Fnord wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
... Just because people would be allowed to leave the jobs they don't like and still get UBI, most people wouldn't because they wouldn't be able to afford any hobbies or other things that took money. Some would, but even out of them, most would get tired of such a lifestyle eventually and return to the workforce, even if they can't get a job they like. So yes, I suppose it would work, as long as it's made sure that the money is used on necessary stuff and the people won't do things like eat out, go to movies or buy brand clothes...
So it seems that a "Bare Essentials" UBI policy would not go over well. It seems that some people would rather not earn those "extras" you mentioned, and would quit a well-paying job they don't like if they could get those luxury items for free.
Pretty soon there would be neighborhoods full of "Welfare Royalty" who have no idea of the true value of what they have, and who have no idea of how literally rewarding a full day's labor can be.Let me ask you and Fireblossom this. Would either of you want people who don't want to be in employment to work for either of you? I'm talking about the clock watchers and those who can't wait to leave and go home.
Now, with the current system in place these types who will be forced to be employed or not eat will simply be forced to put on an act. As in, pretend to be enthusiastic about working there. All those types will do is know the right tone, say the right things and give the expected personality to the employer. Employer hires them and they sold themselves by faking, lying and pretending. And, all they will do is what is minimally required of them and they will do anything and everything to get out of work and getting the paid the most. Is this what you guys want?
You have UBI with some extra spending money not only would you help contribute to the economy but by deincentiving these types from going into employment and pursuing what they wish to pursue wouldn't the productivity of your companies go up because the only people you have there would be those who actually want to be there.
You guys may see what I'm suggesting as bad and negative and what I'm suggesting is counter-intutitive to everything you accept to be true but why don't we try something radically different? Let's see what happens. Maybe try it in a city or state and let's just see what the heck happens.
Fnord, when you said and I'm paraphrasing "if you can't handle employment then stay home." Why can't some do just that? This is an awesome idea you came up with which I took further. Maybe, just maybe we could have some indirect benefits from what I am suggesting. Why don't we pay people to stay home and in fact maybe to get that "more" past the basic UBI maybe they would have to show they're doing something productive like maybe inventing a new OS, new form of rocket engine, even creating differing apps, or even growing a garden and giving food to the homeless? Maybe this could solve the whole being a parasite problem.
And, by the way there is no such thing as 0% unemployment anyway.
If a person like that did the things that are written in their job contract and what they're getting paid for then I'd have no problem hiring them. From the perspective of a business owner, it's better to have someone who hates the job but does it well than someone who loves the job but does it poorly.
I don't like my job, but I don't fake. I'm glad to
a job.
30 Apr 2020, 4:08 am
the world should have been better made for people like us. 
