4 ms·

I like the idea of those things. However, this is HN, and full of people that would try to be productive/creative for society if they had a safety net that allo

by elamje 7y ago

I like the idea of those things. However, this is HN, and full of people that would try to be productive/creative for society if they had a safety net that allowed them to pursue awesome endeavors. Many people work to earn money, not to free up time so pursue their passions and hobbies. There are a significant amount of Americans that would enjoy the safety net by watching Netflix, eating, gambling, etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with those things if you enjoy them, however, a benefit of the current model is that people who aren’t creative/ambitious/driven end up spending 40ish hours a week working on things that are useful for other people or businesses. I’m not sure I see a case where the economic machine speeds up by giving people limitless free time. I like the idea of a safety net for healthcare btw, bc even privately we pay too much, and the current system sucks to use, pay for, experience, etc. A world where the basics are given sounds nice, but there are a seriously concerning amount of people that are wildly lazy (I wish there was a dataset to measure this I was aware of, but I’m going off of the towns I grew up in and people I knew.)

skinnymuch 7y ago
I’ve been unemployed for a significant time period. The pressure to work is huge. I’d bet with a safety net, most people would still be working a similar amount of time.
- elamje 7y ago
  Possibly, but there are a lot of people unlike yourself that don’t feel a major pressure to work, some might continue but there would be more currently employed people that would choose not to work as much, than currently unemployed people that would choose to start work under a big net IMHO. Just with the arithmetic of 5ish% of unemployment. People who start working under a net can only be 5% of population. People who stop working or work much less could be up to 95% of population. Much bigger percentage has possibility to work less under that system.
  - skinnymuch 7y ago
    Sure. Other comments in this thread are throwing out numbers like 99% of people would chill at home with tv on all day just because of a safety net. I wasn’t sure what sort of degree you were going with things. Of course more people would take advantage of the system, but Americans overall as a society don’t like excessive laziness and put pride in some amount of work being done. Not working and being poor is frowned upon generally. To keep things loose, this is true for at least greater than 50% of the country.

by elamje 7y ago

skinnymuch 7y ago

I’ve been unemployed for a significant time period. The pressure to work is huge. I’d bet with a safety net, most people would still be working a similar amount of time.

elamje 7y ago
Possibly, but there are a lot of people unlike yourself that don’t feel a major pressure to work, some might continue but there would be more currently employed people that would choose not to work as much, than currently unemployed people that would choose to start work under a big net IMHO. Just with the arithmetic of 5ish% of unemployment. People who start working under a net can only be 5% of population. People who stop working or work much less could be up to 95% of population. Much bigger percentage has possibility to work less under that system.
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  Sure. Other comments in this thread are throwing out numbers like 99% of people would chill at home with tv on all day just because of a safety net. I wasn’t sure what sort of degree you were going with things. Of course more people would take advantage of the system, but Americans overall as a society don’t like excessive laziness and put pride in some amount of work being done. Not working and being poor is frowned upon generally. To keep things loose, this is true for at least greater than 50% of the country.