6 ms·

Yeah I'm in the same situation, my dream is to become an independent game developer, but that is super risky and I only have a small buffer. Currently, avoidin

Yeah I'm in the same situation, my dream is to become an independent game developer, but that is super risky and I only have a small buffer. Currently, avoiding homelessness > following dreams. God, I wish basic income was a thing.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
> Currently, avoiding homelessness > following dreams. oh I know that one, it goes like: "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken." — Genesis 3:19 > God, I wish basic income was a thing. I rather don't, and this is why. It's got some merits as an alternative to current bureaucracy, but I fear that all too often it would mean a capable self-sufficient software developer abandoning his responsibilities, and taking others' money, to subsidize a lifestyle in which he may develop indie computer games. If these pet projects are good investments — good risk-adjusted investments, producing measurable returns and not merely misty-eyed wish fulfillment — then risk of the project should be borne by those who wish for the project. For while it is decent and good for us to carry the burdens of those who cannot carry their own, it is likewise righteous and just that you, who are fully capable of supporting yourself, should support yourself, rather than burdening others with your support.
- yazboo 6y ago
  > it is likewise righteous and just that you, who are fully capable of supporting yourself, should support yourself, rather than burdening others with your support Righteous and just according to who? I would much rather live in a society that takes money from its wealthiest members (myself included) to make a basic allotment for living expenses so people can do as they wish.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    According to me. Alternatively, according to anyone who has been raised with sufficiently decent morals, religious or secular, or, quite aside from such explicit inculcation, has inferred from their circumstances, life experiences, and the condition of others who inhabit the world around them, a basic sense of humility: anyone who does not imagine that the world revolves around them, and certainly not to the extent that they believe that they deserve to be supplied by others with a lifestyle of leisure (particularly while others and other causes remain far needier than they). Alternatively: according to anyone who has been educated with knowledge of the world economy, so as to possess a basic understanding that, even should we plunder the entire wealth of the upper classes (however you define them), the sum would be wholly inadequate to purchase unlimited leisure on demand for all who may ask of it, and moreover, that if such plunder did occur, there would in any event be many more urgent and meaningful projects for such wealth to be directed to. Or, to rephrase, according to anyone who understands that the math of what they are asking is nonsense. Alternatively: according to King Solomon, or whoever really did write Ecclesiastes: "For a person may labor with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then they must leave all they own to another who has not toiled for it. This too is meaningless, and a great evil." I could probably go on, but that would be gratuitous.
    - CptFribble 6y ago
      There is no moral imperative to toil for its own sake. If I remember correctly, the imperative for Adam to earn his food by the sweat of his brow was not a description of "moral" or "correct" life, it was in fact a punishment. Your not-so-subtle intimation that people who want basic income are amoral is both offensive on its face and ignorant of reality. There are many, many people who are trapped in difficult, dangerous, unpleasant, or insufficient jobs for a variety of reasons and circumstances. Basic income - while complicated to implement certainly - is not about allowing us all to live a life of dotage. It's about freeing people from having to dedicate their entire lives enriching a wealthy investor, just so they can put food on the table and a roof overhead. Work is not a valued goal in-and-of-itself. Work is just whatever it is that you do with your life. Some people are fortunate enough to make their work something they enjoy. Many are not. The Biblical perspective of "humans being made for work" doesn't mean that you must experience a visceral sensation of toil and hardship in order for it to qualify as work, it just means God made us able to experience boredom. It seems you have missed the context of the quote you pulled from Ecclesiastes. That section of Chapter 2 is in fact about the futility of making labor and work the value of your life, not about the government taking away hard-won rewards of labor and redistributing wealth. Chapter 2 of Ecclesiastes compares a life of both pure leisure and pure labor, and declares both to be futile. The exact quote you pull about leaving all you own to another who has not toiled for it has no bearing on the question of basic income, because the author is only bemoaning the fact that regardless of how hard you work in your life, you die at the end and lose it. Where it goes is immaterial - the phrase about leaving it to someone who hasn't toiled for it is a rhetorical device to emphasize the futility of the labor, not a condemnation of welfare. There are many other places in the Bible, both OT and NT, that describe methods and justifications for caring for the poor and destitute. While it's true that a strict "rich people" personal tax would not be enough to pay the salaries of everyone in the country in a strict mathematical sense, you are conveniently leaving out the fact that existing welfare and social security alone add up to over $2T. Evaded taxes and a tax on the %0.01 bring that number to around $2.5T, which divided among Americans over 18 is roughly $10k per year, which is close to what basic income would look like. The money is there. And $10k per year, like all basic income schemes, isn't meant to let us lounge by a pool all day. It's merely meant to allow Americans to work where they want by freeing them from destitution and being chained to a low-wage job. When you don't have to work 60 hours a week at two part-time jobs just to make ends meet, then you can focus on studying or apprenticing at a job you actually WANT. Which in nearly all studies of direct cash payments and basic income experiments, is exactly what happens. When poor and working people get a reasonable amount of direct cash, it almost always goes straight into bills, food, and education. I also would like to question your intimation from your higher comment that the only valid projects are > "good risk-adjusted investments, producing measurable returns and not merely misty-eyed wish fulfillment" Remember that we serve God and not Mammon. Framing the value of human work only in terms of its economic return is dangerously close to reducing the value of a human to their contribution to GDP.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  Sure, but that would only be until they decide they want to upgrade their lifestyle beyond what basic income is providing.
- nottorp 6y ago
  So you are advocating forced labour?
phkahler 6y ago
>> God, I wish basic income was a thing. I'm really tired of hearing about that concept. What you really want is probably a low cost of living so that you dont need much of an income. A lot of the cost of living today is artificially high due to - another phrase I think is getting old - rent seeking.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

> Currently, avoiding homelessness > following dreams. oh I know that one, it goes like: "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken." — Genesis 3:19 > God, I wish basic income was a thing. I rather don't, and this is why. It's got some merits as an alternative to current bureaucracy, but I fear that all too often it would mean a capable self-sufficient software developer abandoning his responsibilities, and taking others' money, to subsidize a lifestyle in which he may develop indie computer games. If these pet projects are good investments — good risk-adjusted investments, producing measurable returns and not merely misty-eyed wish fulfillment — then risk of the project should be borne by those who wish for the project. For while it is decent and good for us to carry the burdens of those who cannot carry their own, it is likewise righteous and just that you, who are fully capable of supporting yourself, should support yourself, rather than burdening others with your support.

yazboo 6y ago
> it is likewise righteous and just that you, who are fully capable of supporting yourself, should support yourself, rather than burdening others with your support Righteous and just according to who? I would much rather live in a society that takes money from its wealthiest members (myself included) to make a basic allotment for living expenses so people can do as they wish.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  According to me. Alternatively, according to anyone who has been raised with sufficiently decent morals, religious or secular, or, quite aside from such explicit inculcation, has inferred from their circumstances, life experiences, and the condition of others who inhabit the world around them, a basic sense of humility: anyone who does not imagine that the world revolves around them, and certainly not to the extent that they believe that they deserve to be supplied by others with a lifestyle of leisure (particularly while others and other causes remain far needier than they). Alternatively: according to anyone who has been educated with knowledge of the world economy, so as to possess a basic understanding that, even should we plunder the entire wealth of the upper classes (however you define them), the sum would be wholly inadequate to purchase unlimited leisure on demand for all who may ask of it, and moreover, that if such plunder did occur, there would in any event be many more urgent and meaningful projects for such wealth to be directed to. Or, to rephrase, according to anyone who understands that the math of what they are asking is nonsense. Alternatively: according to King Solomon, or whoever really did write Ecclesiastes: "For a person may labor with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then they must leave all they own to another who has not toiled for it. This too is meaningless, and a great evil." I could probably go on, but that would be gratuitous.
  - CptFribble 6y ago
    There is no moral imperative to toil for its own sake. If I remember correctly, the imperative for Adam to earn his food by the sweat of his brow was not a description of "moral" or "correct" life, it was in fact a punishment. Your not-so-subtle intimation that people who want basic income are amoral is both offensive on its face and ignorant of reality. There are many, many people who are trapped in difficult, dangerous, unpleasant, or insufficient jobs for a variety of reasons and circumstances. Basic income - while complicated to implement certainly - is not about allowing us all to live a life of dotage. It's about freeing people from having to dedicate their entire lives enriching a wealthy investor, just so they can put food on the table and a roof overhead. Work is not a valued goal in-and-of-itself. Work is just whatever it is that you do with your life. Some people are fortunate enough to make their work something they enjoy. Many are not. The Biblical perspective of "humans being made for work" doesn't mean that you must experience a visceral sensation of toil and hardship in order for it to qualify as work, it just means God made us able to experience boredom. It seems you have missed the context of the quote you pulled from Ecclesiastes. That section of Chapter 2 is in fact about the futility of making labor and work the value of your life, not about the government taking away hard-won rewards of labor and redistributing wealth. Chapter 2 of Ecclesiastes compares a life of both pure leisure and pure labor, and declares both to be futile. The exact quote you pull about leaving all you own to another who has not toiled for it has no bearing on the question of basic income, because the author is only bemoaning the fact that regardless of how hard you work in your life, you die at the end and lose it. Where it goes is immaterial - the phrase about leaving it to someone who hasn't toiled for it is a rhetorical device to emphasize the futility of the labor, not a condemnation of welfare. There are many other places in the Bible, both OT and NT, that describe methods and justifications for caring for the poor and destitute. While it's true that a strict "rich people" personal tax would not be enough to pay the salaries of everyone in the country in a strict mathematical sense, you are conveniently leaving out the fact that existing welfare and social security alone add up to over $2T. Evaded taxes and a tax on the %0.01 bring that number to around $2.5T, which divided among Americans over 18 is roughly $10k per year, which is close to what basic income would look like. The money is there. And $10k per year, like all basic income schemes, isn't meant to let us lounge by a pool all day. It's merely meant to allow Americans to work where they want by freeing them from destitution and being chained to a low-wage job. When you don't have to work 60 hours a week at two part-time jobs just to make ends meet, then you can focus on studying or apprenticing at a job you actually WANT. Which in nearly all studies of direct cash payments and basic income experiments, is exactly what happens. When poor and working people get a reasonable amount of direct cash, it almost always goes straight into bills, food, and education. I also would like to question your intimation from your higher comment that the only valid projects are > "good risk-adjusted investments, producing measurable returns and not merely misty-eyed wish fulfillment" Remember that we serve God and not Mammon. Framing the value of human work only in terms of its economic return is dangerously close to reducing the value of a human to their contribution to GDP.
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
Sure, but that would only be until they decide they want to upgrade their lifestyle beyond what basic income is providing.
nottorp 6y ago
So you are advocating forced labour?

phkahler 6y ago

>> God, I wish basic income was a thing. I'm really tired of hearing about that concept. What you really want is probably a low cost of living so that you dont need much of an income. A lot of the cost of living today is artificially high due to - another phrase I think is getting old - rent seeking.