5 ms·

> ...a life of vanity, where they help no one more than themselves. This is what most people do anyway. So, what's the problem?

nickff 6y ago
I don't want to enable further selfishness and vanity.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  So, basically, you just don't like what you think people would do with their time, if given the chance because they're not chained to a job? Sorry if this sounds overly confrontational, but I couldn't think of a more civil way to say it.
  - nickff 6y ago
    I was specifically responding to a comment which said: >"Living in Finland I met a man who was perpetually on the dole, but he was an extremely active Wikipedia editor, for example. I have often thought if that basic income existed, I could finally do some of the huge OpenStreetMap expeditions I had in mind (adding house numbers for the entire surrounding region, for example.)" It is my opinion that those are examples of vanity projects which provide little benefit to others, which is why I said: >>"Your comment actually illustrates one thing I find repulsive about basic income proposals..." I never said that this was true for any and all people, or that: >>>"[I] just don't like what you think people would do with their time, if given the chance because they're not chained to a job"
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      Wikipedia and OSM are generally seen as major human achievements because they bring a huge amount of generally reliable data to the whole world on a libre basis, and you call them vanity projects? For them to be vanity, one's work would have to actually be deeply associated with one's identity so that one could look good in the eyes of others. In fact, 99.9% of people using that data will not know or care who originally contributed it, and editing these resources is about as thankless a task as can be.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Right, but, apparently editing Wikipedia and improving OSM aren't things you approve of someone receiving UBI doing. I'm guessing there are other things people would be enabled to do by UBI that you wouldn't approve of as well.
      - nickff 6y ago
        I'm fine with people editing Wikipedia and contributing to OSM as much as they'd like, but I think each activity is more focused on the 'contributor' than the audience, and I'd rather not subsidize it. I believe that Wikipedia, Stack Overflow, and many other crowdsourcing projects have succeeded precisely because they harness vanity, for laudable objectives. That said, most of the 'contributors' are contributing precious little. Work-for-pay tends to be more beneficial to others than 'creative expression'-type activities such as writing, painting, or composing music. The vast majority of what people create is worthless to others, whereas much of what people do 'for work' is actually useful to others.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        What makes you think that remunerative work is inherently valuable to anyone other than the person paying for that work? You, like I do, probably work largely in order to line the pockets of some already rich CEO. That doesn't mean what either of us does for a living is socially valuable. This seems more like vanity to me than editing Wikipedia or improving OSM.
        nickff 6y ago
        I can’t speak to your work, but the reason I get paid is the same reason that my employer profits, and that is because the company provides consumer surplus to its customers. I’ve occasionally edited Wikipedia, to correct grammatical or factual errors, but I don’t see it as having contributed much to the world.
        amp180 6y ago
        Consumer surplus is not the only human good and infact discounts good done for humans who do not have money. This not liking vanity thing is interesting but if you tie it to economics then anything that helps people that doesn't make money --things like free software and participating in charities-- could be considered 'vanity' too despite the good they can do. I got similarly worked up over 'virtue signaling' and people only doing good things for personal prestige when I was an angsty teen but later realised it was better to believe that some people want to do good things sometimes because reasons.

nickff 6y ago

I don't want to enable further selfishness and vanity.

pmiller2 6y ago
So, basically, you just don't like what you think people would do with their time, if given the chance because they're not chained to a job? Sorry if this sounds overly confrontational, but I couldn't think of a more civil way to say it.
- nickff 6y ago
  I was specifically responding to a comment which said: >"Living in Finland I met a man who was perpetually on the dole, but he was an extremely active Wikipedia editor, for example. I have often thought if that basic income existed, I could finally do some of the huge OpenStreetMap expeditions I had in mind (adding house numbers for the entire surrounding region, for example.)" It is my opinion that those are examples of vanity projects which provide little benefit to others, which is why I said: >>"Your comment actually illustrates one thing I find repulsive about basic income proposals..." I never said that this was true for any and all people, or that: >>>"[I] just don't like what you think people would do with their time, if given the chance because they're not chained to a job"
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Wikipedia and OSM are generally seen as major human achievements because they bring a huge amount of generally reliable data to the whole world on a libre basis, and you call them vanity projects? For them to be vanity, one's work would have to actually be deeply associated with one's identity so that one could look good in the eyes of others. In fact, 99.9% of people using that data will not know or care who originally contributed it, and editing these resources is about as thankless a task as can be.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Right, but, apparently editing Wikipedia and improving OSM aren't things you approve of someone receiving UBI doing. I'm guessing there are other things people would be enabled to do by UBI that you wouldn't approve of as well.
    - nickff 6y ago
      I'm fine with people editing Wikipedia and contributing to OSM as much as they'd like, but I think each activity is more focused on the 'contributor' than the audience, and I'd rather not subsidize it. I believe that Wikipedia, Stack Overflow, and many other crowdsourcing projects have succeeded precisely because they harness vanity, for laudable objectives. That said, most of the 'contributors' are contributing precious little. Work-for-pay tends to be more beneficial to others than 'creative expression'-type activities such as writing, painting, or composing music. The vast majority of what people create is worthless to others, whereas much of what people do 'for work' is actually useful to others.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        What makes you think that remunerative work is inherently valuable to anyone other than the person paying for that work? You, like I do, probably work largely in order to line the pockets of some already rich CEO. That doesn't mean what either of us does for a living is socially valuable. This seems more like vanity to me than editing Wikipedia or improving OSM.
        nickff 6y ago
        I can’t speak to your work, but the reason I get paid is the same reason that my employer profits, and that is because the company provides consumer surplus to its customers. I’ve occasionally edited Wikipedia, to correct grammatical or factual errors, but I don’t see it as having contributed much to the world.
        amp180 6y ago
        Consumer surplus is not the only human good and infact discounts good done for humans who do not have money. This not liking vanity thing is interesting but if you tie it to economics then anything that helps people that doesn't make money --things like free software and participating in charities-- could be considered 'vanity' too despite the good they can do. I got similarly worked up over 'virtue signaling' and people only doing good things for personal prestige when I was an angsty teen but later realised it was better to believe that some people want to do good things sometimes because reasons.