[dusted]

I've been a proponent of this idea until now that I am in a position to vote for it. Now I'm not sure if I'm convinced that people are ready for it. I've invested significant effort in working and having a job, and, I wouldn't have have done that if I knew I could have still "gotten by" without, I'd definitely not be where I am today without that outside pressure to _not_fail_. I'd be probably dead or at least morbidly obese from doing nothing but sitting and watching TV/playing videogames.

I'm actually more in favor of entirely removing any economic support, that people can use to buy what they _want_, I'd much rather give people what they _need_ to survive, anything beyond that (tobacco, alcohol, entertainment, fashion clothing, cars, etc..) should be the privilege earned by working.

[i_cannot_hack]

> I'd much rather give people what they _need_ to survive, anything beyond that (tobacco, alcohol, entertainment, fashion clothing, cars, etc..) should be the privilege earned by working.

How would not having a car affect their ability to get to the job interview? And how would not having a fashionable formal attire affect their ability to do a good impression on the interviewer? How would not having access to entertainment affect their mental health?

People probably know more about what they themselves _need_ in their situation than you do. Give them the opportunity to divide resources on their own.

And investing in people beyond merely keeping them alive will generally pay dividends and be a good investment in the long run.

Vaguely related: Unconditional cash transfers in charity are generally successful and have a strong multiplier effect leading to increased long-term income (must people don't just spend them on alcohol and drugs, as some would believe) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438781...

[dusted]

Those are good points, it's probably just the people I've seen in my local comminuty that makes me doubt this..

No money will go to healthy food, all of it to alcohol, drugs and tobacco, and whatever is left, will go to expensive (but not the kind you can show up in a job interview for) pre-worn-out designer clothing and cellphones that are way above what is needed.

You get these "rich-poor" kids who are unsatisfied that they're merely the top 10% instead of the top 1% without having ever lifted a finger for any of it.

I think part of this dissatisfied complacency (yes, I know how this seems opposites, but really what it is: "My life sucks, I've watched all there is to watch on Netflix and HBO so now I'm just browsing youtube and getting drunk and high most of the day, life is so _HARD_") stems from the lack of real consequence if you "fail", it breeds a special type of mentality that is hereditary, see Norway, Denmark, Sweeden and Finland for examples.

[belorn]

> I've invested significant effort in working and having a job, and, I wouldn't have have done that if I knew I could have still "gotten by" without

I have massive doubt about that statements from a social and behavior perspective.

Imagine you were transported to a society where housing, food health care, and entertainment was free, but you belong to the lowest social economic status group that existed. Everyone else are above you in term of status. While cultural rules and norms dictate that people still treat you nice, they will not see you as their equal. Members of the other sex will, for reason which is not needed to be specified, select others with higher status. Your social circle will be much smaller, possible zero. Siblings and family members might treat you differently than those of higher status. Your stress levels will be on average higher than of other people, and your health lower.

Would you be happy? Housing, food, health care and entertainment is after all still free.

[emteycz]

This never happens (almost) anywhere. We are not living in feudal times.

[belorn]

People who research human health and human behavior are constantly demonstrating the importance of social status.

Take a population and look at those with lowest rate of reproduction, lowest amount of social network, highest risk of loneliness, suicide, and what you get is a correlation to social economical status.

Take a population and measure stress hormones, and the output correlate to social economic status. Take a similar population and look at health outcomes over a large period of time, and the outcome is directly correlated to social economic status. Just a few weeks ago there were a paper showing that the outcome of defibrillation by doctors in hospitals is influenced by the patient social status. The higher the status, the more time the doctors spent in the room and the better the outcome was in shocking the patients heart. Low social status is predictor for slow recovery rate to injuries, and high social status has the opposite effect.

Even in biology we can see the effect clearly. Take a group of female students and their reproductive systems will sync based on social status. There is similar research that links male hormone levels directly with social status changes.

If we compare people in a very rich country with people from a very poor country, the people the share most similarities are those of the same social status, regardless of the actually wealth. It is sometimes refereed to as the paradox of welfare.

[emteycz]

And yet the statistics from dating apps say something absolutely different.

[agumonkey]

From where I stand the most important part is rent, water, veggies and some meat. The rest most people can learn and do themselves on their free time. Maybe have fablabs generalized so you get access to space and tools and off you go.