The downside is shitty people don't need to learn to not be shitty. In order to work with other people you have to be socialized to some level of "is okay around other people". UBI removes that. The downside is the rest of society having to put up with shitty people.
> In order to work with other people you have to be socialized to some level of "is okay around other people".
Based on some of my personal experience and on informal interviews with folks I've known, the floor for that "some level" is so low that I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
> UBI removes that.
To twist this a bit, one could say similar things about the move from community aid to aid you're legally entitled to receive -whether that's because you paid for it, or because it's welfare-. Making everyone dependent on community aid means that receiving aid is contingent on pleasing those who control access to that aid as well as those who directly provide that aid. Society might be -superficially- more polite if those who are consistently rude or angry, or were frequently too distressed or in pain to summon the energy to be polite were refused aid, but -IMO- we'd be way worse off in that society than one in which everyone is entitled to aid, regardless of their attitude. [0]
[0] Note carefully that I'm following your lead and specifically talking about attitude and sociability. "Gotchas" such as "Well, what if someone kills every aid giver who comes to give them aid. What then?" are out of scope... but the answer to that one is "Well, you imprison that someone for life and ensure that they can't harm any aid giver that comes to give them aid while they're in prison.".
pm90 · · focus · HN ↗
sphinxterai · · focus · HN ↗
gopher_space · · focus · HN ↗
As an employer, UBI and universal healthcare might slash payroll costs and eliminate most of the hiring process.
As a founder, UBI might remove the funding barrier to entry.
What's the downside, and who is it a downside for?
fragmede · · focus · HN ↗
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
simoncion · · focus · HN ↗
Based on some of my personal experience and on informal interviews with folks I've known, the floor for that "some level" is so low that I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
> UBI removes that.
To twist this a bit, one could say similar things about the move from community aid to aid you're legally entitled to receive -whether that's because you paid for it, or because it's welfare-. Making everyone dependent on community aid means that receiving aid is contingent on pleasing those who control access to that aid as well as those who directly provide that aid. Society might be -superficially- more polite if those who are consistently rude or angry, or were frequently too distressed or in pain to summon the energy to be polite were refused aid, but -IMO- we'd be way worse off in that society than one in which everyone is entitled to aid, regardless of their attitude. [0]
[0] Note carefully that I'm following your lead and specifically talking about attitude and sociability. "Gotchas" such as "Well, what if someone kills every aid giver who comes to give them aid. What then?" are out of scope... but the answer to that one is "Well, you imprison that someone for life and ensure that they can't harm any aid giver that comes to give them aid while they're in prison.".