4 ms·

Can anyone explain to me, with basic income, why wouldn't I want to sit at home all day and play videogames?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Can someone explain to me, with varying job wages, why I wouldn't just take a low effort shelf stacking or cleaning job? Is it obvious yet?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- easshvsh 8y ago
  Because those jobs are boring and require a lot of physical effort.
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    Speak for yourself; I worked at a DIY store for a while doing basically that. My mum's career is cleaning at a doctor's office. They may be repetitive, but that does NOT mean they are not fulfilling.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Sitting at home playing games all day, or being unemployed are boring. Same for many different jobs that people do. The physical effort is trivial, I shelf stacked for a year as a teen Saturday job. Not intellectually fulfilling perhaps, but a pretty sociable job. Helping a relative out on his fruit and plant growing smallholding was far more energetic.
- dreen 8y ago
  Most people would prefer welfare than a job like that, even if the job meant more money.
  - mcv 8y ago
    Maybe unpopular jobs need to be improved, rather than have unwilling people forced into them.
    - dreen 8y ago
      How would you improve a job like shelf stacking? Or cleaning streets? Or digging ditches? What improvements do you have in mind?
      - mcv 8y ago
        If nobody wants to do them, better pay. Also maybe more time for breaks, better support, etc. It depends on what the problems with the job are. If nobody wants to do a certain job that we need, figure out why and fix the problem. If it's a job we don't need, eliminate it.
        dreen 8y ago
        Its jobs we need done but that are also borderline demeaning. Something machines should do. Some people still want to do them, but I would not, no matter the break time. Paying more would be good, but there is a limit to that.
        NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        It could be as simple as permitting such "demeaning" roles outside of zero hours contracts, with more flexibility for the employee to work around childcare. Right now all the flexibility is for the benefit of the employer. When the kids were young, SO looked to find something, almost anything part time, so long as it fit around the needs of the children and schools. We were both surprised at how limited those choices were and how often they required some hours commitment that guaranteed they could not coexist with raising young children.
        mcv 8y ago
        I tend to be very free-market about this. If nobody wants to do them, we shouldn't be forcing people to, we should make them more attractive. If they're borderline demeaning, make them less demeaning. If that's not possible and machines can do it, let machines do it. Otherwise increase pay. At some point either someone will do it, we'll find a better way, or we'll conclude it's not that necessary after all. If people are willing to do these jobs, then there's no problem.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
Well, if you do that, you might as well become a streamer and find employment that way. Or maybe write about it and become a reviewer. Basically, most people want to do something meaningful with their time so they'll work with something they like. Most millionaires still work for example, even though they have means enough to stop at any time.
elcomet 8y ago
You could. It is a very low amout of money though, so I'm not sure you'll be able to afford nice computers and recent videogames. And if you wanted more money, why wouldn't you work part time, to have a more confortable life ?
forinti 8y ago
I wouldn't do that for 560 euros. Would you?
BlackFly 8y ago
A person would take a job for the same reason that people take higher paid jobs with more responsibilities over lower paid jobs with fewer responsibilities: more money.
kome 8y ago
yeah, why not? If that makes you happy, with UBI, you can withdraw from society. But I bet that after a while, also videogames will get boring. You will feel the need to do something outside. Be it some volunteering, just to meet people, or a job you love. Without the need to be profitable, the tyranny of profit. It wouldn't be that bad, right?
- candiodari 8y ago
  Surely you can't see withdrawing from society as a good thing. I mean seriously, why would society support that ? Also: I've seen people do this at university. I seem to recall that people who truly withdrew didn't do well at all, with some exceptions. People who withdrew into the theory, or into student life, at the expense of other things did much better.
  - Phenix88be 8y ago
    > Surely you can't see withdrawing from society as a good thing. I mean seriously, why would society support that ? Why not ? I would retreat in the middle of the forest with minimal technology if I could afford it (yes this life style cost money nowadays). People are the one who get you in trouble in the first place and avoiding having too much people in your life reduce the troubles and can give you peace.
irb 8y ago
In your current life, do you only work the bare minimum required to support a life of sitting at home and playing video games in your free time? I think the main reasons most people would still work are: - To give purpose to their lives and occupy their minds/bodies - In order to afford a better lifestyle than they could on only UBI (nice house, holidays, going out etc)
Isinlor 8y ago
There is no reason. Most people would end up doing exactly that. I find myself somewhat in that position. I work remotely as Software Developer / Analyst 1 day a week earning a living wage and spend rest of my time reading :) . Interestingly, taxes in Belgium are so progressive that working 1/5 pays quite much more than 1/5 of full salary. BTW - You must know the Polish phrase from communist times: "Czy się stoi, czy się leży, dwa tysiące się należy.". For English speakers: "Down you lie or up you stand, either way you'll earn a grand". Here is how it looked like: https://d-pt.ppstatic.pl/kadry/k/r/1/01/3b/58f074a3247ac_o,size,1068x623,crop,0.0869x0.0000x1.1338x1.0000,q,71,h,a3f07f.jpg https://d-pt.ppstatic.pl/kadry/k/r/1/01/3b/58f074a3247ac_o,s...
mcv 8y ago
Why would someone who inherits money not sit home all day and play videogames? Why would someone with sizable investments not sit home and play videogames? There are already people who receive free money, and nobody seems to worry about what they do with their time. In general, most people seem to think more money is better for them, so they work to increase the amount of money they get. One of the ideas behind basic income is that by removing obstacles and disincentives to work, maybe people will feel more free to look for a good job.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  With an additional dose of "so what if they do"? If a few want to sit at home on some low amount of weekly money playing games, so what. Most people will want more out of life and in the bank. It will lead to far fewer falling out of the system entirely thanks to the expense of forms, proof and means testing for benefits (this is well shown), but will also eliminate fractional claiming rates. Means testing and claiming has been shown time and again to put some off claiming at all, perhaps through pride or the current intentional systematised stigma of benefits, even sheer exhaustion from 2 years of seeking work in late 50s to 2,000x rejections. So we end up with a two tier unemployment system: those in receipt of unemployment, and those who've fallen out of the system entirely or were never in it. I'd rather help those with long term issues as well and have no one fall through the gaps to food bank or suicide.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  > Why would someone who inherits money not sit home all day and play videogames? Because it is better to go to the beach during the day and the parties at night! A more respectable position is to become the president of your family foundation and go to charity dinners and pretend you care for something. There are plenty of case where someone create a big business, and when he/she dies the children or grandchildren just spend all the money and the business colapses due to stupidity or laziness (or it is sold).
mario0b1 8y ago
>why wouldn't I want to sit at home all day and play videogames? Because having something you can live for is a basic psychologic need that everyone has. Aswell as social acknowledgement
perfunctory 8y ago
Would you, actually? Did you ever try it? How long did you last?

Can someone explain to me, with varying job wages, why I wouldn't just take a low effort shelf stacking or cleaning job? Is it obvious yet?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
easshvsh 8y ago
Because those jobs are boring and require a lot of physical effort.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Speak for yourself; I worked at a DIY store for a while doing basically that. My mum's career is cleaning at a doctor's office. They may be repetitive, but that does NOT mean they are not fulfilling.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Sitting at home playing games all day, or being unemployed are boring. Same for many different jobs that people do. The physical effort is trivial, I shelf stacked for a year as a teen Saturday job. Not intellectually fulfilling perhaps, but a pretty sociable job. Helping a relative out on his fruit and plant growing smallholding was far more energetic.
dreen 8y ago
Most people would prefer welfare than a job like that, even if the job meant more money.
- mcv 8y ago
  Maybe unpopular jobs need to be improved, rather than have unwilling people forced into them.
  - dreen 8y ago
    How would you improve a job like shelf stacking? Or cleaning streets? Or digging ditches? What improvements do you have in mind?
    - mcv 8y ago
      If nobody wants to do them, better pay. Also maybe more time for breaks, better support, etc. It depends on what the problems with the job are. If nobody wants to do a certain job that we need, figure out why and fix the problem. If it's a job we don't need, eliminate it.
      - dreen 8y ago
        Its jobs we need done but that are also borderline demeaning. Something machines should do. Some people still want to do them, but I would not, no matter the break time. Paying more would be good, but there is a limit to that.
        NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        It could be as simple as permitting such "demeaning" roles outside of zero hours contracts, with more flexibility for the employee to work around childcare. Right now all the flexibility is for the benefit of the employer. When the kids were young, SO looked to find something, almost anything part time, so long as it fit around the needs of the children and schools. We were both surprised at how limited those choices were and how often they required some hours commitment that guaranteed they could not coexist with raising young children.
        mcv 8y ago
        I tend to be very free-market about this. If nobody wants to do them, we shouldn't be forcing people to, we should make them more attractive. If they're borderline demeaning, make them less demeaning. If that's not possible and machines can do it, let machines do it. Otherwise increase pay. At some point either someone will do it, we'll find a better way, or we'll conclude it's not that necessary after all. If people are willing to do these jobs, then there's no problem.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

Well, if you do that, you might as well become a streamer and find employment that way. Or maybe write about it and become a reviewer. Basically, most people want to do something meaningful with their time so they'll work with something they like. Most millionaires still work for example, even though they have means enough to stop at any time.

elcomet 8y ago

You could. It is a very low amout of money though, so I'm not sure you'll be able to afford nice computers and recent videogames. And if you wanted more money, why wouldn't you work part time, to have a more confortable life ?

forinti 8y ago

I wouldn't do that for 560 euros. Would you?

BlackFly 8y ago

A person would take a job for the same reason that people take higher paid jobs with more responsibilities over lower paid jobs with fewer responsibilities: more money.

kome 8y ago

yeah, why not? If that makes you happy, with UBI, you can withdraw from society. But I bet that after a while, also videogames will get boring. You will feel the need to do something outside. Be it some volunteering, just to meet people, or a job you love. Without the need to be profitable, the tyranny of profit. It wouldn't be that bad, right?

candiodari 8y ago
Surely you can't see withdrawing from society as a good thing. I mean seriously, why would society support that ? Also: I've seen people do this at university. I seem to recall that people who truly withdrew didn't do well at all, with some exceptions. People who withdrew into the theory, or into student life, at the expense of other things did much better.
- Phenix88be 8y ago
  > Surely you can't see withdrawing from society as a good thing. I mean seriously, why would society support that ? Why not ? I would retreat in the middle of the forest with minimal technology if I could afford it (yes this life style cost money nowadays). People are the one who get you in trouble in the first place and avoiding having too much people in your life reduce the troubles and can give you peace.

irb 8y ago

In your current life, do you only work the bare minimum required to support a life of sitting at home and playing video games in your free time? I think the main reasons most people would still work are: - To give purpose to their lives and occupy their minds/bodies - In order to afford a better lifestyle than they could on only UBI (nice house, holidays, going out etc)

Isinlor 8y ago

There is no reason. Most people would end up doing exactly that. I find myself somewhat in that position. I work remotely as Software Developer / Analyst 1 day a week earning a living wage and spend rest of my time reading :) . Interestingly, taxes in Belgium are so progressive that working 1/5 pays quite much more than 1/5 of full salary. BTW - You must know the Polish phrase from communist times: "Czy się stoi, czy się leży, dwa tysiące się należy.". For English speakers: "Down you lie or up you stand, either way you'll earn a grand". Here is how it looked like: https://d-pt.ppstatic.pl/kadry/k/r/1/01/3b/58f074a3247ac_o,size,1068x623,crop,0.0869x0.0000x1.1338x1.0000,q,71,h,a3f07f.jpg https://d-pt.ppstatic.pl/kadry/k/r/1/01/3b/58f074a3247ac_o,s...

mcv 8y ago

Why would someone who inherits money not sit home all day and play videogames? Why would someone with sizable investments not sit home and play videogames? There are already people who receive free money, and nobody seems to worry about what they do with their time. In general, most people seem to think more money is better for them, so they work to increase the amount of money they get. One of the ideas behind basic income is that by removing obstacles and disincentives to work, maybe people will feel more free to look for a good job.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
With an additional dose of "so what if they do"? If a few want to sit at home on some low amount of weekly money playing games, so what. Most people will want more out of life and in the bank. It will lead to far fewer falling out of the system entirely thanks to the expense of forms, proof and means testing for benefits (this is well shown), but will also eliminate fractional claiming rates. Means testing and claiming has been shown time and again to put some off claiming at all, perhaps through pride or the current intentional systematised stigma of benefits, even sheer exhaustion from 2 years of seeking work in late 50s to 2,000x rejections. So we end up with a two tier unemployment system: those in receipt of unemployment, and those who've fallen out of the system entirely or were never in it. I'd rather help those with long term issues as well and have no one fall through the gaps to food bank or suicide.
gus_massa 8y ago
> Why would someone who inherits money not sit home all day and play videogames? Because it is better to go to the beach during the day and the parties at night! A more respectable position is to become the president of your family foundation and go to charity dinners and pretend you care for something. There are plenty of case where someone create a big business, and when he/she dies the children or grandchildren just spend all the money and the business colapses due to stupidity or laziness (or it is sold).

mario0b1 8y ago

>why wouldn't I want to sit at home all day and play videogames? Because having something you can live for is a basic psychologic need that everyone has. Aswell as social acknowledgement

perfunctory 8y ago

Would you, actually? Did you ever try it? How long did you last?