This makes you think that Paul would be interested in fighting for a world where people don't waste most of their short lives in bullshit corporate jobs because the market demands it, and instead can focus on important things like their families.
If they have either of those "cultural challenges", then they are literally dropping even more work and isolation on their wifes. That is why it is egoism.
Because when they do this, their partner has no choice but to do it all. And the partner is getting no break.
I do knows guys like that. They walk around happy. Their wife's walk around stressed, tired, loosing themselves while talking about how much their husbands need to work. While I know they slack around in work padding time cause chatting with friends is fun.
No, I mean the breadwinner may be stressed because their SO has such an attitude. Therefore the kids are basically always home, and no one ever gets a break. Some folks also decide to have kids and agree to parenting strategies, only later to realize they're not working. If the stay-home partner insists on "the one true way" then even counseling may not be enough.
Again, the broader point is you may not have the whole picture. Try to assume good intentions, and if circumstances are undeniably out of balance look for constructive ways to help.
I encountered this sentiment most of all - 40 year old dads who were suddenly stuck at home with the wife and kids, working from an improvised home office.
When I asked about returning to the office, most of them were clearly looking forward to it, with a sentiment of "Of course working from home is less efficient and comfortable, what do you mean?".
It was quite a surprise for me, who had finally gotten away from the noisy open-plan offices and meetings where everyone shouted at each other until the loudest person "won".
Meanwhile me and other young dads who did plan for remote work have now a designated room for an office and children at daycare/kindergarten for most of the day.
Until my child was old enough to attend daycare it was indeed chaos, but with just one you can get used to this. It's much like having a co-worker who likes to chat a little bit too much.
And it inevitably it gives ammo to those who want to take away remote work for everyone.
“See, they don’t actually want to work remotely!”
A job that provides an income to a worker, and generates wealth for society, is not bullshit -- even if all it involves is making crappy consumer products, or working on an assembly line, or doing paperwork all day. In fact, such jobs are the reason the majority of people no longer live in 19th-century conditions -- and the lack of such jobs in regions that used to have a lot of them is a primary driver of populist politics.
Entrepreneurs I know are reluctant to hire because it does not scale. Yet they do hire, slowly and surely. They need these jobs, as they cannot grow without it.
Similarly they complain about the lack of talent. Most of the people they value do not want the regular job that they offer. They need the people who want the regular jobs.
I am sure this will change. Yet today it is the reality.
...of people I want to have around me...
It's been my experience that "cultural fit" has been a much more important coefficient, than "talent."
In my case, it's a bit of sour grapes, and I'll be the first to admit it. I have the talent and experience to pretty much singlehandedly "make" a smallish startup (I'm doing exactly that, right now, but for a nonprofit, for free), but found that my gray hair terrified prospective employers so much, that they ran screaming.
There's plenty of talent out there, but it may come with things like self-assurance, confidence, and an unwillingness to put up with childish BS, or be a galley slave.
I can't understand how educated people can still gobble ubi propaganda up when it's proven that such model is completely unsustainable economically and socially
How exactly has it been proven? That's a very strong word to use for something that has never been tried on anything but very small scale limited pilots.
-free housing
-free money
-money for children (that they use for themselves)
-various other help (clothes, coal, christmas packages)
This had an unfortunate effect of creating a group of people who never worked and all they did was raise 3-5 children. Despite the parents not working (so having time to take care of their children) those children did not really get any education, often did not even finish high school. And guess what those children often got their own set of children early - who also will never work, live of social benefits and small time theft.
You dont exactly have to be a right winger to notice that the model is not sustainable. Especially as this group of people only demands more and they think that they "deserve" it. Also if you would try to teach the children that everyone should contribute to society by working, their parents/grandparents/even grand grandparents will protest. Since they lived this "parasite" lives forever and dont know better. How can someone demand that they work? They deserve higher social benefits and they deserve better housing. (While you are supposed to get a mortgage and slave to get a house). Also at some point the group will become so big that they can vote for politicians that will give them more (at the expense of those who work).
Of course perhaps maybe UBI can work and it will be all rosy, but it is just wishful thinking. Communism was also supposed to work.
Different problem with UBI is that middle class becomes nobodies - you are supposed to shut up because you get your dole. While I bet the rich people will still be rich.
Countries such as Australia with robust (compared to the US) welfare safety nets (not perfect by any means, but not to shabby overall) have proven to have strong long term GDP growth and to be resilient in the face of various global crisis events.
Good safety nets provide a place to regroup and do better - without being reduced to homeless and struggling to meet basic food and clothing needs.
[1] https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161361
[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector...
[3] https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/universal-basic-income-and...
[4] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/univer...
You dont seem to be aware that such programs are designed to have people raise such 5-6 children while doing nothing else in order to bump up the declining population. And if you think raising 6 children is not work... boy...
(2) if you are in middle class, or low class (but still working) you are contributing for others and dont get anything in return from them. I would argue that if you didnt have to contribute so much then those middle/low class families would have 2 children instead of 1. Children of parents that work and will raise them right.
You seem to think that those low life people work hard raising their children? Lol, they dont care about their children.. those kids are raised by the streets.
It is the same in UK where some families mass manufacture inbred children (seriously read about it) and same in Slovakia where alcoholics get more kids since they dont use contraception and having a kid allows more money for vodka.
You assume that everyone wants the best for their kids, nope those people just have a strategy to pump few kids, who maybe will pump more kids. At thr expense of taxpayers.
The problem is that (1) that is patently false.
Take the case of Germany. So many Turkish immigrants. So many used those programs and had many children. So many complained. Yet, Germany's most famous footballer, the makers of Crysis, the inventor of the Biontech vaccine (the one that you know as Pfizer) are all such kids born to such families.
Since your initial propositon is flat out false, I dont see the need to address the others.
This is exactly what happens in Argentina now.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-...
That's the objectively proven human nature. Not the randian nonsense. And that's what 3rd worlders see every day.
Don't invent false realities. Nobody proved nothing as such. The Finnish experiment and others showed that there is no relation in between ubi and unemployment.
For now it rather seems that it has created two sorts of populations: Those who live off it, and those who work, the two forever opposing each other, the latter literally enslaved by the masses of the former. The enslavement in a society which is ever-more reliant on the remaining workers meets another phenomenon: Shunning the workers who protest, because looks at all this poverty, why would you not accept to fund them.
A similar thing exists in other country like UK or Germany
We could have 75% of the population stop working now and the taxes on 25% could provide basic sustenance for everyone.. at 1910 levels.
Same thing would happen with automation, some people would keep working, get 2-3x the wealth and everything that comes with and we’re in the same spot we’re in today.
If I don't have to work, I will probably enjoy my work more.
The society today already has the means to make only 1% of the population work, and still keep the comfort level for everyone as it is.
We are making people waste their lives away creating imaginary wealth to bump up the stored imaginary wealth in financial institutions only to keep the existing economic system going.
Sure, we may have enough "money" to redistribute it. But if 99% of the population stops working, who is going to make everything we use, produce food, run power stations, and transport everything to us. Automation is great, but it doesn't cover anywhere near 99% of necessary jobs yet.
It’s the bullshit software startup jobs that typically serve no purpose besides shuffling investor money from one place to another. Yes dear reader, that’s probably you.
People realized they don't have time for bullshit.
Do you know how you make those? Mostly with those "bullshit" corporate jobs.