3 ms·

Quite the strawman there. Not wanting to work [at times literally] shit jobs without excessive compensation, is not the same as everybody being idle. I can list

Quite the strawman there. Not wanting to work [at times literally] shit jobs without excessive compensation, is not the same as everybody being idle. I can list thousands of things I'd rather do than clean public toilets, and I don't even do thousands of things! Though yes - I do think a huge chunk of the population would be generally idle, if possible, in terms of commercial productivity, and I see nothing wrong with that, besides the fact it would crash any economy where it was possible.

wizzwizz4 1y ago
You not wanting to work "shit jobs" (without compensation you would consider excessive) doesn't mean that everybody doesn't want to work them (or even that everybody considers them to be "shit jobs"). I agree with your point about commercial productivity. I don't agree that it would crash the economy: it would crash GDP (by eliminating large classes of exploitative and abusive behaviour which currently prop GDP up), but we already know that GDP is a flawed metric. I don't see how this would interfere with food getting to our tables, buildings being built, or communal infrastructure being maintained, except that monied folk would be less able to demand that things be done "or else", so we might have to reorganise society somewhat (such as by providing better working conditions for "shit jobs").
- somenameforme 1y ago
  I wouldn't want to clean public toilets if I didn't need to do so. You'd be willing to do it for free. I think one of our views runs rather closer to the overwhelming majority of people, like 99.999%, than the other. This issue is really not the one you want to argue. But I understand that you have to argue it, because if you simply accepted this point then you must accept the fundamental problem. When everybody starts demanding substantial amounts of money for any labor they don't want to do, you're not only going to crash your gdp but see hyperinflation as well. Now not only is the basic income pointless because it's no longer enough to afford anything (and increasing it further just sends you closer to Zimbabwe), but you'd also completely crash your currency meaning you'd also no longer be able to afford any imports (though exporters would be getting filthy rich - see: why China intentionally devalues their own currency). The country would be obligated to rapidly transition, formally or informally, to another currency as the default unit of trade for anything of value, further nullifying the basic income.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    It doesn't matter whether the overwhelming majority of people would be willing to clean toilets for however much money: what matters is whether enough people would that the toilets get cleaned. From what I can tell, the answer to that is "yes". Given instructions, and absent other immediate obligations, I would do so much helping out, wherever I happened to be at the time. (The only reason I don't now is because I don't understand most jobs – my meddling could do more harm than good –, and they won't let me do jobs in my area of expertise.) I'm not unusual in this regard: perhaps I'm unusual in that I'll do this unprompted, but if it's a societal expectation that people clean up after themselves, and leave things in a slightly better state than they found them, people generally do it. The problem is not a lack of workers. The problem is not a lack of things that need doing. The problem is a lack of "jobs". UBI (with the necessary patches to, e.g., prevent bad actors from redirecting all the money) is essentially employing everybody to do what they believe needs doing. So the question becomes: do you believe direct democracy works at small scales? Your answer appears to be "no".
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      I have no idea what you're basing "from what I can tell" on. In America there are literally millions of janitorial and cleaning staff. The overwhelming majority of those people would much prefer to e.g. spend time with their family than engage in menial labor to make ends meet. And the marginal utility of money decreases dramatically, at least for most people, once you have enough to comfortably survive and provide for your family indefinitely.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        I'm a white-collar knowledge worker. There is no downside to me getting my hands dirty with real work during my thinking time – that's time I can't spend with my family if I want to get anything done, because unstructured social interaction takes up the same space in my brain as the knowledge work does. And the marginal utility of having cleaner toilet facilities increases dramatically when they tip over the boundary between "clean" and "not-clean". Given an apron and long gloves, I'd happily (most days, at least) clean shit off the wall, or pull pads out the U-bend, if it increased the chance the room was clean when I had to use it. If I were able to choose whether or not to clean the toilets, and someone kept leaving them in a right state, then after the second-to-fourth time, I'd set aside some time to identify the culprits, and then I'd take measures to ensure they stopped, starting with confronting them over it: first in private (if possible), and subsequently in front of people whose opinions I'd expect them to care about. I might escalate further if it continued without good reason. This is not an option available to cleaning staff on the poverty line, who rarely have the time in their schedule to do this, and might be sacked if they used their breaktime to pull an insubordinate stunt like that. (I would not be capable of working in those conditions, and I expect I'd develop new and fascinating mental health problems if subjected to them.) There is a major difference between volunteering to do something, and having your ability to live in your home contingent upon you doing it, as regards people's willingness to do various tasks.

wizzwizz4 1y ago

You not wanting to work "shit jobs" (without compensation you would consider excessive) doesn't mean that everybody doesn't want to work them (or even that everybody considers them to be "shit jobs"). I agree with your point about commercial productivity. I don't agree that it would crash the economy: it would crash GDP (by eliminating large classes of exploitative and abusive behaviour which currently prop GDP up), but we already know that GDP is a flawed metric. I don't see how this would interfere with food getting to our tables, buildings being built, or communal infrastructure being maintained, except that monied folk would be less able to demand that things be done "or else", so we might have to reorganise society somewhat (such as by providing better working conditions for "shit jobs").

somenameforme 1y ago
I wouldn't want to clean public toilets if I didn't need to do so. You'd be willing to do it for free. I think one of our views runs rather closer to the overwhelming majority of people, like 99.999%, than the other. This issue is really not the one you want to argue. But I understand that you have to argue it, because if you simply accepted this point then you must accept the fundamental problem. When everybody starts demanding substantial amounts of money for any labor they don't want to do, you're not only going to crash your gdp but see hyperinflation as well. Now not only is the basic income pointless because it's no longer enough to afford anything (and increasing it further just sends you closer to Zimbabwe), but you'd also completely crash your currency meaning you'd also no longer be able to afford any imports (though exporters would be getting filthy rich - see: why China intentionally devalues their own currency). The country would be obligated to rapidly transition, formally or informally, to another currency as the default unit of trade for anything of value, further nullifying the basic income.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  It doesn't matter whether the overwhelming majority of people would be willing to clean toilets for however much money: what matters is whether enough people would that the toilets get cleaned. From what I can tell, the answer to that is "yes". Given instructions, and absent other immediate obligations, I would do so much helping out, wherever I happened to be at the time. (The only reason I don't now is because I don't understand most jobs – my meddling could do more harm than good –, and they won't let me do jobs in my area of expertise.) I'm not unusual in this regard: perhaps I'm unusual in that I'll do this unprompted, but if it's a societal expectation that people clean up after themselves, and leave things in a slightly better state than they found them, people generally do it. The problem is not a lack of workers. The problem is not a lack of things that need doing. The problem is a lack of "jobs". UBI (with the necessary patches to, e.g., prevent bad actors from redirecting all the money) is essentially employing everybody to do what they believe needs doing. So the question becomes: do you believe direct democracy works at small scales? Your answer appears to be "no".
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    I have no idea what you're basing "from what I can tell" on. In America there are literally millions of janitorial and cleaning staff. The overwhelming majority of those people would much prefer to e.g. spend time with their family than engage in menial labor to make ends meet. And the marginal utility of money decreases dramatically, at least for most people, once you have enough to comfortably survive and provide for your family indefinitely.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      I'm a white-collar knowledge worker. There is no downside to me getting my hands dirty with real work during my thinking time – that's time I can't spend with my family if I want to get anything done, because unstructured social interaction takes up the same space in my brain as the knowledge work does. And the marginal utility of having cleaner toilet facilities increases dramatically when they tip over the boundary between "clean" and "not-clean". Given an apron and long gloves, I'd happily (most days, at least) clean shit off the wall, or pull pads out the U-bend, if it increased the chance the room was clean when I had to use it. If I were able to choose whether or not to clean the toilets, and someone kept leaving them in a right state, then after the second-to-fourth time, I'd set aside some time to identify the culprits, and then I'd take measures to ensure they stopped, starting with confronting them over it: first in private (if possible), and subsequently in front of people whose opinions I'd expect them to care about. I might escalate further if it continued without good reason. This is not an option available to cleaning staff on the poverty line, who rarely have the time in their schedule to do this, and might be sacked if they used their breaktime to pull an insubordinate stunt like that. (I would not be capable of working in those conditions, and I expect I'd develop new and fascinating mental health problems if subjected to them.) There is a major difference between volunteering to do something, and having your ability to live in your home contingent upon you doing it, as regards people's willingness to do various tasks.