31–40 of 345 posts
> The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs I'm confused, was that ever the expected goal of basic income?
I think it's human nature to do a little as possible for the most reward. If someone is giving you money to literally do nothing, then you're likely going to do..nothing!
Within the framework of rewarding people for behaving the way you're compelling them to, that's probably roughly true. But I'm doubtful that people are actually sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, doing _nothing_. Maybe they're not getting jobs per se, but I'm very curious about what they actually are doing with the time they'd otherwise have to sell.
Rather than us positing and projecting values, I'd love to see some data around this (though obviously I would love it somewhat less if it proved my optimistic viewpoint wrong).
> The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs I'm confused, was that ever the expected goal of basic income?
Same here. I've never heard that angle.
> The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs I'm confused, was that ever the expected goal of basic income?
So that if they are happier then that IS success. Job or no job is irrelevant.
Unfortunately the prevailing ideology dictates that if you're not working you are worthless and you should not feel happy.
1. They are usually time limited. You can expect different behavior if you get financial security for limited time or for life.
2. Most studies seem to be externally financed (here the whole state vs a small population). The interesting part is if people are willing to pay for this within their community. Are you okay to pay for your slacking neighbor (even if she is the exception and UBI turns out to be overall good)?
I think it's human nature to do a little as possible for the most reward. If someone is giving you money to literally do nothing, then you're likely going to do..nothing!
I always have a really hard time relating to where this incredibly negative sentiment about people comes from. It seems like people look at times when other people are "lazy" and extrapolate it to all of humanity, but I think the perception of "lazy" in this context is just what it looks like when a person hates the work they're forced to do and/or is suffering and unhappy due to financial trouble. I feel like most p…
It comes from your head. The statement itself is neutral, and for whatever reason, you're giving it a negative connotation. Most organisms on this planet evolved so as to expend less energy without necessity, humans as no exception.
That is not negative or positive - that's a normative judgment you give that statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's provably false.
Can you add any sources for this? I see several that support OP's position from a cursory search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_effort https://medium.com/the-mission/dont-use-rewards-for-motivati... http://hepg.org/hel-home/issues/10_2/helarticle/the-case-aga...
"Rewards kill creativity. Some twenty studies have shown that people do inferior work when they are expecting to get a reward for doing it, as compared with people doing the same task without any expectation of a reward. That effect is most pronounced when creativity is involved in the task."
Would this not suggest that people do their best work when they aren't doing it for the paycheck? In other words, given UBI, anything an individual may do would be his or her own prerogative and therefore represent higher quality output.
So that if they are happier then that IS success. Job or no job is irrelevant.