Is a Universal Basic Income(UBI) coming?

a reply to: soficrow

I dont know. I ran several shops with @50 employees each....about 10% were self motivated. The rest needed structure to work in. I can see your point if some structure is provided, but to leave everyone to their own devices....no way would that work.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Example not relevant imho - job descriptions tend to restrict, not just define. But yeah, our culture is designed to raise compliant slave-peons who do not think for themselves (or motivate themselves) - starting with early child-rearing practices based on corporal punishment, through schooling and on to the corporate-military disciplines.

And yes, I know (knew) several people who died within a couple of years of retiring, simply because they could not function without externally imposed "structure." But I also know a lot more people who just blossomed when they lost the reins.

Seems to me that age breeds freedom in restrictive societies - and a few simple changes to child-rearing and schooling approaches would allow the young to adapt more quickly.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Given enough time and freedom, most people eventually seek out some form of structure for themselves. Some take longer than others depending on their work ethic and how they feel about their current jobs. The majority of people try to become productive on their own if given the opportunity though.

a reply to: soficrow

I would love to believe that, I really would, but then I think of "Lord of the Flies". I also think back to Katrina and the total breakdown of society. Also the craziness going on in Europe due to a lack of structure with the immigrants. I know there are plenty of examples showing the opposite, but I would argue most people nowadays are not mentally equipped to operate outside of a structured environment. I would include myself in that as well, just because I dont know how I would react if the lights really did go out.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Ah yes. Katrina. And "Lord of the Flies." A brilliant indictment of corporate-military child-rearing principles. Uncivilized. ...I agree our societies need a better educational foundation to move forward in a civilized manner.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: lakenheath24

Given enough time and freedom, most people eventually seek out some form of structure for themselves. Some take longer than others depending on their work ethic and how they feel about their current jobs. The majority of people try to become productive on their own if given the opportunity though.

I think so too. But lakenheath24 has some good observations. Many substantiated right here on ATS. ...I am an anarchist - intellectually, emotionally and intuitively. But that all goes out the window when I see the hate, brutality and savagery online - the overwhelming mass of intellectual toddlers, all obviously abused physically, emotionally, psychically, and giving it back 10-fold.

Golding nailed it. Given a corporate-military upbringing, and absent authoritarian structure, there is no civilization.

originally posted by: soficrow
I think so too. But lakenheath24 has some good observations. Many substantiated right here on ATS. ...I am an anarchist - intellectually, emotionally and intuitively. But that all goes out the window when I see the hate, brutality and savagery online - the overwhelming mass of intellectual toddlers, all obviously abused physically, emotionally, psychically, and giving it back 10-fold.

Golding nailed it. Given a corporate-military upbringing, and absent authoritarian structure, there is no civilization.

Structure is a good thing, but structure doesn't necessarily mean earning a wage. I've known a lot of people in my life that were either trust fund recipients or getting a wage such as disability. Rich and poor with passive incomes. It's not necessarily true for all of them, but the vast majority still eventually settled on doing something productive with their time. Whether that was hobbies, philanthropy, self improvement, or anything else. It didn't require an outside force to mandate work, people sought productive activity out on their own.

That said, there's one aspect of human psychology that wages do have going for it. Humans are hierarchical, we love to quantify the situations of ourselves and others, and to look to some group that we can say we're doing better than. It doesn't really seem to matter how many we're doing better than so long as examples are readily available. When people legitimately don't see that, most either lie to themselves and change their valuations, or they turn to crime. This is actually why I think Communism failed, it had nothing to do with self interest for working harder, but rather everything to do with the fact that no one could look at themselves and say they're better than X, because they all had the same resources. This is why government power was so highly sought too (or is sought in China), it's an external measurement of being better than some other group or individual.

If wages were to be eliminated, and large swaths of people all ended up on the same UBI I think you would see the same issue. As a species we seem to need some inequality as motivation and that involves having some artificial structure in society that provides a ladder for people to climb.

a reply to: Aazadan

I gave you a star, but not because I agree. I don't. ...Anecdotal disclosure: I am not competitive and raised an uncompetitive child - yes, it can be a bit of a drawback in a professional milieu but both of us are astoundingly self-motivated (and self-assured, self-confident, self-possessed, et al). It works on a personal level. Moreover, there are examples of communities where it was shown to work well. ...Also, I'm sure you know of motivational research and studies that disprove the generality of your statements.

[Sorry, got distracted thinking about LeGuin's Omelas story. ]

a reply to: Aazadan

That's interesting, but what happens when you apply those passive incomes to a global scale? I would argue that productivity, advancement, and the like would just stop. Did those individuals provide for the greater good of society, or was the benefit within their own clan?
I would also point to East and West Germany to see what happens between 2 different societies and the difference in ingenuity, art, and culture. It seems most of human advancement comes after a war or some such chaos.
I completely agree with your assessment of needing to compete with others. It's how we evolve, otherwise we would still be using stone tools.

a reply to: soficrow

Good God, Omelas sounds like Hell! This is why I have my doubts there is a Heaven....I would get bored and I am not a pearls or gold kind of guy.
Can you link to one of those studies please? I would like to read that. Again, I could see your point on a tribal scale where one is insular, but there is always someone ready to crush said society as being weak. It seems to be in our DNA.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Here ya go.

Increasing motivation in low-achieving students

Traditional classroom structures center on an ability-based system where each student’s achievement is compared to others’ and measured by grades. An increasing body of research indicates that a more student-centered approach in a noncompetitive classroom setting can increase intrinsic motivation, while grades can actually decrease it. In one study, student-centered goals, used over three days, led to greater effectiveness, skill and persistence. In the longest experimental study so far, lasting for one school year, those in experimental classrooms using a student-centered approach showed more positive attitudes to school, had higher self-concepts, preferred more challenging work and showed more intrinsic motivation than students in the control group

RE: " there is always someone ready to crush said society as being weak. It seems to be in our DNA." ...What if the society was global?

I've thought about this for a very long time.

I think that if you give society just enough to cover food, housing, medical and maybe a little extra for whatnot that you'd be surprised how many people would still seek employment, however they'd seek employment doing something they have a passion for or are talented at.

The majority of people are not content just doing nothing, people get bored very easily and even entertainment can become boring.

I think a dawn of human involvement is at hand, where we will see that we do want to collectively help others out and evolve technology.

I think we will move from this " make myself money while doing nothing of real importance " to this " make humanity better and I feel good while doing it " mentality.

I know it's hard to think of the whole population as this HIVE mind type that want's to better ourselves and our surroundings, but it's our next logical step of evolution. To really understand we're the same and if we don't work with one another we're working against one another and that's not productive.

Life adapts but within a means of evolution.

originally posted by: Tranceopticalinclined
I've thought about this for a very long time.

I think that if you give society just enough to cover food, housing, medical and maybe a little extra for whatnot that you'd be surprised how many people would still seek employment, however they'd seek employment doing something they have a passion for or are talented at.

The majority of people are not content just doing nothing, people get bored very easily and even entertainment can become boring.

I think a dawn of human involvement is at hand, where we will see that we do want to collectively help others out and evolve technology.

I think we will move from this " make myself money while doing nothing of real importance " to this " make humanity better and I feel good while doing it " mentality.

I know it's hard to think of the whole population as this HIVE mind type that want's to better ourselves and our surroundings, but it's our next logical step of evolution. To really understand we're the same and if we don't work with one another we're working against one another and that's not productive.

Life adapts but within a means of evolution.

Very nice contribution.

originally posted by: soficrow
I gave you a star, but not because I agree. I don't. ...Anecdotal disclosure: I am not competitive and raised an uncompetitive child - yes, it can be a bit of a drawback in a professional milieu but both of us are astoundingly self-motivated (and self-assured, self-confident, self-possessed, et al). It works on a personal level. Moreover, there are examples of communities where it was shown to work well. ...Also, I'm sure you know of motivational research and studies that disprove the generality of your statements.

I'm a non competitive person as well, but that doesn't mean I don't have to compete, I do... or someone else has to on my behalf. There's a limited number of jobs, resources, etc in the world. If you do absolutely nothing, you will get none of them. Because we live in a highly competitive society everything is ultimately some form of competition. Right now ATS is competing with everything else out there for my time. The device I'm typing this on is competing with every other device out there for my dollars. Even by me choosing to be on ATS right now, it can be distilled to me deciding I don't need to focus on some aspect of self improvement to compete, or to flip that around I could argue that writing on ATS itself is me competing by practicing communicating my thoughts.

Everything in life is a competition, you don't have to try to win, but you can't get away from the fact that others are looking at what you're doing, and attempting to compare themselves favorably to you in order to satisfy their own egos. That satisfaction is what leads to people trying harder in life and ultimately producing something of value.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
That's interesting, but what happens when you apply those passive incomes to a global scale? I would argue that productivity, advancement, and the like would just stop. Did those individuals provide for the greater good of society, or was the benefit within their own clan?
I would also point to East and West Germany to see what happens between 2 different societies and the difference in ingenuity, art, and culture. It seems most of human advancement comes after a war or some such chaos.
I completely agree with your assessment of needing to compete with others. It's how we evolve, otherwise we would still be using stone tools.

It's the same with a global or national scale. East Germany was actually quite productive as well. They didn't produce in the same way, but due to resource supply line issues, East Germany was able to engineer some very durable goods. The West created more variety, but they were also more wasteful. In the East it was the opposite. What you produce is simply a reflection of where your bottlenecks are as a society.

You can relate this into soficrows post about non competitve settings for children as well. For the most part, kids don't care about what they're learning, so they're not actually fighting with each other over grades. They have to actually be passionate about something in the first place. You could instead look at how societies have fared historically, this whole idea of kind vs harsh societies isn't new. The data is pretty clear on this, societies which have harsher rules and expect more out of people have been more advanced, and derive a greater understanding of the world. On the other hand, societies which have a gentler upbringing and focus more on letting people grow as they want, rather than as they're told to have been more enjoyable places to live and have a higher quality of life, but more primative.

a reply to: Aazadan

The data is pretty clear on this, societies which have harsher rules and expect more out of people have been more advanced, and derive a greater understanding of the world.

Said data is culture-bound, subject to (re)interpretation and so skewed it's all screwed up.

Excellent additions, thank you very much. I am so happy at this moment to engage in a non political debate!

This is a study of some teens that shows how the brain responds to "likes" from facebook....or ATS posters. LOL It's a chemical response to being liked so perhaps in the future, this need could be channeled into how people fit into society? I.E. finding jobs or positions that suit their need for inclusion.
www.psychologicalscience.org...
I would love to believe that there is change coming, but 2000 years of history make me bet against it. Soficrow called it Corporate-Military child raising, but I would call it religious child rearing. Based on scriptures I can recall, One must earn by the sweat of their brow, etc. Even the non-religious subconsciously follow these principals. To take money and do no work is almost a sin. It will take a seismic shift in attitudes to change that.

As far as East Germany, I should have picked Poland as I have been there and have some Polish employees. They were always standing in line for something, and their lives were pretty bland as the state controlled the supply and demand. They are still suspicious of people, but damn do they do some exceptional building when turned loose! Now that they are a free society, their skills can be turned loose..

originally posted by: coop039

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: coop039

The thing is you already pay for those type of people through the social programs, so why not get rid of those programs and give everyone UBI. Everyone gets the same, so there's no animosity.
If people want to live the bare minimum then so be it, they are no longer a burden on society.
A lot of people turn to crime just to make ends meet, take that burden away and some people may not feel the need to go down that route.

What happens when the number of people getting UBI exceeds the amount taxed on the working people? Sooner or later people will get tired of paying for others to do nothing.

The thing is that most people (although not all) want to feel like they are contributing to society as a whole, like they are doing something meaningful. Millennials in particular talk a lot about that, about "making an impact". Even if there will be a greater proportion of artists and writers is that necessarily a bad thing?

Nothing saps psychological resources and predisposes someone to destructive distractions and escapisms like poverty. If people have more psychological and intellectual resources to spend on contributing instead of just surviving then there is a fairly good chance that society may benefit as a whole. Who knows? Maybe this is the way to a new renaissance of sorts. Pie in the sky thinking maybe, but without stability people usually don't contribute as much as they could if they aren't just trying to exist and numb the pain.

a reply to: lakenheath24

To take money and do no work is almost a sin. It will take a seismic shift in attitudes to change that.

Europe first then?

‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor, 4% would stop working

Lotta proud sinners on this side of the pond, come and visit! You could spread the heresy on your way back then.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I am a US expat living in the UK thank you, and have traveled Europe for 16 years so I am well aware of the social programs and liberal attitudes. And you took that out of context, or else dont understand English very well. I was merely pointing out the root cause for the attitudes of many Americans towards welfare systems. It had zero to do with proselytizing.
And you can stuff your polls, ever since Brexit and Trump, I put zero faith in any poll.

Anyway, I posted a link in the OP about Finland, you musta missed that:
www.independent.co.uk...
www.forbes.com... 8676af

I would like to find an update, but the trade union piece is the only feedback I can find.

a reply to: lakenheath24

As we become masters of our own planet manual labor will become less of a requirement.

This universal basic income is the only viable option to prevent mass poverty and widespread homelessness across our respective first world nations.

Which is not to say the notion or idea will in anyway address the issues associated with the uneven distribution of wealth amungst our respective populations but it may go aways to our future generations concentrating and/or specializing in the areas of arts and science.

Then again chances are such a notion may also spit our society into two different classes.