8 ms·

I think that's one of the biggest open questions with UBI. What percent of people would use UBI to do productive or self-improving works vs those that solely pl

I think that's one of the biggest open questions with UBI. What percent of people would use UBI to do productive or self-improving works vs those that solely play video games, watch TV, and feel like life is meaningless? I think psychologically, people need something to do with themselves. However, a counter argument is that many of the people that UBI may benefit the most might have jobs that they loathe. I'd love to see a review of the impact of work and UBI on human psychological well-being. This is definitely not one-to-one, but it would be interesting to study people that inherited fortunes so they would never need to work. How many chose a life of leisure? For those that did, what is their mental health like? That population is much more privileged and probably better educated than the average citizen that would get UBI, but I think it might give some clues.

monk_e_boy 10y ago
When I was made unemployed, it was the lack of money that made me feel undignified. I couldn't feed my kids and had to as for handouts. UBI would have been amazing. I would have spent the money on food, shelter and heating. I would have spent the time writing software and trying to start a company.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  There are absolutely people like you, and absolutely people who will just play WoW all day, every day. The question is, how many of each?
  - braveo 10y ago
    why does it matter? The point of UBI is to allow people to do what they want.
    - akjainaj 10y ago
      What would happen if everybody left their jobs overnight and started playing WoW? Other than Blizzard having to open thousands of new realms. Of course not everybody will quit their job to play a videogame, but what if a significant % of workers were simply "lost" overnight?
      - slifin 10y ago
        If you look at the tragectory of humans from star dust, it's clear the pattern is progress We are progress, it's the inability to progress that is the problem for a lot of us If we break down that barrier then wow like things that supply fake progress will be less relevant
    - TulliusCicero 10y ago
      It matters because of the potential impact on society? Part of the promise of UBI that proponents often talk about is unleashing more human potential that's currently stuck in some corporate grind. And while playing WoW all day isn't exactly the worst thing, I could see issues if that turns into people getting depressed. MMO addiction isn't really healthy.
      - masterj 10y ago
        > And while [sitting in an office] all day isn't exactly the worst thing, I could see issues if that turns into people getting depressed. [Office work] isn't really healthy. > And while [bagging groceries] all day isn't exactly the worst thing, I could see issues if that turns into people getting depressed. [Menial labor] isn't really healthy. > And while [driving an truck / bus / uber] all day isn't exactly the worst thing, I could see issues if that turns into people getting depressed. [Sitting all day] isn't really healthy. UBI at least gives people options. If someone is happy playing WoW all day, and society doesn't really need them anyway... I see no harm in that. At least they have the option to quit playing and do something else. People doing menial labor often don't.
        jdpigeon 10y ago
        I'm worried about the inter-generational effect of UBI. What happens to the kids in a family who plays WoW all day? What if neighbourhoods become segregated between workers and non-workers? How are kids going to learn to develop marketable skills and basic work ethic?
    - ryandvm 10y ago
      Because, if it turns out that most people are just fine with fucking off all day and living off their UBI check then UBI is unworkable (pardon the pun). The cycle would go something like this: * UBI checks start getting sent out * Large droves of people quit the shitty jobs * Due to reduced labor supply, cost of producing goods rises * The increased cost of living means that now we need to send out even bigger UBI checks (i.e. raise taxes) This feedback loop continues until even the most motivated individual cannot rationally continue to pay into the system.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Straw man. No data to support that; just a scare story. How about: cost of goods continues to drop as automation continues to expand explosively (as it has in the last 10 years). Standard of living rises steadily as the workforce decreases. What's the difference in the two scenarios? Data. Which we don't have. So certainly a UBI should be carefully introduced to keep the economy stable.
        importantbrian 10y ago
        This is why we need more experiments like the one in Finland. It would be irresponsible to implement a UBI until we know which of these two scenarios is most likely. Although, I suspect the reality will fall somewhere between the two.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Or, just implement it and adjust the payment for stability.
        TulliusCicero 10y ago
        There's not any data to support it because there's no data around a nationwide, long-term UBI, period. All we have are little experiments where people know it could end at any time.
        10y ago
    - simonh 10y ago
      This is a persistent and pernicious misconception. UBI is intended to increase people's autonomy, but manly by eliminating the poverty trap. Too many people live off benefits they would lose if they took a low paying no job, so are better off or only marginally worse off not working. UBI takes that problem away to that everyone would always be substantially better off working. It would act as a major subsidy for low paying jobs by ensuring even quite low pay would represent a major improvement in marginal income, thus making it cheaper to hire unskilled labour and increasing the number and variety of jobs. It's not intended that a significant number of people would only rely on their UBI.
      - jimnotgym 10y ago
        In the UK the poverty trap is very real. A young person with a family in social housing and on benefits has to jump right up to something like average income to be better off. The penalty for getting a job is colossal. UBI would mean that if they could get work for even 4 hours a week it would represent an improvement to their income. It is an incentive to work
      - braveo 10y ago
        > UBI is intended to increase people's autonomy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy 1. the quality or state of being self-governing; 2. self-directing freedom and especially moral independence exactly. The point is that they can do what they want.
        simonh 10y ago
        This was in the context of talking about people playing WoW all day every day. That's not the sort of lifestyle UBI is intended to enable or encourage.
        braveo 10y ago
        and vehicles were never intended to enable or encourage teenagers joy riding or drunk drivers, but NO ONE is going to seriously argue we should get rid of vehicles as a result.
    - fantomix 10y ago
      Oh yeah! I long for times when 100% of society can play WoW all day long and Blizzards alone will foot the bill for all of us :) Ultimate economic perpetum-mobile with an Orcs race in it! :-)
  - johanneskanybal 10y ago
    So the more controversial question here is if we should do it anyway even if it turns out to be a net loss because.. we can. Then the more dystropian view would be how else are we gonna keep the plebs under control if we think the unemployed will be the majority in the future? Just pointing out there's a couple of different angles on this not just the net gain one.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > if it turns out to be a net loss because Doesn't this assume a fixed loss? What if this encourages the former behavior to grow?
  - monk_e_boy 10y ago
    I doubt this will be read as I've taken too long in replying. But does it matter? If only 1% get to create new and interesting projects, then that is 1% more than at the moment.
barnacs 10y ago
I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. Mentally and/or physically exhausted after a long day of performing a meaningless job, or unable to get one and living off welfare, despised by the rest of society, no wonder one tries to escape reality by playing video games or watching tv excessively. Actually, escaping into 'work' is no more healthy. But when everyone enjoys the security of having their basic physiological needs satisfied by default and not knowing what the hell you're supposed to do is a feeling widely shared and accepted by society, the situation is completely different. It's an enormous community building force. Additionally, we could build or designate community places and workshops where people get together to converse, build, play, create, cooperate to further help everyone find a direction, or find themselves.
- mixedCase 10y ago
  >I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. As someone living in a small third world welfare state, I can't help but laugh at the naiveté that can lead someone to believe something like that. In here, and I don't believe the rest of the world can be that much different, the overwhelming majority of people with their basic needs covered by the state dedicate themselves to a routine of TV, social media and other social rituals of all kinds, all devoid of intellectual pursuit. The few who do look into self-improvement are the same ones that have done it regardless of the economic condition of the lower class of their time; most of this very small minority managing to make it into the middle or upper class with or without welfare checks.
  - barnacs 10y ago
    Are you suggesting the majority of those people are completely, utterly useless? Useful contributions don't necessarily have to be intellectual. They may be able and happy to provide art, joyful company, social skills, physical assistance (eg. getting groceries, moving equipment) or other support to those in need.
crdoconnor 10y ago
There was a job guarantee program instituted in Argentina (called plan jefes e jefas - meaning head of household). The jobs were typically care-style jobs (looking after elderly, etc.). The government then tried to shift the women into a sort of UBI (called Plan Familias) by offering more money than under Jefes Unsurprisingly the majority of women took the money. Perhaps more surprisingly (to advocates of basic income, anyway), they took the money and continued to do the jobs "for free". http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_705.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_705.pdf
- sobani 10y ago
  > Perhaps more surprisingly (to advocates of basic income, anyway), they took the money and continued to do the jobs "for free". Isn't this exactly what UBI advocates say will happen: People will start doing useful tasks, because they no longer need to find a job?
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> However, a counter argument is that many of the people that UBI may benefit the most might have jobs that they loathe. That's not really a counterargument. Suppose you have a job you hate and suddenly you have a UBI. Quit immediately and go find a job you love -- even if the pay is crap, add the UBI to it and it's as good what you had before. Meanwhile the horrible degrading McJob nobody actually wants can either be replaced by a machine or will have to have sufficiently better pay or working conditions to get anyone to do it.

monk_e_boy 10y ago

When I was made unemployed, it was the lack of money that made me feel undignified. I couldn't feed my kids and had to as for handouts. UBI would have been amazing. I would have spent the money on food, shelter and heating. I would have spent the time writing software and trying to start a company.

TulliusCicero 10y ago
There are absolutely people like you, and absolutely people who will just play WoW all day, every day. The question is, how many of each?
- braveo 10y ago
  why does it matter? The point of UBI is to allow people to do what they want.
  - akjainaj 10y ago
    What would happen if everybody left their jobs overnight and started playing WoW? Other than Blizzard having to open thousands of new realms. Of course not everybody will quit their job to play a videogame, but what if a significant % of workers were simply "lost" overnight?
    - slifin 10y ago
      If you look at the tragectory of humans from star dust, it's clear the pattern is progress We are progress, it's the inability to progress that is the problem for a lot of us If we break down that barrier then wow like things that supply fake progress will be less relevant
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    It matters because of the potential impact on society? Part of the promise of UBI that proponents often talk about is unleashing more human potential that's currently stuck in some corporate grind. And while playing WoW all day isn't exactly the worst thing, I could see issues if that turns into people getting depressed. MMO addiction isn't really healthy.
    - masterj 10y ago
      > And while [sitting in an office] all day isn't exactly the worst thing, I could see issues if that turns into people getting depressed. [Office work] isn't really healthy. > And while [bagging groceries] all day isn't exactly the worst thing, I could see issues if that turns into people getting depressed. [Menial labor] isn't really healthy. > And while [driving an truck / bus / uber] all day isn't exactly the worst thing, I could see issues if that turns into people getting depressed. [Sitting all day] isn't really healthy. UBI at least gives people options. If someone is happy playing WoW all day, and society doesn't really need them anyway... I see no harm in that. At least they have the option to quit playing and do something else. People doing menial labor often don't.
      - jdpigeon 10y ago
        I'm worried about the inter-generational effect of UBI. What happens to the kids in a family who plays WoW all day? What if neighbourhoods become segregated between workers and non-workers? How are kids going to learn to develop marketable skills and basic work ethic?
  - ryandvm 10y ago
    Because, if it turns out that most people are just fine with fucking off all day and living off their UBI check then UBI is unworkable (pardon the pun). The cycle would go something like this: * UBI checks start getting sent out * Large droves of people quit the shitty jobs * Due to reduced labor supply, cost of producing goods rises * The increased cost of living means that now we need to send out even bigger UBI checks (i.e. raise taxes) This feedback loop continues until even the most motivated individual cannot rationally continue to pay into the system.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Straw man. No data to support that; just a scare story. How about: cost of goods continues to drop as automation continues to expand explosively (as it has in the last 10 years). Standard of living rises steadily as the workforce decreases. What's the difference in the two scenarios? Data. Which we don't have. So certainly a UBI should be carefully introduced to keep the economy stable.
      - importantbrian 10y ago
        This is why we need more experiments like the one in Finland. It would be irresponsible to implement a UBI until we know which of these two scenarios is most likely. Although, I suspect the reality will fall somewhere between the two.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Or, just implement it and adjust the payment for stability.
      - TulliusCicero 10y ago
        There's not any data to support it because there's no data around a nationwide, long-term UBI, period. All we have are little experiments where people know it could end at any time.
        10y ago
  - simonh 10y ago
    This is a persistent and pernicious misconception. UBI is intended to increase people's autonomy, but manly by eliminating the poverty trap. Too many people live off benefits they would lose if they took a low paying no job, so are better off or only marginally worse off not working. UBI takes that problem away to that everyone would always be substantially better off working. It would act as a major subsidy for low paying jobs by ensuring even quite low pay would represent a major improvement in marginal income, thus making it cheaper to hire unskilled labour and increasing the number and variety of jobs. It's not intended that a significant number of people would only rely on their UBI.
    - jimnotgym 10y ago
      In the UK the poverty trap is very real. A young person with a family in social housing and on benefits has to jump right up to something like average income to be better off. The penalty for getting a job is colossal. UBI would mean that if they could get work for even 4 hours a week it would represent an improvement to their income. It is an incentive to work
    - braveo 10y ago
      > UBI is intended to increase people's autonomy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy 1. the quality or state of being self-governing; 2. self-directing freedom and especially moral independence exactly. The point is that they can do what they want.
      - simonh 10y ago
        This was in the context of talking about people playing WoW all day every day. That's not the sort of lifestyle UBI is intended to enable or encourage.
        braveo 10y ago
        and vehicles were never intended to enable or encourage teenagers joy riding or drunk drivers, but NO ONE is going to seriously argue we should get rid of vehicles as a result.
  - fantomix 10y ago
    Oh yeah! I long for times when 100% of society can play WoW all day long and Blizzards alone will foot the bill for all of us :) Ultimate economic perpetum-mobile with an Orcs race in it! :-)
- johanneskanybal 10y ago
  So the more controversial question here is if we should do it anyway even if it turns out to be a net loss because.. we can. Then the more dystropian view would be how else are we gonna keep the plebs under control if we think the unemployed will be the majority in the future? Just pointing out there's a couple of different angles on this not just the net gain one.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > if it turns out to be a net loss because Doesn't this assume a fixed loss? What if this encourages the former behavior to grow?
- monk_e_boy 10y ago
  I doubt this will be read as I've taken too long in replying. But does it matter? If only 1% get to create new and interesting projects, then that is 1% more than at the moment.

barnacs 10y ago

I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. Mentally and/or physically exhausted after a long day of performing a meaningless job, or unable to get one and living off welfare, despised by the rest of society, no wonder one tries to escape reality by playing video games or watching tv excessively. Actually, escaping into 'work' is no more healthy. But when everyone enjoys the security of having their basic physiological needs satisfied by default and not knowing what the hell you're supposed to do is a feeling widely shared and accepted by society, the situation is completely different. It's an enormous community building force. Additionally, we could build or designate community places and workshops where people get together to converse, build, play, create, cooperate to further help everyone find a direction, or find themselves.

mixedCase 10y ago
>I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. As someone living in a small third world welfare state, I can't help but laugh at the naiveté that can lead someone to believe something like that. In here, and I don't believe the rest of the world can be that much different, the overwhelming majority of people with their basic needs covered by the state dedicate themselves to a routine of TV, social media and other social rituals of all kinds, all devoid of intellectual pursuit. The few who do look into self-improvement are the same ones that have done it regardless of the economic condition of the lower class of their time; most of this very small minority managing to make it into the middle or upper class with or without welfare checks.
- barnacs 10y ago
  Are you suggesting the majority of those people are completely, utterly useless? Useful contributions don't necessarily have to be intellectual. They may be able and happy to provide art, joyful company, social skills, physical assistance (eg. getting groceries, moving equipment) or other support to those in need.

crdoconnor 10y ago

There was a job guarantee program instituted in Argentina (called plan jefes e jefas - meaning head of household). The jobs were typically care-style jobs (looking after elderly, etc.). The government then tried to shift the women into a sort of UBI (called Plan Familias) by offering more money than under Jefes Unsurprisingly the majority of women took the money. Perhaps more surprisingly (to advocates of basic income, anyway), they took the money and continued to do the jobs "for free". http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_705.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_705.pdf

sobani 10y ago
> Perhaps more surprisingly (to advocates of basic income, anyway), they took the money and continued to do the jobs "for free". Isn't this exactly what UBI advocates say will happen: People will start doing useful tasks, because they no longer need to find a job?

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> However, a counter argument is that many of the people that UBI may benefit the most might have jobs that they loathe. That's not really a counterargument. Suppose you have a job you hate and suddenly you have a UBI. Quit immediately and go find a job you love -- even if the pay is crap, add the UBI to it and it's as good what you had before. Meanwhile the horrible degrading McJob nobody actually wants can either be replaced by a machine or will have to have sufficiently better pay or working conditions to get anyone to do it.