[ POLL ] An Argument Against Universal Basic Income.
30 Apr 2020, 12:10 pm
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
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 have a job.
Employers don't want someone with a negative or grumpy disposition whether they do the job well or not. The truth is one has to put on this front especially during the interview. If I'm a grumpy person and do the job well and others complain about my disposition how long will I last there. If I'm a no nonsense, I hate this s**t but we got to get it done type of person yet those around me hate that because it brings down their positive disposition will I last long? Or will my grumpy disposition bring those down around me thereby productivity goes down? Truth is one has to pretend to be positive and have an energetic disposition whether one has one or not. If one doesn't then one has to front.
Employers want people with energetic personalities not just those who do the job well. Doing the job well is necessary but not sufficient to get and remain in employment. When asked the question "why do you want to work here what was your answer?
Here's the thing. I'm a grump. I hate people. I hate work. I hate doing work. I have a major allergy to BS. But, I know I got to get the s**t done. I will bust my ass but to be energetic or enthuasitic about it and pretend to love and like it which employers demand and to have this energetic personality makes me nothing but a liar, a fraud, a pretender, and a charlatan.
The workplace has become like a daycare center.
I just wish we would all drop the prentiousness and the facade, acknowledge we hate this s**t, roll up our sleeves and get the f**k to work.
Nope. Some employers might be like that, but most don't seem to care as long as you do your job and don't cause trouble... or maybe that's just how things are here? I live in Northern Europe, and here it is said that appearances and fake smiles are considered way more important in USA than here. Maybe that's true?
30 Apr 2020, 2:00 pm
Fireblossom wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
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 have a job.
Employers don't want someone with a negative or grumpy disposition whether they do the job well or not. The truth is one has to put on this front especially during the interview. If I'm a grumpy person and do the job well and others complain about my disposition how long will I last there. If I'm a no nonsense, I hate this s**t but we got to get it done type of person yet those around me hate that because it brings down their positive disposition will I last long? Or will my grumpy disposition bring those down around me thereby productivity goes down? Truth is one has to pretend to be positive and have an energetic disposition whether one has one or not. If one doesn't then one has to front.
Employers want people with energetic personalities not just those who do the job well. Doing the job well is necessary but not sufficient to get and remain in employment. When asked the question "why do you want to work here what was your answer?
Here's the thing. I'm a grump. I hate people. I hate work. I hate doing work. I have a major allergy to BS. But, I know I got to get the s**t done. I will bust my ass but to be energetic or enthuasitic about it and pretend to love and like it which employers demand and to have this energetic personality makes me nothing but a liar, a fraud, a pretender, and a charlatan.
The workplace has become like a daycare center.
I just wish we would all drop the prentiousness and the facade, acknowledge we hate this s**t, roll up our sleeves and get the f**k to work.
Nope. Some employers might be like that, but most don't seem to care as long as you do your job and don't cause trouble... or maybe that's just how things are here? I live in Northern Europe, and here it is said that appearances and fake smiles are considered way more important in USA than here. Maybe that's true?
Interesting. I'm from the USA. Maybe it's employers in the USA then. Can you tell me more about the employment culture there please?
01 May 2020, 3:39 am
^ Hm well, one of the important things is that you can't fire someone for not liking them. To fire someone, that someone needs to either be unable to handle their job and any other job the company had open and could move them to instead or to make some really big mistakes (like breaking something important) or constantly make small mistakes (like always being late.) One can also be laid off if the company can no longer afford as many workers, but that's not exactly the same as getting fired.
Coworkers too care most about others not causing them extra work or such. People do look at me weirdly for not socializing with them as much as they consider normal, but they get used to it after a while when they realize that I'm not causing them trouble, either.
Other than that I don't really know what to tell you about without a more specific question.
01 May 2020, 5:06 am
Fireblossom wrote:
^ Hm well, one of the important things is that you can't fire someone for not liking them. To fire someone, that someone needs to either be unable to handle their job and any other job the company had open and could move them to instead or to make some really big mistakes (like breaking something important) or constantly make small mistakes (like always being late.) One can also be laid off if the company can no longer afford as many workers, but that's not exactly the same as getting fired.
Coworkers too care most about others not causing them extra work or such. People do look at me weirdly for not socializing with them as much as they consider normal, but they get used to it after a while when they realize that I'm not causing them trouble, either.
Other than that I don't really know what to tell you about without a more specific question.
Coworkers too care most about others not causing them extra work or such. People do look at me weirdly for not socializing with them as much as they consider normal, but they get used to it after a while when they realize that I'm not causing them trouble, either.
Other than that I don't really know what to tell you about without a more specific question.
Here, it is at will! Meaning, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
01 May 2020, 1:16 pm
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
^ Hm well, one of the important things is that you can't fire someone for not liking them. To fire someone, that someone needs to either be unable to handle their job and any other job the company had open and could move them to instead or to make some really big mistakes (like breaking something important) or constantly make small mistakes (like always being late.) One can also be laid off if the company can no longer afford as many workers, but that's not exactly the same as getting fired.
Coworkers too care most about others not causing them extra work or such. People do look at me weirdly for not socializing with them as much as they consider normal, but they get used to it after a while when they realize that I'm not causing them trouble, either.
Other than that I don't really know what to tell you about without a more specific question.
Coworkers too care most about others not causing them extra work or such. People do look at me weirdly for not socializing with them as much as they consider normal, but they get used to it after a while when they realize that I'm not causing them trouble, either.
Other than that I don't really know what to tell you about without a more specific question.
Here, it is at will! Meaning, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
That's what I've heard, yes. I'd say our system is better, but the downside is that if you (as the boss) have given someone a long term contract and they become lazy after that because they've gotten a secure position, it's really hard to get rid of them.
01 May 2020, 10:24 pm
Fireblossom wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
^ Hm well, one of the important things is that you can't fire someone for not liking them. To fire someone, that someone needs to either be unable to handle their job and any other job the company had open and could move them to instead or to make some really big mistakes (like breaking something important) or constantly make small mistakes (like always being late.) One can also be laid off if the company can no longer afford as many workers, but that's not exactly the same as getting fired.
Coworkers too care most about others not causing them extra work or such. People do look at me weirdly for not socializing with them as much as they consider normal, but they get used to it after a while when they realize that I'm not causing them trouble, either.
Other than that I don't really know what to tell you about without a more specific question.
Coworkers too care most about others not causing them extra work or such. People do look at me weirdly for not socializing with them as much as they consider normal, but they get used to it after a while when they realize that I'm not causing them trouble, either.
Other than that I don't really know what to tell you about without a more specific question.
Here, it is at will! Meaning, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
That's what I've heard, yes. I'd say our system is better, but the downside is that if you (as the boss) have given someone a long term contract and they become lazy after that because they've gotten a secure position, it's really hard to get rid of them.
I would document then to show how they're become lazy.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
04 May 2020, 10:52 am
No magic involved. If you are capable, then effort and perseverance is all it takes.
If you are incapable, then not even incessant complaining will help.
_________________
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
04 May 2020, 10:56 am
auntblabby wrote:
tell that to the ableists infesting the GOP. you know, the ones that keep pushing the ol' trickle down koolaid.
I would rather have no contact with those ignorant, illegitimate, sunzabeotches, thank you very much!
_________________
04 May 2020, 11:23 am
SSI ,un employment and under employment servises and servises for disabled including job retraining for disability already exist. You wish to add universal income.... All of societies ills would easily be magnified .. There needs to be incentives to better ones self for long term individuals hope.
And yes , i think this would further encourage disencentive for people to work. If you want something better while on this type of existence , universal income , then why not just clunk someone less capable then you , in the head and take it ,, as is almost the case, now.
This idea is based on a society based on principals .. Not including people here i believe, there are many who would choose the easy way out. Am not going to start listing them , but being disabled widow , have been a magnet for these types .. masquerading as all kinds of goodness.
They seem to be endemic to our current society . Do you suppose that might improve with Universal income .. By all means , yes if this came to pass tax the wealthy whom have more money than Gawd.
But please remember if you do, these people are prepared.. they will just move their assets somewhere else with no tax for this type of stuff.. Historically it has been true .
But still the taxes have to come out of someones pocket . And once you tax the life outta someone or something, they move to a better finacial climate or just abandon hope of getting ahead.. and
figuratively just give up. Leading to more un employment and more ills on society so the circle continues.. Just offering thoughts on this topic ....
_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
04 May 2020, 11:27 am
UBI is supposed to do away with all the other bennies such as unemployment insurance, general welfare and such. in that way it is more economical in the long run, what with a vast reduction in the bureaucracy in charge of those other benefits. it can be run out of the IRS utilizing tax code changes.
04 May 2020, 11:30 am
auntblabby wrote:
UBI is supposed to do away with all the other bennies such as unemployment insurance, general welfare and such. in that way it is more economical in the long run, what with a vast reduction in the bureaucracy in charge of those other benefits. it can be run out of the IRS utilizing tax code changes.
That's the first good argument for UBI I see!
Though, I still think universal healthcare and quality education should go first.
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
04 May 2020, 11:34 am
auntblabby wrote:
UBI is supposed to do away with all the other bennies such as unemployment insurance, general welfare and such. in that way it is more economical in the long run, what with a vast reduction in the bureaucracy in charge of those other benefits. it can be run out of the IRS utilizing tax code changes.
Makes sense -- just put all of the bennies under one monthly or bi-weekly payment and be done with it.The only restriction I might add is that if someone goes to prison, then their payments go toward paying for the expense of keeping them in prison. Last I checked, the cost of keeping someone in prison was somewhere in the range of $35,000 to $50,000 per year (but I don't have the source for that claim).
_________________
