#47

Quite possibly. How about being secure, not needing to be well-paid because you already have your basic needs met and being “employed” doing something you’re inspired by and in control of?

#48

That’s skirting pretty close to ‘arbeit macht frei’ for my comfort, tbh.

1 Like
#49

Not sure that was either secure or well paid.

#51

Despicable thing to say.

#52

Yes. Not cool marckee. Not a phrase we can just chuck around.

#53

I meant more the protestant ethic of ‘dignity and freedom through work’.

Always found it a distasteful and classist method of reinforcing social structures.

1 Like
#54

This is one of the problems I have with it. “Basic needs” are subjective and in this instance will have to be rigidly defined by the state which will be troublesome, I think.

fwiw I’m open to explorations of UBI and I don’t think it can be as easily dismissed and some do. If you were starting with a blank sheet of paper with two options on it - one being UBI and the other being the labyrinthine taxation/redistribution system the UK currently has, you wouldn’t look at the latter and go “well that’s a much better system”.

#55

So who’s been the most distasteful in this exchange?

#56

Thank fuck someone made the appropriate joke.

1 Like
#57

Point one: agreed. Just sloppy wording by me. Substitute “universal access to”.

Point two: well this is the nub of the whole proposal isn’t it? The suggestion is that automation will deliver sufficient utility that the provision of this economic benefit becomes feasible. Whilst access to amenities is to say the least variable around the world (and that’s far from an irrelevant point) it is true to say that human development has led to a situation where at least some of humanity’s basic needs (I’m thinking food, water and basic healthcare) could be available to everybody right now, which is a far cry from 2000 years ago. So it seems conceivable that that principle could be extended, and UBI is one way that’s being suggested.

Point three: Yeah and? Let’s start with one thing.

I agree that there are problems that UBI throws up as well as potential benefits. I just don’t think it should be rejected purely on that basis and I also think that we should think very hard about whether the human concepts which we currently view as fundamental will remain so in future. For what it’s worth my position is that I’m agnostic, but interested.

#59

Again, I’m unsure about it myself which is why I’m waiting to see what happens with the trials.

FWIW I do hope it works because replies like yours are the reason we need to reassess our entire attitude to work and life. Secure well paid employment is good but like it or not we have to acknowledge most “work” is oppressive, exploitative and unfulfilling, no matter how secure and well paid, and serves no purpose other than to enable an individual to pay extortionate bills and mindlessly consume shit she doesn’t need in an effort to assuage the psychic - and by extension, social and political - harm she inflicts on herself due to the essential tedium and pointlessness of the secure well paid job.

Basically UBI isn’t some magic bullet, and very few sane people are claiming it is, but it could be a tiny step towards a radically different relationship between the individual, her community, and the state - again, precisely the reason why politicians descended from aristocracy don’t like it.

#61

Because rich people are also people and universality is a powerful concept in its own right.

#63

Indeed. We already have quite a few issues with benefits now owing to a principle of universality which is perceived to underpin them. I’m an advocate of greater means testing of a number of benefits but you’ll never be able to implement it politically. UBI doesn’t solve this either.

#64

Well they’re trialling it in Finland, Holland, Canada, I believe they’ve tried or intend to try it in some parts of India and America (New Jersey maybe?) and now Scotland are looking to do it too. Not sure where I’m supposed to attach importance tbh; if we don’t try we won’t have at least a vague idea of how it could work.

I mean I sound like a broken record here but we have to at least see what comes of these experiments, considering the world of shit we are currently hurtling towards if we don’t find a way to account for the ruling class’ power (I am aware that UBI is dispensed by at least the friends of said ruling class so it’s another reason to try it and see how that particular wave breaks).

#65

That’s a very conservative peak. The UN estimates the global population at mid-9 billion by 2050 and 11.something billion in 2100. The point where the population stabilizes still seems a way off.

#66

Holy fuck.

#67

Wealth is relative in a lot of ways; I’m probably quite poor compared to most DiSers but I would still expect them to get their monthly cheque because I’m getting mine. How many people would decide “Actually I’m good this month, I’ll give my UBI to Shelter or Unicef or Blueturtle?” I’d wager a fair few, 'cos people like to help despite what 2016 suggested.

Not saying it would be a utopia, but small ripples etc.

#69

1 Like
#70

All good points, apart from the first one about making assumptions. I’m not making any, as I said I’m agnostic and open-minded about it.

#73

Yeah this is kinda what I’ve been trying to say - it will take small measures and little experiments here and there before anything bigger is attempted. I think I got hung up arguing the points you were making instead of making myself clear on what I meant by UBI as I saw it developing over the next couple decades (if it develops at all).