This sounds like a (horrible) way to implement universal basic income. Just hire puffer people, have them do nothing. They get fired, hire them somewhere else, rinse, repeat.
My first job was in an old newspaper printing business (this was back when newspapers were highly profitable and a respected medium). We had a few old people in our department who were basically kept there doing nothing because they didn't want to retrain on new technology but they were friends with management so they weren't let go before retirement. Which sounds super humane and socially sensitive. Except there were a few of us new hires that couldn't get permanent contracts because the departments were "fully staffed", we were busting our ass and making 1/2 of what these guys were for doing nothing. And this "fair treatment" wasn't there for everyone - just the people who were friends with upper management - basically if you paid tribute by inviting a few people up to the management offices now and then, bring a bottle of nice booze and locking the door for a few hours, doing out of work favors, etc. There were people who were laid off and who had to retrain to remain.
It was a sobering experience after my rosy childhood world views about fairness in society.
When they are on the clock, people generally want to be at least a little bit useful, at least do something that will be of value to someone. Sitting there doing nothing is not fun.
There are lots of people who would love to just get their salary and date people online + do their private stuff all the time, and I think it's totally fine that not everybody wants to work hard.
The problem here is of course that it's not good for people who are working hard.
Sama is super proud that there are only 250 people in OpenAI, he understands that slackers destroy companies.
Being friends with management is doing something though. It’s messed up but if I had the resources there’s definitely people I know who I’d pay to have around just cos socializing with them helps me work better with no requirements on their own output.
Sort of how Google could have thousands of employees doing nothing and still be insanely profitable. Since they were employee owned after transitioning from communism (majority share at least) there was no pressure to optimize profits. The pathologies of that were interesting to say the least.
I dunno, seemed like to worked out very profitably for the boomers. Maybe they’re onto something.
If the “lifers” actually did something, you would not have been hired at all, right? So, in a way, their slacking actually created a job for you.
Also these kinds of environments (people having too much time on their hands, nothing to do) has other nasty side effects - it's the extreme of corporate politics - clan/tribes and all that. I was good with computers so I got moved to IT department and I got to see it for a while - it was surreal compared to things I've seen in tech.
These guys are puffers at big investment banks getting well over 6 figures while they pump iron and work on a masters degree. No comparison, or sympathy.
What he did argue was that if you put people to work and pay them for it that's better for the economy as a whole than if they did nothing and earned nothing, even if the work they do is of low (perceived) value. Digging holes and filling them back in is simply an extreme example to emphasize the point.
The reasoning is of course a pretty standard demand-side argument: giving more people more money causes more money to be spent, which boosts the economy.
Yes, you're right--I didn't mean to suggest that it was a serious policy proposal to dig/fill in holes.
According to OP's description it is neither universal nor basic.
Spoiler: it didn't end well.
Having grown up under communism, I think UBI might amazingly be a worse idea still. Because while yes, socialist economies did not work out and people were standing around a lot doing nothing (because they had nothing to motivate them to), there was undeniably a communal aspect to it which wasn't all negative. UBI doesn't even have that, it's pure populist perfection. Give monies!
Yes you could say that's because of communism, but in practical terms these countries had way more problems than just being communist in the first place.
> why communist countries have failed
please enlighten us.