Not really talking about stigma here since, as you correctly pointed out, UBI assumes everyone gets it. It is more of an existential question for the person themselves - "what is exactly is my purpose"?
One aspect of Universal Basic Income (UBI) debate which remain unanswered for me is the question of meaning & purpose.
Most of us derive our sense of purpose from our jobs. In a future with UBI and Automation where will derive our purpose in life. I think this will dictate the future of UBI more than the intrinsic merit of the underlying idea.
Yeah, I think this is a commonly-dodged problem that is dodged precisely because the nature of UBI proponents selects for it. But it's a mistake to think one's personal motivators/use of free time/etc are true of everyone. You cannot extrapolate like that.
> Just as you can find Silicon Valley techies who think Soylent is the only sustenance a person will ever need, intellectuals tend to think everyone could be as content as they would be living life in their heads or inventing their own destiny. Most people need to be doing something to feel satisfied and a potential UBI system addresses this need just as inadequately as disability checks do now. Cue drug epidemics.
When I wrote this in 2017, the "intellectuals" I was thinking of was Sama specifically.
This contra-UBI argument is often made, but I find it a bit short-sighted. Instead of having "survival" or "career" as a overarching goal in life, (some) people will have to find their own purpose in life. It's a bigger challenge but I believe in human adaptability. The question is how painful it will be initially and how long it will take for people to settle in this new mindset.
And the people who misallocate their UBI and can't afford food?
At the end of the day, there has to be some personal responsibility, true.
It seems what UBI supporters truly desire is a maternal figure in their lives.
Not really; if I had UBI I'd almost certainly donate it to charity while I was working. My interest in UBI is as a low-overhead, efficient mechanism for social stability.
I always hear the argument that UBI will essentially subsidize people's ability to pursue work that gives them meaning/purpose, particularly if it isn't highly valued (economically) by their local market.
There's lots of food for thought in your essay. There are aspects of UBI that appeal deeply to me, since I could happily spend the rest of my life reading, making music, and writing software that scratches my own itches, and I've never been very status conscious. If I think about it, most vocal UBI proponents I've been exposed to probably have a similar personality, but as you say, it's not clear that the long tail of the population operates this way.
The ultimate goal of UBI doesn't seem like giving free money, it is freeing an individual's time which one used to spend in making up for basic needs and giving freedom to do more useful stuff which will have a greater impact beyond one's family.
What if one doesn't have the job one has at present?
I don't understand this argument. People are extremely good at inventing purposes for themselves within their context. If you give people a livable but meager amount of money it's true some people will fritter their life away for a while. But a significant portion of the people on UBI will invent a niche for themselves. The ennui itself is a motivator for people to find something useful to do.
The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity. If you don't draw a salary for services rendered it seems like you're not worth anything.
There are tons of occupations people can have that generate no significant monetary value. Volunteering and taking care of children are two such occupations. These both have tons of value to society. So it's clear to me that economic output is not the only source of value. Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them?
Welfare / UBI ignores that one of the realities of the human condition is that we are social creatures that have a desire for purpose and utility to those around us, and having that purposes in a society that recognizes us helps give us dignity and a place in society.
It's not important that all jobs are high value, it is important that we as a society have a way to create and recognize purpose for individuals to support their mental and personal wellbeing. While welfare / UBI may ensure they have basic needs met to sustain life, it does nothing to support their mental and personal wellbeing, which is why these systems often results in the creation of delinquent behaviors that are mostly absent in a system like that in Japan.
It may be the the same economically, but socially it is much better to have someone doing an "unnecessary" job that is recognize as valued by society vs simply collecting a check.
UBI will help curb early suffering that leads to most people's minds and hearts not being open, where they find unhealthy coping mechanisms to feel better - such as the need to feel superior because they have low to no self-esteem (internal vs. external). Otherwise there is a path to healing old trauma to undo such ego mind coping mechanisms.
On the contrary, UBI would free people to leave the jobs that feel meaningless, and do things they are passionate about.
If the problem is that people need purpose, what better than a system that allows people to find purpose, rather than one that keeps them trapped doing work they hate?
A UBI is going to normalize condition and make “them” see there’s even more to participate in.
Sounds like you still prefer maintenance of a steerage class, assuming you’ll be a bit higher on the totem pole. But I mean, real talk is you’re still just one of billions. How you feel the world as-is is a meaningless measure for how you would fit into a UBI world. And I have no particular obligation to your sensibilities. shrug emoji You’re a “them” to me is not an unreasonable statement.
Yes, it's not paid to everybody, but everybody can rely on it. UBI is technically for everybody, but the average person that does work will not feel a difference in most scenarios, as increased taxes will eat the UBI that's paid out.
As for the stigma associated with not working: true, but it's not part of, or encouraged by, the law. It will be the same with UBI, it will not be admired to not contribute to society. Some people may feel that they do in fact contribute, but society at large values other things than self-actualization.
The university/higher education system is weird, but for other reasons (my personal theory is that you can't have organized bureaucracy in Germany without some senseless cruelty). It's another point on the board for "free doesn't necessarily give you the expected results" though: unlike in the US, it's free, our "student loans" (Bafög) are generally interest free and 50% of the amount owed will generally be forgiven. Obviously, we see plenty of people entering, but we don't see the results you'd imagine if costs were what's holding people back.
It's not the purpose of UBI to get EVERYONE to work.
The purpose is to get as many as possible to work and not have to deal with controlling who "deserves" what, who cheats etc.
It's totally fine that some people don't work as long as the majority of people will.
In many ways we already have a form of BI today, it's just conditional and have the negative effect of branding people, keeping them in their social status.
I think the scariest part of UBI for me is, that it attempts to have an universal solution that’s acceptable for everyone regardless of social status, productivity, freeloader tendencies, etc and the fact that this is a Pandora’s Box. We don’t know what we are going to get, and we can’t reverse it once it is out.
That's why things like UBI are a pipe-dream. Any Fortune-500 executive could live a life of leisure with 2-3 years of planning. They tend to not make that choice.
reply