• dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s an unfair comparison. A pensioner is someone that by definition already contributed the most they could to the economy. As experience has it, plenty of pensioners continue to work even after retirement.

    We have seen experiments with ubi and they almost unanimously conclude that it’s a net positive, people tend to find work that both they actually want to work in and have the most skill on. It improves work conditions overall as well. Instead of settling for worse conditions or unfit positions.

    Happy people are more efficient and productive. That’s a no brainer.

    • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      A pensioner is someone that by definition already contributed the most they could to the economy

      Not really. There are plenty of healthy early retirees. Do they on average contribute more or less than before they retired?

      As experience has it, plenty of pensioners continue to work even after retirement.

      What percentage? How does that compare to what they did before?

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Any early retiree is most likely a billionaire, so by definition they weren’t even contributing that much to begin with, probably just hoarding generational riches.

        • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Any early retiree is most likely a billionaire

          My kid’s teacher retired at 55. So you think she was a billionaire?

          so by definition they weren’t even contributing that much to begin with, probably just hoarding generational riches.

          So rich people don’t contribute to society because they don’t have to work in order to live. However, people under a UBI will be very productive because they don’t have to work in order to live?

          • dustyData@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not engaging anymore, you don’t want to learn, you’re just constructing weird gotchas for outrage.

          • DoomsdaySprocket@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Arguably, under a UBI system people will not be pressured into jobs they aren’t good at or hate just because those jobs offer the wage they need to live. Demographically, “female-coded” jobs are undervalued, so I can see how a UBI would help level the playing field there especially.

            I can think of many times I’ve wondered why the hell a coworker is doing this job when they suck at it and seem to hate it. I’d love for those people to have the option to just get out without potentially parking themselves and their family at the food bank.

            • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Arguably, under a UBI system people will not be pressured into jobs they aren’t good at or hate just because those jobs offer the wage they need to live

              Yep, I’ve been in that situation. It seems reasonable to imagine that with a UBI some of those people would quit their job. Now, with fewer people working, how do you pay for UBI and everything else? We already have a deficit and inflation.