. Make working for you suck less. Even in customer-facing retail jobs it's more than possible.
I'm having a hard time seeing the downside. Employees can afford to take more risks because they're not betting their livelihood anymore, and it provides a natural upward pressure on wages and working conditions at the bottom on the labor market which is sorely needed. Anyone whose desired lifestyle can't be supported on the meager income, which is most people, there's no change.
>If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at that point.
I think that is a major motivation for most work and I question if it is as bad as you think it is? Is it really that unreasonable that someone do something they don't like to get shelter, food, and healthcare?
>But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily.
Would you do it if your take home income was reduced by 50% to pay other people who choose not to work?
How small would the difference between working full time and full retirement have to be before you considered it?
I don't actually think it's that bad but I was trying to steelman your argument. The hypothetical presumes a terrible job with not enough pay to make up for it. The kind of job that someone would only take if they had not better option. If the job isn't that bad, or it pays well enough I think people will take it despite not needing it to make rent.
> you do it if your take home income was reduced by 50%
I don't think that would happen because UBI is supposed to be replacement for all other forms of welfare and I would also expect some small gains in reducing the prison population, and administrative overhead. But to answer your question, yes. Government already takes >30% right now and because of the U I'm getting the benefit as well so that covers a good chunk of mandatory expenses. In a very real sense I need less money under this system.
I'm not really sure how to answer the retirement question because under this system I can't "just retire" because my lifestyle wouldn't permit it.
I dont think that UBI could or would ever be implemented in a tax neutral way, so that is a pretty huge difference right there.
>I'm not really sure how to answer the retirement question because under this system I can't "just retire" because my lifestyle wouldn't permit it.
another way to frame this is how much (if any) of your income would you be willing to give up if it meant 0 work hours. Would you take a 10k pay cut? 50k? or are you completely inflexible when it comes to lifestyle spending, or alternatively, do you like your job enough that you would do it for free.
If getting your needs met was a disincentive for work then why are all the multi-millionaires still working instead of downsizing their lives and playing video games / smoking weed for 40 years?