[prawn]

One suggested weakness of UBI is a lack of purpose. I wonder if the "solution" is somewhat as you implied: jobs without a strict return on investment. You get your stipend, but you're keeping your block clean by sweeping and mulching. They're getting theirs in exchange for cranking out sourdough at cost for the neighbourhood. Someone else gardens for elderly residents.

[jmrm]

Not UBI per se, but this exists in rural parts of Southern Spain in some way, and is called Rural Employment Plan (PER in its Spanish initials).

The give simple jobs, like cleaning or painting, to people on the lower bottom of earnings. Most people in that plan are people with low formation, like those who left school in their mid teens.

[RGamma]

In Germany: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme (use a translator, the English page only has generic info on job creation programs)

[sanex]

Sounds like a minimum wage

[prawn]

Maybe a bit like the CCC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

[seventytwo]

The CCC needs to come back

[sdenton4]

More like a labor subsidy, backed by taxes... Which would need a minimum wage law as well.

This seems like a great idea to me! Making it cheaper for businesses to hire people for these jobs would lower prices for everyone, improving accessibility of the services.

[_heimdall]

I may just be missing how this would work.

How would this help lower prices? The taxes have to be paid for by someone, and that cost should largely end up landing on the consumer.

It seems like we'd be changing who's hands the money moves through, but it still has to be paid for one way or another. If that's the case we'd risk higher prices since taxes have to subsidize prices and cover all the costs of running the program in the first place.

[sdenton4]

Tax the rich, and use the funds to pay a portion of the wages in targeted jobs, reducing the amount that the business has to pay to hit minimum wage. Then businesses continue competing on prices, but have substantially lower labor costs, bringing down prices for everyone.

In the end, you use money from the rich to pay for socially beneficial jobs. Exactly the sort of thing government is for: ensuring that social goods are provided.

[_heimdall]

That's an extremely complex economic change, I wouldn't be so certain we know exactly what would happen.

Taxing the rich can have unintended consequences. First you have to change the tax code so they actually get taxed and can't dodge it, those rules alone would be difficult to write effectively and would likely mean changing other parts of our tax code that impact everyone. If the rich do get taxed enough to cover a good chunk of wages, demand for luxury items would go down so too then would the jobs that make those products and services.

Once subsidized by a UBI, at best workers will continue to work at the same levels they do now. There will be an incentive for them to work less though, potentially driving up the labor costs you are trying to reduce. How do we accurately predict how many workers will reduce their hours or leave the workforce entirely? And how do we predict what that would do to prices?

The idea of taxing the rich to bail out everyone else is too often boiled down to a simple lever that, when pulled, magically fixes everything without any risk of unintended side effects.

[6510]

That's just a cultural bias blind spot. It can be easily cured by finding a child, pointing your finger at them then say the magic words: "You must feel useless without a job!"

I had to watch this office space clip again just to be sure. https://youtu.be/Fy3rjQGc6lA ah yes, the meaning of life. ha-ha I love the classics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdU9v5nLKQ

A much more terrible issue we suffer from already is that without participating we forget how our civilization works. Having a job gives you at least a tiny bit of insight that may partially map to other jobs.

[rightbyte]

Cleaning, gardening and baking is proper jobs though.

[Sharlin]

Funny, because lack of purpose is exactly the problem with monotonous shit jobs. Compared to being able to freely choose to do something that's meaningful to you and brings you joy. Merely being able to afford food and shelter is not a purpose. It's survival.

[small_scombrus]

That sounds utopian

[cruffle_duffle]

Oh but don’t worry I’m sure all the people who imagine these schemes assume they’ll be the ones who aren’t obsolete and forced to work menial jobs.

Very similar to how ultra hard core libertarians assume they’ll be the ones at the top of the food chain calling the shots and not be just another peasant.

But it doesn’t really matter because there is no way in hell any of these LLM’s will uproot all of society. I use LLMs all the time, they are amazing, but they aren’t gonna replace many jobs at all. They just aren’t capable of that.

[econ]

If we come to our senses it should be obvious that everyone needs to be physically active at least a few days per week, we need to condition brain plasticity, have to keep learning new things.

The available work offers the entire spectrum but we have to divide and plan it.

[starttoaster]

That sounds like a simpler life/role, not a pointless one.

[techpineapple]

Im sure I’m overidealizing, but I’ve wanted to live off grid, or maybe in a small community.

I watch these historical farm documentary tv shows, and they show how everyone in a town had a purpose and worked together, the blacksmith, the tile maker.

And I do often think the limiting factor to a life like this is the “market” so if you could create these communities, and could be an artist/artisan/builder, without strictly having to worry about making enough to live.

I met someone recently who lived in the Galapagos islands, and she seemed to sort of live this community oriented, trading anarchocapitalist lifestyle, and I think most people would be happier if they're small capitalist or socialist community involved direct interaction with people rather than dealing with soulless corpo's all the time.

[hasbot]

I've lived off-grid for three long summers (late spring to early fall). It's tremendous work. Most of the same systems exist it's just that one has to research, design, build, operate, maintain, and revise them instead of somebody else doing all that. Everybody has different goals, but for me, maintaining my own potable water system is not a goal or something I'm interested in. Living off-grid did change my perspective on some things. For example, I know now that I produce about a 4-gallon bucket of poop each month and yet my house has a tremendous sewer connection.

[rank0]

How do we determine who gets what job?

[prawn]

Let people choose if they want to do something, but have a concerted effort to encourage/suggest things that might give them purpose and build a community. Leave them to decide their hours and effort. Maybe someone wants to clean the gutters for their entire block at 6am and then go tinker in the shed for half the day. I'm sure that sounds really lazy, but this concept is working up from a default UBI that is pay-for-no-job.

I can imagine loads of tasks or jobs that would be quite pleasant if it weren't for stressing over efficiency or business admin.

[rank0]

Nobody is going to choose to be a ditch digger without a financial incentive. Most jobs worth doing are unpleasant or difficult. Thats why people pay for the labor!

I mean think about it…when was the last time you heard of charity gutter cleaning services? People would much rather enjoy their leisure time on hobbies or with family/friends.

[prawn]

Why would there not still be gutter cleaning or ditch digging companies? Or people cleaning their own gutters? I'm not familiar with UBI proposals that do away with traditional enterprises; it's generally suggested as raising the floor. People would have more time to clean their own gutters or use the money they receive to pay someone else.

In terms of charity cleaning services, there are people who clean hoarder's houses or landscape unruly yards for free on YouTube... ;)

[eloisius]

> for free on YouTube

For free on YouTube in exchange for ad revenue

[prawn]

I figured this went without saying, and the wink covered that it was barely a viable example.

[collyw]

Imagine not using an ad blocker in this day and age.

[rank0]

You provided the example…I still don’t understand why anyone would start working for free. They already have the liberty to do so and choose not to.

If the government gives out free money people will pocket it. Should not be controversial.

[prawn]

I'm talking about gutters on the street, beside the kerb. I thought this was implied after I said "keeping your block clean by sweeping and mulching". You routinely see older people in Asia sweeping and raking a communal area if you get up early to walk. There's a (probably obsessive-compulsive) 60 yo guy a few houses down from me in Australia who might've retired early and now goes around raking verges and cleaning the footpath/gutters meticulously. Near my office, there's a woman who bakes bread for the joy of it and sells it at-cost via an honour-box in a sidestreet. She also turns verges and front yards (with owners' permissions) into a community vegetable garden. If others were given an opportunity equivalent to early retirement, these sorts of things might be more common.

As for why: for purpose, for praise, for community, for mental health, for trade/contribution, for skill building, etc. Loads of examples of this already. Maybe none of these things are attractive to you but I don't think that's universal.

Like I said, it's just trying to add to the default UBI, not getting everyone volunteering in their community or else.

[ldoughty]

The idea behind UBI is that people do jobs that they want to do...

[rank0]

Right! So everyone would choose to pursue passions/interests/leisure. We would be going into debt with no meaningful benefit to the taxpayer. Direct malinvestment.

[fhd2]

This is drawing a line between "us" (tax paying citizens + the government) and "them" (people on benefits). I don't think it's that simple.

I imagine just like with existing benefits, the majority of people wouldn't feel great about being on UBI doing nothing, and they would pursue something that gives them a better social standing, a better sense of purpose, a good challenge, whatever motivates an individual. It's why lots of people do volunteer work, work on important open source software, and so on. Sure, there's outliers that actually proudly slack off, but you don't address specific problems with generic solutions.

But more importantly, having the _option_ to fall back on benefits means people need to take fewer risks to pursue their talents and likely be of more value to society than if they did whatever puts food on the table today. Case in point: People born into a family that can finance them through college are more likely to become engineers than people born into poor households. On the flip side, some people do white collar jobs vs something like being a medic to uphold their standard of living from the higher salary, not out of preference.

I think it would need careful management, but I believe there's every reason to be optimistic.

[pishpash]

UBI isn't even needed if there's just universal housing, medical care, food and education. People will find enough work to get the rest, even if it's through barter.

[rank0]

Dude...I mean this in the nicest way possible and only say it cause I think it's important for everyone to understand:

People work for money. If a job has no pay, you can't expect it to get done.

We need people to actually run hospitals, produce food, construct shelter/infrastructure, provide childcare/education, etc.

[prawn]

What UBI proposals are you reading that do away with actual jobs? There would still be jobs for people doing those things you described.

[cudgy]

Isn’t the investment to avoid a revolution? To avoid those that cannot find work from dismantling and tearing down everything around them so they can get what they need. Some might consider that to be a benefit to taxpayers and not a poor investment.

[rank0]

Free money never works. It’s been attempted countless times. In fact, it exacerbates the wealth gap as the rich own assets that scale with inflation while the poor do not.

[blackqueeriroh]

It seems to me that you’re confused about what people enjoy doing.

Also, it’s fascinating that you say “no benefit to the taxpayer” as if the taxpayer not having to work is somehow not a benefit?

[bluebarbet]

>It seems to me that you’re confused

A conversation that starts like this is not going to go well.

[borgdefenser]

No, you just live in a bubble of smart and really driven people.

The vast majority of people's passions are partying, sex, alcohol/drugs, watching sports, gossiping, generally wasting time. Things that mostly

This whole line of thought to me is embarrassingly clueless, naive and basically childish.

It is just mind blowing to me how smart people can't see what a bubble they live in.

I almost suspect, the higher a person's IQ, the more susceptible they are to living in a bubble that basically has nothing to do with the majority of people with an IQ of 100.

[Galaxeblaffer]

there's no reason we couldn't incentivize the important jobs..

[_heimdall]

How do you make sure that enough people want to do the necessary jobs?

And why do you need money at all in that scenario, at least for the basic items the UBI intends to make affordable to all? Why not just make them free and available to everyone?

[vidarh]

You pay for them, on top of UBI.

No UBI proposal I'm aware of proposes UBI replaces salaries or is high enough to satisfy everyone. The "B" is for basic. Most people are not satisfied with earning a basic salary.

[_heimdall]

I was very surprised during the pandemic response to see how many people were happy to take government checks plus unemployment rather than working.

I know a few people with small businesses in various manufacturing industries. They all had a really hard time finding enough people to work while stimulus checks were going out.

People wouldn't make quite as much, but they were happy to stay home and have the basics for "free" rather than have a job.

[saagarjha]

Perhaps this is more a statement of the working conditions there than a comment on what people actually want to do.

[tirant]

That's the most anti-social aspect of the UBI.

Historically, jobs or professions always existed around the intrinsic motivation of the person working and around the needs of the society around that person.

So you could become a poet, but if you do not write poems that people like you would starve. Or you could become a farmer and provide the best apples in your city and you will earn a more than deserve income.

That's why free economies have developed historically so much better than any centrally planned economy.