Look guy, your initial post was about how people sat around watching Netflix during Covid and how that's terrible for you and unproductive.
First off, a heck of a lot of those things that you are calling productive, are really just physical activity. Going for a bike ride is good for you, literally. The sense of achievement is just a side effect. If you had a pill that could replicate the effects of a 30 min bike ride, people would sit around eating those pills. And they'd be extremely healthy and happy.
Secondly, Covid was a time when people were culturally and legally obligated to stay inside and keep away from other people.
UBI does not come with those constraints. So no, it's not the same. People will not sit around watching Netflix at the rate they did during Covid. Because they are not compelled to stay inside the house at the risk of being deemed a menace to society.
I did read what you said and I do understand. You said that you can't go do things other than go to the office because you chose an expensive lifestyle. Congratulations. UBI will not cover that and it shouldn't. It is a universal BASIC income.
Saying addiction requires treatment for many people does not imply it is a disease. Addiction treatment existed before the disease model and I don't think of it as a disease in the same way as cancer etc. So that's your own conflict that you're projecting onto me. Much of addiction treatment is treating emotions and rationales that addicts may not even be aware of anymore, sometimes purposefully, sometimes not.
>No. That is one of the excuses they use to justify their poor choices. I know because I used the same justification.
That's your experience with one drug (alcohol). Frankly, it comes across as naive. Many people can not quit by themselves, even if they want to. Not to mention hard drugs like heroin, crack, meth, benzos. You really are trying to say that years of use of those drugs can be stopped by just "deciding?" For every individual? Simply untrue.
>which I thought was better between the two with a rationale.
I get it, believe me. Im saying your rationale is simplistic and that both choices are subpar and neither should not be acceptable.
You are of course right, and it is sad to see that the idea of "building consensus," now has to be explained in a long 4 paragraph post when it used to be just a normal way of doing things.
>Which requires someone else to work to pay for those things. I don't believe other people should pay my mortgage and bills. Those are my responsibility.
Then you've made the choice to not pursue other things that will make you happier than "working." Yet my point initially was that working is not anywhere close to the only way that people can stay active and away from "rotting."
No one is saying a UBI needs to pay for a 3 story house and 1 GB internet. If you want more than the basics, you know what to do...work!
>This assumes that addiction is a disease and a not a choice.
No, this assumes that many people will need help quitting an addiction.
>You asked me which is better between two scenarios.
Both scenarios are grim and best avoided. The better solution is to help solve the problem, not to act like work is a cure-all, or that a marginal improvement in the form of societal contribution (or "max time away from drink") is sufficient. For many people, work is the reason they drink, or do drugs, or have anger issues. A proper UBI helps people maintain a healthy lifestyle without having to put themselves in a position where they are stressed and powerless for the rest of their working life.
The article said 3/4 of people kept working, a significant portion of the 1/4 went back to school, and a hell of a a lot of people are in this comment section saying they would never stop working even with UBI.
>Sure there are. But unfortunately I have a mortgage and bills that need paying.
Hence the UBI.
>In theory yes, in reality no. One will exacerbates the other.
Big big big assumption that doesn't match my reality very well. People who keep active, have a social life and are happy are at less risk for addiction. Not people who "have a job." Those are not the same things.
>You asked me whether I thought it was better and I gave you two reasons why I believed it was better. I believe it is be a completely honest assessment based on my own experiences. If you have a critique that is objective of my position I am willing to listen to it, but moralising about how my assessment I am not interested in.
It is not "better" for people to go to work day in and day out as a way of paying back society while slowly killing themselves with addiction. The better thing is to treat the addiction, not get them working.
Sounds like you have a substance abuse problem and you're afraid that others will make the same mistake you did.
Saying that people's lives are better because they benefit society through their labour, while suffering from untreated addiction (a truly horrible thing), is quite fatalistic, to me. The substance abuse is a totally different issue from "not working." There are a million things to do other than go to the office.
do you have some kind of evidence that enacting a ubi, which comes with absolutely no condition of "not working," will stop a majority of people from taking paid work and making more money? Do we need 100% of the population to work in order to fill vital positions? I don't think so.
no, its better to complain that people don't want to work anymore.
I wonder what all these "hackers" tradespersons relatives thought of them in 1999. Probably that they were useless computer geeks who would never amount to anything, because they hate "work."
For one, during Covid, most people were encouraged, if not required by law, to limit their interactions, and some were literally not allowed to leave the house. For years.
Secondly, just because UBI gives people leave to sit around at home, doesn't mean that binging Netflix or alcohol is somehow the fault of "not working."
I know many people whose life consists of working extremely hard, then going home and binging Netflix or alcohol or mairjuana until they pass out. Is that somehow better?
First off, a heck of a lot of those things that you are calling productive, are really just physical activity. Going for a bike ride is good for you, literally. The sense of achievement is just a side effect. If you had a pill that could replicate the effects of a 30 min bike ride, people would sit around eating those pills. And they'd be extremely healthy and happy.
Secondly, Covid was a time when people were culturally and legally obligated to stay inside and keep away from other people.
UBI does not come with those constraints. So no, it's not the same. People will not sit around watching Netflix at the rate they did during Covid. Because they are not compelled to stay inside the house at the risk of being deemed a menace to society.
I did read what you said and I do understand. You said that you can't go do things other than go to the office because you chose an expensive lifestyle. Congratulations. UBI will not cover that and it shouldn't. It is a universal BASIC income.
Saying addiction requires treatment for many people does not imply it is a disease. Addiction treatment existed before the disease model and I don't think of it as a disease in the same way as cancer etc. So that's your own conflict that you're projecting onto me. Much of addiction treatment is treating emotions and rationales that addicts may not even be aware of anymore, sometimes purposefully, sometimes not.
>No. That is one of the excuses they use to justify their poor choices. I know because I used the same justification.
That's your experience with one drug (alcohol). Frankly, it comes across as naive. Many people can not quit by themselves, even if they want to. Not to mention hard drugs like heroin, crack, meth, benzos. You really are trying to say that years of use of those drugs can be stopped by just "deciding?" For every individual? Simply untrue.
>which I thought was better between the two with a rationale.
I get it, believe me. Im saying your rationale is simplistic and that both choices are subpar and neither should not be acceptable.