A work or die mentality doesn't work. Why we deserve a basic income.

Robert Heinlein said it best.


"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”


Poverty is the normal human condition.

To add:

If my kid ever came to me with a suggestion like the OP, I'd smack him in the head and put him to work in the yard for the rest of the month.

But my kids would never say that. Because they were raised with good work ethics. They worked since they were 16, and know very well that with hard work comes the rewards.

a reply to: Benicealways

People do not need to learn to become more dependant; they need to learn to become less dependant. I would gladly pay taxes for basic skills instead of basic income.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

The law of nature would also allow someone to kill you an take your resources. We live in an artificial construct already.

You are absolutely correct, and in keeping with that fact, I have the tools and training to attempt to mitigate that possibility.

Or to put it another way... I'd like to see someone try.

a reply to: schuyler

People aren't rewarded according to effort though are they ?

Are you saying low paid workers in fast food or retail are any less hard working than investment bankers ?

The people who sweep the streets to keep them clean are less hard working than doctors ?

The bricklayers are less hard working than the architects ?

What a stupid thing to say that people are reward in this society according to effort because it's NOT true at all

There is no natural law that says we need to kill each other because this earth has been gifted with abundant resources and energy.

In fact, predatory animals can walk with their prey in peace when they are not hungry. Yet in the US people are still hungry and this it beats all other first world nations so hard in crime rates.

Also, currently everyone is getting a free ride. First, because resources are free and because a lot of the work is done by machines. We have had a jobless recovery.

Now why should only the working population be benefiting from that? Is more luxury always important than more freedom?
Is a person not valuable when it does not have a official job?

Should people be allowed to die if we can create an abundance of the basic needs, even without almost any work?

a reply to: Benicealways

Even Marx disagreed with you.

We just need to take automation farther. Various races/types of machines/robots/androids to do all work, provide housing, food, utilities and take care of humans from cradle to grave. Humans can just enjoy the fruits of the machines/robots/androids labor.

The interim period between now and then will be rough.

originally posted by: Benicealways
Also, currently everyone is getting a free ride. First, because resources are free and because a lot of the work is done by machines. We have had a jobless recovery.

Where is my free ride? Why do I work 40 hours a week then?

What resources are free? Is the transport and processing required to make those resources usable also free?

Now why should only the working population be benefiting from that? Is more luxury always important than more freedom?
Is a person not valuable when it does not have a official job?

Nobody is talking about luxury vs freedom, or people's value. A person has to survive, whether they earn their own way or someone else elects to provide for their survival.

Should people be allowed to die if we can create an abundance of the basic needs, even without almost any work?

The problem lies in the fact that, in order to "create an abundance of the badic needs", then distribute it to the masses, it will take a lot more than "almost any" work.

Short of a multi-billionare donating some of their resources to achieve that end, it involves stealing the resources of everyone else to provide for those who choose not to work.

In short, due to human nature, it's a utopian pipe-dream.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Inherently, yes the whole process can be done without cost if we decide to simply do it for each other, ourselves and the good for the society.
Yet that isn't even necessary since most of the work can be done by machines now.
Yes, literally most jobs can already be replaced right now with the cutting edge technology we have, yet to implement it will take us some years (10-25).
A good documentary on that:

originally posted by: Benicealways
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Inherently, yes the whole process can be done without cost if we decide to simply do it for each other, ourselves and the good for the society.

Emphasis mine. That idea sounds great, but once again, denies human nature. It will not happen without major change in every human.

Also, "without cost" is impossible. There will be a cost, whether it be in terms of money, time, or labor. What you seem to mean is that the costs will be written off somehow.

I am a realist, and while your ideas are noble, I recognize that man's selfish nature will NEVER allow that utopia to occur, and any attempts to force it to are doomed from the start at best, and will cause untold suffering in terms of lost freedom/automomy at worst.

I think that basic income is a great idea for human beings!

But too many here think like animals.

a reply to: Benicealways

It will never happen. TPTB need to keep us too busy to contemplate the state of the world or they risk an uprising.

a reply to: Syphon

Well, It will happen because automation will force us too.

But in fact, one of the greatest tactics from TBTB to keep people from waking up and creating a revolution is to create this idea of artificial scarcity, which draws all our attention towards survival instead of contemplation.
Done through a debt based system, convincing people that there is not enough and that the system works best and is at it's fairest when it's every man for himself.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Benicealways
People do not need to learn to become more dependant; they need to learn to become less dependant. I would gladly pay taxes for basic skills instead of basic income.

Unless you're suggesting we'll return to the society we had in the 19th century I don't see how having "basic skills" would help us much. Folks with "basic skills" are the first to be replaced by robots and computers.

Spoiler alert: we are rapidly evolving into a society that DOES NOT NEED HUMANS TO DO WORK. Your 19th century ethics are actually creating a lot of misery because there aren't sufficient jobs available for all, and all you can do is say "work harder" - come on, work harder than a machine that is on for 24 x 7, is never sick, nor on vacation, is not (yet) a member of the union, does not strike, does not require payment??

We are rapidly removing the need for - us. I have witnessed this personally in the IT field: a VERY rapid decline of necessary workers to maintain an ever growing amount of computing power and storage. When I started we employed roughly 50 IT people just to support ONE automated business process. We had 64K of core memory and roughly 5 Mb of disk storage, lot's of tape shuffling and paper printing and processing going on. Those 50 people stood in high regard, they were -oooh- "computer people" and were payed very well. Nowadays we need about 5 averagely payed would-be nerds to run a cloud with tens of thousands of nodes and petabytes of storage on which hundreds of business processes run.

When I started, some luck, a good brain, the will to learn and punctuality would get you into a well paid job. Nowadays, our receptionist has a bachelors and TWO masters degrees. Not kidding.

Your "basic skills" won't put together an i-phone. Nor a computer. Nor a complex medical device. Nor a car. Nor a television set. Nor the Internet. And we only need say 1 percent at best to grow our foods for us - but even there, "basic skills" are not in demand. Instead of being able to plough or seed, modern farmers need to be able to program their farming equipment. Which largely will run in the "cloud" maintained by the five geeks there.

So, what are these "basic skills" you are referring to and how do you think they will help to create "useful" work? Are you seriously suggesting that humans can compete with computers and robots? HOW?

Somebody has to repair the machines when they break down...

Might be a field for a young person to look into.

As for myself, I'm very mechanically inclined, and can fix most anything from a car to a gun. Though I'm not currently employed in a field which makes use of those particular skills, if I were to leave my job, I could easily find employment. Possibly even repairing our future robot overlords.

Once again, a person makes themselves valuable through their individual skillset, not some abstract concept like spirituality or creativity.

When more automation takes over maybe,not yet we have an industrial base to build ASAP.

Sign this guy up for bread line...Cheers

a reply to: cynicalheathen
And why would they pick you to fix the machines when millions are out of a job (with you) and can do what you can as well?

> Once again, a person makes themselves valuable through their individual skillset, not some abstract concept like spirituality or creativity.

Lol.