22 ms·

100% agree that something needs to happen. The way we treat less-fortunate people is shameful and undignified. My biggest concern with UBI specifically is that

100% agree that something needs to happen. The way we treat less-fortunate people is shameful and undignified. My biggest concern with UBI specifically is that it will be absorbed by landlords and other societal rent-seekers. My personal opinion is that we should democratize workplaces, through unions in the short-term and co-ops in the long term. McDonalds cashiers should have a say in their working conditions beyond the bare minimum employment regulations (that are so often ignored in retail and food services).

nerdponx 7y ago
Keeping people constantly tired and "on the edge" might be a deliberate strategy. Or at least a very convenient coincidence. If they're too tired and too reliant on their current jobs to protest or quit, they'll stay quiet and politically compliant.
- nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
  While I wouldn't be _surprised_ if it's a deliberate strategy, I think it's more likely that the incentives just align in, as you said, a very convenient coincidence for the political elite and bourgeois interests in society.
leeoniya 7y ago
> The way we treat less-fortunate people is shameful and undignified. i think the crux has always been separating the unfortunate from the lazy. i don't think anyone would have serious a problem with supporting the former if the latter could be sieved.
- nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
  I honestly don't think this is that important, and I think means-testing or 'laziness'-testing is more effort than it's worth. There will always be lazy people in society, and we have a lot of evidence that lazy people are a burden no matter how hard we try to make their lives. I'm happier giving people enough to get by unconditionally than having them steal or cheat enough to get by. Trapping people in poverty means if they decided to not be lazy at some point, it's incredibly hard for them to get out of their situation and it's much more likely for them to fail. Furthermore, poverty only affects poor lazy people. Rich lazy people (those that got lucky or were born into wealth) can live on dividends their whole lives with no 'punishment'. Lastly, attempts to distinguish lazy people from non-lazy people are easily corrupted by monied interests that don't want to pay as much into society. See the 'welfare queen' narrative that was popular under Reagan.
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  Teams suffer tremendously when they are forced to include lazy people. You get the additional Mythical-Man-Month complexity without any gain in productivity. Society would be better off if lazy people were excused from the workforce. The weird obsession with forcing everyone to run on a treadmill has got to go.
  - abraae 7y ago
    The older I get the more I think labels like "lazy" are not really useful. Some people are beaten down, discouraged, unexcited at doing hard manual labour for just enough money to get them through to the next day. And some, even if you get them to work, are not going to be much use there. I know in my own career (have worked for decades with no sabbaticals or more than 3 weeks off at a time), I'm really lucky to do a job that I find interesting. That allows me to really dig in and work long and hard. If I was doing a shitty manual labour job I think I'd revert from being an apparently extremely hard working person to one of the laziest ones around.
    - nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
      This is a very good point. Beating people down rarely results in their most productive work. Any good manager knows this. Hell, I generally enjoy my job but go though legitimately lazy periods. These are well-contrasted by productive periods, but 9-5 work is a strange thing and people aren't machines. My point was mostly that even if these imaginary lazy people exist, it doesn't invalidate the need for real economic freedom where you can choose not to work. You were fair to call that out as a lame take though, and I appreciate the perspective.
jdkdnfndnfjd 7y ago
This makes me literally laugh. McDonald’s employees will destroy whatever they are given control over. In the past, smart people could get out. But with automation we need to change our views because then people really will be trapped in these kinds of jobs. Ubi or something.

nerdponx 7y ago

Keeping people constantly tired and "on the edge" might be a deliberate strategy. Or at least a very convenient coincidence. If they're too tired and too reliant on their current jobs to protest or quit, they'll stay quiet and politically compliant.

nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
While I wouldn't be _surprised_ if it's a deliberate strategy, I think it's more likely that the incentives just align in, as you said, a very convenient coincidence for the political elite and bourgeois interests in society.

leeoniya 7y ago

> The way we treat less-fortunate people is shameful and undignified. i think the crux has always been separating the unfortunate from the lazy. i don't think anyone would have serious a problem with supporting the former if the latter could be sieved.

nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
I honestly don't think this is that important, and I think means-testing or 'laziness'-testing is more effort than it's worth. There will always be lazy people in society, and we have a lot of evidence that lazy people are a burden no matter how hard we try to make their lives. I'm happier giving people enough to get by unconditionally than having them steal or cheat enough to get by. Trapping people in poverty means if they decided to not be lazy at some point, it's incredibly hard for them to get out of their situation and it's much more likely for them to fail. Furthermore, poverty only affects poor lazy people. Rich lazy people (those that got lucky or were born into wealth) can live on dividends their whole lives with no 'punishment'. Lastly, attempts to distinguish lazy people from non-lazy people are easily corrupted by monied interests that don't want to pay as much into society. See the 'welfare queen' narrative that was popular under Reagan.
jniedrauer 7y ago
Teams suffer tremendously when they are forced to include lazy people. You get the additional Mythical-Man-Month complexity without any gain in productivity. Society would be better off if lazy people were excused from the workforce. The weird obsession with forcing everyone to run on a treadmill has got to go.
- abraae 7y ago
  The older I get the more I think labels like "lazy" are not really useful. Some people are beaten down, discouraged, unexcited at doing hard manual labour for just enough money to get them through to the next day. And some, even if you get them to work, are not going to be much use there. I know in my own career (have worked for decades with no sabbaticals or more than 3 weeks off at a time), I'm really lucky to do a job that I find interesting. That allows me to really dig in and work long and hard. If I was doing a shitty manual labour job I think I'd revert from being an apparently extremely hard working person to one of the laziest ones around.
  - nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
    This is a very good point. Beating people down rarely results in their most productive work. Any good manager knows this. Hell, I generally enjoy my job but go though legitimately lazy periods. These are well-contrasted by productive periods, but 9-5 work is a strange thing and people aren't machines. My point was mostly that even if these imaginary lazy people exist, it doesn't invalidate the need for real economic freedom where you can choose not to work. You were fair to call that out as a lame take though, and I appreciate the perspective.

jdkdnfndnfjd 7y ago

This makes me literally laugh. McDonald’s employees will destroy whatever they are given control over. In the past, smart people could get out. But with automation we need to change our views because then people really will be trapped in these kinds of jobs. Ubi or something.