This sounds like a (horrible) way to implement universal basic income. Just hire puffer people, have them do nothing. They get fired, hire them somewhere else, rinse, repeat.
Except it's extremely demotivating for people doing actual work and getting paid similar money.
My first job was in an old newspaper printing business (this was back when newspapers were highly profitable and a respected medium). We had a few old people in our department who were basically kept there doing nothing because they didn't want to retrain on new technology but they were friends with management so they weren't let go before retirement. Which sounds super humane and socially sensitive. Except there were a few of us new hires that couldn't get permanent contracts because the departments were "fully staffed", we were busting our ass and making 1/2 of what these guys were for doing nothing. And this "fair treatment" wasn't there for everyone - just the people who were friends with upper management - basically if you paid tribute by inviting a few people up to the management offices now and then, bring a bottle of nice booze and locking the door for a few hours, doing out of work favors, etc. There were people who were laid off and who had to retrain to remain.
It was a sobering experience after my rosy childhood world views about fairness in society.
When they are on the clock, people generally want to be at least a little bit useful, at least do something that will be of value to someone. Sitting there doing nothing is not fun.
There are lots of people who would love to just get their salary and date people online + do their private stuff all the time, and I think it's totally fine that not everybody wants to work hard.
The problem here is of course that it's not good for people who are working hard.
Sama is super proud that there are only 250 people in OpenAI, he understands that slackers destroy companies.
Pushing underperforming people to do something, anything of value is way more pressure and stress on the performers pushing them than the underperforming.
>We had a few old people in our department who were basically kept there doing nothing because they didn't want to retrain on new technology but they were friends with management so they weren't let go before retirement.
Being friends with management is doing something though. It’s messed up but if I had the resources there’s definitely people I know who I’d pay to have around just cos socializing with them helps me work better with no requirements on their own output.
Haha I doubt drinking at the office since noon was boosting productivity (although I'm sure they would claim it was) - they were just riding on the insane deals they had while the newspapers were relevant for politics and advertisers.
Sort of how Google could have thousands of employees doing nothing and still be insanely profitable. Since they were employee owned after transitioning from communism (majority share at least) there was no pressure to optimize profits. The pathologies of that were interesting to say the least.
> Except there were a few of us new hires that couldn't get permanent contracts because the departments were "fully staffed", we were busting our ass and making 1/2 of what these guys were for doing nothing.
If the “lifers” actually did something, you would not have been hired at all, right? So, in a way, their slacking actually created a job for you.
It was worst of both worlds - they had to use temp agencies and pay shit because the positions were filled on paper - company would have constant turnover and no young people getting properly trained - and people would quit fast because they figured they would never climb up untill the lifers retired.
Also these kinds of environments (people having too much time on their hands, nothing to do) has other nasty side effects - it's the extreme of corporate politics - clan/tribes and all that. I was good with computers so I got moved to IT department and I got to see it for a while - it was surreal compared to things I've seen in tech.
UBI is mostly so people have a minimum, don't starve, and can live in something that passes as a dwelling. Not having basic housing is a huge poverty trap, so make sure folks can eat and be kinda stable.
These guys are puffers at big investment banks getting well over 6 figures while they pump iron and work on a masters degree. No comparison, or sympathy.
Perhaps apocryphally (I can't find a valid source at the moment), Keynes was supposed to have suggested during the Depression that people be hired to dig holes and then fill them back up.
What he did argue was that if you put people to work and pay them for it that's better for the economy as a whole than if they did nothing and earned nothing, even if the work they do is of low (perceived) value. Digging holes and filling them back in is simply an extreme example to emphasize the point.
The reasoning is of course a pretty standard demand-side argument: giving more people more money causes more money to be spent, which boosts the economy.
That's basically what UBI is, minus the need to even show up at work.
Having grown up under communism, I think UBI might amazingly be a worse idea still. Because while yes, socialist economies did not work out and people were standing around a lot doing nothing (because they had nothing to motivate them to), there was undeniably a communal aspect to it which wasn't all negative. UBI doesn't even have that, it's pure populist perfection. Give monies!
I find that a lot of people in the UK for example, completely misunderstand why communist countries have failed.
Yes you could say that's because of communism, but in practical terms these countries had way more problems than just being communist in the first place.
My first job was in an old newspaper printing business (this was back when newspapers were highly profitable and a respected medium). We had a few old people in our department who were basically kept there doing nothing because they didn't want to retrain on new technology but they were friends with management so they weren't let go before retirement. Which sounds super humane and socially sensitive. Except there were a few of us new hires that couldn't get permanent contracts because the departments were "fully staffed", we were busting our ass and making 1/2 of what these guys were for doing nothing. And this "fair treatment" wasn't there for everyone - just the people who were friends with upper management - basically if you paid tribute by inviting a few people up to the management offices now and then, bring a bottle of nice booze and locking the door for a few hours, doing out of work favors, etc. There were people who were laid off and who had to retrain to remain.
It was a sobering experience after my rosy childhood world views about fairness in society.