4 ms·

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.

by 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?
- ssl-3 2y ago
  I can afford it. It will cost me a lot of money because I'm barely on the tall end of that hypothetical situation right now, but I can put my part in. I can afford it because a healthy society is a productive society, and this will return to me because good economies are built largely upon productive societies, and healthy societies are more productive than unhealthy societies are. Productivity generates wealth. Are these not things that we generally understand to be true? (Unless... Can it instead be shown that it is economically beneficial to have a relatively unhealthy and unproductive society?) [Shall I make popcorn?] (edit, can't reply further because of HN thread limits: My dudes, "free" money from UBI isn't to keep people from working who want to get ahead. Most people can work, and most people do want a lot more than a shitty apartment in their life and are willing to work for that. Y'all certainly want more than shitty apartment in your own lives, don't you? So why in the fuck would you ever assume that "dur, I have a shitty apartment and some simple food, so I don't have to do anything ever!" is the be-all, end-all human state? Please re-align yourselves with the people you actually-know in life: I promise you that you'll see that almost none of them will give up on the rat-race if they start getting UBI. They'll generally want to keep making steps that seek to bring them ahead of their peers, and that means that they'll continue to do productive things. A thousand dollars per month (or whatever) isn't enough motivation for them to somehow cease being productive and stop working to get ahead. There is no proposal for UBI that means the end of the fantastic American dream. UBI doesn't even mean the end of capitalism. UBI just creates a baseline financial safety net onto which anyone may fall without necessarily facing disease and death in the gutter, and it's there for everyone without even a shred of additional paperwork because it exists like clockwork without additional action on the part of the recipient, while also providing a bit of a boost for those at the low-end who do produce something that lets them get ahead of the game a little bit easier.)
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont think money and getting ones needs met without work is an incentive for health or productivity. I think it is an incentive for the exact opposite.
    - razakel 2y ago
      Have you ever met a working dog? They go mad if they're not given something to do.
      - Spivak 2y ago
        Or retirees who have plenty of money but still choose to work because they're bored. If getting your needs met was a disincentive for work then why are all the multi-millionaires still working instead of downsizing their lives and playing video games / smoking weed for 40 years?
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I don't think that is a very realistic jump. Most people are not facing that binary. Would you work 40 hours a week at McDonald's for an extra $20k/year if all your basic needs are met? OR at that point, would you say screw it and spend your days hiking, reading, and laughing with friends?
        Spivak 2y ago
        I think the "at that point" is the crucial element. An extra 20k to work a physically and mentally taxing job for inconsistent hours, no benefits, and no flexibility -- the calculus is garbage. But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily. If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at that point. These are "inferior jobs" in an economic sense and it's up to the employer to do better. Make working for you suck less. Even in customer-facing retail jobs it's more than possible. I'm having a hard time seeing the downside. Employees can afford to take more risks because they're not betting their livelihood anymore, and it provides a natural upward pressure on wages and working conditions at the bottom on the labor market which is sorely needed. Anyone whose desired lifestyle can't be supported on the meager income, which is most people, there's no change.
literallycancer 2y ago
Why do you think dogs deserve no kill shelters? Euthanizing stray dogs and other critters in urban areas is quite common throughout the world and most definitely a superior choice if you have a limited budget and would need to cut services for humans instead.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  It's multifaceted. If no-kill shelters ever make sense (and some people must think they do, as these are things that do exist), then no-kill humanitarian efforts also must make sense. I find this to be self-evident because I think that humans are more important than domestic animals are. UBI directly helps with the latter; UBI helps people avoid death. UBI also indirectly helps with the former: By reducing the burden of taking care of pets when the bottom starts to fall out on folks' lives for whatever reason that happens, the need for dog shelters of any sort is also reduced.

by ssl-3 2y ago

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?

ssl-3 2y ago
I can afford it. It will cost me a lot of money because I'm barely on the tall end of that hypothetical situation right now, but I can put my part in. I can afford it because a healthy society is a productive society, and this will return to me because good economies are built largely upon productive societies, and healthy societies are more productive than unhealthy societies are. Productivity generates wealth. Are these not things that we generally understand to be true? (Unless... Can it instead be shown that it is economically beneficial to have a relatively unhealthy and unproductive society?) [Shall I make popcorn?] (edit, can't reply further because of HN thread limits: My dudes, "free" money from UBI isn't to keep people from working who want to get ahead. Most people can work, and most people do want a lot more than a shitty apartment in their life and are willing to work for that. Y'all certainly want more than shitty apartment in your own lives, don't you? So why in the fuck would you ever assume that "dur, I have a shitty apartment and some simple food, so I don't have to do anything ever!" is the be-all, end-all human state? Please re-align yourselves with the people you actually-know in life: I promise you that you'll see that almost none of them will give up on the rat-race if they start getting UBI. They'll generally want to keep making steps that seek to bring them ahead of their peers, and that means that they'll continue to do productive things. A thousand dollars per month (or whatever) isn't enough motivation for them to somehow cease being productive and stop working to get ahead. There is no proposal for UBI that means the end of the fantastic American dream. UBI doesn't even mean the end of capitalism. UBI just creates a baseline financial safety net onto which anyone may fall without necessarily facing disease and death in the gutter, and it's there for everyone without even a shred of additional paperwork because it exists like clockwork without additional action on the part of the recipient, while also providing a bit of a boost for those at the low-end who do produce something that lets them get ahead of the game a little bit easier.)
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think money and getting ones needs met without work is an incentive for health or productivity. I think it is an incentive for the exact opposite.
  - razakel 2y ago
    Have you ever met a working dog? They go mad if they're not given something to do.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Or retirees who have plenty of money but still choose to work because they're bored. If getting your needs met was a disincentive for work then why are all the multi-millionaires still working instead of downsizing their lives and playing video games / smoking weed for 40 years?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I don't think that is a very realistic jump. Most people are not facing that binary. Would you work 40 hours a week at McDonald's for an extra $20k/year if all your basic needs are met? OR at that point, would you say screw it and spend your days hiking, reading, and laughing with friends?
        Spivak 2y ago
        I think the "at that point" is the crucial element. An extra 20k to work a physically and mentally taxing job for inconsistent hours, no benefits, and no flexibility -- the calculus is garbage. But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily. If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at that point. These are "inferior jobs" in an economic sense and it's up to the employer to do better. Make working for you suck less. Even in customer-facing retail jobs it's more than possible. I'm having a hard time seeing the downside. Employees can afford to take more risks because they're not betting their livelihood anymore, and it provides a natural upward pressure on wages and working conditions at the bottom on the labor market which is sorely needed. Anyone whose desired lifestyle can't be supported on the meager income, which is most people, there's no change.

literallycancer 2y ago

Why do you think dogs deserve no kill shelters? Euthanizing stray dogs and other critters in urban areas is quite common throughout the world and most definitely a superior choice if you have a limited budget and would need to cut services for humans instead.

ssl-3 2y ago
It's multifaceted. If no-kill shelters ever make sense (and some people must think they do, as these are things that do exist), then no-kill humanitarian efforts also must make sense. I find this to be self-evident because I think that humans are more important than domestic animals are. UBI directly helps with the latter; UBI helps people avoid death. UBI also indirectly helps with the former: By reducing the burden of taking care of pets when the bottom starts to fall out on folks' lives for whatever reason that happens, the need for dog shelters of any sort is also reduced.