3 ms·

>Many of these people just aren't ambitious. They have no interest in unlocking their "maximum potential." Most people don't have time to be ambitious because

>Many of these people just aren't ambitious. They have no interest in unlocking their "maximum potential." Most people don't have time to be ambitious because they're too busy subsisting. If the subsistence were taken care of, wouldn't you expect them to do better? Not everyone will suddenly start a billion-dollar endeavor, but they'd have more time for recreation, learning, political engagement, and yes, maybe even economic entrepreneurship - in other words, being their best selves, even if for some individuals that still isn't all that impressive.

isoskeles 9y ago
> Not everyone will suddenly start a billion-dollar endeavor, but they'd have more time for recreation, learning, political engagement, and yes, maybe even economic entrepreneurship - in other words, being their best selves, even if for some individuals that still isn't all that impressive. Or they'd have more time for Call of Duty and Netflix. Seriously, not everyone aspires to be their "best" self per the definition here of overachiever in multiple endeavors. It might seem inconceivable, but there are many people who have no interest in being the best any of those things. Interestingly absent from these laundry lists of things to be best at: parent, friend, spouse.
apatters 9y ago
Sure. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. - Some as you say want to be ambitious and giving them UBI for subsistence may unlock that creative energy. Perhaps they'll do great things with their time. On the other hand, it'll remove some pressure to make what they're doing efficient, scalable, and market-oriented, so in my opinion you're much more likely to get people who collect UBI and pursue hobbies, not build world-changing businesses or "unlock their maximum potential." But hey, no problem with that. This happens to be how a few people I know who have been on welfare for years behave. - Then there are the people who find meaning in what they're doing even if it is menial: for instance working in a rote job which isn't a lot of fun but provides for their family. You eliminate the rote job and put them on UBI and they're probably going to be less happy because they liked the structure that job provided. In the absence of a clear, structured alternative for getting back into the workforce they may just subsist in a less happy state indefinitely on UBI. For these people UBI is worse than temporary, conditional assistance which requires them to at least make a token effort to look for work. - Then there are the nasty people. The guys who haven't worked a day in years, and when they get some money, they spend it on booze, gambling, start screaming at the TV, start screaming at their wife, maybe beat up their wife or kids for good measure before they pass out and do it again the next time they get some cash. These people are out there and by giving them UBI you've just made it easier for them to be their scumbag selves. I think my main point here is that people are incredibly diverse in terms of motives and behavior. UBI is the wrong solution precisely because it's universal. To me it's a little insane that anyone would propose a single program and expect it to work nationally or globally for everybody. My bias is that people who think this must live in a bubble or have a romanticized view of the human race.

isoskeles 9y ago

> Not everyone will suddenly start a billion-dollar endeavor, but they'd have more time for recreation, learning, political engagement, and yes, maybe even economic entrepreneurship - in other words, being their best selves, even if for some individuals that still isn't all that impressive. Or they'd have more time for Call of Duty and Netflix. Seriously, not everyone aspires to be their "best" self per the definition here of overachiever in multiple endeavors. It might seem inconceivable, but there are many people who have no interest in being the best any of those things. Interestingly absent from these laundry lists of things to be best at: parent, friend, spouse.

apatters 9y ago

Sure. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. - Some as you say want to be ambitious and giving them UBI for subsistence may unlock that creative energy. Perhaps they'll do great things with their time. On the other hand, it'll remove some pressure to make what they're doing efficient, scalable, and market-oriented, so in my opinion you're much more likely to get people who collect UBI and pursue hobbies, not build world-changing businesses or "unlock their maximum potential." But hey, no problem with that. This happens to be how a few people I know who have been on welfare for years behave. - Then there are the people who find meaning in what they're doing even if it is menial: for instance working in a rote job which isn't a lot of fun but provides for their family. You eliminate the rote job and put them on UBI and they're probably going to be less happy because they liked the structure that job provided. In the absence of a clear, structured alternative for getting back into the workforce they may just subsist in a less happy state indefinitely on UBI. For these people UBI is worse than temporary, conditional assistance which requires them to at least make a token effort to look for work. - Then there are the nasty people. The guys who haven't worked a day in years, and when they get some money, they spend it on booze, gambling, start screaming at the TV, start screaming at their wife, maybe beat up their wife or kids for good measure before they pass out and do it again the next time they get some cash. These people are out there and by giving them UBI you've just made it easier for them to be their scumbag selves. I think my main point here is that people are incredibly diverse in terms of motives and behavior. UBI is the wrong solution precisely because it's universal. To me it's a little insane that anyone would propose a single program and expect it to work nationally or globally for everybody. My bias is that people who think this must live in a bubble or have a romanticized view of the human race.