5 ms·

Coming from someone like Richard Branson this seems obnoxious. If it's so revolutionary why have you not implemented it in your workplace? As for the New Zeala

by pentae 8y ago

Coming from someone like Richard Branson this seems obnoxious. If it's so revolutionary why have you not implemented it in your workplace? As for the New Zealand study thats frequently cited as a 'success' it was only an 8 week trial. It reminds me of universal basic income - populist ideology that appeals to people who want more free shit.

drzaiusapelord 8y ago
That seems awfully cynical to me. What about weekends? Why not work those? Seems like you're quite the freeloader yourself! The reality is that the work day is based on an arbitrary factory schedule. There's no reason to maintain it. Moving to 6 hours or 4 days absolutely works. Its just going to be less people padding their time on reddit and facebook.
phil248 8y ago
I always thought the primary appeal of a universal income was to eradicate poverty and remove the inefficiencies of the welfare state
- PeterStuer 8y ago
  As counter intuitive as it may seem, the universal basic income is not there to 'eradicate poverty', but a final Neo-liberal hail-Mary to save their socioeconomic market ideology snake that has been eating its own tail.
  - phil248 8y ago
    The universal basic income isn't "there" at all. If our liberal masters are in fact pushing for a universal basic income, they are doing so in such a subtle fashion you'd almost think they opposed it with every fiber of their being.
0xfeba 8y ago
> It reminds me of universal basic income - populist ideology that appeals to people who want more free shit. Who are these 'I want free stuff' people? I keep hearing them mentioned as some sort of strawman, but no one can really find me any large groups of these people demanding free stuff. Most people realize taxes pay for welfare benefits. It also appeals to people who want to eliminate 20 government and various state agencies for a single entity. We already have many convoluted forms of welfare, why not simplify it? The whole point of a government is to benefit the welfare of its civilians.
- jerf 8y ago
  "Who are these 'I want free stuff' people?" It's pretty much everyone. It's just that everyone also knows you can't actually go into a political debate with "GIVE ME FREE STUFF" and expect to get very far. But of course we all want free stuff. I want free stuff. I've got the discipline to know better than to vote for it (because for one thing I know there is no such thing as "free"), but I damned well want it. But of course there's plenty of BI advocates who want free stuff. You can find plenty of people musing on how they'd live on nothing but the BI in any conversation on HN, if they could.
  - derefr 8y ago
    > one thing I know there is no such thing as "free" In the US, given the production-yields of present agricultural technology, only 1% of the population would need to be employed to feed 100% of the population. That seems pretty "free." I don't know how it would work out for other things (housing, clothing, etc.) but I expect it would be similar (with e.g. at most 10% of the population needing to work to support 100% of the population, which is less than the percentage of people who want to work regardless of personal necessity.) In other words: we've already nearly reached post-scarcity. We should probably figure out a way to take advantage of that.
    - mdpopescu 8y ago
      Well... the US already has the cheapest food of all the countries I've been in. Without cooking, I managed to eat with $2 a day (and I'm around 200 pounds). Small town in Georgia, maybe NY food is more expensive. (I know I was surprised at how expensive food was in London.)

by pentae 8y ago

drzaiusapelord 8y ago

That seems awfully cynical to me. What about weekends? Why not work those? Seems like you're quite the freeloader yourself! The reality is that the work day is based on an arbitrary factory schedule. There's no reason to maintain it. Moving to 6 hours or 4 days absolutely works. Its just going to be less people padding their time on reddit and facebook.

phil248 8y ago

I always thought the primary appeal of a universal income was to eradicate poverty and remove the inefficiencies of the welfare state

PeterStuer 8y ago
As counter intuitive as it may seem, the universal basic income is not there to 'eradicate poverty', but a final Neo-liberal hail-Mary to save their socioeconomic market ideology snake that has been eating its own tail.
- phil248 8y ago
  The universal basic income isn't "there" at all. If our liberal masters are in fact pushing for a universal basic income, they are doing so in such a subtle fashion you'd almost think they opposed it with every fiber of their being.

0xfeba 8y ago

> It reminds me of universal basic income - populist ideology that appeals to people who want more free shit. Who are these 'I want free stuff' people? I keep hearing them mentioned as some sort of strawman, but no one can really find me any large groups of these people demanding free stuff. Most people realize taxes pay for welfare benefits. It also appeals to people who want to eliminate 20 government and various state agencies for a single entity. We already have many convoluted forms of welfare, why not simplify it? The whole point of a government is to benefit the welfare of its civilians.

jerf 8y ago
"Who are these 'I want free stuff' people?" It's pretty much everyone. It's just that everyone also knows you can't actually go into a political debate with "GIVE ME FREE STUFF" and expect to get very far. But of course we all want free stuff. I want free stuff. I've got the discipline to know better than to vote for it (because for one thing I know there is no such thing as "free"), but I damned well want it. But of course there's plenty of BI advocates who want free stuff. You can find plenty of people musing on how they'd live on nothing but the BI in any conversation on HN, if they could.
- derefr 8y ago
  > one thing I know there is no such thing as "free" In the US, given the production-yields of present agricultural technology, only 1% of the population would need to be employed to feed 100% of the population. That seems pretty "free." I don't know how it would work out for other things (housing, clothing, etc.) but I expect it would be similar (with e.g. at most 10% of the population needing to work to support 100% of the population, which is less than the percentage of people who want to work regardless of personal necessity.) In other words: we've already nearly reached post-scarcity. We should probably figure out a way to take advantage of that.
  - mdpopescu 8y ago
    Well... the US already has the cheapest food of all the countries I've been in. Without cooking, I managed to eat with $2 a day (and I'm around 200 pounds). Small town in Georgia, maybe NY food is more expensive. (I know I was surprised at how expensive food was in London.)