4 ms·

UBI does not directly address drug use, mental health, indebtedness, or homelessness. The idea that you can solve poverty by giving "free" money to individuals

by hl5 10y ago

UBI does not directly address drug use, mental health, indebtedness, or homelessness. The idea that you can solve poverty by giving "free" money to individuals who can not spend wisely while at the same time eliminating nutritional and mental health programs can only have bad results.

dvtv75 10y ago
You're focusing on just one group - those who don't have jobs. Consider that a UBI would directly address bad employers, such as mine. Let me explain the situation, a very common one where I am: My employer feels that, because he pays me minimum wage for some hours a week, I owe him my complete allegiance. I should work very hard for him during my work hours, and then we have a post-work meeting that assesses our productivity for the day, and our mistakes - which also includes hardware failures. The IT department just notes "Operator error" when a piece of equipment fails. This meeting is mandatory and unpaid, an illegal combination. If I refused to attend, even though it's illegal for the boss to do so, I would be fired. Most catch-up work (when their antique equipment fails) is unpaid, too. I'm owed several thousand dollars in back pay, including public holidays (which they are legally obligated to pay me for), which I will never see. According to my employer, the role includes training everyone who comes through the door, supervising them in every aspect of what they do, and if they screw up the finger gets pointed at me. (If you looked at my actual contract, you would see that this is not a job requirement.) If computer equipment fails, and we have a 21 year old box running some crucial software which is built by the corporation (so updating it to support a modern machine is no problem), I'm expected to diagnose it and offer solutions just because I have a CS degree. Again, this is not in my contract. I don't even have the superuser passwords, but it's still my job in their eyes. I have a raft of further responsibilities, including ensuring that some high-end equipment works correctly even though I'm not allowed to touch it. I did once ask for a pay increase, but I was told that there aren't many jobs around here so if I don't like it, I can quit and good luck getting another job with the reference they were threatening to give me. A UBI would mean I could quit ("Take this job and shovel it") and look for an actual job where the staff are valued, perhaps even save enough to leave the city and look everywhere around the country. The lack of a UBI (as well as the governmental and social requirement to accept any "reasonable" job) means that I have to suck it up and keep working. That would be the most powerful reason to implement a UBI, to my mind: the ability to tell bad employers that you don't need them to live.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  I don't see how UBI is a solution for that problem. That problem may be perpetuated by your unwillingness no quit, which may be tied to your income level, but UBI doesn't affect your unwillingness to search for alternatives or even prepare to quit. Bad employers are enabled by tolerant employees. Establishing a side-income scheme does nothing to address how employees are willing to be mistreated.
  - jakelazaroff 10y ago
    "Tolerant" employees often don't have a choice if there is more demand than supply for jobs in a market. UBI removes some of the coercive power the employer has, since employees aren't forced to choose between their job and food/a place to live/etc.
- hl5 10y ago
  You don't need UBI to apply for jobs while still working for your current employer.

by hl5 10y ago

dvtv75 10y ago

You're focusing on just one group - those who don't have jobs. Consider that a UBI would directly address bad employers, such as mine. Let me explain the situation, a very common one where I am: My employer feels that, because he pays me minimum wage for some hours a week, I owe him my complete allegiance. I should work very hard for him during my work hours, and then we have a post-work meeting that assesses our productivity for the day, and our mistakes - which also includes hardware failures. The IT department just notes "Operator error" when a piece of equipment fails. This meeting is mandatory and unpaid, an illegal combination. If I refused to attend, even though it's illegal for the boss to do so, I would be fired. Most catch-up work (when their antique equipment fails) is unpaid, too. I'm owed several thousand dollars in back pay, including public holidays (which they are legally obligated to pay me for), which I will never see. According to my employer, the role includes training everyone who comes through the door, supervising them in every aspect of what they do, and if they screw up the finger gets pointed at me. (If you looked at my actual contract, you would see that this is not a job requirement.) If computer equipment fails, and we have a 21 year old box running some crucial software which is built by the corporation (so updating it to support a modern machine is no problem), I'm expected to diagnose it and offer solutions just because I have a CS degree. Again, this is not in my contract. I don't even have the superuser passwords, but it's still my job in their eyes. I have a raft of further responsibilities, including ensuring that some high-end equipment works correctly even though I'm not allowed to touch it. I did once ask for a pay increase, but I was told that there aren't many jobs around here so if I don't like it, I can quit and good luck getting another job with the reference they were threatening to give me. A UBI would mean I could quit ("Take this job and shovel it") and look for an actual job where the staff are valued, perhaps even save enough to leave the city and look everywhere around the country. The lack of a UBI (as well as the governmental and social requirement to accept any "reasonable" job) means that I have to suck it up and keep working. That would be the most powerful reason to implement a UBI, to my mind: the ability to tell bad employers that you don't need them to live.

geezerjay 10y ago
I don't see how UBI is a solution for that problem. That problem may be perpetuated by your unwillingness no quit, which may be tied to your income level, but UBI doesn't affect your unwillingness to search for alternatives or even prepare to quit. Bad employers are enabled by tolerant employees. Establishing a side-income scheme does nothing to address how employees are willing to be mistreated.
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  "Tolerant" employees often don't have a choice if there is more demand than supply for jobs in a market. UBI removes some of the coercive power the employer has, since employees aren't forced to choose between their job and food/a place to live/etc.
hl5 10y ago
You don't need UBI to apply for jobs while still working for your current employer.