4 ms·

There's a mindset that I often run into with IRL discussions that revolves around the premise that if a person has some minimal essentials met by doing nothing,

by ssl-3 2y ago

There's a mindset that I often run into with IRL discussions that revolves around the premise that if a person has some minimal essentials met by doing nothing, then they will have no motivation to ever improve their situation at all. That if a person can afford to accomplish nothing but still have enough money to smoke weed and play video games, then all anyone will ever do is smoke weed and play video games. I don't subscribe to that mindset: I want a nice place to live, with room for all of my hobbies and for guests to comfortably visit overnight. I want a good car and a nice place to park it and to work on it. I want to be able to afford a glorious steak dinner out or an amazing gyro without having to sacrifice. I want the best tools to create my own food in my own kitchen. I want the fastest internet and an ample homelab to do stuff with it. I want to make an annual thousand-mile pilgrimage to hang out with some friends for a week doing cool shit together (which requires real money), and I want to be able to take an actual-vacation some other time in the year where I can afford to go camping or something. I want to be able to provide thoughtful and useful gifts to my people, even if they happen to be expensive. (And if I were allowed to smoke weed [my job doesn't permit it and testing is both thorough and regular], I'd want the best weed.) I wouldn't be able to accomplish these things with UBI, so even in a hypothetical future where UBI is a thing: I won't want to sit around and do nothing: So far in life, I want quite a lot more more than the basic essentials and I'm willing to work for those things. (I do know some people who don't seem to be capable of more than nothing, due to mental and/or physical conditions, and it's likely that all of us know someone like this -- and these folks will have a rough time with life with or without UBI. But I firmly believe that most people would prefer staying in the rat race, because most people who are capable of work also have some fondness for whatever they consider to be *nice* things. But I might fall down in the future; it's happened to me before for a variety of reasons. And it'd be nice to be able to afford to fall down without becoming homeless when my income drops from something useful to near-zero.)

stubish 2y ago
One thing that I haven't seen discussed is retirement. When you have a high paying job, you can retire early and still maintain your desired standard of living (and most people do, because most people don't enjoy their job and that is why we call it work). So a pretty uninspiring job like plumbing would end up paying a very high salary. Or stressful jobs like nurse or doctor. What happens when people doing these critical and now highly paid jobs retire to their yachts at 40? Will the market balance things, and did enough apprentice plumbers get trained to take over? Or will things spiral out of control and collapse? And how does the extremely high wages of critical jobs affect the level of UBI? If it is set to meet minimum essentials, then the UBI too can spiral up as the cost of those essentials such as the plumbers wage goes up. I tend to think that without a lot more automation, then a UBI cannot cover the minimum essentials/poverty line, because of the large amount of work required to support society that is only done because people are forced to do it, to the point that we cannot sustain bribing people to do it. But maybe it will work if we are able to replace every barista with a vending machine, have the trucks load and drive themselves, and build robotic assistants to allow 1 plumber to do the job of 10.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Honestly, I think it would even be acceptable to punish UBI "freeloaders" with, like, austerity. Like they get slow(ish) internet, a 10x10 foot studio apartment with a toilet, a stand-up shower, a counter with a mini-fridge and a hotplate (or premade food rations, whichever is cheaper), and a single window with a shitty view. Nutritious food, clean water. And then, if you have proof of another habitable residence, you can get the cash value of all that instead. The tricky part is that the austerity absolutely cannot reduce anyone below the minimum actual needs to live a full human life. You absolutely need to be giving them enough and healthy enough food, and water. The apartment can be claustrophobic, but it needs ventilation and sound insulation so people can actually sleep. The bed can be boring, but tall people can't be literally cramped when they sleep, and it needs to actually support their weight so people don't get back injuries. Health care needs to be fully adequate. Basically, minimum needs are 100% covered, so that if anyone ever wants to get working they don't have any immediate barriers. Don't take away anything that will make it harder for people to work.
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    There are many who would feel blessed with a 10x10 studio apartment with a (safe, clean, minimal) bathroom in the corner and barely enough room for good sleep, with shitty Internet and a bad view, and a barely-functional kitchen (and heat when needed, and maybe even cooling when needed). (I've stayed in cheap-ish hotel rooms that are a lot larger and more flexible than that. I've also stayed in far worse.) And that's... well, fuck: Isn't that OK? Is it not OK for some people who have (for whatever reason) failed to thrive and climb ahead at the present time to have these things? (I think it's OK to give all people means with which to limit how far they can fall, even if that means that many quasi-successful people are essentially including this as a line-item that they pay to themselves on their own tax bill. I also think that it is imperfect, and that we mustn't let imperfection stand in the way of general progress. I mean: Nothing is fucking perfect. But the mere existence of ubiquitous imperfection doesn't somehow mean that positive progress cannot ever be made.)
BobaFloutist 2y ago
The American consumerist economy is already heavily driven by keeping up with the Jones's. Why would that change just because we let people that can't work eat, shit in a toilet, and sleep indoors? Yes, teenagers can be lazy and get stuck in unproductive situations. Some adults even can! That doesn't mean that's what the majority of people want to do, and there are more effective ways of getting people unstuck than turning off their power and evicting them!
- ssl-3 2y ago
  "Hey, bro. I noticed you haven't been working or paying your bills. Don't know what's up with that. Feels bad, bro. Must be rough. Anyway, I went ahead and turned off your lights at the meter and posted an eviction notice on your door. You've still got two weeks to turn it around if you can find a way." --life and landlords
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think it depends on your perspective and prior experience with people. There are a lot of people that dont engage in the rat race even when food, health, the material conditions of their children depend on. It seems like most people want a base level of UBI to be better than the conditions they have from working now. It also seems like the expectation for UBI is often even above the average US income of $37K, and that would be if there was no additional salary left to be had from working Based on this, I empathize with anyone of median income or higher who feels like they are struggling to get what they want, and UBI would be a huge dead weight, likely preventing them from getting all of the things on their lists. I assume my list would go down the drain to support a UBI policy.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  There are indeed plenty of people who can't or won't work. These people exist today, with or without UBI. And they will exist tomorrow, with or without UBI. And so what? These people are still human beings. They still deserve life: If dogs deserve no-kill shelters[1] then humans also deserve a life. They deserve a chance to live out their days, and to tell stories to their (perhaps prolific) kids and grandkids (who also deserve a healthy life, and that includes having a healthy -- if piss-poor and inept -- family that includes their elders). Right now, it often works like this: They live in squalor, and have broadly have nothing of merit. Their kids -- if they manage to thrive -- disown them. And the whole time this very real person is still alive (if they make it that far), their grandkids only know of them through photos. That's no life. Not for the senior, the kid, or the grandkid. We can do better than that. It will not be cheap, but we can afford it, and we'll have a healthier society as a result. People, and the families they create, are important to the healthy existence of everyone in a society. [1]: We can certainly talk about assisted suicide for humans or just culling the herd as options that may be superior to leaving folks to die in the gutter, but isn't it easier to just avoid that topic and give all humans a stable and reliable chance to stay alive? How much does that cost, do you suppose?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Who can afford it? It sounds like the expectations are higher than the total funds available. What do you think would be a suitable amount for Ubi?
gwd 2y ago
When I was in the military reserves, there were some guys who graduated High School and went straight into a minimum-wage job, working at Home Depot and the like. At first they thought it was great -- I have my own place! Sure, it's a room in a flat shared with three other guys, but it's mine! I have my own car! Sure, it's an old beater that guzzles gasoline, but it's mine! I can buy a Playstation and afford whatever game I want, and stay up as late as I want! But pretty soon, once the novelty wears of, it begins to pale. I mean, I have my own place, sure, but it's with three other guys; not someplace I'd want my GF to move into, and definitely not a place to raise a kid. I have my own car, but it's a piece of junk. I can't really afford to go to concerts or long trips, all I can really afford to do is sit around at home and play games on my PS/2. So, after 2-3 years they all started do things to make themselves more valuable to society: one took classes to become an EMT. Another took classes to become a fire fighter. They landed better, more stable jobs, and could afford to move into a nicer home, get better cars, attend concerts and sporting events, go on trips, start families. That would be my ideal for how UBI would work: make sure people never have to chose between a bad job and starving or being on the street; but also make sure they have a clear path and opportunities to improve their situation and become more valuable to society. Are there "deadbeats" who would just play video games for life? Sure, but there already are. I'm not sure how much those kinds of people contribute to society, even if they are working a minimum wage job to support their lifestyle.
- QuarterReptile 2y ago
  >That would be my ideal for how UBI would work: make sure people never have to chose between a bad job and starving or being on the street; but also make sure they have a clear path and opportunities to improve their situation and become more valuable to society. I think this discounts the formative experience of the prior years. I would expect it helped by: 1. Motivating those guys to make themselves more valuable on the job market. 2. Giving those guys baseline discipline/reliability to get them to their next work and training milestones. The military reserves is an interesting beast, but if you were in the active component before that, you probably ran into lots of guys needing similar training in basic reliability. UBI could be a strong disincentive away from those minimum-wage jobs, and the outlay described by grandparent is superior to a minimum-wage standard of living.

by ssl-3 2y ago

stubish 2y ago

One thing that I haven't seen discussed is retirement. When you have a high paying job, you can retire early and still maintain your desired standard of living (and most people do, because most people don't enjoy their job and that is why we call it work). So a pretty uninspiring job like plumbing would end up paying a very high salary. Or stressful jobs like nurse or doctor. What happens when people doing these critical and now highly paid jobs retire to their yachts at 40? Will the market balance things, and did enough apprentice plumbers get trained to take over? Or will things spiral out of control and collapse? And how does the extremely high wages of critical jobs affect the level of UBI? If it is set to meet minimum essentials, then the UBI too can spiral up as the cost of those essentials such as the plumbers wage goes up. I tend to think that without a lot more automation, then a UBI cannot cover the minimum essentials/poverty line, because of the large amount of work required to support society that is only done because people are forced to do it, to the point that we cannot sustain bribing people to do it. But maybe it will work if we are able to replace every barista with a vending machine, have the trucks load and drive themselves, and build robotic assistants to allow 1 plumber to do the job of 10.

BobaFloutist 2y ago
Honestly, I think it would even be acceptable to punish UBI "freeloaders" with, like, austerity. Like they get slow(ish) internet, a 10x10 foot studio apartment with a toilet, a stand-up shower, a counter with a mini-fridge and a hotplate (or premade food rations, whichever is cheaper), and a single window with a shitty view. Nutritious food, clean water. And then, if you have proof of another habitable residence, you can get the cash value of all that instead. The tricky part is that the austerity absolutely cannot reduce anyone below the minimum actual needs to live a full human life. You absolutely need to be giving them enough and healthy enough food, and water. The apartment can be claustrophobic, but it needs ventilation and sound insulation so people can actually sleep. The bed can be boring, but tall people can't be literally cramped when they sleep, and it needs to actually support their weight so people don't get back injuries. Health care needs to be fully adequate. Basically, minimum needs are 100% covered, so that if anyone ever wants to get working they don't have any immediate barriers. Don't take away anything that will make it harder for people to work.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  There are many who would feel blessed with a 10x10 studio apartment with a (safe, clean, minimal) bathroom in the corner and barely enough room for good sleep, with shitty Internet and a bad view, and a barely-functional kitchen (and heat when needed, and maybe even cooling when needed). (I've stayed in cheap-ish hotel rooms that are a lot larger and more flexible than that. I've also stayed in far worse.) And that's... well, fuck: Isn't that OK? Is it not OK for some people who have (for whatever reason) failed to thrive and climb ahead at the present time to have these things? (I think it's OK to give all people means with which to limit how far they can fall, even if that means that many quasi-successful people are essentially including this as a line-item that they pay to themselves on their own tax bill. I also think that it is imperfect, and that we mustn't let imperfection stand in the way of general progress. I mean: Nothing is fucking perfect. But the mere existence of ubiquitous imperfection doesn't somehow mean that positive progress cannot ever be made.)

BobaFloutist 2y ago

The American consumerist economy is already heavily driven by keeping up with the Jones's. Why would that change just because we let people that can't work eat, shit in a toilet, and sleep indoors? Yes, teenagers can be lazy and get stuck in unproductive situations. Some adults even can! That doesn't mean that's what the majority of people want to do, and there are more effective ways of getting people unstuck than turning off their power and evicting them!

ssl-3 2y ago
"Hey, bro. I noticed you haven't been working or paying your bills. Don't know what's up with that. Feels bad, bro. Must be rough. Anyway, I went ahead and turned off your lights at the meter and posted an eviction notice on your door. You've still got two weeks to turn it around if you can find a way." --life and landlords

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think it depends on your perspective and prior experience with people. There are a lot of people that dont engage in the rat race even when food, health, the material conditions of their children depend on. It seems like most people want a base level of UBI to be better than the conditions they have from working now. It also seems like the expectation for UBI is often even above the average US income of $37K, and that would be if there was no additional salary left to be had from working Based on this, I empathize with anyone of median income or higher who feels like they are struggling to get what they want, and UBI would be a huge dead weight, likely preventing them from getting all of the things on their lists. I assume my list would go down the drain to support a UBI policy.

ssl-3 2y ago
There are indeed plenty of people who can't or won't work. These people exist today, with or without UBI. And they will exist tomorrow, with or without UBI. And so what? These people are still human beings. They still deserve life: If dogs deserve no-kill shelters[1] then humans also deserve a life. They deserve a chance to live out their days, and to tell stories to their (perhaps prolific) kids and grandkids (who also deserve a healthy life, and that includes having a healthy -- if piss-poor and inept -- family that includes their elders). Right now, it often works like this: They live in squalor, and have broadly have nothing of merit. Their kids -- if they manage to thrive -- disown them. And the whole time this very real person is still alive (if they make it that far), their grandkids only know of them through photos. That's no life. Not for the senior, the kid, or the grandkid. We can do better than that. It will not be cheap, but we can afford it, and we'll have a healthier society as a result. People, and the families they create, are important to the healthy existence of everyone in a society. [1]: We can certainly talk about assisted suicide for humans or just culling the herd as options that may be superior to leaving folks to die in the gutter, but isn't it easier to just avoid that topic and give all humans a stable and reliable chance to stay alive? How much does that cost, do you suppose?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Who can afford it? It sounds like the expectations are higher than the total funds available. What do you think would be a suitable amount for Ubi?

gwd 2y ago

When I was in the military reserves, there were some guys who graduated High School and went straight into a minimum-wage job, working at Home Depot and the like. At first they thought it was great -- I have my own place! Sure, it's a room in a flat shared with three other guys, but it's mine! I have my own car! Sure, it's an old beater that guzzles gasoline, but it's mine! I can buy a Playstation and afford whatever game I want, and stay up as late as I want! But pretty soon, once the novelty wears of, it begins to pale. I mean, I have my own place, sure, but it's with three other guys; not someplace I'd want my GF to move into, and definitely not a place to raise a kid. I have my own car, but it's a piece of junk. I can't really afford to go to concerts or long trips, all I can really afford to do is sit around at home and play games on my PS/2. So, after 2-3 years they all started do things to make themselves more valuable to society: one took classes to become an EMT. Another took classes to become a fire fighter. They landed better, more stable jobs, and could afford to move into a nicer home, get better cars, attend concerts and sporting events, go on trips, start families. That would be my ideal for how UBI would work: make sure people never have to chose between a bad job and starving or being on the street; but also make sure they have a clear path and opportunities to improve their situation and become more valuable to society. Are there "deadbeats" who would just play video games for life? Sure, but there already are. I'm not sure how much those kinds of people contribute to society, even if they are working a minimum wage job to support their lifestyle.

QuarterReptile 2y ago
>That would be my ideal for how UBI would work: make sure people never have to chose between a bad job and starving or being on the street; but also make sure they have a clear path and opportunities to improve their situation and become more valuable to society. I think this discounts the formative experience of the prior years. I would expect it helped by: 1. Motivating those guys to make themselves more valuable on the job market. 2. Giving those guys baseline discipline/reliability to get them to their next work and training milestones. The military reserves is an interesting beast, but if you were in the active component before that, you probably ran into lots of guys needing similar training in basic reliability. UBI could be a strong disincentive away from those minimum-wage jobs, and the outlay described by grandparent is superior to a minimum-wage standard of living.