3 ms·

> It's already fairly trivial for a talented SWE to make UBI-level income working 10 hours a week by picking up software contracts here and there. What about

> It's already fairly trivial for a talented SWE to make UBI-level income working 10 hours a week by picking up software contracts here and there. What about less talented ones that can still contribute, but need to work 20 hours a week? Or 30 hours a week? Or gasp 40 hours a week? > Eng already have access to the levels of income that UBI would provide, with plenty of time left over No. There isn't plenty of time left over. Moreover, why wouldn't I want to work on something full time, and not in my "left over time"? > Plenty of engineers Which means: not even the majority of engineers. > I don't see what UBI would materially contribute to this dynamic. "I don't see how giving all engineers, and not some percent of engineers, the option to pursue projects they like would materially contribute to this dynamic". Do also read this short article, "Software below the poverty line", https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html

wutbrodo 5y ago
This is a textbook Gish gallop, so I'll avoid the trap of responding point-by-point and address all the irrelevance and inaccuracy of your comment simultaneously. The premise I responded to was that UBI was the only way to free up OSS maintainers, and that they wouldn't care about the lost hundreds of thousands of income if their basic needs were met. My point was that if this was the case, you would already see the low-hours-per-week strategy in place as a non-trivial factor in OSS funding. And yet you don't, because the foundational assumption is incorrect. Also note that 10 hours a week is hyper-conservative. The population of people maintaining OSS projects are more than capable of pulling eg $70/hr for contracts[1], especially at the low volumes we're talking about. To reach UBI levels of income at this rate would require _1.5 hrs/wk_ of work, or 6 hrs per MONTH. This allows you to drop the required talent level pretty low, despite already pulling from a population that's selected for "ability to maintain a useful OSS project". [1] also very conservative: I wouldn't be surprised if a median estimate came closer to $150/hr for your average OSS maintainer
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > This is a textbook Gish gallop, so I'll avoid the trap of responding point-by-point And this is textbook avoiding an answer > My point was that if this was the case, you would already see the low-hours-per-week strategy in place as a non-trivial factor in OSS funding. Yes, and your point is based on the flawed premise that there are many engineers who can do that. > The population of people maintaining OSS projects are more than capable of pulling eg $70/hr for contracts[1], especially at the low volumes we're talking about. And you pulled this estimation out of which crevice? > To reach UBI levels of income at this rate would require _1.5 hrs/wk_ of work, or 6 hrs per MONTH. Ah yes. Because there are plenty of jobs which will gladly pay you for 6 hours of work a month.

wutbrodo 5y ago

This is a textbook Gish gallop, so I'll avoid the trap of responding point-by-point and address all the irrelevance and inaccuracy of your comment simultaneously. The premise I responded to was that UBI was the only way to free up OSS maintainers, and that they wouldn't care about the lost hundreds of thousands of income if their basic needs were met. My point was that if this was the case, you would already see the low-hours-per-week strategy in place as a non-trivial factor in OSS funding. And yet you don't, because the foundational assumption is incorrect. Also note that 10 hours a week is hyper-conservative. The population of people maintaining OSS projects are more than capable of pulling eg $70/hr for contracts[1], especially at the low volumes we're talking about. To reach UBI levels of income at this rate would require _1.5 hrs/wk_ of work, or 6 hrs per MONTH. This allows you to drop the required talent level pretty low, despite already pulling from a population that's selected for "ability to maintain a useful OSS project". [1] also very conservative: I wouldn't be surprised if a median estimate came closer to $150/hr for your average OSS maintainer

dmitriid 5y ago
> This is a textbook Gish gallop, so I'll avoid the trap of responding point-by-point And this is textbook avoiding an answer > My point was that if this was the case, you would already see the low-hours-per-week strategy in place as a non-trivial factor in OSS funding. Yes, and your point is based on the flawed premise that there are many engineers who can do that. > The population of people maintaining OSS projects are more than capable of pulling eg $70/hr for contracts[1], especially at the low volumes we're talking about. And you pulled this estimation out of which crevice? > To reach UBI levels of income at this rate would require _1.5 hrs/wk_ of work, or 6 hrs per MONTH. Ah yes. Because there are plenty of jobs which will gladly pay you for 6 hours of work a month.