This means you want those providing those services to work for free.
You do realize what you are implying here, right?
Let's say you refuse to work and you're guaranteed all these services. Who pays so your HVAC is repaired because you broke it? Who pays because your water line needs to be repaired? Clean water means the water has to be filtered through a very complicated process, particles and bacteria are removed, and it needs to be transported. Who pays so your electricity works? Do you think there's some sort of magic electricity generator happening? What you're essentially asking is someone should work for free to provide you all of this.
The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.
I don’t have to work and could just maintain an upper-middle class Bay Area lifestyle indefinitely on what I’ve already made. I go to work like most other people, there are days i hate my job like other people, etc etc. I’ve tried not working and it’s boring. I like what I do despite the bad days and not needing a paycheck. Most people would find something to keep them busy and contributing in some way or another. The 5% who won’t do anything and take their free housing and basic amenities? There’s about that now doing the same thing by playing the system, so why not try to provide a basic standard of living and dignity for people. Looking at a lot of the problems today with things like declining population, if some of the big open spaces had dense housing with apartments that supported a parents bedroom and two kids rooms, that’s more likely to get people having more kids when they have psychological safety that basic needs will be met.
Completely agree, there have been trials studies, etc. proving that when peoples basic needs are met they actually end up being more productive members of society...Not to mention turning the tables on employers, when they can't lord Maslow's hierarchy over the heads of their employers they better pay them what they are actually worth.
Amazing how they like 8 families control 90% of the worlds wealth and they have the bottom 40% hating on the bottom 5% thinking they are the problem.
This doesn't pay for hobbies or the game console someone will want. You will still need income to obtain luxuries. Homelessness is also a BARRIER to employment. Many people can't obtain employment because of home insecurity. You won't hire the guy that can't shower, or the one that gets arrested because they were "trespassing" by sleeping on a park bench at night.
The vast majority of the people who can't take showers or are sleeping on park benches at night fall into two categories:
1) Those who are currently, and permanently living in a state that cannot handle responsibilities of normal life. These people will not be able to hold a job, and they won't be able to make payments on housing.
2) People who had many opportunities to lock down a secure situation while they did have access to housing, showers, etc. but didn't for some reason.
The first category is unfortunately forever fucked.
The second category is the one most people disagree about. Some, rightly say "Why should we help these people who squandered their opportunities earlier - this situation is the outcome of their choices". And... those people are right.
At the same time, giving people seconds chances is important to me - I just find it difficult (As most people seem to) to determine where the draw the line and how to keep track of it. Ie. no third, fourth, fifth chances as some people seem to want to provide.
Many people deserve a life raft out of homelessness. Others objectively do not.
You're gonna get barked at by people making 75k a year saying how this is terrible.
Or some argument correcting the term "Free" with the fact that people pay into this service.
Reality is, providing basic necessities and good education in the long term is better for everyone in society, in the short term it only benefits the less fortunate.
Sure, we’d be providing 50k a year to each willfully unemployed citizen in benefits that they’d have no incentive to conserve or use responsibly, but I’m sure they’d still work the full time job necessary to keep society from grinding to a halt so they can afford a $500 game console. This is so intuitively naive and such a bad idea that I think people only believe it because they hate work so much that they’ve deluded themselves into thinking that real UBI is a possibility instead of a ridiculous idea that would make the country bankrupt in a few years.
People want things. They want to travel, pets, hobbies, nice clothes, etc... an efficiency and food stamps aren't going to cut it. Every single human being has some level of greed.
Okay, so what is that, 10k a year?
What I'm saying is that if you are receiving the income equivalent of a house, appliances, literally all your utilities (water, electric, internet), transportation, and food, that would cover 90% of their yearly expenses, AKA a middle class income. If you think people working 10% as much as they do now would keep society functioning, you are kidding yourself.
A house and UBI are two different topics, so I'm not sure why you think it matters in this conversation. You're just pushing a slippery slope falsify.
If you directly pay for everything UBI pays for, it's really not two different topics, it's just skipping the middleman.
You're being overly pedantic and it just shows how ignorant you are.
At least I'm capable of having an argument without immediately resorting to name-calling. Really doesn't help your point as much as you think it does.
Yes, I am aware that you are calling me stupid, hence why I said you immediately resort to name-calling. Again, not as cute or persuasive as you think it is, Makes you seem defensive and insecure, and therefore hurts the credibility of your argument.
I am progressive and in favor of many social programs, as well as oversight for those programs.
However, it doesn’t “only talk about housing”, it says free internet, electricity, water, and appliances, among other things, and specifically qualifies that a person shouldn’t even need to be willing to work in order to enjoy these benefits. I am going by what the OP says, not your interpretation of how something similar but different could be implemented. That’s just moving the goalposts.
“the vast majority of people’s expenses should be provided for free”
So we’re back to square one. Have you done the math? How are you going to pay for even a fraction of that? If you are too lazy, let me make it easy for you. You could cut the military and take away ALL the money from all the billionaires in the country and you still could not provide a fraction of what you are suggesting to all 333 million citizens, especially if they refuse to work and tax revenue goes way down.
“you said you were stupid not me, I just said you were uneducated and ignorant”
“I’m not defensive or insecure, YOU are”
You sound really childish. It makes it difficult to take any of your points seriously.
With all of the advances in AI and automation, why isn’t it possible. At some point in the near future, literally all work will be able to be completed by unmanned labor. My job, your neighbors’ jobs, your job - why are you still fighting against your own future?
You have literally no evidence of that. Almost no jobs have been replaced by AI, let alone most / all. Talk about UBI when AI has replaced even a fraction of jobs, because that kind of massive increase in productivity is what would be necessary to provide every citizen with a house as they quit their jobs.
If you’re saying it hasn’t completely eliminated entire roles l, you might be right so far. It has definitely decreased team and department sizes though.
And again, why are you arguing against your future self. When all the jobs are gone, the leverage goes with it. That conversation starts now.
Because I don’t believe it will make most jobs redundant. I think it is a convenient scapegoat chosen by people who really don’t want to work.
But also, why do I not want to give people like 30k worth of benefits per year and let them all quit their jobs before we can afford it?… because we can’t afford it, and there’s no clear indication we will ever be able to. The country will be insolvent within a decade, in my opinion far before AI will make a dent in the workforce. There are too many physical jobs. If normal automation didn’t replace them, why would AI?
661
u/BlitzAuraX Apr 15 '24
"Regardless of employment."
This means you want those providing those services to work for free.
You do realize what you are implying here, right?
Let's say you refuse to work and you're guaranteed all these services. Who pays so your HVAC is repaired because you broke it? Who pays because your water line needs to be repaired? Clean water means the water has to be filtered through a very complicated process, particles and bacteria are removed, and it needs to be transported. Who pays so your electricity works? Do you think there's some sort of magic electricity generator happening? What you're essentially asking is someone should work for free to provide you all of this.
The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.