5 ms·

I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose. If we have a path where we aim for near to

I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose. If we have a path where we aim for near total employment but gradually reduce hours as automation reduces the need for labour, that would be better. Or maybe not automating everything? We can't all be AI/robot/software maintainers. Not everyone is capable of that. I think the shrinking of the necessary labour pool is a much harder, more dangerous problem and can't be solved just with giving everyone money.

fartcannon 6y ago
What do the wealthy do with their time? Some of them throw it away worthlessly, others make art. Or start businesses that fail. Some succeed. Some succumb to existential dread of a challenge free life. Some create new challenges. Why don't poor people deserve the same choices?
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  You're imagining that I disagree with you, but I don't. I'm just anticipating the next problem: it's fine when only a fraction of a small population (the very wealthy) have a serious case of the Oblomovs, but when some percentage of everybody has no purpose in life that's going to be one hell of a problem.
  - fartcannon 6y ago
    Gotcha. I think it's worth a shot. As it stands, too many minds whither away because they weren't born with the chance.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      In the west, that "chance" is rarely money. It's the whole upbringing that helps develop a person's abilities. Money can't fix that, especially not if everyone has it - i.e. it won't get you into a better school or neighborhood.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  Thinking about what people do and don’t deserve to have is a very shallow view of the world. No one _deserves_ to make those choices. Some people get to make them but that doesn’t mean they or anyone else deserves that privilege. At most it’s a happy accident that some people get this choice.
jschwartzi 6y ago
I don't understand this argument. People are extremely good at inventing purposes for themselves within their context. If you give people a livable but meager amount of money it's true some people will fritter their life away for a while. But a significant portion of the people on UBI will invent a niche for themselves. The ennui itself is a motivator for people to find something useful to do. The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity. If you don't draw a salary for services rendered it seems like you're not worth anything. There are tons of occupations people can have that generate no significant monetary value. Volunteering and taking care of children are two such occupations. These both have tons of value to society. So it's clear to me that economic output is not the only source of value. Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them?
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  > People are extremely good at inventing purposes for themselves within their context /some/ people are. I grew up with a good number of people whose families were trapped in this kind of an ennui and it honestly seemed like death in slow motion. Why do you think daytime TV is so popular? There's plenty of people who are already out there on benefits who are unemployed and haven't become artists or volunteers. > a significant portion of the people on UBI will invent a niche for themselves. I'm not worried about the creative types that can do this. I worry about those who can't. Meaninglessness is pretty wearing on the soul. > The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity. That's a very American thing. I'm from the UK and, outside of maybe London, the protestant work ethic is not as significant. > Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them? I'm all for that, but how do we categorically make "society" value these things? You can hope that the norm shifts to doing things like this post-UBI, but I'm not quite so optimistic. I've seen what long term unemployment with no prospects can do to people.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    > I'm not worried about the creative types that can do this. I worry about those who can't. Meaninglessness is pretty wearing on the soul. Is it better those people are forced to work in unskilled labour, like now? Even with UBI, they could still voluntarily subject themselves to unskilled labour if they felt it quenched feelings of meaninglessness.
shawnz 6y ago
> I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose. I think that's exactly why it's possible UBI might actually work. We can redistribute away the problem of not having enough money to eat or live, but we can't (and shouldn't) redistribute away the problem of creating a satisfying life for oneself. There must still be an incentive and challenge to improve the world we live in.

fartcannon 6y ago

What do the wealthy do with their time? Some of them throw it away worthlessly, others make art. Or start businesses that fail. Some succeed. Some succumb to existential dread of a challenge free life. Some create new challenges. Why don't poor people deserve the same choices?

beaconstudios 6y ago
You're imagining that I disagree with you, but I don't. I'm just anticipating the next problem: it's fine when only a fraction of a small population (the very wealthy) have a serious case of the Oblomovs, but when some percentage of everybody has no purpose in life that's going to be one hell of a problem.
- fartcannon 6y ago
  Gotcha. I think it's worth a shot. As it stands, too many minds whither away because they weren't born with the chance.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    In the west, that "chance" is rarely money. It's the whole upbringing that helps develop a person's abilities. Money can't fix that, especially not if everyone has it - i.e. it won't get you into a better school or neighborhood.
macinjosh 6y ago
Thinking about what people do and don’t deserve to have is a very shallow view of the world. No one _deserves_ to make those choices. Some people get to make them but that doesn’t mean they or anyone else deserves that privilege. At most it’s a happy accident that some people get this choice.

jschwartzi 6y ago

I don't understand this argument. People are extremely good at inventing purposes for themselves within their context. If you give people a livable but meager amount of money it's true some people will fritter their life away for a while. But a significant portion of the people on UBI will invent a niche for themselves. The ennui itself is a motivator for people to find something useful to do. The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity. If you don't draw a salary for services rendered it seems like you're not worth anything. There are tons of occupations people can have that generate no significant monetary value. Volunteering and taking care of children are two such occupations. These both have tons of value to society. So it's clear to me that economic output is not the only source of value. Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them?

beaconstudios 6y ago
> People are extremely good at inventing purposes for themselves within their context /some/ people are. I grew up with a good number of people whose families were trapped in this kind of an ennui and it honestly seemed like death in slow motion. Why do you think daytime TV is so popular? There's plenty of people who are already out there on benefits who are unemployed and haven't become artists or volunteers. > a significant portion of the people on UBI will invent a niche for themselves. I'm not worried about the creative types that can do this. I worry about those who can't. Meaninglessness is pretty wearing on the soul. > The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity. That's a very American thing. I'm from the UK and, outside of maybe London, the protestant work ethic is not as significant. > Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them? I'm all for that, but how do we categorically make "society" value these things? You can hope that the norm shifts to doing things like this post-UBI, but I'm not quite so optimistic. I've seen what long term unemployment with no prospects can do to people.
- shawnz 6y ago
  > I'm not worried about the creative types that can do this. I worry about those who can't. Meaninglessness is pretty wearing on the soul. Is it better those people are forced to work in unskilled labour, like now? Even with UBI, they could still voluntarily subject themselves to unskilled labour if they felt it quenched feelings of meaninglessness.

shawnz 6y ago

> I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose. I think that's exactly why it's possible UBI might actually work. We can redistribute away the problem of not having enough money to eat or live, but we can't (and shouldn't) redistribute away the problem of creating a satisfying life for oneself. There must still be an incentive and challenge to improve the world we live in.