| >Necessary for what? For whatever the people who provide the money need. >There are already plenty of "necessary" people who consume the cultural output of the "unnecessary". I don't think the corporations/governments will just have a few hundred million people around to add some culture to the place. >It's worth remembering here that America lost in Vietnam. Yes but the infrastructure of modern society is extremely fragile. The occupying force (the governments/corporations) already have control of it at the start of the war. The only reason we have so many people is due to this infrastructure. If it was a war where the population was not as fully industrialized, it would be different. That is not to say the robot owners will win the war, but lots of people would die before then. >Personally, I'd like UBI, but mostly because I'd use it to free up 40 hours a week (plus my commute, time outside of work invested in a career) for research in fields I'm interested in. That is what people think they will do, but it is not what they will do. It is not the utopia that they think it will be because there are fundamentals about human nature that mean we don't really just sit around thinking up theories and playing guitar. The people on welfare now do not have that life. They are mostly depressed and subdued, which is the point of welfare. Humans in general need things like self-determination, the feeling of being valued, the ability to maybe have hobbies that cost more than a basic income. Getting a job won't be easy to make more money, as there will not be many jobs. |
We already have a sample population for this: retirees. Empirically, some people do need jobs, and some don't. I work with a guy who retired, couldn't stand it, and rejoined the workforce. On the other hand, my mother retired early to go into astrophysics.
I'm about to quit my job and work on improving my coding skills (and networking, and so on) until I get hired in tech. A few of my friends are doing the same. (Independently - I'd already decided to do this when they started telling me about their plans.) They seem to be doing better than they were before they quit.
Maybe that's a mistake, and I'll end up depressed and subdued if I'm not on someone's payroll. But I don't think so. I'm working a physically exhausting job with hours that aren't very compatible with having a life outside work - I don't think I have to worry about becoming more depressed and subdued.
> The people on welfare now do not have that life. They are mostly depressed and subdued, which is the point of welfare.
I think there are some important differences between welfare and UBI. If you're on welfare, it means you've failed at the grind - if you're on UBI, it might just mean you've opted out of it.
I don't know much about the welfare system, but I'd be surprised if it's possible for someone to live indefinitely on welfare alone. With UBI, that may end up being a possibility.
Another possibility with UBI is to use it to free up resources for investing in your future. I worked with a guy who was holding down three different jobs, working seven days a week, because that's what he had to do to make ends meet. Maybe he should just learn to code, but where's he going to find the time?