I’m retired. I live in that society already. So do millions of other retired Americans.
Speaking just for me, I’m not going back to work until unless I can’t afford a very modest roof over my head. IOW my SES would have to get real low before I’d consider reentering the workforce.
I really think most younger folks would take to a comfortable UBI like they’d take to beer, pizza, and a beach chair on a sunny day.
Good point.
There really are no good ways to get “more.”
Also, even in a post-scarcity society some things are still scarce. E.G. You cannot put six billion people next to Lake Tahoe because everyone wants a lake house in the mountains.
Some sort of “only special people” will still exist. And maybe that is what you work for.
That or we assume a really, really small society.
ETA: In the Culture novels everyone lives on giant spaceships. There simply is no “more” to be had there.
I think the point about retirees makes a good point. We already have a lot of people who effectively live this lifestyle. In addition to retirees, consider kids on summer vacation. Their bills are paid, they don’t have school to attend, but lots of them still get jobs to pay for the extras, and the ones who don’t have jobs still do other things, like sports and hobbies. Sure, some spend the whole summer in the basement gaming, but not all of them.
I have been retired and on a generous pension for 25 years. For the first 20 of them, I did what I really love to do: mathematics research. I also did a bit of teaching (unpaid). And that is what I would do in a post-scarcity economy. But that is not open to everybody. I hardly ever watch TV, I do read a lot, but none of this is paid work. I think a lot of people would simply decide to live on the UBI and follow their favorite avocation.
A lot would depend on what jobs look like. Working conditions would have to be a lot nicer than most are these days.
I think it not quite right to compare retired folk.
Most of the retired folk I know live considerably above what I would consider UBI levels. But they worked for decades, and often sacrificed along the way, to put themselves in that position. Now they drive nice cars, golf regularly, eat out when they want, vacation, attend shows… I’m going to retire in a couple of years. I’m going to be quite comfortable - anticipate continuing pretty much the same standard of living that I currently enjoy. But that is SEVERAL steps above what a Walmart checker can afford.
I think one of the things that would change would be that a whole lot more jobs would have flexible schedules.
It does vary. My sister and BIL, in their 80’s, could retire very comfortably and could have done so for some years now. Neither of them wants to.
Neither do I, but it would be extremely nice to have it not matter if I don’t make any money. I’d keep right on farming, though; I’d just be a lot more relaxed about it.
I’d love to not work, but I work in a convenience stor. I pretty much hate my job. I only work 1 day a week (mostly). I had to retire early to take care of Hubster; so I don’t make much on ss especially after Medicare costs. I’d love a ubi. It would make my life a lot less stressful.
The latter is very unlikely, for the simple reason that a society that would offer “tents and cold gruel” as its baseline would be more likely to not offer anything at all. A society that offers basic support to everyone without conditions implies a certain base level of generosity.
Maybe. As a first move, offer a 1 bedroom per family member apartment and a new iPad every 5 years. When the take-up proves to be 80% of the population, not the 20% assumed, suddenly it’s tents and gruel.
And death squads, but we don’t want to add that nasty real-world effect to the OP’s happy hypothetical.
Yeah, that makes a huge difference and it would be an even bigger difference in a post-scarcity society - the concept of ‘the weekend’ doesn’t necessarily go away, because even people who choose to work still need a break, but the weekend can be when you want it.
If people don’t absolutely have to work, but there is still paid work that could be done, it means employers have to think more about how they will attract people to the roles, instead of trying to trap and control people in the roles.
I’d guess the same. Some would work to feel useful. Many would work to feel appreciated. Some would struggle desperately for top status.
Some of the work would be “smaller” than our current jobs. Playing guitar at bars, or doing magic tricks at children’s birthday parties. Knitting complex lace or chainmail. Carving attractive artifacts. Some would be what we call “volunteering” today. Organizing events for groups, caring for stay animals. I think science would continue to progress, and medicine, and math.
Yeah, I’m assuming that anything people do that is valued by others counts as “work”. And also, a society where no one has to work kinda is needs to be a society that doesn’t need humans to collect the garbage.
Agreed with the caveat that overall it would be much flatter. Top status would not be the wide gulf from the mean that we have today. (Other than if there was some governing class.) The smaller group scale analogy is more hunter gatherer groups. I suspect that like in many HG groups “leadership” might be fluid depending on the task or interests of the occasion.
Would our tribal nature play out in such a circumstance you think? My guess is that human nature is to form groups of us and thems, even just “we block 2648Bs are much better than those miscreants of block 2649Ds”. …
I like this topic as a thought experiment because its churning up some weird, hidden attitudes I have (and presumably I’m not alone).
For example the knee-jerk reaction in part of my brain is that this would cause humanity to stagnate and become weak, but when I drill all the way down into that, it turns out there is something like (not exactly this, but this is the closest form of words I can think of) the opinion or feeling that ‘the human race needs the dirty undesirable jobs to be done by actual humans, for some reason, but also, I don’t want to be the one that does them’
Obviously that thought needs to come out into daylight so it can be properly dealt with, and this thread was the tool by which that happened.
But why would you ever assume it would only be 20%? The whole point of Universal Basic Income is that it is universal. Everyone gets that basic level of income, no matter what. A society that is physically incapable of providing that would never even try to offer it in the first place.
To me, this is kind of resisting the hypothetical. “Will people work if they don’t have to” is not asking if no one will ever make music again, or knit again… it’s asking if people will choose to submit to a boss or organization doing work that they’d rather not be doing on a schedule not of their choosing. If work just means “doing something constructive” then of course people will work. But that’s such a given that it’s not an interesting question. Will people still form bar bands or make armor for ren fairs in a world with UBI? Of course they will! Because they don’t have to spend most of their waking hours at work.
The “not of their choosing” part is unlikely, but some jobs that will still be done will require something like a ‘boss’ that sets a schedule. Hospitals need people 24/7, someone will have to cover night shifts and holidays.
Heck, I have a couple co-workers who are retirees working part-time not because they have to but “to have something to do”, get out of the house, interact with people, feel useful, etc.
The fact that for centuries (if not since forever) working yourself to the bone was essential for survival and often distasteful has sort of obscured the fact that for a lot of people sitting around all day is not a thing. The difference is between “have to work” and "want to work"
I don’t think whatever tech makes this post-scarcity society possible is going to magically make millions of years of evolution go away. Although there are plenty of exceptions, in general women seek out men with resources and/or skills. This makes sense, as resources and skills are what kept the species alive.
That’s why young men are competitive, like to show off, and like to show their wealth. Heck, that’s why older men like to show off, too.
Currently, money services as a measure resources, and having a high-paying/high-status job says “PROVIDER!”. Post-scarcity there will still be some people pursuing resources (and some who find that attractive) but the balance may tilt more towards skills. Men who cook fantastic meals might suddenly be the new “sports” stars for example. Or maybe it will be all about carpentry or trophy hunting or rock climbing or male beauty pageants. I think it will be about something where men attempt to stand out so the women will be interested in them.
Huh. Oddly enough that describes my current living situation (single, 1 bedroom, about 800 square feet)
Really, what you’re describing is the lower end of middle class. It’s not spartan. I live pretty good, have the occasional luxury, able to travel a bit … (I’m presuming people are able to travel and not locked in place geographically). It’s not an unpleasant lifestyle. And if someone wanted more - either long-term or just to, I dunno, pay for a trip around the world or some sort of hobby equipment - they could get a job and earn some extra money for it, right?
I’m the sort who is always going to be busy or have multiple projects going on if I’m at all able to do things. So I guess I’d be one of the “employed”? But at this level of living I could definitely see a lot of folks essentially doing nothing we’d call “productive” - but then, there would be no need for them to do so, would there? No harm if all they want to do is watch TV, play poker, and be an audience for the musician down the block. Meanwhile, the creatives will be creating. We’d probably all have more social life. We’d all probably, finally, get sufficient sleep (except for the occassionall all night party).
Part of the reason places like that turn into sinkholes of sloth, despair, and drug abuse is due to having to struggle to get adequate food, clothing, and shelter. Also a sense of being trapped there. Even worse if higher-status people who are able to work remotely suddenly decide to move to your nice, quiet sinkhole for whatever reason and suddenly you can’t afford to live in the place you’ve lived all your life. But you still don’t have the money to move.
If you don’t have to work a shit job under shit conditions for a hovel that changes things. Such people will have good housing (even if not elaborate), they’ll have access to decent food, they won’t be abused by work situations. They can stay with their families. They can pursue higher education. They can work at something around town, or be a “creative”. Want to relocate? If there isn’t a stipend for that then they can get a job of some sort and save up to do so.
One thing that stops people in rural areas from moving is that housing and living costs are generally higher the closer to an urban core you go. As an example, when I moved from Chicago proper to Indiana I really felt like I had an income boost because cost of living was so much cheaper in the new location. It’s a lot harder to go the other way. But if the urban “UBI housing” was essentially the same as in rural areas - one bedroom 800 square feet for a single person, for example - then it becomes a matter of where you choose to live as opposed to where you can afford to live. I love the walkability of Chicago and being able to get around on mass transit - but I can’t afford to live in Chicago any more (also, there was a safety issue in that neighborhood, but I digress…)
I also assume in this paradise remote work will be available, so where you live won’t matter so much. Someone on UBI in a rustbelt village could perhaps get remote work. What sort? I don’t know - monitoring robots? Talking to lonely senior citizens over Zoom? Editing novels for wannabe authors?
Remote work, removal of cost-of-living issues, and being able relocate while continuing to have some sort of income will do a lot to level out these differences. I don’t think they’ll entirely disappear - some places will continue to be more attractive to live than others - but it with smooth out some of the disparities. As well as let people escape dying cities/towns if that’s their choice.
I think it wouldn’t be as clear cut as “this group doesn’t work” and “this group works”. I think people will go back and forth between categories during their lives. Work when you want, take a break when you want.
Yes. That’s called an “audience”. And there would be no harm by them choosing that path in life.
Pre-industrial? Unquestionably. But I suspect the OP was thinking “robots” for the grunt work.
Oddly enough, rural locations have also been known to have apartment buildings, if not massive “complexes”.
In a lot of ways apartments in one building are more efficient. If it’s the government providing the housing I could see this for UBI rather than individual houses. Presumably such buildings would be appropriately sized for the location. You wouldn’t need skyscrapers housing hundreds in a small town. On the other had, a single story building with 20 units wouldn’t be adequate in New York City.
The OP didn’t entirely flesh out this society.
But I’ll just point out that under today’s rules people on SNAP can purchase seeds for vegetables with that government benefit. In some parts of Alaska that same government benefit allows limited purchases of some types of hunting gear. If our world allows that I strongly suspect the OP’s UBI post-scarcity world would allow for at least some of that sort of thing, and if not - get a job until you earn the money/resources to get the equipment you want/need.
Sure. There are plenty of jobs where people aren’t working them because they like the work, they’re there for other reasons. LIke I need to make enough money to pay the rent. But if that wasn’t an issue maybe I’d work so I could afford to take a trip abroad once a year. Even as a garbage collector, because that might be an easy job to get and an easy one to give up once I’m done with earning what I need for some other goal.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Duckseason Trock Posts