7 ms·

>The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality

>The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. I've always felt that this argument against basic minimum income said more about the arguer than society at large. In my experience, everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work.

anticon 11y ago
Seriously? Do you not think you're in a bubble of 1%ers? Most people aren't itching to start a company you know... Most want to watch American Idol and do nothing.
- wubwubwub 11y ago
  Why does everything have to be an extreme at each end of the spectrum? Either starting companies or doing nothing? I'd like to believe, possibly naively, that for a lot of people there would be a middle ground. Spending their time on personal growth, creative pursuits, general fitness and well being. In essence, living well. Just because you're not attempting to start the next social media, it doesn't automatically mean that you have no other interests or internal framework for living.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    There are also a lot of things that can and need to be done for others (as opposed to personal growth, general fitness, etc.) that don't make sense as companies, or that are perverted beyond recognition when exposed to market pressures. Starting a company is one of many ways of doing things useful to the public, but not the only one.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    Listen bra, if you're not crushing it you ain't worth . Welcome to the hyper-individualist bro culture based around status and money. The self-worth crutches for people with low self-esteem/ huge uncontrollable egos.
  - Loughla 11y ago
    That's exactly what would happen. Many people would transition to part-time jobs to spend time with their families/friends/volunteer or civic organizations they are already involved in. You can see it when an 'Average Joe' gets a windfall. Anecdotal evidence is all I have, but having observed several people inherit money from older relatives who have passed, the general first focus is on creating free time to spend with family and friends. Then they focus on those organizations they are already involved in. Then they focus on fun nonsense like large TV's and dumb cars.
- merijnv 11y ago
  Who says it has to be a company? How about that guy that wants make music but doesn't have the time to practice due to work. The girl that wants to paint, but is to tired after work. Why does everything have to be about companies and money? Can't you really imagine any useful social, artistic, or other things these "dumb, lazy" people might want to invest their time into? How about just being a stay at home parent and investing more time in their kids? Do you really think society would not improve from any of these things?
  - anticon 11y ago
    So you want to spend £240 billion pounds, twice the NHS budget in the UK, on helping struggling artists?
    - merijnv 11y ago
      Struggling everyone. Why the hell is some bank CEO making several hundred million a year and we have people that can't even reliably be home in the evening to tuck their kids in because they're working 5 jobs. I'm all for taxing high-end income (coporate and private) even more to pay for this. Why would everyone need to work anyway? It's not tenable. A few more years/decades and we'll have automated so much it'll be impossible to actually employ everyone. So unless you suggest we let everyone who is in a now obsolete field starve, I suggest we start thinking of how we're going to manage a society where it's just impossible for everyone to work. EDIT: Also, where's this 240 billion figure coming from?
      - anticon 11y ago
        The level of koolaid here is just too large a mountain to attempt to scale. Automation will just move a few jobs around, like it always has done. And yes - we don't need jobs. But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money.
        merijnv 11y ago
        > But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money. Why not?
- robmcm 11y ago
  The irony that you chose American Idol as the TV show is delightful. It's a prime example of people often from impoverished background trying to better them selves rather than sitting around doing nothing :)
  - notahacker 11y ago
    Alternatively you could interpret American Idol as people spending one day a year pursuing an unlikely dream of lavish wealth before going back to the couch to see how the few contestants that made it through get on :) I'm not sure "practising for reality TV shows" falls into the category of self-actualisation I'm particularly keen to uproot the economy as we know it to fund.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Wouldn't that be similar to startup culture, though?
- celticninja 11y ago
  I think you need to define most. Where is your sample data? You have a biased opinion and you are sticking to it it seems.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  The more I read your posts, the more I imagine you're just someone who's scared that they won't be able to have a bunch of employees paid minimum wage at his beck and call, that he can treat however he wants because they're dependent on him for a job.
dagw 11y ago
everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work. For many people that project is to watch their favorite TV shows while eating their favorite ice cream.
- onion2k 11y ago
  No it isn't. That isn't their personal project. That's all they have the choice of doing. Most people do those things because they're tired after working hard all day for a wage that doesn't give them enough money to do anything but sit in front of the television. If people had the opportunity to work a bit less in their job so they could do something worthwhile and fulfilling in their spare time, most people would take that choice. Just look at people who inherit or win large sums of money - a few of them end up just enjoying themselves, but most use the money to follow a cause that they think is something worthwhile. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true (on a smaller scale) for a minimum income.
  - taki1 11y ago
    Only at 115 - 120 IQ points one starts to be interested in "looking for information on their own". Not to mention things like building stuff on their own. 115-120 IQ is top 10% population. Maybe 20%. You are definitely over estimating general population. It is easy to do so of meeting only the smartest 20% when at university, work, family. I dare you ask McDonald's cashier next time what they want to do in life, or a salesperson in car dealership or retail store. I guarantee you it won't be "save some money to start my own business or build stuff". It will be "win a lottery and retire on tropical island". Don't trust me on my words, go outside your bubble and and run this experiment and let us know the result. Also, don't direct them into an answer, so it is honest. It is not that they need to be punished on purpose, but yes, you need to have a system in place that incentives work and success, otherwise, yes, 80% of the population all they want is "free stuff". Obviously taken from top 20% because, you know, to them it is not like you had some sincere interest in something, or wanted to build something. To them you just got lucky, because to them the whole of humanity just wants to "win a lottery" and retire. As you can't understand and see that there are people in the world who just want to sit, watch TV, and enjoy themselves, the same way they can't see that there are people in the world who sincerely want to build stuff or obtain knowledge, not for money really, but because it is important to us. Go outside your bubble, go visit a few places, and ask people about their long term plans or what they want to do. It won't be about contribution. It will be about consumption.
verinus 11y ago
and my take on people arguing for basic minimum income have not understood the human nature. communism was doomed from the beginning as they were removing all incentives to do something useful in the long therm.
- dtech 11y ago
  There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income). The second doesn't disincentivize working, as you still get increased rewards if you work or work harder. * Unless you are in a position of power of course, then you deserve more.
  - xienze 11y ago
    > and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income). You realize that basic income will just become another campaign promise to secure votes, right? Couple that with "I can barely live on my basic income!" sob stories and we'll quickly find that basic income won't be so "basic" given enough time.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) Everyone getting exactly the same regardless of merit has nothing to do with communism. So much so that Marx spent a lot of time criticising this idea and tearing it totally apart whenever someone raised it (Critique of the Gotha Programme has a substantial section on this subject).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Human nature is people wanting to reap rewards for their work (that includes having private property). UBI doesn't take away that. Speaking of "removing all incentives to do something useful in the long term", this is what capitalism does today. There aren't many businesses or even people caring about long-term in their lives, because you have to pay your rent next month, you have to be competitive today, you have to reach your company's quarterly goals, etc. Competition makes things inherently short-term. UBI is a way to remove some of the pressure from general population, so you'd have an option to say "fuck it, I'm gonna do something for long-term payoff" and not starve in the process.

anticon 11y ago

Seriously? Do you not think you're in a bubble of 1%ers? Most people aren't itching to start a company you know... Most want to watch American Idol and do nothing.

wubwubwub 11y ago
Why does everything have to be an extreme at each end of the spectrum? Either starting companies or doing nothing? I'd like to believe, possibly naively, that for a lot of people there would be a middle ground. Spending their time on personal growth, creative pursuits, general fitness and well being. In essence, living well. Just because you're not attempting to start the next social media, it doesn't automatically mean that you have no other interests or internal framework for living.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  There are also a lot of things that can and need to be done for others (as opposed to personal growth, general fitness, etc.) that don't make sense as companies, or that are perverted beyond recognition when exposed to market pressures. Starting a company is one of many ways of doing things useful to the public, but not the only one.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Listen bra, if you're not crushing it you ain't worth . Welcome to the hyper-individualist bro culture based around status and money. The self-worth crutches for people with low self-esteem/ huge uncontrollable egos.
- Loughla 11y ago
  That's exactly what would happen. Many people would transition to part-time jobs to spend time with their families/friends/volunteer or civic organizations they are already involved in. You can see it when an 'Average Joe' gets a windfall. Anecdotal evidence is all I have, but having observed several people inherit money from older relatives who have passed, the general first focus is on creating free time to spend with family and friends. Then they focus on those organizations they are already involved in. Then they focus on fun nonsense like large TV's and dumb cars.
merijnv 11y ago
Who says it has to be a company? How about that guy that wants make music but doesn't have the time to practice due to work. The girl that wants to paint, but is to tired after work. Why does everything have to be about companies and money? Can't you really imagine any useful social, artistic, or other things these "dumb, lazy" people might want to invest their time into? How about just being a stay at home parent and investing more time in their kids? Do you really think society would not improve from any of these things?
- anticon 11y ago
  So you want to spend £240 billion pounds, twice the NHS budget in the UK, on helping struggling artists?
  - merijnv 11y ago
    Struggling everyone. Why the hell is some bank CEO making several hundred million a year and we have people that can't even reliably be home in the evening to tuck their kids in because they're working 5 jobs. I'm all for taxing high-end income (coporate and private) even more to pay for this. Why would everyone need to work anyway? It's not tenable. A few more years/decades and we'll have automated so much it'll be impossible to actually employ everyone. So unless you suggest we let everyone who is in a now obsolete field starve, I suggest we start thinking of how we're going to manage a society where it's just impossible for everyone to work. EDIT: Also, where's this 240 billion figure coming from?
    - anticon 11y ago
      The level of koolaid here is just too large a mountain to attempt to scale. Automation will just move a few jobs around, like it always has done. And yes - we don't need jobs. But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money.
      - merijnv 11y ago
        > But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money. Why not?
robmcm 11y ago
The irony that you chose American Idol as the TV show is delightful. It's a prime example of people often from impoverished background trying to better them selves rather than sitting around doing nothing :)
- notahacker 11y ago
  Alternatively you could interpret American Idol as people spending one day a year pursuing an unlikely dream of lavish wealth before going back to the couch to see how the few contestants that made it through get on :) I'm not sure "practising for reality TV shows" falls into the category of self-actualisation I'm particularly keen to uproot the economy as we know it to fund.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Wouldn't that be similar to startup culture, though?
celticninja 11y ago
I think you need to define most. Where is your sample data? You have a biased opinion and you are sticking to it it seems.
s73v3r 11y ago
The more I read your posts, the more I imagine you're just someone who's scared that they won't be able to have a bunch of employees paid minimum wage at his beck and call, that he can treat however he wants because they're dependent on him for a job.

dagw 11y ago

everyone has a personal project that gets sidelined for their work. For many people that project is to watch their favorite TV shows while eating their favorite ice cream.

onion2k 11y ago
No it isn't. That isn't their personal project. That's all they have the choice of doing. Most people do those things because they're tired after working hard all day for a wage that doesn't give them enough money to do anything but sit in front of the television. If people had the opportunity to work a bit less in their job so they could do something worthwhile and fulfilling in their spare time, most people would take that choice. Just look at people who inherit or win large sums of money - a few of them end up just enjoying themselves, but most use the money to follow a cause that they think is something worthwhile. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true (on a smaller scale) for a minimum income.
- taki1 11y ago
  Only at 115 - 120 IQ points one starts to be interested in "looking for information on their own". Not to mention things like building stuff on their own. 115-120 IQ is top 10% population. Maybe 20%. You are definitely over estimating general population. It is easy to do so of meeting only the smartest 20% when at university, work, family. I dare you ask McDonald's cashier next time what they want to do in life, or a salesperson in car dealership or retail store. I guarantee you it won't be "save some money to start my own business or build stuff". It will be "win a lottery and retire on tropical island". Don't trust me on my words, go outside your bubble and and run this experiment and let us know the result. Also, don't direct them into an answer, so it is honest. It is not that they need to be punished on purpose, but yes, you need to have a system in place that incentives work and success, otherwise, yes, 80% of the population all they want is "free stuff". Obviously taken from top 20% because, you know, to them it is not like you had some sincere interest in something, or wanted to build something. To them you just got lucky, because to them the whole of humanity just wants to "win a lottery" and retire. As you can't understand and see that there are people in the world who just want to sit, watch TV, and enjoy themselves, the same way they can't see that there are people in the world who sincerely want to build stuff or obtain knowledge, not for money really, but because it is important to us. Go outside your bubble, go visit a few places, and ask people about their long term plans or what they want to do. It won't be about contribution. It will be about consumption.

verinus 11y ago

and my take on people arguing for basic minimum income have not understood the human nature. communism was doomed from the beginning as they were removing all incentives to do something useful in the long therm.

dtech 11y ago
There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income). The second doesn't disincentivize working, as you still get increased rewards if you work or work harder. * Unless you are in a position of power of course, then you deserve more.
- xienze 11y ago
  > and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income). You realize that basic income will just become another campaign promise to secure votes, right? Couple that with "I can barely live on my basic income!" sob stories and we'll quickly find that basic income won't be so "basic" given enough time.
- vidarh 11y ago
  > There is a huge difference between everyone gets exactly the same regardless of merit* (communism) Everyone getting exactly the same regardless of merit has nothing to do with communism. So much so that Marx spent a lot of time criticising this idea and tearing it totally apart whenever someone raised it (Critique of the Gotha Programme has a substantial section on this subject).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Human nature is people wanting to reap rewards for their work (that includes having private property). UBI doesn't take away that. Speaking of "removing all incentives to do something useful in the long term", this is what capitalism does today. There aren't many businesses or even people caring about long-term in their lives, because you have to pay your rent next month, you have to be competitive today, you have to reach your company's quarterly goals, etc. Competition makes things inherently short-term. UBI is a way to remove some of the pressure from general population, so you'd have an option to say "fuck it, I'm gonna do something for long-term payoff" and not starve in the process.