Poll of the Day > If there were UBI, would you work?

(+) Yeah! (+)

hypnox's topic got me wondering. I would work, but maybe not the same thing I am doing now.
---

Yes, I like my job
---

You probably wont be able to. The reason they would start UBI would probably be because everything was automated.

If everything wasnt, then I guess it depends on if Ill make extra money. If I would make extra money, then yes. Because I need more money. If I wouldnt, then why would I waste my time. Though, its not like Id have much else to do...
---

DevilSummoner1 posted...

Yes, I like my job

---

Yes. The UBI likely wouldnt cover my drinking.

If it's the average pay needed to live comfortably, as in hypnox's topic, no. Well, technically yes, because I'd have to call whatever I was doing a job.
---

I dont work now, but if they tried to do ubi I would leave the country before I paid a dime into it.
---

No, but I already choose not to work
---

That depends if it was enough for me to support myself without working or not.
---

I would probably go part-time, move out of my parent's house and go to school.

---

I was unemployed for an extended period and ended up volunteering because the lack of routine and feeling useless was making me hate life. If UBI was a thing I would definitely find something productive to do with my time, though it probably wouldn't be my current job.
---

Of course i would. UBI wouldn't replace a job.

argonautweakend posted...

Of course i would. UBI wouldn't replace a job.

the basic idea of UBI is that it's enough to live on (but not luxuriously) and anything you make on top of that is still yours. so yeah you could feasibly do nothing and live just fine but it wouldn't be the high life

i'd devote my time to my writing and hopefully generate some income from that
---

Yes

I want more money
---

LinkPizza posted...

You probably wont be able to. The reason they would start UBI would probably be because everything was automated

Doesn't matter how automated the world becomes, there will always be a future in computer maintenance.
---

captpackrat posted...

LinkPizza posted...

You probably wont be able to. The reason they would start UBI would probably be because everything was automated

Doesn't matter how automated the world becomes, there will always be a future in computer maintenance.

Maybe...
---

No, because I am not a socialist; I don't expect free shit to be thrown at me for no work.
---

Maybe, I might be able to afford to find a job.

You would have to if you wanted to do anything extra.

UBI would never work, we'd have to live in commie blocks and eat the same food for it to kind of work, but it'd eventually get less and less
---

DevilSummoner1 posted...

Yes, I like my job

This. Most UBI experiments have found that people do continue to work, they just move into a field that they enjoy more that wouldn't necessarily have sustained them before, or that requires specialized training that they weren't able to get while also working enough to support themselves.

Noop_Noop posted...

I dont work now, but if they tried to do ubi I would leave the country before I paid a dime into it.

UBI is the only way anything close to anarchocapitalism can ever be realized, and you're a myopic fool for refusing to see that.
---

I would work. Hell I don't like taking time off now because more than two days off and I am bored out of my mind.
---

Given that I protest the system itself, I'd almost certainly encourage as many people as possible to stop working -- and do so myself -- to hasten its inevitable collapse.
---

captpackrat posted...

Doesn't matter how automated the world becomes, there will always be a future in computer maintenance.

Dont be so sure of that. Eventually, when A.I. becomes advanced enough, whatever jobs are needed will be very highly skilled and incredibly scarce to the point that very few people would have actual employment and they'll probably be super rich

I could do a fun job I like that wouldn't pay enough on its own to live.
---

If the job pays more than UBI; sure. Otherwise, maybe not - tacking travel expenses (to/from work) to my already near-poverty-level income would greatly bother me.
---

No, but only because Im in school right now. After graduation, yes.

Aaantlion posted...

Given that I protest the system itself, I'd almost certainly encourage as many people as possible to stop working -- and do so myself -- to hasten its inevitable collapse.

Full UBI happens after the AI can sustain human civilization autonomously, not before. You don't take out the props before you secure the beam.
---

KJ StErOiDs posted...

If the job pays more than UBI; sure. Otherwise, maybe not - tacking travel expenses (to/from work) to my already near-poverty-level income would greatly bother me.

You know the whole idea of UBI is that you get it whether you work or not, so if you worked it'd be in addition to the UBI, not instead of it.

As for me, yeah, I like my job and I'm good at it, so it's pretty fulfilling.
---

KJ StErOiDs posted...

If the job pays more than UBI; sure. Otherwise, maybe not - tacking travel expenses (to/from work) to my already near-poverty-level income would greatly bother me.

I think you would be getting money from both in this scenario. Meaning, you would get UBI and payment from the other job. As long as the other job pays enough for you to get there and back, it probably wouldnt cost you more to work. Unless youre like traveling to other states or something...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Aaantlion posted...

Given that I protest the system itself, I'd almost certainly encourage as many people as possible to stop working -- and do so myself -- to hasten its inevitable collapse.

Full UBI happens after the AI can sustain human civilization autonomously, not before. You don't take out the props before you secure the beam.

Thats true. Though, they would probably have to start UBI before that. Unless all the AIs are going to start at the same time. People are going to lose jobs and not be able to live without UBI or something. So, I feel it would also make sense to start it early for the people who were kicked out of their job because of AI, or something...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Though, they would probably have to start UBI before that.

It would probably be introduced to replace benefits to start, so it wouldn't be a full UBI, and wouldn't incur as large a tax burden.

LinkPizza posted...

People are going to lose jobs and not be able to live without UBI or something.

Same as with food stamps and stuff when people don't pay a living wage.

LinkPizza posted...

So, I feel it would also make sense to start it early for the people who were kicked out of their job because of AI, or something...

And that's exactly how it should be done, it can simply start as simplification of existing benefits in to a single benefit that's easier to manage.
---

adjl posted...

DevilSummoner1 posted...

Yes, I like my job

This. Most UBI experiments have found that people do continue to work, they just move into a field that they enjoy more that wouldn't necessarily have sustained them before, or that requires specialized training that they weren't able to get while also working enough to support themselves.

Noop_Noop posted...

I dont work now, but if they tried to do ubi I would leave the country before I paid a dime into it.

UBI is the only way anything close to anarchocapitalism can ever be realized, and you're a myopic fool for refusing to see that.

Oh look adjl opened his pedantic food trap and a bunch of garbage spilled out again.
---

Yes. $1000/mo ain't shit.
---

I would work as I do now until my debts are paid (about two years if I assume $1,000 U.S. / month for UBI), and then dial it down to working part-time.
---

Aaantlion posted...

Given that I protest the system itself, I'd almost certainly encourage as many people as possible to stop working -- and do so myself -- to hasten its inevitable collapse.

Now that's just petty. If it's working, why actively try to ruin it? If it isn't working, then continuing to work would put you at a substantial advantage over everyone around you that chose not to, once it's rolled back.

Noop_Noop posted...

Oh look adjl opened his pedantic food trap and a bunch of garbage spilled out again.

What's it like not being committed enough to any of your opinions to be able to discuss them intelligently? That sounds sad to me.
---

I wouldn't be getting UBI under Yang's proposal because you have to choose between it and other benefits. It's a f***ing terrible plan from both a left and right perspective. From the right, they think it will cost too much and engender passivity, and from the left, it's got no price anchor and it is a blatant attempt by corporatists to dismantle more economically stable social safety nets.

Now a federal job guarantee like Sanders is supporting... THAT is a transformative plan, one previous presidents said they supported but either died before they could implement it or they were just paying lip service to.
---

adjl posted...

UBI is the only way anything close to anarchocapitalism can ever be realized

Lolwut? It's damn near the complete opposite of that. UBI is like state centralized power giving an allowance to the peasantry (which would more than likely barely be enough to scrape by).

adjl posted...

Aaantlion posted...

Given that I protest the system itself, I'd almost certainly encourage as many people as possible to stop working -- and do so myself -- to hasten its inevitable collapse.

Now that's just petty. If it's working, why actively try to ruin it? If it isn't working, then continuing to work would put you at a substantial advantage over everyone around you that chose not to, once it's rolled back.

Noop_Noop posted...

Oh look adjl opened his pedantic food trap and a bunch of garbage spilled out again.

What's it like not being committed enough to any of your opinions to be able to discuss them intelligently? That sounds sad to me.

Hang on, let me reach for an adjl response:

I dunno bro, what DOES that feel like?
---

Oh wait, I've got a better adjl response

adjl posted...

That sounds sad to me.

UBI sounds sad to you? I thought you were all in favor of socialist garbage though?
---

I think some people are getting things mixed up. People keep mentioned $1000 a month. That's for Yang's VATs tax. If people got a UBI so they didn't have to work, it would be more than $1000, as $1000 a month isn't enough for most people to live on.
---

OhhhJa posted...

adjl posted...

UBI is the only way anything close to anarchocapitalism can ever be realized

Lolwut? It's damn near the complete opposite of that. UBI is like state centralized power giving an allowance to the peasantry (which would more than likely barely be enough to scrape by).

Thereby (mostly) eliminating the need to regulate employers. As it stands now, people's lives depend on being employed. Left to their own devices, employers can, do, and have exploited that, cutting corners on wages, safety, and overall working conditions because they know people will put up with such conditions when the alternative is starving in the streets. As such, regulations exist to protect employees from that exploitation, a paradigm which requires constant effort to keep those potections sufficient in a world of corporations desperately eager to erode them.

Under a UBI system, having a job is no longer a necessity of life. That means people can leave bad employers without fearing for their personal well-being, which means there no longer need to be laws preventing employers from being bad. It means minimum wage laws no longer need to exist, and businesses can actually pay people based purely on the revenue they generate. It means unpleasant and dangerous jobs actually have to pay well enough to compensate people for how unpleasant and dangerous they are (which, in turn, drives innovation because automating such jobs is a whole lot better than having to pay an arm and a leg to get anyone to do them). It means you end up with a genuinely free job market that is actually properly competitive at every level without having to be infinite. Jobs have to compete to be good enough to attract good workers, and workers compete for the best jobs without needing to settle for something terrible until they get them.

Quite simply, you can't have a free job market when one side of that market has unilateral power to threaten the lives of the other side. There's just too much of a power imbalance to call that free. Done properly, UBI takes that threat away and balances the power between employers and employees. That's the only way you're ever going to have a proper free market.

Noop_Noop posted...

-snip-

Lol, Schmen's mad.
---

adjl posted...

Quite simply, you can't have a free job market when one side of that market has unilateral power to threaten the lives of the other side. There's just too much of a power imbalance to call that free. Done properly, UBI takes that threat away and balances the power between employers and employees. That's the only way you're ever going to have a proper free market.

So UBI is the left's equivalent of the republican method of "get a small $1M loan from daddy".
---

Aww, little guy has no response when you talk to him the way he talks? Poor little dude.
---

adjl posted...

Thereby (mostly) eliminating the need to regulate employers. As it stands now, people's lives depend on being employed. Left to their own devices, employers can, do, and have exploited that, cutting corners on wages, safety, and overall working conditions because they know people will put up with such conditions when the alternative is starving in the streets. As such, regulations exist to protect employees from that exploitation, a paradigm which requires constant effort to keep those potections sufficient in a world of corporations desperately eager to erode them.

Under a UBI system, having a job is no longer a necessity of life. That means people can leave bad employers without fearing for their personal well-being, which means there no longer need to be laws preventing employers from being bad. It means minimum wage laws no longer need to exist, and businesses can actually pay people based purely on the revenue they generate. It means unpleasant and dangerous jobs actually have to pay well enough to compensate people for how unpleasant and dangerous they are (which, in turn, drives innovation because automating such jobs is a whole lot better than having to pay an arm and a leg to get anyone to do them). It means you end up with a genuinely free job market that is actually properly competitive at every level without having to be infinite. Jobs have to compete to be good enough to attract good workers, and workers compete for the best jobs without needing to settle for something terrible until they get them.

Quite simply, you can't have a free job market when one side of that market has unilateral power to threaten the lives of the other side. There's just too much of a power imbalance to call that free. Done properly, UBI takes that threat away and balances the power between employers and employees. That's the only way you're ever going to have a proper free market.

The problem with that is that when UBI becomes instated, it will probably be a necessity because there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around. Nearly everyone will be stuck scraping by on UBI unless they make money in music or arts and crafts or something. It will be a tyrannical government's wet dream. A massive peasant class that is completely at their mercy

OhhhJa posted...

adjl posted...

Thereby (mostly) eliminating the need to regulate employers. As it stands now, people's lives depend on being employed. Left to their own devices, employers can, do, and have exploited that, cutting corners on wages, safety, and overall working conditions because they know people will put up with such conditions when the alternative is starving in the streets. As such, regulations exist to protect employees from that exploitation, a paradigm which requires constant effort to keep those potections sufficient in a world of corporations desperately eager to erode them.

Under a UBI system, having a job is no longer a necessity of life. That means people can leave bad employers without fearing for their personal well-being, which means there no longer need to be laws preventing employers from being bad. It means minimum wage laws no longer need to exist, and businesses can actually pay people based purely on the revenue they generate. It means unpleasant and dangerous jobs actually have to pay well enough to compensate people for how unpleasant and dangerous they are (which, in turn, drives innovation because automating such jobs is a whole lot better than having to pay an arm and a leg to get anyone to do them). It means you end up with a genuinely free job market that is actually properly competitive at every level without having to be infinite. Jobs have to compete to be good enough to attract good workers, and workers compete for the best jobs without needing to settle for something terrible until they get them.

Quite simply, you can't have a free job market when one side of that market has unilateral power to threaten the lives of the other side. There's just too much of a power imbalance to call that free. Done properly, UBI takes that threat away and balances the power between employers and employees. That's the only way you're ever going to have a proper free market.

The problem with that is that when UBI becomes instated, it will probably be a necessity because there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around. Nearly everyone will be stuck scraping by on UBI unless they make money in music or arts and crafts or something. It will be a tyrannical government's wet dream. A massive peasant class that is completely at their mercy

I agree with this. The reason UBI would become a thing is because nobody can work. Not just because. Not just because. That's why I said it felt like forced welfare. And then people tried to tell me it wasn't. But it sure feels like it...
---

LinkPizza posted...

OhhhJa posted...

adjl posted...

Thereby (mostly) eliminating the need to regulate employers. As it stands now, people's lives depend on being employed. Left to their own devices, employers can, do, and have exploited that, cutting corners on wages, safety, and overall working conditions because they know people will put up with such conditions when the alternative is starving in the streets. As such, regulations exist to protect employees from that exploitation, a paradigm which requires constant effort to keep those potections sufficient in a world of corporations desperately eager to erode them.

Under a UBI system, having a job is no longer a necessity of life. That means people can leave bad employers without fearing for their personal well-being, which means there no longer need to be laws preventing employers from being bad. It means minimum wage laws no longer need to exist, and businesses can actually pay people based purely on the revenue they generate. It means unpleasant and dangerous jobs actually have to pay well enough to compensate people for how unpleasant and dangerous they are (which, in turn, drives innovation because automating such jobs is a whole lot better than having to pay an arm and a leg to get anyone to do them). It means you end up with a genuinely free job market that is actually properly competitive at every level without having to be infinite. Jobs have to compete to be good enough to attract good workers, and workers compete for the best jobs without needing to settle for something terrible until they get them.

Quite simply, you can't have a free job market when one side of that market has unilateral power to threaten the lives of the other side. There's just too much of a power imbalance to call that free. Done properly, UBI takes that threat away and balances the power between employers and employees. That's the only way you're ever going to have a proper free market.

The problem with that is that when UBI becomes instated, it will probably be a necessity because there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around. Nearly everyone will be stuck scraping by on UBI unless they make money in music or arts and crafts or something. It will be a tyrannical government's wet dream. A massive peasant class that is completely at their mercy

I agree with this. The reason UBI would become a thing is because nobody can work. Not just because. Not just because. That's why I said it felt like forced welfare. And then people tried to tell me it wasn't. But it sure feels like it...

It feels like it because it is.
---

Noop_Noop posted...

LinkPizza posted...

OhhhJa posted...

adjl posted...

Thereby (mostly) eliminating the need to regulate employers. As it stands now, people's lives depend on being employed. Left to their own devices, employers can, do, and have exploited that, cutting corners on wages, safety, and overall working conditions because they know people will put up with such conditions when the alternative is starving in the streets. As such, regulations exist to protect employees from that exploitation, a paradigm which requires constant effort to keep those potections sufficient in a world of corporations desperately eager to erode them.

Under a UBI system, having a job is no longer a necessity of life. That means people can leave bad employers without fearing for their personal well-being, which means there no longer need to be laws preventing employers from being bad. It means minimum wage laws no longer need to exist, and businesses can actually pay people based purely on the revenue they generate. It means unpleasant and dangerous jobs actually have to pay well enough to compensate people for how unpleasant and dangerous they are (which, in turn, drives innovation because automating such jobs is a whole lot better than having to pay an arm and a leg to get anyone to do them). It means you end up with a genuinely free job market that is actually properly competitive at every level without having to be infinite. Jobs have to compete to be good enough to attract good workers, and workers compete for the best jobs without needing to settle for something terrible until they get them.

Quite simply, you can't have a free job market when one side of that market has unilateral power to threaten the lives of the other side. There's just too much of a power imbalance to call that free. Done properly, UBI takes that threat away and balances the power between employers and employees. That's the only way you're ever going to have a proper free market.

The problem with that is that when UBI becomes instated, it will probably be a necessity because there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around. Nearly everyone will be stuck scraping by on UBI unless they make money in music or arts and crafts or something. It will be a tyrannical government's wet dream. A massive peasant class that is completely at their mercy

I agree with this. The reason UBI would become a thing is because nobody can work. Not just because. Not just because. That's why I said it felt like forced welfare. And then people tried to tell me it wasn't. But it sure feels like it...

It feels like it because it is.

I know. But when I called it that, people complained at me and said it wasn't...
---

those people want free money, and you told them they shouldn't have it.
---