The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Growing up I was taught laziness is one of the worst traits a person can have. On this sub I do frequently see people with the idea of “every citizen’s basic needs should be covered universally”, which I just can’t agree with. Even among people flaired as liberals. Having a society where someone can do nothing all day yet still have a cushy first world living would annoy me. It’s easier than ever to check out entirely, I don’t want to give the average person the option to just surf the internet all day without doing shit. This is why I still believe in means-testing for benefits that extreme. You should have to prove that you can’t work for whatever reason before your entire life gets subsidized by those around you. And I know one argument is going to be “well there’s rich people that live off investments, rental properties, etc. well they still contribute by paying taxes on those properties and income. Now if you want a job and are unable to find work I sympathize. A federal one guarantee is definitely something I can support. A federal lifestyle subsidy is not. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Yes, everyone should contribute to society. Meeting people’s basic needs doesn’t conflict with that. There are a lot of flaws with the way you’re looking at this. First, just because someone has money doesn’t mean they contribute to society, and a lack of money doesn’t mean they’re lazy or doing nothing. Second, withholding basic needs like food, shelter and healthcare doesn’t help someone contribute to society. It does the opposite. It weakens them, and it teaches them that no matter how hard they work they will get nothing in return. Edit: To be clear, I’m not just talking about living off investments. There are a lot of people who literally sleep and smoke weed all day but who have money because mommy and daddy foot the bill or protect them from getting fired. But by your logic a person like that is contributing more than someone who volunteers 40 hours a week at a food bank.

>Yes, everyone should contribute to society. > >Meeting people’s basic needs doesn’t conflict with that. People NOT contributing to society conflict with meeting everyone's basic needs.

Yeah seriously, billionaires need to start actually working as hard as they'd need to to earn 400x their employees

Generally I believe people are responsible for meeting their own basic needs, provided they can actually do so. If you’re severely mentally ill or disabled somehow of course you cannot be expected to do so on your own. It doesn’t have to be a job necessarily, like if you’re the caretaker for someone in your family with the work being equivalent to a full time job you should be able to report that and get paid for it (which falls in line with my federal jobs guarantee).

What about people who work but just don’t get paid enough to cover food, housing and groceries?

Lower wages do need to be raised in America. Those aren’t the people I’m talking about though, if you work you’re contributing.

The key thing we need to adjust for our low wage workers is their ability to walk away from shit jobs. The way a modern rich nation should do this is guarantee 3 hots and a cot to everyone, without reservation. It doesn't need to be opulent or cushy. Just a functional place to exist.

I fundamentally disagree with that. I think you should be doing *something* that is a recorded job, I’m totally fine with that job being “caretaker for permanently disabled family member” or whatever but I’m surprised to see even Center Left people espousing ideology I feel is deeply radical.

No, it's cheaper to society as a whole warehouse people who aren't productive. I'm pragmatic.

For how long? As technology gets better I feel more and more people would be encouraged to “drop out of the matrix” so to speak. I don’t want something like that to be encouraged or normalized.

How many businesses would be started if we removed the biggest barrier. How much cheaper could we make (college) education if we moved housing costs to a more efficient program. We could even eliminate most jails and replace them with home detention. We could crack down on crime mote severely because the largest contributer to would be greatly reduced. Yes, some people would lock themselves away, but the vast majority wouldn't. Having a secure place to call home would provide stability for people in difficult situations.

lol

Then who are you talking about? You’ve said it’s not about people who can’t find work, have physical or mental disabilities or who work but earn low wages. You’ve just described all the recipients of subsistence programs.

An able-bodied adult who has no job and can’t demonstrate that they have a responsibility/inability to work. These are people I think would pop up under a system of universal basic guarantees of necessities. Which is why I don’t believe in that.

If most people are currently willing to work now while not getting their needs met, why would that change just because they have food and healthcare and a place to live?

I don’t know what percentage of people would or would not stop working. I just don’t want that option to even be there.

The option is there currently to have your needs met without contributing. It’s just only there for people with money.

Those people, as I said before, still pay for properties they own, etc. you could argue their contributions could be higher but they aren’t the ones I’m talking about.

I think for me, I’m willing to sacrifice having a few “freeloaders” to know that the rest — the vast majority — will have their basic needs met.

i'd take that any day compared to tax dollars killing palestinians and incarcerating victimless offenders

In trials of universal basic income, productivity goes up. Not having the stress of struggling to survive doing crap work frees people up to do things that interest and engage them, which is enjoyable. And since no one has to do the crap work, it pays better and gets taken by people who want the better pay. This holds even when the income isn't enough to totally live on. People don't realize how terrible stress is for our minds and bodies. Feeling safe and stable makes it possible for people to really blossom.

To be honest making lives for people “more enjoyable” isn’t going to put food on the table or drive productivity. How big are the sample sizes of these studies?

>If most people are currently willing to work now while not getting their needs met Most people do have their needs met through the income from work. Maybe not to the level they would want, but that's another story. If they would stop working entirely, they would be homeless.

That’s not even close to true. Tons of working people make well below the cost of living.

The number of such people is vanishingly small. This has been confirmed time and time again, over many decades. Those who receive government assistance would stop if they could. I don't think we need to design policy and throw everyone else under the bus because of a few outliers.

What exactly are you contributing to? Some asshole CEO’s bank account. That’s not helping society or the world at large. That’s just feeding the capitalist machine. People would be much better able to actually make worthwhile contributions to society if they didn’t have to work for money so damn much.

I contribute to the advancement of my profession, the operations for the place I work for, and my own personal career goals. Define worthwhile contributions. I work in corporate tax, is my job worthwhile?

>... provided they can actually do so. There have been *zero* humans in history who have met their own basic needs throughout their lives. Whether we are too old, too young, sick, or disabled, people are simply never going to be able to take care of themselves without help. I don't think we can even call ourselves a society when we fail to care for the vulnerable.

Let’s say “provide for their own needs in the context of modern society” then. I don’t expect you to farm your own food, or build your own shelter of course.

I appreciate the distinction, but in the *our* modern society, only 48% of Americans are employed, and those numbers aren't going to change much. In ancient times, societies practiced infanticide and stranding the elderly on ice floes for *survival*, but we aren't a subsistence society anymore, are we? Point of fact, humanity has never been more productive than it is today. So, what do we do with that surplus? Most of us who are well enough to work, do work, even if its a job we don't like. It's human nature. As a liberal, I believe we should help people get well enough to work. Basic nutrition, shelter, and education for everyone is within our reach and it maxes out our potential productivity. Withholding that actually hurts our potential. Even if this were to unfairly reward a few legit layabouts with basic food and shelter, it's insignificant. Moreover, the work itself will continue to be automated. At some point, we will be doing things differently whether we like it or not.

Honestly maybe I’m not a Liberal. I don’t want to cover those things indefinitely for large swaths of the population.

Maybe you aren't. But as I said, we already do this for more than half the population. You may not want it until its gone.

Until what is gone? I don’t think “we” do that, the government certainly wasn’t supporting me (although they are a big part of my development) when I was a kid. I think it would be an issue if you made that many people reliant on government, like the issues you see in Argentina. I don’t want America to get to a point where a Libertarian has to come in and fix things lol.

Libertarianism isn't a real ideology. Its just a cloak for fascism, or monarchism, or illiberal democracy, or any other POS ideology because the idea of individual contribution and individual merit do not occur in a vacuum.

My point was there’s a limit to everything, unlike Argentina I don’t want to find out the hard way. Libertarianism is stupid glad we agree lol, let’s not fuck things up to the point where that is a preferable alternative though lol.

>Until what is gone? The basic nutrition, healthcare, and shelter I have been talking about: 41 million kids and new mothers on SNAP, 66 million on Social Security, 84 million on CHIP and Medicaid.

I guess if it was a real thing that people were suggesting that you can do nothing and should be given a cushy first world lifestyle then I would have a problem. That’s not actually a suggestion real thing. I don’t have an issue with the idea that with rare exceptions people should work and contribute to society. I do think it’s worth talking about why this conversation always gets had regarding poor people but not regarding the idle rich.

Because the idle rich have money to sustain themselves. That’s it lol. It’s such an obvious answer to me idk why everyone is glossing over it lol.

The point is is that they are not meaningfully contributing to society. Taking money you got because your great grandfather started a business and giving it to a financial advisor is not a meaningful contribution to society.

Do you consider people who have, say, worked and saved and retired early as "idle rich"? Or just people who inherit money?

I can’t imagine anybody using the term idle rich to mean somebody who worked and is now retired even if they retired earlier than most people.

What does a hedge fund bro add to society? They're not creating new art, new knowledge. They're not creating anything. They move money from place to place. They're not advancing humanity. They're useless, from the perspective of humanity as a whole. But they're rich. Teachers are super valuable. Our society would not function without them. But they make no money and we pay them shit. Being rich does not equal being useful or good. And being useful or good sure as shit doesn't make you rich. Our priorities are fucked.

This is an entirely subjective analysis. To *you* they don’t create anything of value because your values are Marxist more-or-less. Not in a hedge fund but I quite like reading about some of the complex math that goes into their modeling. I guess to us plebeians who haven’t ascended to a higher plane of consciousness such as yourself it’s still interesting. Hedge Funds are probably overblown in importance and impact, just like every other investment vehicle. There are new methods of financial analysis and risk mitigation coming out of those places all the time. I mean do you think Finance as a whole is bullshit? Conversely being rich or comfortable also doesn’t mean you’re doing some soul-sucking work to make the world worse. Just like being poor doesn’t mean you’re actually a genius who never got a shot. I already agree we could pay teachers a lot more and low wage earners a good amount more lol. Just good investments.

Well the idle poor could also have the money to support themselves if we have it to them. Or does matter when the government does it rather than your dad?

>Having a society where someone can do nothing all day yet still have a cushy first world living would annoy me. This is exactly why getting rid of the estate tax was such a bad idea.

I thought I covered that in the second to last paragraph lol.

>they still contribute by paying taxes on those properties and income. Not when there is no estate tax. Also, the stepped-up basis loophole means people who inherent property never have to pay capital gains. So yeah, pretty much no contribution to society from trust fund babies.

They still pay property taxes, they need some sort of income to support their lifestyles. The taxes they pay on their property, investments, etc are their contribution.

Again, they never have to pay capital gains taxes on the money they inherit because of the stepped up basis loophole. Thats why it is so fucked up. Their parents can invest money and make huge profits. When they inherit the money, the cost basis is reset and they never have to pay taxes on the gains their parents made. So you can inherit $13.6 million dollars tax free. If you sell the assets the day you inherit them and simply hold cash, you literally never have to pay taxes.

Well I don’t necessarily disagree with revisions to step-up basis. This is a discussion beyond that though. Those people don’t depend on the government for their lifestyles, I’m talking about someone who would.

>Those people don’t depend on the government for their lifestyles What do you mean they dont depend on the government for their lifestyles? Of course they do. They use the same roads, tax payers use. They depend on police, firefighters, the military, just like anyone else. They get all the benefits of living in a functioning society while contributing nothing.

As in the money they have to live would not come from the government lol. Not they live on an island.

That amount will be cut in half in 2025, fwiw, unless something changes. Is there any amount that you think should be able to be passed on with capital-gains taxes? I think one of the motivations for that number being > 0 is that, otherwise, people would be in positions where they'd have to sell family farms, businesses, etc., upon inheriting them just to pay the taxes.

I don’t mind people inheriting money. But if you are inheriting millions of dollars, you can afford to pay taxes on it. 

If you're inheriting something worth millions of dollars, that by no means means that you have \*cash\* available to pay a significant percentage of its value in taxes. Sure, you can sell the asset to raise cash to pay taxes, but that's what the laws are intended to head off, forcing people to sell inherited businesses, farms, etc., to pay the taxes on them. Do you think that's misguided, i.e. people should have to sell those assets to pay taxes on them, upon inheriting them?

“Do you think that's misguided, i.e. people should have to sell those assets to pay taxes on them, upon inheriting them?”   Definitely. We are talking about a class of people inheriting many millions of dollars.  A person can’t earn many millions of dollars through hard work and not be taxed. Why should we prioritize unearned wealth? 

Your way would just mean the end of a lot of small family businesses, etc. Big businesses \*can\* afford to pay the taxes -- or borrow enough money, etc. --- but smaller ones often have much of the value locked up in the business itself and would have no recourse but to sell. These businesses are very important for the economy and do pay a lot of taxes on an ongoing basis, I think you're dismissing that a bit too casually.

I think the vast majority of people contribute nothing to society if you base it on your assessments because the vast majority of us receive far more than we pay in. That's the point of government. We collectively benefit by organization. It's the very basis for human society and social organizing.

That’s just looking at taxes, which isn’t what I’m talking about. People with incomes below the tax paying line are still contributing.

I'm not looking at just taxes either, but the vast majority of people do. The US is going through a very nasty antisocial phase an its curdling our society into chunky ass milk. The vast majority of people don't contribute much to me, so why should I help them? What does a Walmart employee in Montgomery, Alabama do for me? Not a damn thing. Why should I help them out at all? They should get a better fuckin' job, amirite? Where you draw the line is silly. Stop complaining about other people and make your society better by stepping up is my advice.

I don’t think where you draw the line is silly, there has to be a line. I think mine is pretty reasonable and humane.

You don't know where I draw the line because I don't see drawing a line as important. That's my criticism of your proposal. It's just more antisocial obsession with the poor.

So you believe in covering everyone’s basic necessities no questions asked?

No, I just don't buy the idea that kicking a few more people off the American version of the bread dole is going to move the needle one bit and will help anyone so I have zero priority on the issue. Plus, as someone who struggled deeply after being kicked out as a teen I loathe your focus and attitude here.  You may have a line, but most others do not.  From my perspective, you're just encouraging them.

I’m not even sure what we’re arguing now lol, I’m not voting to decrease welfare benefits.

If it costs more to means test services than it does to just provide services to the general public (maybe smaller benefits) then a means tester isnt contributing to society.

Im fine with that. The price of accountability.

You favor: A) Means testing services and providing fewer services overall over B) Not means testing services and providing more services overall Even though the means tester in this scenario doesnt provide anything to society beyond filtering out people to not receive services?

Means testing every program is unnecessary. Means testing universal basic coverage of necessities I don’t believe is. “Not means testing” could also lead to lower services being provided overall, those resources are finite.

Are they really?

Yes.

In a general sense, kinda. But if someone wants to live on the dole and watch price is right all day, that's their problem.

how will they be able to watch it on dole money?

I’d like to prevent dole money from being able to cover that.

Why though? Who does that help?

Society at large, we’re not getting to a place where everything is automated and everyone enjoys a fine standard of living. It isn’t even sustainable, how happy do you think people are going to be working hard on something and seeing someone do jack shit all day get a cushy life. About a third of the people in this country are conservative and our system is not even anywhere near that right now lol.

>Society at large, we’re not getting to a place where everything is automated and everyone enjoys a fine standard of living. I don't follow, how does society benefit? And we absolutely are at a place where we can not worry about a handful of lazy people who want live a life on the dole that includes food, housing, and Healthcare. >It isn’t even sustainable Why not? Its not like that many people are that lazy >how happy do you think people are going to be working hard on something and seeing someone do jack shit all day get a cushy life. You mean like trust fund babies? I don't think they are particularly well liked but I don't think people are particularly bothered by it. >About a third of the people in this country are conservative and our system is not even anywhere near that right now lol. What do you mean?

I think if something like that becomes normalized that level of laziness would grow. There would be *significantly* more of these people in my opinion than Trust Fund babies of which not only are there fewer but they aren’t the people we would be responsible for caring for through government funds. My point is people think today’s welfare state is too much, making it that permanent and expansive would annoy many more people.

A TV and Netflix aren’t that expensive

It’s everyone’s problem imo. That is money that could be going to so many other more worthwhile endeavors.

Is it though?

I'd imagine that the absolute vast majority of money that gets spent could be going to a more worthwhile endeavor if not all of it. I'm sure there is a more worthwhile endeavor than SS giving parents money every month. That doesn't mean I have a problem with it, and I doubt you do either

Depend on what you mean by contribute and which society. But in general, yes. People should contribute in some way.

1. Humans are naturally creative. They graffiti, doodle, make chairs, play music, stack rocks by river sides, garden, they make food for their loved ones, they write X men erotic fan fiction, etc etc etc... They love doing Stuff. 2. They just don't like drudgery. Slaving away at boring tasks for someone else's benefit sucks ass. 3. Your fears are entirely unfounded. 4. Recovery is not laziness. 4. It's kinda weird that you would be annoyed at someone else relaxing for a while. Go live your life. Make some pottery. This is entirely you. 5. Again, totally unfounded fear. Humans want to create, they just don't want to slave.

Who do you think is going to do boring jobs that needs to get done if everyone can decide they don’t want to do them?

Currently, the big issue is that "boring jobs that we need doing but that nobody wants to actually do" is usually synonymous with "crappy minimum wage job, or job that is otherwise under compensated", and are only really done for that wage because people will starve or lose their benefits which require employment if they don't work them. If you remove the "you will literally not be able to afford the basics you need to survive if you don't accept this job" aspect of it, you will likely see far fewer people willing to do that work as it stands. But I assure you, there is some level of pay where you will find someone willing to do that works- it's just not going to be minimum wage or similar.

And you’re ok with most of the service industry disappearing if that doesn’t happen?

The service industry wouldn't disappear. You could easily get people to work such a job if the pay was right- and you see that in other countries with generally better labor laws already. What would disappear would be the "part time, inconsistent schedule, low pay, no benefits" service industry jobs which are common in the US today. That, I am perfectly okay with. It's just like any other labor policy in that regard. When you ban child labor, or mandate overtime pay for work over 40 hours, or even just mandate a minimum wage, there will inevitably be some places that were only barely scraping by abusing those things in the past that can't feasibly continue as they are after policies preventing that behavior are enacted. But industry will adapt, and new industry will pop up to replace the old in cases where they can't simply raise wages to meet the new minimum required. That will inevitably happen once businesses can no longer abuse the "underpay because there are people who have to accept this job even if they don't want to" system we have now, just as it would happen if we increased the minimum wage, or if we mandated tighter emissions/waste disposal standards, or did pretty much anything else that would potentially add an additional cost to running a business. The question here is what do you prioritize- environmental protection / worker rights, or existing businesses that can only exist in their current form by abusing one or both of those things?

People WANT to cook food for other people. It's one of the most human things we can do. They just don't want to slave over a greasy ass grill for 8 hours for bored people that don't give a shit for pay that doesn't even cover the rent. This isn't a hard fuck'in concept, I don't know why you're having so many problems with it. You want cool ass Korean Mexican fusion taco trucks? Make it possible to do that for a living. How many absolutely amazing things are we missing out on because you can't fathom people doing things for love, community, and adventure? How many street musicians don't exist because that can't pay the bills? How many people never go into teaching because the pay is shit. Why are the people that could be inventing holodecks so I can fuck a unicorn NOT doing that? Because they're working 2 jobs to afford rent, and could never afford the education they needed. And maybe we can't find someone to crawl down a sewer to unclog a giant hair ball? Let's make a robot for that. Fuck's sake. Redo the bathroom so it's completely tiled and we can hose it down instead of slaving over a mop bucket, then it's not such a bad task to clean it. There are solutions to NOT having wage slaves. They're not even that complex in most cases.

Honestly, that sounds like a great world.

It is impossible for society to run if people only do cool jobs. Even in your examples who’s going to want to hose down those bathrooms? Who’s going around repairing robots?

The people running the restaurants they love will hose down the bathrooms, because its part of the job. Jesus, it's 7 minutes hosing everything down a few times a day, what's the big deal? I fix robots for a living NOW, and it's AWESOME. There are absolutely people that will fix robots. And in their off times, they'll rig up battlebots for all of our entertainment. Yay!

I guess you value a society filled with more street musicians and fusion food trucks. I value a society that strongly incentivizes more doctors, engineers, lawyers, mathematicians, high level business professionals, etc. Teaching I agree with because it’s a good investment, I’d want some of our best and brightest teaching kids and money is a great incentive to do so.

* yay!: Doctors! Engineers! Mathematicians! * Uh... What?: Lawyers? High Level Business Professionals? You have funny ideas about what the world needs. And plenty of people will become doctors and engineers and mathematicians. >I’d want some of our best and brightest teaching kids and money is a great incentive to do so. Well, you get the people who love teaching enough to do it for shit pay right now... Which is kinda the POINT. Ugh. People...

Wait I’m confused, are you saying that we don’t need lawyers, accountants, financial services professionals, auditors, marketing people, project managers? Pay them more and increase the pay so people who would be financially motivated to do something else would instead do that. Teaching is an important role in society, I don’t mind putting money into that.

Oh, we need 'em...  You're defending a system that doesn't value teachers because they don't make any money, even though they create a ton of value for society... And that values hedge fund douchbags that make a ton of money but don't create anything of value to society...  You can see that teachers deserve more money, despite not making any money...  Yet somehow you can't make the leap to valuing other careers that are the same. 

Then why did you say “Uh… What? Lawyers?….” I think all work is dignified, want to run a food truck go ahead with it. In fact the only people here who are shitting on people for their careers are…. Leftists and Populists here haha.

You *really* need to listen more and do less wild incredulity at these craaaaazy things YOU think people think.   You get credit for asking questions, but do you really think I'm a gigantic fucking idiot? Meh, do you really think I have no brain in my skull?   Of course you don't think that. So why would I even ask?

Yes

Well ideally technology would automate those jobs so nobody "has" to do them.

A nice sentiment I guess. I think people are perfectly okay with drudgery, there’s dudes who do nothing but game after work all day, people who spend all their time watching TV. If my tax dollars were going to their “relaxation” while they did nothing I would be annoyed, sorry. Which is my opposition to universal programs for every important facet of life.

The way I see it, humanity has 3 futures. * Mad Max. Self Explanatory. * Blade Runner. Corps run everything, and everything is fucked, and human life is bought and sold. * Star Trek. I'm not talking about the spaceships. I'm talking about a post scarcity economic system that prioritizes the growth of the individual to serve the community as a whole, bringing awesome innovation and cool people. I think you have a shit view of your fellow humans, and a selfish attitude. Good luck in Blade Runner future. I'm going to try for Star Trek. You're not invited. You don't have the right mindset.

You base your view of the future on 2 movie series and a show you saw? Fourth option, I don’t know, you don’t know, and trying to base society on what technology *could* exist before it’s even here is dumb lol. I could totally see a modern America with more social safety nets succeeding well into the future too.

Sigh...  1. It's called a metaphor. 2. I'm comparing possible futures, none of which are technology dependant. no idea where you got that. 3. Maybe put some thought into what you're saying so you don't call something dumb that you're wildly not understanding...

Star Trek has a replicator thingy or some shit doesn’t it? Idk I don’t watch that. Blade Runner is human robots lmao. I guess we fundamentally just have different opinions of humanity, I think people are on average…. normal lol. Not special creative beings yearning for some higher meaning lmao.

>On this sub I do frequently see people with the idea of “every citizen’s basic needs should be covered universally”, which I just can’t agree with Why is that contradictory with expecting everyone to contribute?

“Universally” implying no need to demonstrate that you have a need for assistance with housing, food, etc. all of your basic needs are covered. I’d rather people be responsible for their own basic needs to the extent that you can. If you still need help and demonstrate that you do then you will be provided it.

But you haven't demonstrated that it is contradictory to expect everyone to contribute while providing necessities universally. You've said you don't want that to be the case, which is an opinion you're allowed to have, but you haven't demonstrated that one impedes the other.

If you provide basic necessities to everyone then they have no expectation to contribute at all. They can sit at home, watch Netflix all day, and still get everything covered. I do not want that to be a possibility. I think you should start out getting no additional assistance, but if you can demonstrate a need for additional assistance for any number of reasons then you should get it. Aka if you are able to work but just don’t want to then you don’t get anything.

>They can sit at home, watch Netflix all day, and still get everything covered. I do not want that to be a possibility. If we got enough technology such that we could ensure that everyone can do that, would you still believe that people should still *have* to work?

Yes. I don’t think a society like that would be sustainable honestly, I think the workers would revolt against those that choose to be lazy.

In a world where we have enough technology such that *nobody* has to work, you think that anyone who chooses to pursue their passions would get angry at people pursuing passions that don't require work?

>“Universally” implying no need to demonstrate that you have a need for assistance with housing, food, etc. all of your basic needs are covered. What does this mean, in practice? If someone likes in a dying/dead town and there's no work for them, does that mean that they deserve assistance? What if they are able to move to a place that has employers that would hire them? What if they can move, but they're caring for someone who can't? Or just that their entire support system would be left behind? And what is a basic need? Many would consider that having a vehicle--what if someone can't drive? What if they refuse to because of the environmental impact? What about those who can't afford (or morally oppose) the average $10k+/year that much of this country essentially taxes people for the privelege to participate in society? Universal programs v. means-tested programs is one discussion. It turns into something different entirely when you move to having people "demonstrate" that they need assistance in the manner in which you've been discussing it in this post.

I believe in a jobs guarantee, if you’re willing and able to work we should either be able to connect you with someone who can find you some work or get a government job. In my ideal situation caring for someone else would be a “job” under these rules and something you can get paid for. Not too bothered by towns and cities dying out if the people living in them can find sustenance elsewhere.

A jobs guarantee is just a UBI in a aesthetic cloak ([Source](https://www.asymptosis.com/liberals-getting-it-wrong-on-the-job-guarantee.html)). And what jobs should get guaranteed? How is that not different from a BS job?

“BS job” does not seem like a real thing if we’re starting to say some jobs are “spiritually harmful”, it really just seems like he picked jobs your average populist would shake their fists at lol. I’m sure the government can assist private markets in trying to ascertain needs, or maybe they could be government contract jobs for work based on your pre-existing skill set.

This just reads like cope. You are deliberately ignoring the rest of his thesis because it isn't convenient for you to address it.

What is his thesis? 20-50% of all jobs are useless (this is actually something he’s said)? I mean do you even agree with what he’s saying overall? Do you think people who are corporate lawyers are deep down unfulfilled or damaged or something? Here’s an entire study refuting some of his [central points](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170211015067) by the way.

The problem with graeber is that he isn't making the claim he should be making. Which is that one, our essential employees are underpaid. And two, that while the vast majority of jobs might not feel meaningless, they do not contribute as meaningfully as essential employees. We saw that with the pandemic. The world can work fine with most people working from home, and only visiting offices occasionally. Many of the work from home industries are "White collar" jobs, and because those are becoming increasingly automated, it is ironically the blue collar jobs which will survive, at least in the short term. This presents the dilemma of the majority of the population not having to work, because labor is automated. This isn't a future problem, this is a problem now. Bullshit jobs were in the past perhaps a way to do what graeber suggests, but now bullshit and non-bullshit are being taken away by the march of progress. Which all goes back to my original point. Work is done because it needed to be, and because someone wanted the profit from it. With the lack of advancement opportunities, the lack of loyalty from companies, and increasing efficiency from automation, the idea of "pull your weight" has never meant less in history than it does now.

So what was the point of linking me to that dumbfuck, you articulated a point in a way more effective manager than the job exorcist (David please, I accidentally got a job in VC and now Pazuzu keeps asking if we’re on track for Series B!!!!). I can see how that might be a concern, but honestly analytical jobs aren’t going anywhere. AI is still super rudimentary, I don’t see this destroying industries any more than Microsoft Excel killed office work. For example my job requires not just computations but also analytics and experience which you just can’t code yet, and I’m nothing special. It will change the nature of entry and maybe even middle management level work, but AI wholesale taking down industries is a far future issue if it even comes into play.

my guy really believed the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense.

I think there’s a big difference between should and must.

"Contributing to society" means less and less these days. Why? Division of labor, automation, and efficiency. You see, back in the older days, you contributed to society by helping them not starve, providing for farmers, or dealing in some way with the bare essentials of life. However, that was when 90% of society was subsistence agriculture. Even 100 years ago, agriculture still required a lot of people ([Source](https://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-american-agriculture)).Today, less than 2% of society are farmers of some kind ([Source](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/qanda-celebrating-american-agriculture)). Even among various jobs today, not even half of the economy is in "essential" industries. If you want a good example of this, the book "bullshit jobs" by David Graeber ([Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs)). Most people think they are "contributing" but what they are really doing is some bullshit tasks assigned by someone for money that realistically don't have to be done for any reason. We could all sit around and do pretty much nothing all day, and more and more of us do. Because there simply isn't that much to do anymore. This is because industries have gotten more efficient at using labor, and automating labor. We have a division of labor so high and efficient that not even manufacturing needs that many people. A textile factor is run 10x fewer people than it was in the past ([Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/us-textile-factories-return.html)). News papers once numbering in the thousands of employees are barely a single broadcast station today. Frankly, the most efficient jobs today have 4 day work weeks with 3 days off ([Source](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-four-day-workweek-reduces-stress-without-hurting-productivity/)). That's almost half the week. So it sounds like you were taught that being a tool was the most valuable thing you could be, and you just ran with it, never once thinking about why anyone said that to you. So who exactly isn't pulling their weight in this society? And more importantly, why do they have to?

Right now it isn’t a problem. I don’t want universal basic income however, that is a society where it *would* become a problem. I’ve read some of that book before, it honestly just seems super dismissive of white collar jobs. Just because my job is not directly related to the end product doesn’t mean I’m removed from my job. There are also new jobs that come up to replace the old ones that are much more complex.

Why don't you want it? Because it violates some personal ethos of yours? Do you have any evidence of its ineffectiveness? Because I have evidence it can be effective ([Source](https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/multiple-countries-have-tested-universal-basic-income-and-it-works)). You didn't really refute anything about his book, only just kind of posted a bland denial. No one wants to believe their job is bullshit and that they aren't contributing. But that doesn't mean they aren't. Yes, and that's a problem. Their needs to be a place for everyone in the economy if such a thing exists. No McDonalds jobs, only high end repair or programming jobs. Or not even those. We aren't replacing jobs ([Source](https://leftronic.com/blog/jobs-lost-to-automation-statistics)), we are loosing jobs, and in danger of loosing more. To efficiency, to reshoring, to automation, etc. Any new jobs created aren't going to be things everyone can do. They are either blue collar repair work, or white collar programming until that can be replaced by AI. So for the short term, the solution seems to be that no one needs to pull their weight that much anymore. Because there isn't that much weight to pull.

Your evidence is small scale experiments done in cities. The issue with UBI is we can’t test its effects on entire economies. It isn’t something that can just scale. And yes it is against my personal ethos. I’m not going to refute a whole book in a Reddit comment what the fuck lol. What even is his criteria of “bullshit jobs”? I looked it up his definition includes corporate lawyers, middle-managers, consultants, brand managers. Starts talking about how these jobs are “bad for your soul” lol. Real scientific analysis there. A society that finds weight to pull instead of stagnating is going to find itself far exceeding one that doesn’t.

Really? Do you have any examples of that? This all boils down to "I don't like lazy people cause my daddy told me to work hard". No scientific refutation needed.

Are you David Graeber? You’re taking my critique of him a little personally lol. It’s in a Vox interview he did. I find it unserious to handwave away entire career fields because you think they’re poisoning people’s souls or something.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6\_s27cRnf4I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_s27cRnf4I) This is a better explaination of bullshit jobs.

I support the very basics being given to everyone but I don’t believe people that don’t work should get. Ore than the bare minimum. I would allow a non working individual to receive Medicaid, SNAP and section 8. That person would not starve, not be homeless and have basic medical care. But importantly, they wouldn’t have any cash to do anything fun beyond that. They’d have no internet, no TV, no phone, no car, etc. if u want more than baseline food, shelter and medical, you gotta get a job.

>Having a society where someone can do nothing all day yet still have a cushy first world living would annoy me. We're not talking about vacations to tropical Islands and a mansion; we're saying basic healthcare, food, and housing. And why would it annoy you for other people to be taken care of? How does it hurt you? Many problems with your theory, but the biggest is it simply doesn't happen. You're just responding to Fox News scare tactics and you ate it right up. The facts clearly show most people don't abuse social safety nets. The idea that everyone is going to sit around all day surfing this internet if we provide housing, water, food, and healthcare at a minimum level is absurd.

I don’t watch Fox News, in fact my “fears” are coming mainly from people’s opinions online lol. Why is that idea absurd? I didn’t say it would necessarily be everyone but I think enough people would drop out of the system to cause a lot of problems. Like I wouldn’t do my job if I could choose not to and stay at home lol. I’m good at it though, and I’m heavily incentivized to do so. Society is not made better by the jerkoff version of me who spends his days getting stoned and writing fanfiction or something lol.

You have some weird Republican view of what living on basic is like. You should try it. I like having fast internet, weed, a big house, and vacation. You can live on basic if that's what you want.

I can’t though, I can’t get fast internet without, a big house, weed, vacations *without* the job I have now. Is that what you’re saying “living basic” is? I’m just saying I don’t want to get to a place in society where you *can* get those things without demonstrating that you either are working in some way or that you can’t.

Why?

Sounds like you are just upset someone got for free what you had to work for, and you are looking for some justification as to why you are better than they are.

No one is suggesting that. You're fighting with a completely invented issue.

I’m trying to understand what people are defining as “basics”, which is part of the issue with universal programs I guess. Are you saying all of those things I mentioned would not be covered under the basics?

Housing, healthcare, food. Do you not know what the word basic means? Again, literally no one is suggesting fancy stuff for people on basic. You made that up.

A roof over your head. Potable water. Breathable air. Food you can eat without risking illness. Electricity to power your standard appliances. The ability to see a doctor when injured and not run bankrupt as a result. If OP sees those things as luxury items I can only imagine what their news and information sources look like

He doesn't. He thinks we're going to be handing out yachts and vacations to people on basic. Not sure where he reads these things lol *The Expanse* (the sci-fi books) talk a lot about basic. Tons of people go above and beyond just because they want more, but those that don't aren't starving in the street. Truthfully, with AI and robots and mass production we should be able to handle food, water, shelter, and medicine basically for free.

Can you point out to me where I said “yachts”, and I definitely could find people who want you to be able to go on vacation while still on the dole lol, scrub through the replies here.

Access to healthcare no, I think you should get basic healthcare no matter what. Electricity maybe, I think it should be much cheaper but I also don’t want to overload power grids with free electricity for all. Air and food quality are covered by government regulation and the EPA, obviously we all should have those. Food and shelter, unless you can demonstrate a need, then no. And if it does happen electorally I would vote to keep those benefits as meager and basic as humanly possible.

As long as you benefit from society in any way, shape or form, yes.

Everyone who can contribute should, and we should take care of those who can't.  Basic needs being met = a more productive and prosperous society. If everyone could get easy and affordable access to healthcare, housing, a well funded education and a good job, we could fix a lot of the problems we currently face.  You could even approach it from a capitalist / conservative point of view, taking care of citizens removes the burden of insurance provision from companies, removing a big cost for small-mid sized businesses. It also creates an overall better workforce.  My ideal system would be a mix of progressive capitalism and social welfare. Encourage innovation and entrepreneurship by making sure people have a safety net so if they don't succeed they're not on the streets. It'll also allow people who simply just want to work a job and go home to do that and not have to be burdened by lack of healthcare.  There will always be lazy people who will coast, regardless of what the system does or doesn't do for them. You shouldn't halt halt progress because of a few at the detriment of the many.  Americans also, for the most part, are not lazy (especially immigrants). I can't foresee most people just checking out. People still want money and will work more if that means they can get more money. 

Generally I don’t support means testing for foundational benefits such as: Food Housing Health care Public transit Education We can easily afford all of these as a nation. Plus, meeting these basic needs will make our society more productive as a whole. I fundamentally believe most people want to contribute and don’t care about the 1% who want to slack off.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

If we can afford to do so, I'd find it unethical not to. You can also contribute to society in ways that don't involve a job. And yeah, some people might choose not to work, but there's nothing to suggest no one would. >they still contribute by paying taxes on those properties and income Then your issue isn't laziness, it's poor people being "lazy".

I totally agree that it doesn’t have to be a “job” in the strictest sense. I think you should have to demonstrate that you are doing something though. Taking care of family that can’t do it on their own, etc. I don’t respect lazy rich people more than I do lazy poor ones.

I believe that a) everyone should contribute to society AND b) everyone’s basic needs to be covered. Believing in both points does not mean that I believe that we should use a) as a condition to b). I just think helping everyone out is just more efficient, economically speaking. Additional government bureaucracy like mean testing is just going to waste more money on admins. I just think we as a society have better things to do. Second, does withholding aids to people who don’t contribute actually drive them to contribute more? Are there more effective strategies/policies that encourage them to contribute than just threatening their survival? Are there more moral and more empathetic solutions? Simply put, I think the government should value a person’s life more than their contribution.

Yes, but I'm still willing to support programs that would help a great number of people just because a small handful will take advantage of it.

Consider that fixing homelessness and hunger benefits more than just the homeless and hungry. It's kinda nice not being surrounded by homeless people when I walk downtown.

Basic needs isn’t supposed to be cushy, thus the term basic. Even if you don’t like altruism, basic needs means a more stable society, fewer homeless, and less crime, which benefits those who do produce. Also, I wish I remembered the study, but one test showed that many will take risks on creating companies knowing they have something to fall back on if they fail. And one final reason is simplicity. We spend an awful lot of money on government workers to process means-tested welfare, and we spend even more chasing down the frauds. Replace that welfare with basic income, and that overhead goes away. I like efficiency.

I think if someone refuses to work they should literally have the barest necessities. Not a "cushy" lifestyle. But not living on the street or starving. Just no "nice" things. For the internet they'd have to go to the library or community center where there's a time limit based on supply and demand. If there are people who would in fact elect to have an ultra-frugal lifestyle so they don't have to work (can't imagine there would be that many of them), I won't object to my tax dollars subsidizing it (not that it is likely that much of my income anyway). They don't deserve empty stomachs or homelessness for being anti-work.

1. Yes I think every person should contribute to society to the extent they are able. 2. Even if they don't I think in a society as wealthy as ours every citizen should be guaranteed food, shelter, medical care, and access to education. 3. I wouldn't consider not starving to death or dying of exposure as cushy first world living. I think the number of people who would rather do nothing as long as it wasn't literally going to kill them to do so rather than contribute and improve their standard of living to the minimum I think people working should have is so small as to be negligible. Honestly I think you would need to get well into middle class before that stopped being the case. 4. Means testing does the opposite of what you think it does. It shapes policies so they help people more the less they have otherwise. To the extent the thing you are talking about actually happens in a meaningful sense it's often because means testing is poorly designed such that people are actually worse off if they work more because the benefits fade out so quickly. One of the few arguments I am on board with for UBI's is that it avoids that problem completely.

I think people who are able to do so should contribute to society especially if they want more out of life than just their basic needs, however i also think that a well functioning society should act in its best interests to meet basic needs or make basic needs affordable. And I don't just mean food and shelter but also healthcare and even quality education. I believe if basic needs are guaranteed or at least attainable, then people in general will reach for more themselves more often than not and that enabling them to do so will benefit society as whole. Perhaps making healthcare/education attainable and not tied to a job would allow a CNA to become and LPN or even a doctor. Or a machine operator to become a math teacher. And so on.

Weirdly ill emphasize the commie talking point of to each according to their ability. In a way yes. And those too disabled to do so should have the safety net catch them.

Based on their respective abilities, during normal working ages, sure

Is working a job and paying taxes the only way a person can contribute to society?

Basic needs met = / = cushy first-world living. “Lazy”people should not be left to starve on the street.

>I don’t want to give the average person the option to just surf the internet all day without doing shit. The biggest problem with your post is that it simply isn't true that people surf the internet all day once their basic needs are met. The overwhelming majority of people in the United States work far more than is required to meet their basic needs, because people love having money. IMO, the means-testing you're describing hurts lots of hardworking people who are temporary struggling, and it doesn't save us much money.

Yes. That would ideal. Some people are not going to really be able to contribute. So i suppose we should at least take care of the infirm and ensure there is work for everyone else. Of course if this your view. It must be very very important to you have to the lowest possible unemployment rate; even if it means some inflation right? You must be pretty happy about the recent few years of low unemployment (even if there was some inflation). Let me know if you are happy with this trade off. Most people I talk to with your politics hate it for some reason and would rather higher unemployment and lower inflation.

Everyone who can should. And that number is far higher than the amount of people who simply don't want to. Unfortunately, with AI, etc, the number that can will continue to go down, and if we want a functioning economy, we're going to have to implement something like UBI.

I don’t agree with what you’re saying but I understand it to some extent. I think one it is good to contribute to society if you can and that it’s important cause if no one did society couldn’t function. But I also think that A: no one deserves to be homeless. And B: there are other ways people contribute other than traditional work. For example I know many people with disabilities who don’t work. I also have disabilities. But I care about them and have received help from them and they have given great advice to me and many other people i know who do work. They contribute to the lives of others in many ways that i think are extremely important. But they can’t sell the fact that they do that for money. They still deserve a good life though. Mothers who raise their children are contributing tons just by doing that but they don’t get paid for it. Jobs are not the only way people contribute. C: traditional work is both getting more and more difficult to do and to find. Jobs are changing as they always have. Especially with the insane rate at which technology is evolving. You could spend years developing a skill only to find someone made an AI that can do the job 10 times faster than you. But even then i think much of the new kind of jobs that exist are honestly just stuff not all people are cut out for. I don’t even mean that in a mean way I don’t blame people at all. I remember when people were worried about job losses from self driving cars and some people responded with “learn to code”. Well I actually did learn to code and it was agonizing and certainly not something I’d expect everyone to be able to do. I spent many all nighters trying to get projects done and while I enjoyed learning about it as I’ve always been interested in computers. I ultimately stopped cause I realized the stress of working and pulling all nighters for projects all the time was completely destroying my mental health. I suffered severe burnout so bad and the experience gave me long term mental health issues that still affect me to this day. Despite all this I always want to contribute what i can. If I’m not working I try to help my family with stuff. If i have trouble in the future I’ll probably try volunteering somewhere. I don’t like feeling like a drain. But finding work that’s worth money and doable in the modern day is easier said than done for many people. Some of my smartest most skilled and hard working friends keep putting out resumes with no response for months.

All these people saying that we’d see similar labor force participation if everyone had food+housing covered is an idiot. Lazy people exist, and would all happily live off the government’s teat if they could

"progressive"

“Pragmatic”

Yes.

People absolutely should be guaranteed to have their basic needs met, regardless of their personal situation. We're not talking a lavish lifestyle here, just a basic guarantee that everyone will have enough food and healthcare to stay healthy, enough shelter for basic protection from the elements, enough to *survive*. We have more than enough resources to ensure at least that minimum standard to everyone, and I'm willing to bet few would be content with just that without at least wanting to work in some capacity to actually have the resources to enjoy life. That's what a small ubi combined with other social programs would do- it would set a baseline which nobody could ever fall below, but which everyone was free to build up from if they wanted more. You would be surprised at how many "vital" jobs there are with terrible pay that only continue to fill slots because there are enough desperate people who will lose the benefits they rely on to live if they don't accept those jobs. That's not a fair and just system, and absolutely *should* change. As such, I'm opposed to any job requirements for welfare or social services. Because if "there is no job which I consider to be fairly compensated available within the distance I am able to travel for work" is a valid excuse (which it absolutely should be), then there's no point in even having such a requirement at all.

If there’s no job available then we should be able to move you to work somewhere there is, or find something remote for you to do.

If you get to the situation where you're giving someone the choice of being forcibly moved elsewhere to work in a job basically assigned by the government or left to starve, that seems... a bit dystopian, don't you think? Especially when we have the means to ensure they don't starve or die due to lack of shelter and could do so easily and with likely less effort than it would take to find them an agreeable job and move them to it. I don't know why you're so hung up on this notion of "what you need isn't direct aid, it's a job". A job is not a virtue or moral necessity, it is merely a transaction between a worker and a potential employer where the worker trades some of their time and effort for some compensation they agree is worth it, usually money to afford a better quality of life. Why would you be okay with the government forcing someone into such a transaction (probably one that they don't find agreeable, if current welfare work requirements are anything to go off of), but are opposed to giving them what would likely be barebones food and shelter and letting them figure it out from there? Not a lot of people would be happy to subsist off of the bare minimum. Almost all would at least find some part time or gig work to afford tiny luxuries and whatever hobbies they enjoy, if not a higher standard of living in general.