[danaris]

There's an ample body of research on basic income now that indicates that almost everyone still works under it. The people who don't are people we shouldn't be requiring to work, like the disabled, new parents (still usually only one), and full-time students.

It is much more likely that the effect will fade over time, as people who are traumatized and exhausted from being forced to work terrible jobs for inhumane hours recover and once against find themselves ready to do something more active and productive.

[snapcaster]

Where is the evidence that isn't temporary, non-universal, or other clear confounders like that? Are you virtue signaling that you have inherent work ethics or things like that or do you _actually_ think people would still work if they didn't have to. Comments like this on HN make me think nobody here ever speaks to a real human

[danaris]

If you want evidence that is permanent and universal, guess what you have to do?

You have to actually implement Universal Basic Income on a large scale, and keep it going for decades.

If you aren't willing to support doing that because "there isn't permanent, universal evidence", then you're creating a catch-22.

There is evidence that is robust and scientifically rigorous. That should be enough, at the very least, to say that we should be doing larger, more extended trials, and to at least plant a seed of doubt about this idea that humans are inherently lazy selfish slobs.

As for "real humans", I've talked to plenty. I know multiple who are constantly frustrated that they are not allowed to work productively, because of disabilities they have that make them inconvenient to employ (as with many disabilities and chronic illnesses, they have good days and bad days: they can work very well some of the time, but can't commit to a schedule that the company controls, because they can't even commit to a schedule that they consciously control).

I don't personally know a single person who, if given the chance, would choose to abandon work of all kinds forever.

[snapcaster]

"I don't personally know a single person who, if given the chance, would choose to abandon work of all kinds forever. " this is what i mean. You're in some kind of insane bubble and need to wake up. Does everyone around you have a "career"? you're glorifying work way beyond regular person life experience

[danaris]

No, they definitely don't. Did you see where I said I knew disabled people who were unemployed because, in our current system, they are unemployable, but actually want to be doing stuff?

The point isn't "glorifying work". It's that people don't actually want to be couch potatoes. They want enrichment. They want activity. They want meaningful stimulation.

Look at us more like zoo animals and maybe it'll make more sense: we know that giving tigers a pumpkin full of meat is more beneficial for their mental health than just dropping the same meat in front of them to eat with no effort. Humans aren't that different.

Even beyond that, though, humans want purpose. We want our lives to have some meaning, and it's pretty hard for most people to find that in sitting around doing nothing all day every day unless they have no other choice.

Perhaps it would also help to note that "work" isn't synonymous with "go to an office and file insurance claims for 8 hours" or anything like that. Writing is work. Acting is work. Making video games is work. Helping old people get around is work.

But the other thing is...if you would, if given the chance, just sit back and relax all day every day...then I hope that you get that chance! I believe that every person should have the opportunity to do what feels most fulfilling to them, and not just be required to work at specific kinds of jobs for specific types of schedules simply to be allowed to continue existing on this planet.

[prottog]

> They want enrichment. They want activity. They want meaningful stimulation.

> Writing is work. Acting is work. Making video games is work. Helping old people get around is work.

All true, but keep in mind that value is created when work produces something that someone else wants to consume. Enrichment and meaningful stimulation to one may not produce anything useful to another, and in fact can often come from consumption. The alternative to being paid to be at a job you don't want to be at isn't sitting around doing nothing all day; it's being out there, enjoying themselves, living life, consuming products and services that others produced.

Would you rather clean toilets (providing what is desired by others, i.e. having a clean bathroom) for five hours or go do your favorite leisure activity, be it playing basketball, hiking, or spending time at a museum (consuming to fulfill your desire), for the same five hours, if you got the same universal basic income payment regardless of your choice?

Work is often hard and stressful. People have to deal with irate customers. People have to sweat and lift heavy things and have their bodies ache afterwards. People have to struggle and wrack their brains to solve a technical problem under a deadline. People have to do all sorts of things that they may not want to do in the immediate moment. Currently, the incentive for that is remuneration for time and labor performed. When you take that incentive away, who remains to do the work that is hard, isn't enjoyable, and may not be fulfilling?

What's that you say -- humans want their lives to having meaning, and this will somehow result in all of that stuff being done, anyway? All against the backdrop of a culture that is steadily moving away from one that values hard work in a moral sense? I'm skeptical.