4 ms·

Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing us

Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing useless, maybe even harmful, work.

dbg31415 10y ago
I've met someone who spun a sign for a living... he was a huge stoner... I love weed, but he clearly smoked too much of it while his brain was still developing and he could barely hold a conversation... Now... maybe he was self-medicating or whatever... but the point was he failed out of high school, failed out of a few jobs... and then ended up spinning a sign because he really had no meaningful skill to contribute to society. (And I think he failed at showing up to work so he lost that job eventually...) I suspect most people who are in really shit jobs are there because they have issues... they can't show up on time, they don't follow employment rules, or they have something just wrong with them (they are sex-offenders, or have untreated behavioral issues or whatever)... not the sort of people who should be empowered to just sit around. I will go so far as to say nobody who really has potential ends up spinning a sign for very long... they use the job to cover their rent, and they find a way to get a better job. Anyway I don't want to come off as against a UBI, I but I've never met someone who benefited by sitting around doing nothing. I think it's bad for people to be lazy -- like fundamentally brain-rotting to sit around being idle. I like the idea of a UBI that's tied to doing something... anything... getting outside and picking up trash in the road ditches even... or getting vocational training (which we should find a way to make free)... or getting mental health treatment... Prove you have a regular paycheck, or prove you are clocking in 30 hours at some "just move your body" type of approved activity every week to qualify.
- jusq2 10y ago
  Agree. While we are making recommendations about what people with issues should be doing with themselves, let me add, on the other end of the spectrum - overconfident, mindlessly ambitious characters in society, should be sent off to explore the deep sea, climb mountains etc. So that whatever random goal they are chasing has minimal impact on society at large.
- acjohnson55 10y ago
  At any given time, some fraction of people are going to be burnouts. That's just a fact. I think they still deserve a baseline of wellbeing, without judgment. If they use it to better themselves, great. If not, oh well. But we spend so much time and effort trying to pick the winners rather than simply giving people a minimal foundation. For those of us with work ethic (the vast majority of everyone, to varying extents), our extra effort will be rewarded by the market, if we do something that other people find valuable, or intrinsically, if we're just doing what we love.
  - dbg31415 10y ago
    I think UBI have a hard time gaining traction in the US. You're asking me to pay higher taxes to have an outcome where someone can actually do less than they currently do to contribute to society. UBI is a very interesting concept, but in order to sell it you'd have to have a phased approach... one of the phases I think would have to include some sort of checks and balances.
wolfgke 10y ago
> Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing useless, maybe even harmful, work. If these people really have such a large earning potential if they were just learning something new, why not let coworkers get together and finance a fund: The worker (let's call him John Doe) will get his existing income for, say, 2 years, financed by the coworkers together. John Doe on the other hand is of course obligated to learn something new (what exactly is agreed upon beforehand). After these two years for the next, say, five years John Doe has to donate, say, 40% of his gross income back to the coworkers who financed him this opportunity. Both sides should be willing to agree on such a deal: John Doe gets his opportunity to learn new things and (hopefully) get a much better job afterwards and his coworkers will (hopefully) get a lot more money back than they originally invested.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  These contracts are really hard to enforce, and is essentially selling equity in yourself. If you sell 100% of your own equity, that'd be pretty much slavery right? Some people (maybe justifiably) feel very uncomfortable with the idea of selling their own future equity. For one thing, it reduces the incentives for someone to work hard. Yale did something like this in the 70s and finally killed it because of issues with how it was structured. Also it felt really unfair to high wage earners that they were sometimes paying multiples of what their tuition originally was. Oregon is trying this out now [2]. [1] http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2001/03/27/70s-debt-program-finally-ending/ http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2001/03/27/70s-debt-program-fi... [2] http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/two_years_after_signing_of_landmark_law_oregon_awaits_innovative_free_tuition_plan/ http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/two_years_after_signing_of_l...
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > For one thing, it reduces the incentives for someone to work hard. If you work harder, you will still have more money - that's what % is about. > Some people (maybe justifiably) feel very uncomfortable with the idea of selling their own future equity. If they have a problem with that, then they should negate something like "40% for every gross dollar over 1000 per month". You are > Also it felt really unfair to high wage earners that they were sometimes paying multiples of what their tuition originally was. That's why I wrote "coworkers", so that it is not a "poor workers against big bank" scheme but "poor workers invest in one of their peer" - this is a lot more at eye level. If the coworkers agree to less - fine. If you are more on the social side: Why not simply invest the, say, 40% into financing the education of the next "poor worker"?

Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing useless, maybe even harmful, work.

dbg31415 10y ago

I've met someone who spun a sign for a living... he was a huge stoner... I love weed, but he clearly smoked too much of it while his brain was still developing and he could barely hold a conversation... Now... maybe he was self-medicating or whatever... but the point was he failed out of high school, failed out of a few jobs... and then ended up spinning a sign because he really had no meaningful skill to contribute to society. (And I think he failed at showing up to work so he lost that job eventually...) I suspect most people who are in really shit jobs are there because they have issues... they can't show up on time, they don't follow employment rules, or they have something just wrong with them (they are sex-offenders, or have untreated behavioral issues or whatever)... not the sort of people who should be empowered to just sit around. I will go so far as to say nobody who really has potential ends up spinning a sign for very long... they use the job to cover their rent, and they find a way to get a better job. Anyway I don't want to come off as against a UBI, I but I've never met someone who benefited by sitting around doing nothing. I think it's bad for people to be lazy -- like fundamentally brain-rotting to sit around being idle. I like the idea of a UBI that's tied to doing something... anything... getting outside and picking up trash in the road ditches even... or getting vocational training (which we should find a way to make free)... or getting mental health treatment... Prove you have a regular paycheck, or prove you are clocking in 30 hours at some "just move your body" type of approved activity every week to qualify.

jusq2 10y ago
Agree. While we are making recommendations about what people with issues should be doing with themselves, let me add, on the other end of the spectrum - overconfident, mindlessly ambitious characters in society, should be sent off to explore the deep sea, climb mountains etc. So that whatever random goal they are chasing has minimal impact on society at large.
acjohnson55 10y ago
At any given time, some fraction of people are going to be burnouts. That's just a fact. I think they still deserve a baseline of wellbeing, without judgment. If they use it to better themselves, great. If not, oh well. But we spend so much time and effort trying to pick the winners rather than simply giving people a minimal foundation. For those of us with work ethic (the vast majority of everyone, to varying extents), our extra effort will be rewarded by the market, if we do something that other people find valuable, or intrinsically, if we're just doing what we love.
- dbg31415 10y ago
  I think UBI have a hard time gaining traction in the US. You're asking me to pay higher taxes to have an outcome where someone can actually do less than they currently do to contribute to society. UBI is a very interesting concept, but in order to sell it you'd have to have a phased approach... one of the phases I think would have to include some sort of checks and balances.

wolfgke 10y ago

> Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing useless, maybe even harmful, work. If these people really have such a large earning potential if they were just learning something new, why not let coworkers get together and finance a fund: The worker (let's call him John Doe) will get his existing income for, say, 2 years, financed by the coworkers together. John Doe on the other hand is of course obligated to learn something new (what exactly is agreed upon beforehand). After these two years for the next, say, five years John Doe has to donate, say, 40% of his gross income back to the coworkers who financed him this opportunity. Both sides should be willing to agree on such a deal: John Doe gets his opportunity to learn new things and (hopefully) get a much better job afterwards and his coworkers will (hopefully) get a lot more money back than they originally invested.

smallnamespace 10y ago
These contracts are really hard to enforce, and is essentially selling equity in yourself. If you sell 100% of your own equity, that'd be pretty much slavery right? Some people (maybe justifiably) feel very uncomfortable with the idea of selling their own future equity. For one thing, it reduces the incentives for someone to work hard. Yale did something like this in the 70s and finally killed it because of issues with how it was structured. Also it felt really unfair to high wage earners that they were sometimes paying multiples of what their tuition originally was. Oregon is trying this out now [2]. [1] http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2001/03/27/70s-debt-program-finally-ending/ http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2001/03/27/70s-debt-program-fi... [2] http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/two_years_after_signing_of_landmark_law_oregon_awaits_innovative_free_tuition_plan/ http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/two_years_after_signing_of_l...
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > For one thing, it reduces the incentives for someone to work hard. If you work harder, you will still have more money - that's what % is about. > Some people (maybe justifiably) feel very uncomfortable with the idea of selling their own future equity. If they have a problem with that, then they should negate something like "40% for every gross dollar over 1000 per month". You are > Also it felt really unfair to high wage earners that they were sometimes paying multiples of what their tuition originally was. That's why I wrote "coworkers", so that it is not a "poor workers against big bank" scheme but "poor workers invest in one of their peer" - this is a lot more at eye level. If the coworkers agree to less - fine. If you are more on the social side: Why not simply invest the, say, 40% into financing the education of the next "poor worker"?