[philwelch]

Jobs provide more than income, they also help with self-esteem and prevent idleness, which in turn keeps things like crime down. I think useless make-work jobs are ultimately more feasible than guaranteed income for those reasons.

[MBlume]

> prevent idleness, which in turn keeps things like crime down

This, this right here is exactly the kind of puritan thinking I find infuriating.

Seriously, leisure as a terminal negative term in your utility function?! Never mind the people who are going to use the time to learn, to create art and share it, to spend time with their families -- if we don't shackle people to their counters and desks, they'll be rioting in the streets!

How much theft/violence do you think is driven by need, by looking for a way to get by? If anything, I would expect violence and theft to go down.

[philwelch]

Having been quite the slacker, I assure you there are massively diminishing returns to leisure time, unless you turn it into work. If you don't get anything done, you feel worthless. Maybe 20 hours a week is enough, but no work at all isn't good for you. Rioting in the streets is exactly what the welfare class of Britain did mere months ago.

Art and study could certainly be more heavily subsidized, though. But I would count those as types of work.

[rms]

Agreed with parent that this is basically a Puritan attitude. This idea that one creates self-worth via work is not anything like a cultural absolute. One of my favorite things about Balinese culture is that they don't have the idea that poverty is vice.

[philwelch]

Maybe it's a Puritan attitude, but is it wrong? Who cares about cultural universals; if the Balinese are happier as impoverished slackers, live and let live.