5 ms·

Instead of asking ourselves which particular jobs are "bullshit" and which are not, maybe we should ask why we need or want "jobs" at all. If every citizen rece

Instead of asking ourselves which particular jobs are "bullshit" and which are not, maybe we should ask why we need or want "jobs" at all. If every citizen received some minimum universal basic income, what might we do with our time instead of going to jobs we hate? I think the point might be that we've reached a state of technological progress where many of the functions of a modern civilization can be handled by a very few people. Maybe it's time to redefine what we mean by "work" and why we do it. https://contributoria.com/issue/2014-12/543d1c2487628e9a6500001b https://contributoria.com/issue/2014-12/543d1c2487628e9a6500...

zo1 12y ago
>"If every citizen received some minimum universal basic income, what might we do with our time instead of going to jobs we hate?" I think you need to quantify what you mean by that. It seems that every time I hear this UBI idea being defended with a sentence similar to the one you made, the tone set implies that something "beneficial" will happen that does not because they go do jobs they "hate". I.e. If we free ourselves from going to work we will... And then insert anything from "do art", "be creative", "come up with novel ways to improve the world", or something of the like. (Feel free to correct me there, but that seems to be the implicit argument/idea behind that sentence you made)
- jchrisa 12y ago
  Yes. If everyone had the privilege to laze around like I do, I can guarantee there would be more startups / art / culture.
sktrdie 12y ago
Wouldn't a UBI simply be inflationary? That is, rather than making 0 you make 1500 (say). But since everybody is making 1500, then it would be the same as making 0 again. So unless we have strict blocks on pricing things, UBI seems nonsensical.
- glennsl 12y ago
  I've heard this argument several times before, but I've never understood the reasoning behind it. No matter how you look at it, a basic income is redistribution of wealth. If we finance a basic income by just printing money, then yes it would be inflationary, and the value of the basic income, along with the currency as a whole, would depreciate. But it certainly wouldn't be eliminated, and wealth would have been redistributed. Printing money isn't the only way to finance a basic income, however. A much more sane approach is through effectivization, by eliminating bullshit jobs and (most) existing means-tested benefits, as well as increased taxation. There's nothing inflationary about this approach.
- zo1 12y ago
  At the very least, it skews peoples' motivations for work. I.e. Do nothing and get 1500, or work as a low-wage say woodcutter/garbage man, and get 1600. You're effectively doing a shitty 9-5 job so you can get 100 (or whatever $X) more than the guy next door doing nothing all day. People say that's liberating and "equality" for all, buy I say it's completely the opposite and directly unfair to a lot of people. And now that I re-read your post about it being an inflationary scenario, it makes more sense. All of a sudden, you have a reduction in individuals willing to do hard/hateful labor for a small amount more than basic income. This reduces their supply, and thus the salaries go up. Essentially, it sounds like it would make 1500 the new 0 as you put it. Not sure where to follow that train of thought further, though. Anyone care to continue it from there?
  - glennsl 12y ago
    Yes, shitty jobs would actually pay well. That's hardly unfair is it? The labour market would become an actual free market, where prices are properly determined by supply and demand, not by "motivation for work", more aptly known as wage slavery.
  - skybrian 12y ago
    There is some reduction in incentive to work, but the idea is that most people will still want more money so they'll keep working. Also you're assuming people have the right incentives today. Is working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet really what you want people to do? This is really about changing the relative negotiating power between employers and employees. Having some fallback income makes it easier to take time off to go to school, start a business, or find a better job. Also it goes right back into the economy as revenue for some business, so it's hard to see how it can be bad for business.
nathan_long 12y ago
> If every citizen received some minimum universal basic income, what might we do with our time instead of going to jobs we hate? We might do amazing things. Then again, we might have a world where nobody scrubs toilets and lots of people make lousy paintings. "What do I want to make/do?" and "what produces value for others?" are not always in sync. Having to sell your labor means there must be at least some link between supply and demand.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  Perhaps we will just find that the wages paid for scrubbing toilets will increase, till we find that people are indeed willing to scrub toilets. Why shouldn't a job of that sort be well-compensated? Universal basic income doesn't intrinsically mean less work being done. It just means different leverage in the negotiation process.
  - nathan_long 12y ago
    But it does mean that it's much easier for a person not to do anything that benefits others. There would certainly be people who say "I can get drinking money without working" and do nothing but drink. If you need to work to eat, it gives you some incentive to sober up. I think people have a natural need to work and contribute things, but we also have laziness tugging at us. Enabling someone to waste their life is not doing them a favor; it impoverishes them in a way that lacking money alone cannot.

zo1 12y ago

>"If every citizen received some minimum universal basic income, what might we do with our time instead of going to jobs we hate?" I think you need to quantify what you mean by that. It seems that every time I hear this UBI idea being defended with a sentence similar to the one you made, the tone set implies that something "beneficial" will happen that does not because they go do jobs they "hate". I.e. If we free ourselves from going to work we will... And then insert anything from "do art", "be creative", "come up with novel ways to improve the world", or something of the like. (Feel free to correct me there, but that seems to be the implicit argument/idea behind that sentence you made)

jchrisa 12y ago
Yes. If everyone had the privilege to laze around like I do, I can guarantee there would be more startups / art / culture.

sktrdie 12y ago

Wouldn't a UBI simply be inflationary? That is, rather than making 0 you make 1500 (say). But since everybody is making 1500, then it would be the same as making 0 again. So unless we have strict blocks on pricing things, UBI seems nonsensical.

glennsl 12y ago
I've heard this argument several times before, but I've never understood the reasoning behind it. No matter how you look at it, a basic income is redistribution of wealth. If we finance a basic income by just printing money, then yes it would be inflationary, and the value of the basic income, along with the currency as a whole, would depreciate. But it certainly wouldn't be eliminated, and wealth would have been redistributed. Printing money isn't the only way to finance a basic income, however. A much more sane approach is through effectivization, by eliminating bullshit jobs and (most) existing means-tested benefits, as well as increased taxation. There's nothing inflationary about this approach.
zo1 12y ago
At the very least, it skews peoples' motivations for work. I.e. Do nothing and get 1500, or work as a low-wage say woodcutter/garbage man, and get 1600. You're effectively doing a shitty 9-5 job so you can get 100 (or whatever $X) more than the guy next door doing nothing all day. People say that's liberating and "equality" for all, buy I say it's completely the opposite and directly unfair to a lot of people. And now that I re-read your post about it being an inflationary scenario, it makes more sense. All of a sudden, you have a reduction in individuals willing to do hard/hateful labor for a small amount more than basic income. This reduces their supply, and thus the salaries go up. Essentially, it sounds like it would make 1500 the new 0 as you put it. Not sure where to follow that train of thought further, though. Anyone care to continue it from there?
- glennsl 12y ago
  Yes, shitty jobs would actually pay well. That's hardly unfair is it? The labour market would become an actual free market, where prices are properly determined by supply and demand, not by "motivation for work", more aptly known as wage slavery.
- skybrian 12y ago
  There is some reduction in incentive to work, but the idea is that most people will still want more money so they'll keep working. Also you're assuming people have the right incentives today. Is working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet really what you want people to do? This is really about changing the relative negotiating power between employers and employees. Having some fallback income makes it easier to take time off to go to school, start a business, or find a better job. Also it goes right back into the economy as revenue for some business, so it's hard to see how it can be bad for business.

nathan_long 12y ago

> If every citizen received some minimum universal basic income, what might we do with our time instead of going to jobs we hate? We might do amazing things. Then again, we might have a world where nobody scrubs toilets and lots of people make lousy paintings. "What do I want to make/do?" and "what produces value for others?" are not always in sync. Having to sell your labor means there must be at least some link between supply and demand.

Chinjut 12y ago
Perhaps we will just find that the wages paid for scrubbing toilets will increase, till we find that people are indeed willing to scrub toilets. Why shouldn't a job of that sort be well-compensated? Universal basic income doesn't intrinsically mean less work being done. It just means different leverage in the negotiation process.
- nathan_long 12y ago
  But it does mean that it's much easier for a person not to do anything that benefits others. There would certainly be people who say "I can get drinking money without working" and do nothing but drink. If you need to work to eat, it gives you some incentive to sober up. I think people have a natural need to work and contribute things, but we also have laziness tugging at us. Enabling someone to waste their life is not doing them a favor; it impoverishes them in a way that lacking money alone cannot.