4 ms·

The fact that someone is paying you to do these jobs shows that the things you do do have a lot value to someone (your boss, the company's customers etc.). So y

by wolfgke 10y ago

The fact that someone is paying you to do these jobs shows that the things you do do have a lot value to someone (your boss, the company's customers etc.). So your existing job is far from being meaningless. Instead of crying for a UBI you should better cry for people not to buy software that does "trivial stuff". If people were willing to spend a lot of money on software that does highly not-trivial stuff, there probably were a large demand for people that are able and willing to work on such things. Markets are a democracy - everybody votes with his wallet.

jondubois 10y ago
If me and my colleagues were better educated and less stressed on average, we would introduce fewer bugs into the system and we would waste less time debugging issues that should never have existed in the first place. I guess I believe that education has a really good ROI.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > I guess I believe that education has a really good ROI. Did you do a back of the napkin estimate for this? You also have to include the tuition fees and the opportunity cost of (probably) not working while you study on the debit side (thus no, i.e. lost, income). On the credit side the increased productivity/better job etc. Have you computed how many years it will take to reduce the computed debt (including opportunity cost)? I have not computed it, but I'd assume that it would take a hellish lot of time to even break even.
alexqgb 10y ago
No, this is not what you "should better" do, largely because your approach is so demonstrably inefficient when applied to multiple problems. After all, what you propose is a a particular solution to a particular problem. UBI is a general solution to a vast number of particular problem. For reasons of efficacy alone, UBI > your idea. QED
inimino 10y ago
This is a homo economicus fantasy. It is entirely possible for the employee to see how irrational, socially useless, or a net negative their job is, while not in a position to change it.
16bytes 10y ago
I think the argument for UBI would say that OP is better served not working in that position, because it's not what he wants to do. The employer, would then hire somebody else who actually wanted to do that work (I actually don't mind designing UI sometimes). Or failing that, would have to raise compensation until they got somebody who agreed to do the work. It seems that under the UBI system, the labor pool is more efficient. By taking away the basic requirement of needing to work, you introduce a more fair supply-and-demand free-market labor force. Currently this is tipped far in the favor of employers because employees' livelihood is at stake, and this asymmetric power dynamic suppresses wages.

by wolfgke 10y ago

jondubois 10y ago

If me and my colleagues were better educated and less stressed on average, we would introduce fewer bugs into the system and we would waste less time debugging issues that should never have existed in the first place. I guess I believe that education has a really good ROI.

wolfgke 10y ago
> I guess I believe that education has a really good ROI. Did you do a back of the napkin estimate for this? You also have to include the tuition fees and the opportunity cost of (probably) not working while you study on the debit side (thus no, i.e. lost, income). On the credit side the increased productivity/better job etc. Have you computed how many years it will take to reduce the computed debt (including opportunity cost)? I have not computed it, but I'd assume that it would take a hellish lot of time to even break even.

alexqgb 10y ago

No, this is not what you "should better" do, largely because your approach is so demonstrably inefficient when applied to multiple problems. After all, what you propose is a a particular solution to a particular problem. UBI is a general solution to a vast number of particular problem. For reasons of efficacy alone, UBI > your idea. QED

inimino 10y ago

This is a homo economicus fantasy. It is entirely possible for the employee to see how irrational, socially useless, or a net negative their job is, while not in a position to change it.

16bytes 10y ago

I think the argument for UBI would say that OP is better served not working in that position, because it's not what he wants to do. The employer, would then hire somebody else who actually wanted to do that work (I actually don't mind designing UI sometimes). Or failing that, would have to raise compensation until they got somebody who agreed to do the work. It seems that under the UBI system, the labor pool is more efficient. By taking away the basic requirement of needing to work, you introduce a more fair supply-and-demand free-market labor force. Currently this is tipped far in the favor of employers because employees' livelihood is at stake, and this asymmetric power dynamic suppresses wages.