Hacker News Reader

Comment by christiansakai | Hacker News Reader

I know these are anecdotes but I already heard several cases from my circle of friends and families where they just chose not to work because of unemployment checks. Instead of practicing music or learning programming or doing something productive during their period of unemployment, they decided to watch Netflix and play games all day.

Creating is hard work, studying is hard work. Just like having information and online videos/articles/courses at their fingertips do not make people more educated but instead chose to believe what they believe. Having money and time alone do not motivate people to study or create.

UBI will probably benefit most to those who already have inner desire to succeed. But for majority of people, I have my doubts.

View on HN

Were these cases people who would otherwise have engaged in some creative endeavour (music, programming, art, tinkering, whatever)? Or were they otherwise engaged in menial repetitive jobs that should probably be automated anyway?

If the latter, what's wrong with them watching Netflix? We don't need every human to work.

Also if I gained a perpetual stipend that covered my basic needs, you bet I'd take a couple of months off just to relax and recuperate. Inside three months I'd be going insane from boredom and start building things again for the fun of it. And I bet they'd be better things, too.

> Were these cases people who would otherwise have engaged in some creative endeavour (music, programming, art, tinkering, whatever)?

Exactly. Those who will be driven to work anyways will still work. Jobs that need staff, restaurants, manual labor, etc. will pay more, or figure out how to operate with less staff.

Yup. This happened to me and after around three months I started working hard on some interesting things. A month and a half later I haven't made money from it yet but it's been better than the somewhat repetitive job I had before.

I have a controversial opinion. But every living human should work. Otherwise it is a drain on the planet Earth.

Yes if they just live to live and consume, we're just speeding up our extinction, and the rest of the Earth with us.

What else are those resources for?

To be utilized to create something good, not just for consumption only.

Do you consider parenthood and learning as work towards good?

Do you think subsidizing everyone including "lazy" or stagnant people would have a net benefit if it reduced the amount of violence, crime, and suffering? Or do you not factor that type of balance into your reasoning?

I don't think the reaction of anybody on that short of a time scale tells us anything. And that's not even accounting for the inherent weirdness of this time in particular.

Of course most people, presented with the opportunity to do nothing for the first time in their adult life will take it for a while. Especially people who know that they will not have the opportunity again in the future.

I think the timescale matters. I agree when out of work for a few weeks or months most people will take time to relax and do nothing. But when you don't have to work for a longer period of time (say 6+ months) many people will get bored of just consuming and start making more productive use of their life.

I don't have evidence to back this up though, I would be interested in seeing this studied.

Yeah, that would be interesting.

Basically there is statistics: https://www.statista.com/statistics/217837/average-duration-... But what these people do after the unemployment period is unknown. Or maybe some of them starts productive work before one find a job.

Long-term unemployment is a big thing in Germany, and they are essentially getting a UBI-equivalent (generous housing including utilities, health care, TV etc, cash, ~1000€ a month in total on average). While it's hard to quantify "productive use of their lives", it's certainly not productive in a contributing-to-society kind of way, and there's also no creative explosion happening.

I believe the big misunderstanding is that intrinsically motivated people assume everybody is like them. But most people are not like them at all, so what might work for you will probably not work for them.

I expect so. Creating things are hard. Creating new things, even with little difference from the existing things, are also hard.

By the way, I'm curious about that. Won't people that have generous everything utilities will not just produce more babies? Or there is no correlation between UBI and population boom?

I agree. Many people will react exactly the opposite way and just quit working and doing anything useful. they might fall into depression and hopelessness.

Counter-intuitively it might make everyone more worse off and more demanding. They might then ask "why is my universal income only $1200", "why isn't it $2400?" so that I can afford this and that.

Once you think about it how does not scale up, why isn't the UBI 100K per year? you'll understand why it does not scale down either.

If everyone gets $1200, then new zero value will start at $1200.

The current benefit requires the person to be unemployed. UBI does not. That’s a huge difference in incentives.

I can confirm, I have a few friends who are on unemployment for the first time in their lives and find it eminently livable and enjoyable (mostly just watching Netflix and such though). Some have openly declared their intent to ride it as long as they are allowed too.

However, unemployment right now is paying much more than UBI proposals. I know people who are paid more on unemployment currently than the median household income in their State. I’d probably do the same if I was in their shoes.

The more significant difference is that you lose unemployment benefits when you start working again, whereas with UBI there's no disincentive to work.

I have seen the same firsthand. The idea that there is a latent poet or artist inside everybody and UBI would unlock that is highly dubious. If implemented people would be lamenting how rent plus utilities are now $1000 per month higher. The handouts and demands for ever more will not end.

To be very honest, these times should not be taken as data points for normal behavior. Stress is extremely high, optimism is low, and its just very hard to find a job these days.

I'd take the anecdote more seriously if there were many opportunities on the market and they still said the same thing.

If I had to choose between:

- Today, where despite massive productivity improvements over the decades, we all are kept busy with commensurate bullshit work

- UBI horror couch potato land, where there's a tiny working aristocracy and everyone else is a TB drone

I would surely choose the latter. At least in the latter I have the guaranteed option of doing something meaningful with my own time and being recognized for it.

Also please recognize that behavior/culture doesn't happen in a vacuum. If people have heard welfare be demonized their entire lives, never had a change to work/hobby something productive and meaningful, and are generally scared/depressed about the pandemic, I doubt they are emotionally prepared to become some basement dweller programmer savant.

I'm not sure what you're advocating here.

That the threat of being homeless forces people to work, against their will? - and that this is better than the alternative for a significant chunk of the populace?

Maybe. That seems quite narrowminded. It certainly is [citation needed].

> That the threat of being homeless forces people to work, against their will?

The threat of imprisonment forces people to pay taxes, against their will. Shouldn't we do away with that too?

No; people would no doubt pay no or far fewer taxes if it was entirely an optional affair.

There's plenty of research out there that shows that people as a rule want to work, even if they don't _need_ to do so for subsistence. It helps, rather a lot, that it gets you access to more scarce goods that you want, but that does not change in UBI.

There's a lot of evidence of people choosing not to work if welfare provides a living that's comfortable for their tastes. I have a neighbor (in his forties) that is among that group, he's quite content watching tv, playing xbox and listening to music all day and getting drunk every few days, which he can afford on welfare, and he has a large-ish flat (same one I do), all paid for.

I wouldn't want to live that way, you probably wouldn't either. But he would and he is. UBI would certainly not be lower than today's welfare programs, and it wouldn't even have the modicum of incentive ("you must be looking for work" vs unconditional), so how would it not have a built-in disincentive to work on people that are fine with living their lives that way?

What's wrong with watching Netflix and playing games all day?

In my opinion, and I know this is controversial, it is wrong. Of course it depends on your philosophy, but this is just mine.

I believe that we can't expect for humans to just exist without being productive and just being consumer and sustainable, for this Earth and the environment.

Most of what we do drains the earths resources. If a large portion of the population takes the easy route, they'll end up consuming less. Less consumption means longer lasting resources.

Part of the reason we're tapping out the earth is trying to keep up with everybody around us. If people can choose to live simply, they'll normalize a less consumer-driven lifestyle

Can you explain more about this?

Well there's a reason "sloth" is one of the seven deadly sins.

Why do some people have inner desire to succeed and some do not? What is that attributable to? Is it random/luck of the draw?

No idea. I’d like to attribute that with genetic but also with family upbringing as well. I lived in 2 countries so far, one developing and one developed, we have unmotivated people everywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com