[yadoomerta]

I think it's more that most current employment is awful - you're either doing something useful and paid peanuts or a cog in the machine making the (you're the product) type products. There's terribly few jobs available that are ethical, useful, and well compensated.

People aren't unwilling to do a hard days work, they're unwilling to do it for less than a living wage, which is the current offer for a lot of people right now, especially young people.

And to your first sentence _YES_, society should of course be set so that people can achieve their dreams as much as possible! That's the point! I understand that doing this via wealth redistribution is touchy but you're acting like wanting things to be easier is a stupid goal in general.

[lordfrito]

Survival has always been awful. Hunting and gathering aren't glamourous activies, they're simply necessary. Dreams are mostly just that, dreams.

I'm all for helping dreams become reality. Pursuit of happiness and all that.

But there is real injustice and inequality in the world. Real human suffering. Lets find solutions to those problems first, before we focus the resources of society on solving the problems of struggling musicians.

[yadoomerta]

Almost every job right now is so far abstracted from survival that it barely makes any sense. My job (that pays very well) involves taking an existing product and shuffling the UI around so people think it's a different product.

Even people with useful jobs like baristas and janitors aren't really helping anyone survive they're just making it nice for everyone else.

So few people are in farming, or medicine, where you can really say that. This is a societal problem imo, people really want/need to feel useful and we haven't been able to come up with 8 billion useful things to do

Also, yes there is injustice around the world, sure lets solve that, it sounds great. I feel like the solution is pretty similar to how we solve what's happening to poor people in our own country

[lordfrito]

> Almost every job right now is so far abstracted from survival that it barely makes any sense

We are hyper-specialized, hyper-optimized, hyper-focused cogs in the massive survival machine that is the world economy. So much so that we can no longer see the forest for the trees. But I firmly believe the forest is still there.

Supply chain problems of the last few years continue to show us just how fragile of a world we live in. Jobs we've never heard about, performed by poor villagers from places we don't care about, are arguably more important to our survival than musicians and baristas.

It doesn't seem fair to ask the people providing goods/services necessary to our survival to support the chosen others who get to follow their dreams. Where do I sign up?

I think you're spot on with your comment about finding 8 billion useful things to do. A barista may not be helping us survive, but at least they're making the place a bit nicer for the rest of us. The musician will trade his time/music for a nice cup of coffee. It may not be survival, but it improves the overall human experience. We're all in it together.

We're going to reach a point where there isn't anything more people can do to make things nicer. Automation will eventually lead to a crisis, where people no longer have any useful value, and simply breed and consume everything around them in ever larger amounts.

A world where everyone is free to pursue their dreams doesn't seem like a utopia to me. Humans free from all constraints sounds like hell to me. Devil will find work for idle hands etc. Must be a really good sci-fi novel in here somewhere.

[yadoomerta]

oh, I agree with almost everything in this ^, sorry if I came off as confrontational earlier. Your first post read to me like the typical "there is no injustice because I, a well paid software engineer, is willing to work unlike those lazy poors" which reading this was clearly not your point.

To me, the problem is exactly what you identified, that the value is created by jobs we haven't heard about and poor villagers. And also baristas and musicians who are also routinely underpaid. And that value is mostly exploited by whoever the current elite is (currently shareholders and to a lesser extent, software ppl, and lesser still anyone in 1st world countries etc. etc.)

So I think the only difference is a boring semantic problem :p I was defining 'pursuing dreams' as what it means to me specifically - ie. my dream is to do something cool and respected and get paid well for it, which I think jives with why musicians want to be musicians. Making things nicer for people is a major part of it.

All the baristas I know say they like baristaing, the sucky part is that it's every single day and the managers suck, and you have to deal with some awful customers with a smile and you're never doing anything else. But freed from all of that they like making people nice coffee and feeling good about making things better. I hate my job because I'm fiddling with code that (to my understanding) is of no benefit to anyone and is only sustained by mooching off the government and tricking people into things they don't need. Doesn't hurt that we bought all the competition. Pay is nice though.

I think with something like UBI we will be closer to that. Free from exploitation because if the job conditions suck you can quit. But I really believe that most people really do want to be useful and respected and will continue to make value for the world for the pure joy of it. Anyone who is a teacher right now is intentionally giving up almost all possible earnings for the ability to do something directly useful. WWOOFers volunteer on farms. If farmers were respected people would like doing it more. Lots of people volunteer, edit wikipedia, make and share art, etc.

And, of course, ideally this would include all the people in other countries whose sweatshop labor is funding the world economy. I'm rooting for them too. If we can't solve this is our own country it seems unlikely we can solve it for the whole world though, but no reason not to try. I think both fights can (and kinda must) be happening at the same time.

[lordfrito]

I mostly agree with everything you're saying. And share your goals. I also absolutely don't think my place in the totem pole is special, I worked hard to get here, but I'm absolutely replaceable.

I'm more pessimistic though on outcomes. I don't think UBI solves anything, just kicks the can down the road a little bit longer.

Money exists because of scarcity, there isn't enough for everyone. Money helps us decide who gets what, prices are relative and fluctuate as supply and demand change, that's a very good thing. If I think I can get a better deal elsewhere, I'll take my ball and go home. If I want it bad enough, I'll work harder (or sacrifice elsewhere) so I can afford to get it.

Baristas aren't paid well because anyone can grind and brew their own coffee. Or just buy a Keurig which costs less overall. Contrast that to say, a surgeon who is paid well precisely because most people don't want to operate on themselves.

The issue I have with UBI is that you still have the same number of people chasing the same number of scarce resources/houses/products. So prices will rise accordingly. Pretty soon it becomes "UBI doesn't let me be a musician and live the lifestyle I want/deserve". Complaints that UBI doesn't pay well enough, big business, etc.

I'm 100% for a better social net to catch those who have stumbled/fallen. But the arguments elsewhere in this thread conflate that with being able to pursue the life of your dreams free of consequence. That's the heart of the distinction I'm making here.

To me, you can't chase your dream without asking yourself "How hard am I willing to work to get what I really want?" Achievement is more satisfying when it's earned then when it's handed to you. A well lived life is about playing the hand you were dealt well, rather than complaining that you weren't dealt a better hand. I think that's the difference between having the "right to pursue happiness" versus the "right to happiness".

[yadoomerta]

I think you're right yea -

A lot of the stuff UBI would pay for is (imo) not that scarce or shouldn't be. Food, water, most medicine, etc. we can absolutely just provide to everyone. We have the resources to give everyone a decent life (ie. not struggling to stay alive, not made artificially awful etc.).

I am quite sure of this for America given the current level of offshore exploitation not changing. I think but am not entirely convinced this is possible globally. Certainly there is some amount of population that is simply too much for the earth to sustainably handle but I have no real idea what exactly that number is.

Stuff that is inherently not scalable then .. yea .. ubi cant fix that. Not everyone can get a mansion, or 1918 wines, or even maybe suburban houses really. Not sure exactly where the lines are but there ARE unique things and it's wrong to discount that.

But the current system is set up so that you have to grind hours doing miserable things largely unrelated to survival to get enough money to _not die_. I feel like UBI is just the simplest most reasonable safety net for that. Certainly there are other options but they add bureaucracy and complications that don't seem worth it to me. It's like everyone has a house they can crash at indefinitely if they need or want to.

But it's not the only option ofc. Just seems to me like a decent combination of simple + politically viable + solves many problems of exploitative work. Healthcare-for-all would be huge step forwards even without UBI so it's not the only goal either.

& as for "right to happiness" - I really believe that most people will still want to be useful and make cool things people like, even if given the option to not. Open Source software etc. is already run this way on weekends. Making something useful for other people will still be an achievement people strive for, and would be rewarded on top of UBI.