3 ms·

The problem with not using free time wisely is that there is usually supply and fragmentation issues -- not enough free time (or at least feels like it) and chu

The problem with not using free time wisely is that there is usually supply and fragmentation issues -- not enough free time (or at least feels like it) and chunks that feel small enough that you have trouble fitting anything significant in before you have to drop everything and go make another buck. So the time is spent on useless things that are easy to pick up. For example, unless currently possessed by a Strange Mood (in Dwarf Fortress artifact making sense), it takes me 4 free days to even start (or resume) something productive more complex than general housework stuff. That excludes most of weekends out, since they are too short. People who would have trouble finding valuable (to them) things to do under UBI regime, have even more trouble now, unless they lucked out and consider the job they must do now to be more valuable than the money it brings. And not a soul sucking waste of time that doesn't leave enough time and energy to even realize something fulfilling can be done.

logicprog 7y ago
Okay that's a good point. Also I love the DF reference, DF is my all-time favorite game. My original comment somewhat lacked empathy, perhaps because I don't suffer from problems with free time fragmentation because I'm always possessed by a Strange Mood. I still think my point stands though. I meet a lot of people with what I know to be fairly large chunks of time that don't do anything with them anyway, not because they feel like they can't achieve something in that time but because they don't have any hobbies or ideas, or particular skills. In fact, that's true for most people I meet, and it's actually difficult for me to tell whether that's an artifact of perceived free time fragmentation or not. And this is in a culture where people are 100% encouraged to develop skills and hobbies. But think about it, as much as we hear about retired people doing epic things, we also don't hear about retired people, like my grandparents, being terminally bored and ending up back to the workforce. Here's the thing. As much as jobs can be boring and soul-sucking, to an extent they provide more of something then doing nothing while on UBI does. In addition, they provide a lot of training for life, like perseverance through boring things, and people skills (this is my experience at least) that you can't really get anywhere else. Plus, while jobs might be unfun, developing any kind of skill and competency at something genuinely gives people a sense of self-worth. Often, jobs provide the sort of skill that is easier to master than, say, art or poetry. Unless UBI comes with some sort of education or structured skill development, it really won't be good for people in the way you're suggesting. I'm willing to consider it possible however that there might be more people capable of learning skills and achieving self-actualization than we currently see manifest in society, and that with UBI those people will be freed up to do things. I just don't think that it's a totally positive thing. Besides all kinds of other logistical issues and issues like it ending up subsidizing drug addictions and such.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  You might have too high of an expectation what it means to lead a good life given your own drive. That itself is a part of "work or other productive endeavors define worth of people" culture I think. This is a good stance (consequentially) to have in society when unproductive members are a drag on everybody else. But the main premise of UBI is that you just don't need economic output from all the people you have. So the only question remaining is how it would affect those people, the ones lacking the drive and ability to become useful. That is not the question of societal judgment -- if UBI ends up funding lots of mindless candy crashing it is only bad insofar as it affects the person. If they are satisfied, that's the end of the question. I agree that a sudden transition for people who worked whole life and are finding themselves in effective retirement might be harsh, but the alternative here is sudden job loss and poverty, which is more immediately dire. Might be a question to be resolved with data and studies I suppose. But my expectation (given that you don't need people to be economically productive anymore) is that benefit of having free time will be positive on balance, and the negative outcomes would be just another logistical challenge of education and motivation. Consider also all the people in golden chains, who had ability and drive (which is arguably just another form of ability) to get good jobs, but who would rather apply those talents to something else.
  - logicprog 7y ago
    Interesting. I don't think in the current society unproductive people are necessarily more of a drag on everyone else than they would be under UBI. We still have to fund UBI. And if UBI doesn't fund good things, that's a lot of other people's work that's being wasted paying out UBI. Also, who knows how much of the workforce we'd lose without the necessity to hold jobs, and how much economic output would be damaged, which in turn could make UBI untenable. Keep in mind that (quoting a random UBI plan that seems fairly representative), a universal payment of $12,000 per year to each adult U.S. resident over age 18 would cost roughly $3 trillion per year... And according to the IRS, in 2016 people payed a total of $1.4 trillion in taxes[1] meaning we'd have to triple current taxes. Even taxing the top 1% at 100% income tax wouldn't pay for that. [1]: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-... Also, there are some studies recently started concerning UBI, so we'll see. The other thing is that that money isn't free, it has to be taken from someone, and given to someone else... So the question is, why do the people receiving that money deserve it? If UBI is an almost entirely good force, and isn't mostly just wasted, then maybe it's worth considering, but even then the amount of money needed and morality of it is iffy. Without the garuntee that it would do anything good, I'm even more dubious of it.

logicprog 7y ago

Okay that's a good point. Also I love the DF reference, DF is my all-time favorite game. My original comment somewhat lacked empathy, perhaps because I don't suffer from problems with free time fragmentation because I'm always possessed by a Strange Mood. I still think my point stands though. I meet a lot of people with what I know to be fairly large chunks of time that don't do anything with them anyway, not because they feel like they can't achieve something in that time but because they don't have any hobbies or ideas, or particular skills. In fact, that's true for most people I meet, and it's actually difficult for me to tell whether that's an artifact of perceived free time fragmentation or not. And this is in a culture where people are 100% encouraged to develop skills and hobbies. But think about it, as much as we hear about retired people doing epic things, we also don't hear about retired people, like my grandparents, being terminally bored and ending up back to the workforce. Here's the thing. As much as jobs can be boring and soul-sucking, to an extent they provide more of something then doing nothing while on UBI does. In addition, they provide a lot of training for life, like perseverance through boring things, and people skills (this is my experience at least) that you can't really get anywhere else. Plus, while jobs might be unfun, developing any kind of skill and competency at something genuinely gives people a sense of self-worth. Often, jobs provide the sort of skill that is easier to master than, say, art or poetry. Unless UBI comes with some sort of education or structured skill development, it really won't be good for people in the way you're suggesting. I'm willing to consider it possible however that there might be more people capable of learning skills and achieving self-actualization than we currently see manifest in society, and that with UBI those people will be freed up to do things. I just don't think that it's a totally positive thing. Besides all kinds of other logistical issues and issues like it ending up subsidizing drug addictions and such.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
You might have too high of an expectation what it means to lead a good life given your own drive. That itself is a part of "work or other productive endeavors define worth of people" culture I think. This is a good stance (consequentially) to have in society when unproductive members are a drag on everybody else. But the main premise of UBI is that you just don't need economic output from all the people you have. So the only question remaining is how it would affect those people, the ones lacking the drive and ability to become useful. That is not the question of societal judgment -- if UBI ends up funding lots of mindless candy crashing it is only bad insofar as it affects the person. If they are satisfied, that's the end of the question. I agree that a sudden transition for people who worked whole life and are finding themselves in effective retirement might be harsh, but the alternative here is sudden job loss and poverty, which is more immediately dire. Might be a question to be resolved with data and studies I suppose. But my expectation (given that you don't need people to be economically productive anymore) is that benefit of having free time will be positive on balance, and the negative outcomes would be just another logistical challenge of education and motivation. Consider also all the people in golden chains, who had ability and drive (which is arguably just another form of ability) to get good jobs, but who would rather apply those talents to something else.
- logicprog 7y ago
  Interesting. I don't think in the current society unproductive people are necessarily more of a drag on everyone else than they would be under UBI. We still have to fund UBI. And if UBI doesn't fund good things, that's a lot of other people's work that's being wasted paying out UBI. Also, who knows how much of the workforce we'd lose without the necessity to hold jobs, and how much economic output would be damaged, which in turn could make UBI untenable. Keep in mind that (quoting a random UBI plan that seems fairly representative), a universal payment of $12,000 per year to each adult U.S. resident over age 18 would cost roughly $3 trillion per year... And according to the IRS, in 2016 people payed a total of $1.4 trillion in taxes[1] meaning we'd have to triple current taxes. Even taxing the top 1% at 100% income tax wouldn't pay for that. [1]: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-... Also, there are some studies recently started concerning UBI, so we'll see. The other thing is that that money isn't free, it has to be taken from someone, and given to someone else... So the question is, why do the people receiving that money deserve it? If UBI is an almost entirely good force, and isn't mostly just wasted, then maybe it's worth considering, but even then the amount of money needed and morality of it is iffy. Without the garuntee that it would do anything good, I'm even more dubious of it.