8 ms·

Millions will wake up with no goals and no structure to their lives because they have all of their most basic needs satisfied by UBI if the democrats have their

Millions will wake up with no goals and no structure to their lives because they have all of their most basic needs satisfied by UBI if the democrats have their way. Republicans will require mandatory public service to obtain UBI. Optimists tend to think this means more time for artistic passions and inventive endeavors. Pessimists think people will spend more time watching Big Bang Theory. Usually and answer is in the middle. I will be investing in antidepressants.

pc86 9y ago
Any requirement to obtain UBI by definition means it's not UBI. And I've not heard a single proposal for "mandatory public service" in order to receive any benefit. Not to mention that UBI is squarely a libertarian (small l) proposal and neither the Democrats nor Republicans want it. Republicans only want it if it means slashing public services (one of only two ways it is even fiscally possible, which is a nonstarter for the vast majority of Democrats), and Democrats either don't want it or want it as part of a huge tax increase (the other way, which is - surprise! - a nonstarter for the vast majority of Republicans).
- fapjacks 9y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted. I'm not a good fit for most labels so I've got quite a varied social network, and I've been pushing the idea of UBI out to them to gauge what folks think. It's approximately what you've mentioned here. Average people seem skeptical but open to the idea, interested but certain there's a catch. Republicans look at it like a way to cut welfare funding and Democrats look at it like a way to increase public assistance. I've got friends on both sides looking across at one another, wondering how something could be both things at once. I personally think most Americans would support UBI if it were spelled out clearly what it is and also what it is not.
  - justaman 9y ago
    A bit of anecdotal evidence of the pitfalls of welfare and what it could mean for UBI. I grew up in an area of questionable safety. There was a woman across the street who spoke to my mother about how she would scam the welfare system to receive multiple payments every month. This was on top of food stamps and child support checks. She was making more than most people with full time jobs in the area while doing absolutely nothing for society with no desire to ever change. People will take advantage of the system if they can. Spelling out what it is and what it is not would have to mean making people understand that it is only the minimum and somehow encourage them to expand their horizons. That seems like a cultural shift that needs to happen before UBI becomes prevalent.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > People will take advantage of the system if they can. Spelling out what it is and what it is not would have to mean making people understand that it is only the minimum and somehow encourage them to expand their horizons. People on welfare often already treat it that way, doing under the table cash work while receiving benefits (many don't, either for moral reason (it is fraud, usually, both tax and welfare) or fear reasons (the punishments for such fraud can be catastrophic) or availability reasons (they just haven't found opportunities, which aren't exactly openly advertised). But it's still fairly widespread; UBI would normalize additional work and stop punishing it, and allow it to take place in the formal economy, which all by itself would produce exactly the culture shift you refer to.
    - fapjacks 9y ago
      Okay, but let's look at it this way: What do you suggest we do when fifty percent of the US workforce is no longer employed because of clever kinds of automation that smart folks like you and I personally weren't able to predict way back in 2018? What do we do? How do we keep babies from starving and all wealth from aggregating in the hands of a dozen people worldwide? Let's not talk about how likely (or unlikely) this eventually is and hedge our bets. Let's play like we're "Societal SREs" and do a little emergency management. Let's talk about what happens if the article's conclusions come to fruition. What do you suggest we do? Because if we leave people to their own devices, they'll burn the whole fucking thing to the ground. Open literally any history book to see examples.
      - pc86 9y ago
        I haven't heard anyone who isn't a total crank suggesting we're looking at 50% structural unemployment for even a short period of time.
        fapjacks 9y ago
        I was pulling a number out of a hat to make a point. But you should know that nobody has a crystal ball. Before 2008, institutional investors were saying they were prepared for "apocalyptic" losses of 10 to 15% of the housing market. Sometimes reality outpaces expectations. Regardless, you can substitute "a sufficiently large number of people" if it offends your delicate sensibilities.
grecy 9y ago
There are plenty of countries that have very liberal welfare payments. They're extremely easy to get and anyone that wants to can live on them for years and years without ever having a job. You could look at those examples to see how society will be impacted... Australia is a good place to start your research. (It's not quite UBI because you have to apply for it and do something to get it, but it's pretty close)
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Anecdotally, from family members in the medical industry who work with low income patients, people on welfare (who could otherwise work) don't seem to have very fulfilling lives. I think it's pretty clear that people need something to work for or towards in order to find some sort of meaning in their life.
  - projektir 9y ago
    People with welfare are in a very different situation than UBI due to the fact that the welfare will be lost if they do go work. You bringing this up at this point in time as if it's relevant almost seems trollish.
    - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
      The post I was responding to talked about welfare, not UBI. I'm aware that you can't work and collect welfare.
    - lainga 9y ago
      something to work for or towards does not imply work as in employment.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      It's definitely a relevant point. If a large group of people who are not working seem to be predominantly unhappy, that's legitimate information that may be useful for discussion about universal basic income. You can make a compelling argument that the reason for that unhappiness is not innate to a lack of work, but rather due to the particular idiosyncrasies of the implementation of welfare, but that's not obviously true a priori. The commenter seems to have made this observation in good faith. It seems rude to me that you would insinuate the point is irrelevant and "almost seems trollish" just because you disagree with it, particularly when you did the bare minimum to mount a substantive rebuttal. It's true that we shouldn't conflate the unhappiness associated with welfare with some sort of ennui induced by a lack of productivity; but that doesn't preclude the point you're disagreeing with, which could still be true.
dsr_ 9y ago
I'm not sure how you're defining optimists and pessimists, since more time for artistic passions and inventive endeavors almost certainly also means spending more time watching TV or otherwise finding and making entertainment.
bsder 9y ago
> Millions will wake up with no goals and no structure to their lives because they have all of their most basic needs satisfied by UBI if the democrats have their way. And? People are remarkably good at finding something to do once they are bored. A lot of people veg out in front of the boob tube because they are so exhausted from working to pay for basic necessities that they simply don't have the energy to do anything else.
- mullen 9y ago
  > And? People are remarkably good at finding something to do once they are bored. I completely disagree. Bored directionless people, especially bored directionless men, are the worst thing a civilization can have. These are the guys that pick AK-47's and join terrorist organizations because they have no direction in their lives and they think they found it.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    Sure, if a terrorist organization is the only outfit nearby which offers an outlet promising deeper meaning or empowerment. But if people are given more than the empty prospect of future penury and distress, wouldn't they find values of discovery and creativity to be much more appealing? Who picks up an AK-47 and joins a terrorist organization just because they have nothing better to do? I think that sort of thing probably comes from a deeper malaise of the soul, and an environment devoid of hope is probably a big ingredient there.
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    They're dangerous if you don't have an efficient way to pacify them, which we thankfully do. In the modern developed world, they can pick up virtual AK-47s in Fortnite or join a League of Legends team instead, which is much less destabilizing.
    - ForRealsies 9y ago
      Young men are dropping out of the workplace to play the very 'vidya' you mention: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/escape-to-another-world https://www.1843magazine.com/features/escape-to-another-worl... You really view this as healthy to one's psyche?
jjoonathan 9y ago
> Republicans will require mandatory public service to obtain UBI That's a far more liberal perspective than the republicans in my family take, unfortunately.
s_dev 9y ago
>Millions will wake up with no goals and no structure to their lives because they have all of their most basic needs satisfied by UBI People keep predicting this utopia of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do as all basic needs are provided. These predictions go back to the pre-industrial era. Inequality is the fuel of ambition and simply having the basic needs covered won't be enough for people in the same way it currently isn't for upper middle and upper classes -- they still compete. The "work" we will be doing will just be different. 3D printing and autonomous vehicles are going to have a massive impact on manufacture and distribution. However people still need to create things -- and AI is currently just good at optimizing things not "new thinking".
- Density 9y ago
  Recently unemployed people have historically guillotined the rich during periods of massive automation and spawned communist rebellions instead of sitting on their thumbs. Does that sound good to you?
okreallywtf 9y ago
That is a pessimistic and simplistic view of a incredibly complex issue, and for millions of poor people antidepressants are already popular, when they can afford them. The alternative is what, exactly? Continue having jobs automated out of existence, letting the middle class cease to exist while placing the blame on the segment of the population that has little influence over what trades will be valuable tomorrow? How about we subsidize coal mining jobs long so people can stay busy? This kind of black and white thinking is pointless. Using this as a justification for ignoring growing problems is negligent. There are a lot of things that people could do, and probably would do voluntarily if they didn't have to do their dead-end retail jobs. One option is taking care of the planet we are hell-bent on destroying. Imagine if we had potentially millions of people to take care of our forests and rivers? What about taking care of the elderly or teaching or any number of jobs that are practically poverty wages now that would be possible while living a middle-class lifestyle?

pc86 9y ago

Any requirement to obtain UBI by definition means it's not UBI. And I've not heard a single proposal for "mandatory public service" in order to receive any benefit. Not to mention that UBI is squarely a libertarian (small l) proposal and neither the Democrats nor Republicans want it. Republicans only want it if it means slashing public services (one of only two ways it is even fiscally possible, which is a nonstarter for the vast majority of Democrats), and Democrats either don't want it or want it as part of a huge tax increase (the other way, which is - surprise! - a nonstarter for the vast majority of Republicans).

fapjacks 9y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted. I'm not a good fit for most labels so I've got quite a varied social network, and I've been pushing the idea of UBI out to them to gauge what folks think. It's approximately what you've mentioned here. Average people seem skeptical but open to the idea, interested but certain there's a catch. Republicans look at it like a way to cut welfare funding and Democrats look at it like a way to increase public assistance. I've got friends on both sides looking across at one another, wondering how something could be both things at once. I personally think most Americans would support UBI if it were spelled out clearly what it is and also what it is not.
- justaman 9y ago
  A bit of anecdotal evidence of the pitfalls of welfare and what it could mean for UBI. I grew up in an area of questionable safety. There was a woman across the street who spoke to my mother about how she would scam the welfare system to receive multiple payments every month. This was on top of food stamps and child support checks. She was making more than most people with full time jobs in the area while doing absolutely nothing for society with no desire to ever change. People will take advantage of the system if they can. Spelling out what it is and what it is not would have to mean making people understand that it is only the minimum and somehow encourage them to expand their horizons. That seems like a cultural shift that needs to happen before UBI becomes prevalent.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > People will take advantage of the system if they can. Spelling out what it is and what it is not would have to mean making people understand that it is only the minimum and somehow encourage them to expand their horizons. People on welfare often already treat it that way, doing under the table cash work while receiving benefits (many don't, either for moral reason (it is fraud, usually, both tax and welfare) or fear reasons (the punishments for such fraud can be catastrophic) or availability reasons (they just haven't found opportunities, which aren't exactly openly advertised). But it's still fairly widespread; UBI would normalize additional work and stop punishing it, and allow it to take place in the formal economy, which all by itself would produce exactly the culture shift you refer to.
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    Okay, but let's look at it this way: What do you suggest we do when fifty percent of the US workforce is no longer employed because of clever kinds of automation that smart folks like you and I personally weren't able to predict way back in 2018? What do we do? How do we keep babies from starving and all wealth from aggregating in the hands of a dozen people worldwide? Let's not talk about how likely (or unlikely) this eventually is and hedge our bets. Let's play like we're "Societal SREs" and do a little emergency management. Let's talk about what happens if the article's conclusions come to fruition. What do you suggest we do? Because if we leave people to their own devices, they'll burn the whole fucking thing to the ground. Open literally any history book to see examples.
    - pc86 9y ago
      I haven't heard anyone who isn't a total crank suggesting we're looking at 50% structural unemployment for even a short period of time.
      - fapjacks 9y ago
        I was pulling a number out of a hat to make a point. But you should know that nobody has a crystal ball. Before 2008, institutional investors were saying they were prepared for "apocalyptic" losses of 10 to 15% of the housing market. Sometimes reality outpaces expectations. Regardless, you can substitute "a sufficiently large number of people" if it offends your delicate sensibilities.

grecy 9y ago

There are plenty of countries that have very liberal welfare payments. They're extremely easy to get and anyone that wants to can live on them for years and years without ever having a job. You could look at those examples to see how society will be impacted... Australia is a good place to start your research. (It's not quite UBI because you have to apply for it and do something to get it, but it's pretty close)

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
Anecdotally, from family members in the medical industry who work with low income patients, people on welfare (who could otherwise work) don't seem to have very fulfilling lives. I think it's pretty clear that people need something to work for or towards in order to find some sort of meaning in their life.
- projektir 9y ago
  People with welfare are in a very different situation than UBI due to the fact that the welfare will be lost if they do go work. You bringing this up at this point in time as if it's relevant almost seems trollish.
  - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
    The post I was responding to talked about welfare, not UBI. I'm aware that you can't work and collect welfare.
  - lainga 9y ago
    something to work for or towards does not imply work as in employment.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    It's definitely a relevant point. If a large group of people who are not working seem to be predominantly unhappy, that's legitimate information that may be useful for discussion about universal basic income. You can make a compelling argument that the reason for that unhappiness is not innate to a lack of work, but rather due to the particular idiosyncrasies of the implementation of welfare, but that's not obviously true a priori. The commenter seems to have made this observation in good faith. It seems rude to me that you would insinuate the point is irrelevant and "almost seems trollish" just because you disagree with it, particularly when you did the bare minimum to mount a substantive rebuttal. It's true that we shouldn't conflate the unhappiness associated with welfare with some sort of ennui induced by a lack of productivity; but that doesn't preclude the point you're disagreeing with, which could still be true.

dsr_ 9y ago

I'm not sure how you're defining optimists and pessimists, since more time for artistic passions and inventive endeavors almost certainly also means spending more time watching TV or otherwise finding and making entertainment.

bsder 9y ago

> Millions will wake up with no goals and no structure to their lives because they have all of their most basic needs satisfied by UBI if the democrats have their way. And? People are remarkably good at finding something to do once they are bored. A lot of people veg out in front of the boob tube because they are so exhausted from working to pay for basic necessities that they simply don't have the energy to do anything else.

mullen 9y ago
> And? People are remarkably good at finding something to do once they are bored. I completely disagree. Bored directionless people, especially bored directionless men, are the worst thing a civilization can have. These are the guys that pick AK-47's and join terrorist organizations because they have no direction in their lives and they think they found it.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Sure, if a terrorist organization is the only outfit nearby which offers an outlet promising deeper meaning or empowerment. But if people are given more than the empty prospect of future penury and distress, wouldn't they find values of discovery and creativity to be much more appealing? Who picks up an AK-47 and joins a terrorist organization just because they have nothing better to do? I think that sort of thing probably comes from a deeper malaise of the soul, and an environment devoid of hope is probably a big ingredient there.
- 794CD01 9y ago
  They're dangerous if you don't have an efficient way to pacify them, which we thankfully do. In the modern developed world, they can pick up virtual AK-47s in Fortnite or join a League of Legends team instead, which is much less destabilizing.
  - ForRealsies 9y ago
    Young men are dropping out of the workplace to play the very 'vidya' you mention: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/escape-to-another-world https://www.1843magazine.com/features/escape-to-another-worl... You really view this as healthy to one's psyche?

jjoonathan 9y ago

> Republicans will require mandatory public service to obtain UBI That's a far more liberal perspective than the republicans in my family take, unfortunately.

s_dev 9y ago

>Millions will wake up with no goals and no structure to their lives because they have all of their most basic needs satisfied by UBI People keep predicting this utopia of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do as all basic needs are provided. These predictions go back to the pre-industrial era. Inequality is the fuel of ambition and simply having the basic needs covered won't be enough for people in the same way it currently isn't for upper middle and upper classes -- they still compete. The "work" we will be doing will just be different. 3D printing and autonomous vehicles are going to have a massive impact on manufacture and distribution. However people still need to create things -- and AI is currently just good at optimizing things not "new thinking".

Density 9y ago
Recently unemployed people have historically guillotined the rich during periods of massive automation and spawned communist rebellions instead of sitting on their thumbs. Does that sound good to you?

okreallywtf 9y ago

That is a pessimistic and simplistic view of a incredibly complex issue, and for millions of poor people antidepressants are already popular, when they can afford them. The alternative is what, exactly? Continue having jobs automated out of existence, letting the middle class cease to exist while placing the blame on the segment of the population that has little influence over what trades will be valuable tomorrow? How about we subsidize coal mining jobs long so people can stay busy? This kind of black and white thinking is pointless. Using this as a justification for ignoring growing problems is negligent. There are a lot of things that people could do, and probably would do voluntarily if they didn't have to do their dead-end retail jobs. One option is taking care of the planet we are hell-bent on destroying. Imagine if we had potentially millions of people to take care of our forests and rivers? What about taking care of the elderly or teaching or any number of jobs that are practically poverty wages now that would be possible while living a middle-class lifestyle?