8 ms·

That isn't going to happen easily. My experience: I've talked about this to many people (highly educated, smart people) - most of them are adamant on the idea t

• eridius 10y ago
  I agree that it won't happen easily. Which is why I phrased it the way I did. But I do think that it must happen eventually (and really, it's just a stepping stone on the path to a post-scarcity society).
• FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  All humans have a psychological need to be needed. The current way to best feel this is to provide income for yourself and your family through work, and provide a service for your employer. This is extremely satisfying for a majority of people. Take away work and these two things collapse. To get UBI to work, we need a new way for people to feel needed.
  • hood_syntax 10y ago
    I disagree entirely that work is the best way to feel needed, and that feeling needed is necessary. I work because I have to, not because I care about working. If I didn't have to work, I wouldn't. I would spend time on personal projects and enjoying my life with my friends. Relationships are far better than work for "feeling needed". To be honest though, I don't care about being needed. I don't need to exist. I like existing, and I don't want that to change any time soon, but not being needed doesn't affect my enjoyment. I like when my existence is appreciated by someone else, but my happiness and mental wellbeing is not predicated on that.
    • seanp2k2 10y ago
      Yep, +1000. This is apparently very hard to grasp for some, or they just really love working (which I have my own doubts about). It's crazy to me that in this age of bounty, everyone is positively required to sell at least 40 hours per week of their time or face social exile, starvation, homelessness, etc. I think another aspect of it is that people want it to feel fair, and that's a complicated thing. It doesn't take much hunting to find videos of someone chastising another customer at Walmart for paying with a government assistance card. We have this strange animosity toward anyone we deem doesn't work as hard as we do for the same result. Well, it's literally true that some people in this country make 1000x what others make while working less hours, doing less "hard" labor. Personally, construction, food service, mechanical maintenance, etc work much harder than I do, even though they might not have a clue how to do what I do (I would also likely suck at their job initially).
    • gremlinsinc 10y ago
      I love my work, and hanging out w/ the other coders on slack, but I would prefer not being forced to work, I'd much rather it be a 'choice' not something thrust upon me, or that I could live off 20 hours per week and spend the other 20 working on prototypes for web and mobile apps.
    • RandomOpinion 10y ago
      >I like when my existence is appreciated by someone else, but my happiness and mental wellbeing is not predicated on that. You might believe that but a lot of history and medical studies on retirees says otherwise. http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20130813-the-dark-side-of-the-golden-years http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20130813-the-dark-side-of-t... https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-retire-after-65 https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-r... http://www.reviewjournal.com/life/transition-retirement-can-leave-people-feeling-unmoored http://www.reviewjournal.com/life/transition-retirement-can-...
      • sean_patel 10y ago
        From the BBC article you've linked to > There are a number of reasons why health declines after retirement, said Dave, but, mental and social stimulation are a large factor. For many people, work is where they are the most social and do the most physical activity. When that core social network is removed, health declines. Specifically, this. > For many people, work is where they are the most social and do the most physical activity. When that core social network is removed, health declines. By that notion, are all young Remote workers -- think 99% of the Wordpress core team -- declining in health and dying? I'm not buying this.
  • int_19h 10y ago
    There are numerous ways to satisfy one's urge to "feel needed". To give two very different examples, volunteering for various projects (trust me, there's a lot of stuff that needs doing), and contributing to open source.
  • fzzzy 10y ago
    Kids need parents.
    • gremlinsinc 10y ago
      Amen to this. We need basic income if for no other reason than to bring one parent home, I don't care if it's the father or mother, there should always be a parent available and at home.
      • m_fayer 10y ago
        I very strongly agree. In the very much socially just rush to get women in the workforce we've lost sight of the damage done to children by separation from their parents, and the damage done to relationships by the staggering workload of managing children and a household with both partners working full-time. I would very much love being able to fluidly transition between periods of being a house-husband and employment, and my girlfriend feels likewise.
  • eridius 10y ago
    Basic Income does not mean people cannot work. What it does mean is people can choose to work at whatever brings them joy, rather than working at whatever job is available to have the money to meet basic necessities. And for people who don't actually want to work, they have that option too.
  • JDiculous 10y ago
    One can choose to work on whatever they want, however they want. Believe it or not, most people have an innate desire to want to contribute to society and/or improve/create things. Basic income is not communism, you'll still get compensated for doing paid work. As long as that incentive to make money is there, there will always be people working.
• ainiriand 10y ago
  Basic income should be the solution we, as an organized group, give to all individuals to be able to express themselves. All human beings have basic needs and the State have to provide this. The State here is the expression of the will of the population. Do not take the State as something socialist or communist, taking from someone and giving it to someone for free; no,this is provided by us, the population, for us, the population. We care of each other and we want that our kids have good education, we want to have accessible health care for everyone. And definitely, we want that, if in a few years, a lot of jobs are automated or done by someone in the third country, no one is left behind.
  • mattlevan 10y ago
    This is a common argument for basic income and, even though you say "Do not take the State as something socialist or communist", your argument is the same as it is for socialism and communism. You say, "Do not take the State as something socialist or communist, taking from someone and giving it to someone for free; no, this is provided by us, the population, for us, the population." --- Here's the problem. Can you think about what, exactly, "the population" is? Is it tangible? Is it a singular physical entity? The answer is no, "the population" is merely a collection of individuals! Individuals, of course, exist-- they are tangible, singular, physical entities. You are one. I am one. Individuals exist. Populations, on the other hand, are abstractions. My point is this: when an abstraction needs to be represented, it cannot do so itself. In this case, individuals are required to represent the population because, well, individuals are the only ones with the actual ability to do so. Under your proposed system in which the State provides basic income to each and every individual, who decides how much each is given? Who will be the ones to actually control the means of production; and who will be the ones to actually control distribution of goods? Only some will. If you think democracy as it exists today already performs poorly in representing the ENTIRE population (i.e., representing each individual fully to their individual desires) (think of the surprising amount of people who feel conned by the election results), then just imagine the extent by which people will likely feel when the State is responsible for just about E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G in E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E-'-S life!
    • 10y ago
• nercht12 10y ago
  People feel a natural obligation to be rewarded for their work. "Don't work, don't eat". The fact is, giving people a small income makes them inherently lazy. Lazy people don't like to work, but they will do just enough to get by, so if you give them a min amount of $, they'll do nothing. Others will look at that and say, "How come they get money for being lazy?" It actually acts as demotivation for people who would work some. The guy who isn't making much to begin with isn't rewarded - it only makes his labor less valuable. Does it make him strive harder to gain opportunity? Not really. People who have tried multiple times to jump over the hurdles in their economic careers won't feel that obligation to continue to jump if they have their precious safety net. Is a safety net nice? Sure, but as much as it's nice, I know full well I wouldn't be sending out resumes or even looking for what I should be doing if I didn't feel some obligation to work, whatever that be from. The idea of giving people a flat income sounds nice in theory, but that's all it is: in theory. Practically, I believe it fails to account for the basics of human nature after that point, which is why the idea wouldn't work in practice. That doesn't mean it isn't humanitarian, which is where I guess it shines for some people. After all, it's nice to think everyone is taken care of, much like social medical plans. But in both cases (income and medicare) I think it's the reverse solution to the problem: It's trying to raise people up rather than lowering the bar. Vague analogy, sorry, but maybe it makes sense? >> I'm all for doing work, but never understood worship of hard work for hard work's sake. I'm not sure what you mean by this, so let me try to answer this in a general way, for the sake of practice if nothing else. Personally, I view the body as being made to do work. It's very functional, well designed "equipment" - or at least better for all-purpose usage than anything humanity has ever created. Some people feel like they wouldn't be fulfilling their purpose without work. They wouldn't feel complete I guess. Notably, it is a personality-type thing, as there are types of people who enjoy doing much more than thinking, but everyone enjoys doing something, even if not work related. We'd get bored otherwise. Some people naturally associate the doing of things with working for a living. Some people find work to be therapeutic. I'm rambling alot here trying to toss out ideas. Maybe I already answered the question in my feeble way.
  • sedachv 10y ago
    > The guy who isn't making much to begin with isn't rewarded - it only makes his labor less valuable. What? How does that make any sense? The labor market is a market because supply and demand still apply.
• gremlinsinc 10y ago
  I honestly feel basic income is a MUST have. I so much believe in it that I WANT the automation to come, I want to see the jobs disappear, I live for the day when robots do all the physical work and a job is optional--and we can pick and choose what we work on because having a roof over our head and food on the table, and healthcare is just a given. We can be entrepreneurs, etc.. I have a ton of app ideas, but I work 45-50 hours a week and just don't have much time to implement anything. -- Even if we moved to 20 hours / week w/ lots of time for family, and leisure. Mankind is supposed to rule the world, not be beasts of burden, and many are just that. Some horses live better than mankind. We have a friend who works at walmart and two other jobs, so his wife can stay home and take care of the kids. It's sad and pathetic - nobody should have to work over 40 hours just to have a house and home. I think before that day comes there will be unrest and revolts, maybe even French revolution style, but in the end there has to be a better way.
  • retube 10y ago
    So far automation has not resulted in net fewer jobs, but more productive jobs replacing more mundane ones. That has been the story throughout human history. I see no evidence that is going to change. Indeed "AI" has so far only created jobs, not killed them.
    • pikzen 10y ago
      >So far automation has not resulted in net fewer jobs Yes. Yes it has. Manufacturing has seen hundred of thousands of jobs replaced. And the amount of software developers or maintenance jobs created to make that work doesn't even begin to cover what has been lost. As far as job creation goes, guess you'll have to check that up with the ever growing percentage of unemployment throughout first world countries.
      • retube 10y ago
        yes there's less manufacturing jobs. There's also less farming jobs, and less clerical jobs, and fewer blacksmiths, cobblers, seamstresses and about a 1,000 other professions too. But the developed world is at near full employment.
• eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Excuse me? I don't work because I think I should have to. I work despite that. I work so other people can someday benefit from, you know, FULLY AUTOMATED GAY SPACE LUXURY COMMUNISM and all that.
• JDiculous 10y ago
  That's why I think basic income supporters should also be advocating for a land value tax to fund the basic income, which should really be rebranded as a "citizen's dividend". This shifts the source of funding from coming off "the backs of hard workers", to compensation for allowing others the privilege of denying you monopoly ownership over our collective land and natural resources. Rather than an "us vs. them" mentality, we're all collective shareholders of our land, and basic income then become's the dividend. Regarding "hard work", we need to start seeing work as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. We need to focus more on what it is that's actually being accomplished rather than whether or not somebody's working hard. If society can operate without you needing to work hard, then hard work should be a choice.