The fact that this is political is maddening.

@Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

No! We can’t do this! That’s communism!


Heck, if we could have all that for free, what’s the point of working?


video game


That might fall under the categories of “free internet” and “living a fulfilled life.” So I’m pretty sure your video games would be provided complementary by the government too!


having video games doesnt fall within free internet and living a fulfilled life

LemmyKnowsBest, (edited )

I don’t play video games but those who do seem pretty addicted to them therefore they’re doing something they enjoy and their life is fulfilled.


While real video game addiction is not a thing to trivialize, not all gamers are addicts. It’s a hobby. Same as reading, watching TV, working on a car, woodworking, stamp collecting.

Generalizations suck dude.

LemmyKnowsBest, (edited )

And people who engage in their hobbies have a fulfilled life. That’s a point made in the OP meme.


Given the bad faith nature of your answers and your at best confused message of “addiction = fulfillment”, I’m going to chalk this “BuT i’M aGrEeInG” answer to more bad faith.


well yeah, I think video games are horrible waste of time and the rising generations are physically unfit and socially inept, many are addicted to video games but won’t admit it because they make justifications and rationalizations for video games because they say “it’s good for training reaction time and hand eye coordination And people who are good at video games turn out to be good drivers on the road IRL” etc but it’s really a waste of time, they are sitting on their asses staring at a screen and they call that a hobby while their bodies atrophy and their spines develop kyphosis and that’s my opinion on that.


And your opinion is myopic and generally wrong. The rationalizations you’re mentioning are pretty useless and only come up when assholes demand people justify the things that make people happy.

First: Hobbies have the utility of being stress relievers, no different than TV or reading or stamp collecting. These activities have no huge social value, other than when they are done together to increase social cohesion and provide a touchpoint of connection with others. Dismissing a hobby as being useless really misses the point of a hobby. As an example, in addition to video games, I also lift weights as a hobby, I have friend groups for each of these. And they provide little to no utility beyond being a thing I enjoy. Because as much as I enjoy bodybuilding, it’s inherently unhealthy, just in the other direction. My knees will not be forgiving me in the future, and that’s because of a ‘healthy’ hobby (insert running here if you are anti-bodybuilding, same issue).

Second: A lot of health problems that you’re describing can also be attributed to the rise of office work, the availability of unhealthy food, reduced quality of life at the hands of unrestrained capitalism. Believing that all those societal woes are exclusively at the hands of gaming is akin to the satanic panic. It’s a strawman distracting from the actual problems. Big things like that are rarely explained by one thing. Stop watching Fox and learn some nuance.


your opinion is myopic and generally wrong

LOL dissect the word “opinion” for a moment. Opinions can ever be right or wrong. They are simply opinions.

Have a good day.


Couching error as ‘opinion’ is as bad faith as it gets because your statement isn’t an opinion, it’s a belief. One that is wrong. You believe that video games are a terrible evil (man what a flashback…).

That’s not an opinion, that’s being generally wrong in the face of reality (studies have been done). That’s being callous in the face of real problems (addicts need careful bounded help, not condemnation). That’s being cruel because it makes you feel superior in your insignificant life (no one needs to justify their harmless happiness to you).

Terry Pratchett was said to be an angry man, as described by his best friend. He was angry at a world that could be so much better but chooses not to be. You, and people like you, and sometimes me, are the reason he was angry.

Thank you for reminding me that anger is sometimes the appropriate reaction. I hope your life is as pleasant as you are.


Free Internet doesn’t mean gaming pc


You seem to equate “not excluding from” to “giving away”.

The two are not the same. There’s one Rosa Parks worth of difference.

As well, UBI experiments where they actually did “just give people money” didn’t result in fewer people working: the result was more job hopping with greater confidence, better food with more security, and some people used it to support a learning habit. It pretty much was a slam dunk.

Yes, there are “dole kings” who never work and subsist on welfare-type funding, and for them that’s okay. But they’re so rare that unless you happen to glance out of your chauffered limousine to tut-tut at the plebes, you wouldn’t remark on their even existence. It’s like “vaccine side-effect” rare; it’s like “only useful as a conservative talking point” rare. The vaaaaast majority apparently used the money to better themselves or gain more food-security or the like. Like chumps.


These are the basic needs. You’ll need a job if you want internet, or a cell phone


free internet was on their list. look at the meme again.

@uhrbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Yes he did, but I’d too say internet isn’t a necessity to live, you can live without internet, internet is mostly for leisure. And where it is useful, it can be replaced easily by the other above, especially if you have free public transport.

“Yeah but you needed internet to work” Work belongs to the workplace, not your home. Can’t take work to your home. (And in that case you would have mommy to buy internet)


And you’d be wrong. All over the place. I work exclusively from home as a data engineer. When the pandemic hit, my job was wholly unaffected. In fact, without the burden of a commute and dealing with existing in an office, my productivity soared. Your life experience is not everyone else’s.

Also, when’s the last time you applied to… anything? Credit card, bank account, job? All of these require internet now. You can’t meaningfully exist in our society without it on some level anymore. You can’t go somewhere and hand someone a resume, you have to submit it online. Those days are long gone.


I’d continue working if it meant I could afford more luxury in life.


I go to work and still can’t afford the bare minimum of what’s listed up there.


Yeah, that’s the point, it shouldn’t be like that


Cooling? Is this some US thing?


Yes. I assume you’re in Europe, it’s way hotter here and an apartment without AC is essentially useless much of the year.

Same reason we guzzle ice water (or soft drinks) like crazy people in restaurants.


New building code in my area mandates the ability to “cool one 9m² room to 26c” or something equally weird, as a metric for providing a suitable respite from the heat.

We just moved - and sadly rebased our rent to the current exorbitant standard here - just to get a newer place that is under the new regs. We think it was worth it.


Last summer we had a streak of 45 consecutive days over 100°F where I’m at.

I’ve never turned on my heater. I don’t even know if it works. If it gets cold I grab an extra blanket or wear pajamas. When my AC quit working I moved in with a friend for a few days while it got fixed, because the inside of my trailer house can hit 125 in the summer.

In February I used less than 200kWh of electricity . In July I used nearly 1800.


It never occurred to me that it wouldn’t get above 100F/37C in other countries

@Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

In many places in the US, if you do not have a system to remove humidity from the air in a space, you will fail to regulate your body temperature via sweating, leading to heat stroke and more.


The post literally links to US government sites, so I am hopeful you’ll be able to sort out this mystery


In 2022, over 1600 Americans died from heat related illnesses.


Everyone is talking about the politics, but there’s that symbol in the bottom right that drew my attention. Is it some encoded data?


It’s my logo :)

@The_Tired_Horizon@lemmy.world avatar

Wondering the same


Nothing will ever happen with our bullshit of “peaceful protesting” and this bullshit “voting” system. It’ll never fucking work. We need a revolution. We need to hang some politicians and billionaires in the streets for shit to get done and for us to be freed from the slavery of capitalism.


bullshit “voting” system

Simmer down, ¢omrade.


I never get when left wing people encourage violent revolution as if the right wouldn’t Uno reverse card it immediately into fascism.


The left and right want the same thing but the media separates them


A revolution will never happen. Politicians and billionaires are not dumb and it would be highly unlikely anyone would have the opportunity to hang them in the streets.


Getting the government to do literally anything that’s not evil takes a level of effort organization and resources that dwarf the effort to just do it your fucking self, and for all that you get some half passed means tested bullshit.

Direct action, fancy political theory for “just do some shit” is the only thing that has ever worked.

You want clean water? Secure water resources from corporate interests, ask the local water treatment technicians what they need, set out a rain barrel, figure out a desalination strategy, figure out where There’s waste or pollution in the system and see if you can crack down on it.

You want hones with heating cooling and electricity? Grab a wrench. Maybe break into some empty units abd get people housed. Whatever.

You want free healthcare? Talk to the union reps at your local hospitals, get your local med school to hold more classes.

Clothing! So this ones climate dependent, but tl;Dr: grow some shit, sew some shit. Or pester people who already do.

Transportation and internet? Work out the best control system abd standards with some rail nerds, then start tearing up pavement.

Education? Find some people who know shit. Have them be at the park at specific times. Make it known. Maybe bring chairs.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Maybe break into some empty units abd get people housed. Whatever.

How many times have you done this yourself?


Never, that would be a crime and crimes are illegal, and illegal things are crimes so you can’t do them.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Okay, now that you’ve given that flippant answer, how many times have you done it yourself?

Or is this just something you expect others to do?


Let’s just say I was banned from my local harbor freight for buying a suspicious quantity of bolt cutters.

If you want to be safer and more productive I think you can do more with it, but I haven’t had the opportunity to give all those elements a shot yet.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

“Let’s say”

No, let’s not say, you just tell me if you’ve done it or not.

Your inability to just say yes or no leads me to believe you’re an armchair quarterback.


Look at his list. None of it is feasible in a non-fiction environment.


Getting the state to help is easy if you have a worker-run state. Unions are just microcosms of said construct within a Capitalist framework.


Arguable, but it certainly isnt harder, and there are other reasons that’s preferable.


UBI, single payer, and free college for all. Yes we can, and absolutely should!

@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

Is the verdict really in on UBI? Hasn’t the concern been it would be equivalent to the school voucher coupons and justified to gut a wide variety of social services in the end resulting in less net-benefit to the working class?


Only when Republicans are in power. At least historically.


I honestly don’t know, but that kinda/sorta makes sense on the face of it. UBI would throw everyone at the mercy of the “free market” for social services, and yes, could have the unintended consequence of obsolescing the state funded ones. Without adequate controls for services (regulations) it could get ugly. Especially if you consider that for-profit “healthcare”, as we enjoy it in the US today, covers most of these services we’re talking about.


UBI is a bandaid, and not a very good one.

Sure, having more money absolutely makes life easier. I’m not disputing that and no one with any sense would. But it doesn’t address the numerous problems it seeks to.

But you touched on the problem, adequate controls are needed. We can do adequate controls without UBI.

The problem with UBI is that when you do big payouts like that, they just become a target for price gouging. Everyone knows there’s extra money to be had and they’re going to want their cut. Your landlord is going to know exactly how much extra you’re making and without rent control there’s nothing stopping him from taking it. The best way to prevent that is to force him to compete for tenants.

So wait, why isn’t he competing for tenants now?

Additional housing fixes the rent problem. UBI puts a temporary bandaid on it.

Universal healthcare fixes the medical expenses problem, strong unionization fixes the wages problem.

Don’t get me wrong I’d love the paycheck, but it isn’t the solution people think it is.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

The problem with UBI is that when you do big payouts like that, they just become a target for price gouging.

If you have robust laws preventing price gouging, that is not a problem. No one serious is suggesting implementing UBI with no framework around it.

Incidentally, Alaska has a universal basic income in the form of oil dividends every year and there’s no evidence it’s led to price gouging as far as I know.


A few thousand dollars a year is an order of magnitude different than a few thousand dollars a month. Shits already expensive in Alaska because it’s remote.

Incidentally a handful of studies are several orders of magnitude different than actual UBI, and would similarly fail to showcase the problem.


Incidentally a handful of studies are several orders of magnitude different than actual UBI, and would similarly fail to showcase the problem.

Yes, perfect is indeed the enemy of adequate, and UBI seems imperfect as long as you can invalidate the studies. If you need help, there are easy talking points from your local Conservative bootstraps trickle-down rep.

Do you agree with

  • a dividend while you’re injured?
  • Paying into a central fund so you get a retirement like union people get?
  • paying a few dollars more for a fund to help retrain people laid-off from a line or a mill or some artificially dying sector?
  • paying property tax for a staffed fire station you should never need to use?

The first three examples are UBI by another name. The last example is proof that providing support doesnt lead to abuse; unless lighting your house on fire is sport in your town!

But maybe those studies are flawed, like climate change models and laws of quantum physics. But those turned out to be close or too conservative (climate) or were refined with added study (physics). A UBI plan, like any other, isn’t set in stone; who hid that from you when you first heard of UBI, and why?

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Again- if you have robust laws against price gouging, there is no price gouging problem.


Robust laws also prevent the need for UBI in the first place. If we can’t figure out how to run a society without it, slapping UBI on top of that isn’t actually going to fix anything.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You’re making no sense. How is giving everyone the financial help to keep them clothed, housed, fed, etc. without needing to work for it not going to fix anything as long as you prevent price gouging?


Ok, let me recontextualize here. “if we can terraform mars, why wouldn’t we migrate because of climate change on earth?” In that scenario, why wouldn’t we fix our climate?

If we have the power to regulate pricing, why would we need UBI?

It’s socialism with extra steps. You can just do regular socialism, you don’t need to enshitify socialism with capitalism. You really don’t.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

If we have the power to regulate pricing, why would we need UBI?

Because no matter how low priced something is, someone who has no job still can’t afford it.


So, provide the necessary things. Provide housing, medical care, and clothing to anyone that wants it, doing so will probably be necessary for price controls anyway. I’m not saying those things should be unobtainable. I’m saying UBI is a dumb way to go about providing them.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

So all food should be free? Or should poor people only be allowed to have certain foods for free but rich people can have anything they want to eat?


I think basic needs should be met, and if you want something better than that you’d need to pay for it.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Ok, which foods should people with no money not be allowed to have?


Anything that is outside of basic needs? I thought that was fairly obvious. You need a certain number of calories each day, and those should come with decent nutrients. Outside of that there’s literally no reason to say because we can’t even get that right yet.

Fix the actual problems, don’t just slap a stupid band-aid over the problem and pat yourself on the back.

Buddy you’re waisting a lot of energy debating someone who already mostly agrees with you.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

So your UBI-free solution is actually worse than the food stamps program?

I don’t know that you do agree with me if you think rich people deserve better food than poor people.


Are you being obtuse on purpose?

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar


I asked you what sort of foods they should have. You said only their basic needs should be met in terms of food.


Ok, which foods should people with no money not be allowed to have?


Anything that is outside of basic needs?

Again, the current food stamps program allows impoverished people to buy any food they want to buy as long as they have enough in their EBT account.

Your solution would make a two-tiered system where some people can only get very basic survival food and others can get any food they want. That is worse than now.

So in what way am I being obtuse? You are saying rich people deserve better food than poor people.

@uhrbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Kinda agree, People should get necessities for free. A small apartment¹, access to public healthcare³, should get fresh food each week² (that way you also learn to cook and eat healthy), get all the clothing they need, plus I’d say a small amount of money each month for leisure (but nothing matching the spirit of UBI) It might be a unpopular opinion, but the freedom of choice is luxury, which, yes, you would have to work for to get. It would also be somewhat mitigated by the small amount of money you get each month, but it’s main purpose is to keep some amount of independance from state aid⁴.

Now, you can image that if everybody earned suddenly much more per month, the prices would very quickly adapt and it wouldn’t make much difference for the people who had nothing to begin with. Price regulation could be a possibility, but it is very much against the current economical ideology⁵ (aka communism), which we will probably have to stick with it for a while. So for now it seems to be the better option.

1: mymodernmet.com/housing-first-finland-homelessnes…

2: [fr] www.cartonsducoeur.ch

3: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

4: www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ae/…/602240ar.pdf

5: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

@cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Universal Basic Income reduced child poverty by 30%.


By making the child tax credit non-refundable it is effectively a Negative Income Tax which is a form of UBI.

‘Additional housing fixes the rent problem. UBI puts a temporary bandaid on it. Universal healthcare fixes the medical expenses problem, strong unionization fixes the wages problem. Don’t get me wrong I’d love the paycheck, but it isn’t the solution people think it is.’

All of your points misunderstand what the goal of UBI is. By guaranteeing that everyone earns a certain amount of income, the government is garaunteeing a basic standard of living. So a CTC of $3600 means that everyone is guaranteeed an income of at least $3600.

At first, there will be an inital raise in prices as a UBI will likely increases aggregate demand which will increase prices, but eventually prices would stabilize.

Of course, this only helps people with children right now, and there are barriers to filing a tax return in the United States. But the laws could be change to expand the credit, and it’s completely possible for the United States to implement return free filing.


Universal healthcare fixes the medical expenses problem

It also fixes the “I can’t quit my job because then I lose what little healthcare access I have and why is the CEO laughing” problem.


“free market” for social services

That’s the most American thing I’ve read today.

Most other places consolidate their social services providers under a single entity and control the staffing of that entity via federal election.


Issue with UBI that it can be distorted so much it could mean almost anything at this point. AI corpos think UBI is when you buy their stocks early on, before the big AI boom (FOMO).


My only thing on UBI is who will disperse it? Our own government can’t because it would be used as a tool of leverage against us and they would always threaten to take it away.

corsicanguppy, (edited )

Is that like how the gov now threatens to take away equal healthcare access? Because they don’t.

It’s been the death of many a campaign to cheapen up the terms of our equal access, and our stupid conservatives keep trying to lipstick up that pig and hoping the hillbillies and impressionable dodge ram pilots fall for it.

In my country, the people who handle pension, unemployment insurance, medical unemployment, that kind of thing, they’ll handle UBI.

In fact, UBI is just the consolidation of all that into one cheque. Think about it – you get x dollars if certain things are true, and the UBI simply levels that number and says “this is what everyone gets and people who don’t need it will end up giving it back via taxes on all their income for the year.”

The math works better once some essentials - healthcare, training, transportation - are centralized as a free service instead of giving out money to people so they can give it to some greedy for-profit organization. But some of that - especially colleges - will take some time to convert to non-profit, single-payer, and open books.

You’ll find the math reeeeally works out when the wealthy pay their share: we can support a lot of retirees and amputees in a dignified manner once the Rockefellers pay up.

“Make American great again” like the '60s? Sure buddy, we’ll start with the tax rates.

@gedaliyah@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, exactly as they constantly threaten to take away our Social Security, roads and military protection! /s

@captainjaneway@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t understand. They do take away our social security and roads. DoD is strong though but it doesn’t really function in service of us.

@The_Tired_Horizon@lemmy.world avatar

I dont think UBI is needed. The super rich/elites would still find ways around it. What is needed is for Politicians to stop being such cunts and start to protect their people from greedy arseholes, bring in higher rates of tax, bring in employment laws… etc etc


What is the incentive to work if all these things are provided? Btw I want these things so I can quit my job and just wander around


You might, but most don’t. Most people love working as long as they are passionate about what they are doing. You might find that you wander for a while, but eventually take that time to develop a skill or lean into researching something that benefits, not only you, but society as a whole.


The issue being “as long as they are passionate about what they are doing”. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of jobs where there’s no where near enough people with passion for the job. You know anyone signing up to drive a garbage truck around all day long? Anyone excited at the prospect of volunteering at the sewage treatment plant? You might have some volunteers to help dementia patients, but not nearly enough and most would quite very soon after realuzing how hellish it can be.

We need more than passion to motivate. That’s not too say it’s impossible to get to a guaranteed basic level of living for people to feel more safe and secure about how bad it could get, but there needs to be some room to motivate beyond intrinsic passion for the work.


No one is suggesting volunteers. What’s being proposed is that a baseline of security is provided. A roof over your head, food, access to education ,and just enough money to survive. With those things guaranteed, now people are freed to pursue careers like those you have suggested. When people no longer have to worry about survival, the vast majority will spend their time on pursuing a better life for themselves. That in turn leads to a stronger and more profitable society.


That description may be fine, but you had stated “so long as they are passionate about it”, and that is unfortunately omitting a great deal of work we, as yet, still need humans doing yet no one or not enough people will possibly be passionate about it.

The “we might be able to afford a base level of viable living so no one has to have a crisis but still people will want to buy stuff and this they still will pursue income” I can agree with, but there will still be crap jobs and some folks will have to do them.

In terms of “no one is suggesting”, there are sincere “anti work” people who claim no one should ever need to do any work they wouldn’t want to do for free". In this example, there’s a lot of room for ambiguity about what they are describing, basic viable living versus pretty comfortable living.

I’m my mind, there needs to be some heavier incentive towards paying more for robots for dangerous work, and more time to share responsibility for crap work. Like instead of a system where one guy gets stuck every day going to the sewage plant, you somehow have people with multiple jobs such that they only do sewage treatment like twice a month and you have 15 people with that arrangement rather than a full time guy.


You would work to get more expensive things like a home Cinema or an automobile.

This way you can choose a job you like and not be forced to work for pennies in a shit job that you hate just to get by.

But there should be a basic standard of living available equally without question to every single person.

If you want to quit and just sit back for the rest of your time, be my guest…


I don’t see a panel for European vacations, video games, fancy dinners, nice cars, concert tickets, iPhones, trips to SeaWorld, a six pack of beer, or a Netflix subscription. If you want an empty, boring-ass life then it’s yours for free. I would like to see a panel for free birth control as well. I don’t think a system like this can stand for long if every non-working person has 6 kids.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

What you mean to say is “what is the incentive to work in a mind-numbing, soul-crushing, mental and physical health-risking job?”

The answer is there aren’t any and no one should be forced to work those jobs even if it benefits others.

And if a job is both necessary and unpleasant, you get people into it by offering them high pay above their universal basic income.

UBI is not communism. It’s an end to poverty, not an end to wealth.


offering them high pay above their universal basic income.

Isn’t the whole point of UBI that everyone gets it without questions or restrictions. This way you can get some extra bucks even from a low paying job, when you’re not actually relying on that job but it gets you extra

At least that’s how it has been discussed in Finland, and it has support on both sides of the political spectrum

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, that’s what I’m saying.


Ah cool, I just misunderstood your msg


Why is it that work is the only way? Why must we work and have “incentive to work”? Who decided that we must work or be worthless? Why must we be forced to play a game that treats us like shit or be outcast and ostracized?

I don’t expect you to have answers, this is just something I’ve always wondered.


Humans are naturally creative and driven. We like working, building and accomplishing something.

Yet you must be forced to do the work of your employment.

If you had all your necessities met, not for long you would start to work. But you would work on projects you enjoyed. I doubt all those projects would be less useful for society than the average workplace nowadays.


I think must of the UBI experiments that we’ve done, many of the participants chose to do work in addition to the basic income.


For one, the operational word is “experiments”. People on experimental UBI know it’s only temporary.

For another, they are never large scale. So you can have success stories about how people given a UBI reprieve were able to take a moment to get things together, get some training, and maybe be selective and find a good job, but it’s unfortunately not saying how it would scale. Unfortunately those great opportunities are likely sparse, and if entire cities could take that same benefit, you’d likely see a reset to a similar scenario as before UBI. That said it may be a much better simpler situation than means tested welfare, but the ubi amounts in the experiments are often less than welfare, so you’d not replace the system…

Then there’s the debate of how much UBI.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

On top of everything else that’s been said, most people would want more than just whatever the UBI was even if that was enough to survive on. Most people do not want to just survive. Sure, you might get enough to live a very basic life without any frills if you didn’t work, but isn’t it better to guarantee those people homes and food rather than just let them die in the street?

jj4211, (edited )

We have value beyond work, but ultimately theres the practical questions of:

  • If no one worked, then how does everyone get that free food and clean water? Who are the volunteers lining up to elect to keep the sewage plant running?
  • Who is providing the medical care? Particularly nursing of mentally unstable, dementia, and hospice care is soul crushing and demands way more people than would ever volunteer.
  • Who is building those homes and wiring them? Who is operating the free public transit? Who is repairing the vehicles, roads, and tracks? Who is stepping out in 90 degree heat to repair a road?

All the “free stuff” needs people to work to make it a reality. It may be that we can “afford” to provide basic needs confidently for free in a way that leaves motivation to do those jobs to get better, but ultimately we need work to be done and some way to motivate that work to be done.


Because all the things in that picture are produced by people working. If there are not people working to make clothes, you don’t get clothes. If there are not people making and maintaining power plants, there is no electricity. And so on.

It’s okay if temporarily non working people, or people that are unable to work, or people that work but are not paid enough gets these things for free (or deeply discounted. But if absolutely everyone gets all of that for free, there won’t be enough people working just to sustain the ones who won’t.


But if absolutely everyone gets all of that for free, there won’t be enough people working just to sustain the ones who won’t.

This isn’t really a reasonable conclusion though, why could the people doing that work not be incentivised, by being rewarded in some other way than just a bare minimum livelihood? Why would they abandon their station to just do nothing instead ? Doesn’t good protection enable the worker to negotiate their work to be fulfilling, rewarding and well compensated? Are the workers not just cogs in the machine if they don’t get that power to actually negotiate? …

It makes no sense to assume nothing would get done if we just had enough to live no matter what, the argument that we’ll make more and better things seems much more likely to me. Both are somewhat unknowable until we just do right by people and see it working.


It’s not that “nothing will get done”. Sure, some people will work, but much less, if you could get a “fulfilling life” regardless of employment status.

There is already many (quotation needed) people that choose to live off of family members+the state in exchange of some (or a lot) quality of life.

The more you provide for free, the less people will need to work (and some people work only because they need to). This will put more strain on the people that do work, because they are the ones that pay more taxes, which would lead to less luxuries for the people that do actually work.

The higher the production, the higher mean (not median, the rich will always skew the curve a lot) QoL. The idea behind this post aims to increase the median QoL, but I think it’ll just bring the mean closer to the median, and shrink the whole thing.


I mean we could go back to being hunter gatherers with no electricity, roads, police, government etc…But in order to have the comforts of life, we need peoples to do stuff and cooperate and coordinate… think about who runs the cables for your Internet or maintains the cell towers, picks up your trash, grows the avocados for your guacamole, manufactures the medicines…etc etc…If nobody has a job, nothing gets done… think about living off the grid and the logistics associated with it, that’s just a small taste


But in order to have the comforts of life, we need peoples to do stuff and cooperate and coordinate… think about who runs the cables for your Internet or maintains the cell towers, picks up your trash, grows the avocados for your guacamole, manufactures the medicines…etc etc.

I unironically believe that these things would get done without the need of coercing people to do them by stripping them of the means of survival. Anthropology backs me up on this one.


There’s a qualitative question in what the “free” tier entails. If it’s basic survival, then that might be “affordable” with room to motivate. If the adequate food was “bachelor chow and water”, ok. If the “home” is a basic bed with a lockable door in a walkin closet sized room, ok.

If we say everyone should get all you can eat buffet with quality apartments, then you start eroding the mechanism to motivate people to do work that needs to be done.


I’d like to distance myself from the individualistic, service-oriented notion that an allayou-can-eat-buffet entails.

Give people free homes and a community and they’ll sooner or later create an all you can eat potluck.


Show me some horsey sourcey cuz



Also: The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. Basically: anything by Graeber.


Did you just use a book written in 1902 as a source

Prunebutt, (edited )

Is the origin of species out of date, cause it is older?

Also, the bulk of Graeber’s work is from the 21st century.

You can just say that you don’t want to believe me, you know.


I don’t believe you


As I said: if you want contemporary anthropological sources: read basically any book by David Graeber. Mutual Aid is a bit old, but still relevant, too.


Give me some excerpts, quotes or a chapter, using whole books is a little vague and isn’t getting your point across. Yeah Darwin’s book is still relevant but we have also learned a lot more with his theories as the foundation(comparing biology to anthropology?). Your books are working off of what the primitive societal needs of long ago were, right? Do you really think that those same concepts apply to the society of today?


Look, I’m not ananthropologist and I’m trying to sneak in some lemmy while no one’s watching at work, so I’m not going to be able to immediately supply you with concise excerpts of anthropological learnings on human nature.

The gist of Mutual Aid is that cooperation within a species is a vital factor of evolution. That’s why I namedropped Darwin. That thesis complements the origin of species.

Yeah Darwin’s book is still relevant but we have also learned a lot more with his theories as the foundation

Still doesn’t mean that you can’t learn anything from a book published in 1902, or that it’s not worth reading anymore.

comparing biology to anthropology?

Why is this controvertial? Aren’t humans a biological species? Anthropology and biology are about as connected as physics and math is.

Your books are working off of what the primitive societal needs of long ago were, right?

No, they aren’t (exclusively). They give testimony of how we got here and that things can be different as they are now.

Do you really think that those same concepts apply to the society of today?

Yes, at least partly. The human brain has had the same biology for the last 100.000 years. You can learn things about human nature from this massive time scale. The basic gist of basically everything Graeber wrote is that societies are formable things. The societies we form will in turn change the way humans interact with each other (changing “human nature”). This in turn means that the whole notion of “progress” being a linear thing, only going into one, unchangeable direction is wrong.


I think you are confused about what you believe in. It’s ok, we have all been there bud

Prunebutt, (edited )

I think you are quite an arrogant prick.

That sure is one way to not have to engage and still feel superior, huh? /s


I lik u. Wil u b frend?

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Imagine if we had a universal basic income and people got paid more than that if they had a job?

Oh wait, that’s the whole fucking idea.


You are soo cute, do u have pp


Not everyone HAS to work. There are plenty of homeless people now who don’t work. People can choose to work to increase their pay and quality of life. Even if all my needs were met, I’d still like to buy things, travel, etc. The people making the most money in this world right now are definitely not the people who are working the hardest, nor are they cooperating and coordinating for everyone’s best interest.


With these things you get to work at what you want. For instance, I’ve travelled extensively where the items in the meme are mostly available, and you get cottage or small businesses that are really good at what they do but make too little money to actually be a “real job”.

So you get things like someone making the finest handmade tile, the best bread, an artist gets to make his/her art, you get to run your own private consulting business, etc. You have a shot at doing what you want, not some shitty grind you’re forced to do to hope you get healthcare, kids college money and a retirement. Of course these jobs don’t make a lot of money, but you can certainly look for employment that does offer better compensation.

Point being you have a choice.

And it’s funny, even in places where these services are available the vast majority don’t sit on their asses avoiding work. They understand they want more for themselves and maybe even the community they live in, so they choose more gainful employment.

Also, just because you get those meme things doesn’t mean you get everything else too. These are just basics, not a lifestyle that gets you much more than social housing and the ability to visit cheap destinations on your guaranteed vacation via public transportation. Maybe that’s all some people want, and that’s fine. YMMV.


All of you guys have great ideas, have you ever thought about running for political office?


lol, you’ll never get this in capitalism. and for that matter you won’t get it in socialism either.

“From each according to ability, to each according to need.” No useless eaters! You won’t be allowed to do nothing and get everything (unless you’re like SERIOUSLY disabled not Tumblr/Mastodon disabled) and if you can’t figure out what you should do, don’t worry, the community will provide you with a job because having a job is a right under socialism.

Prunebutt, (edited )

Minor nitpick: if it’s snowing outside (and you can do so), then wear a fucking sweater inside! Heating a whole room by a few degrees when you could just not run around with a T-shirt is just so wasteful.

If you can’t wear one, because you’re disabled, then ignore my rant, please.


And honestly it’s so cozy to be in a chilly room in a toasty wool wrap.


I do that, but I also have fish tanks without a heater which can’t go below a certain temperature, so there is a fine balance that must be maintained.


Electricity companies hate this trick!

For real I dont understand why people forget that they can just wear thicker clothes even at home. And they complain the electricity is expensive


But let’s not forget the fact that a heart pump would be great, if ran minimally and a small fireplace is not going break the bank. So don’t think heating is a complete burden, enjoy the fruits of labor we all work hard on.


if ran

“if (it were) run”, right?


heart pump?


Yeah, you know. To pump blood around your house to heat things up.

What, you don’t have a heart pump‽ /s


Because electricity is used for more than just heating: running computer, charging phone, lighting living space, keeping food eadible and making food.

Ok, last one is heating too, but for another purpose.


Significantly lowering indoors temperatures can have detrimental effects on health, particularly for elderly people. Also, electricity should be sufficiently accessible and cheap that I don’t need to freeze my butt off in my home in order to pay the bills.


You’re reading waay too much into my comment. I specifically said that there were exceptions and only said that you shouldn’t heat up to t-shirt temperatures.


I suppose it’s not you I’m annoyed with actually. It just rubbed me the wrong way. We’ve had 13-15C indoors this winter in order to afford the power bill, and that’s with geothermal and a decently isolated house. Combined increases in grid fees and electricity price have multiplied our power bill five-fold the past years (and that’s with everything else inflating also).

Next winter we’ll hopefully have cleared the chimney and start burning wood again during the most expensive parts of winter.


Yeah, that’s obviously a shitty thing to endure. Good luck for the next winter!


Texas or Liverpool?

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Ah, to be young again and not have your hands and feed start freezing indoors when it starts getting chilly outside…

corsicanguppy, (edited )

We seem to love building thin-walled wooden boxes entirely above-ground and living in them.

Is “fat” a suitable disability for sweater forgiveness? Asking for a friend … whom I accidentally ate.


Fair comment, just wanted to add that it depends on the humidity and shelter condition. Dry cold is perfectly comfortable with extra layers - I’ve heard many stories of relatives sleeping outside in snow caves or under layers of snow over animal skins - but depending on how badly insulated your house is and how close to the ground (the answers for which, for most people in the situation of the comic, are: badly and low) you may not have much of a choice.


Yes dress for winter even indoors, but once my nose and extremities and phalanges get cold, I’m turning on the heater.


Fine. So long you don’t heat it up to 28°C


Honestly if we just tax the rich and start distributing government surplus we probably wouldn’t even need to mandate most of this list.


I think you could mandate the things you mentioned and the list.


Yeah both is good but I just wanted to really illustrate that the thing standing in our way is inequality.

@chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

but to fully achieve this goal we must overcome the Capitalism


What does owning adequate clothing even mean?

Here in California, I can go to a local shelter right now and get all of these things. Except adequate clothing because I don’t know what that even means.


I’d assume adequate clothing means clothing that fits properly, and is appropriate for the climate and weather.

Sometimes I see homeless people wearing shoes that look way to big for them and I’m guessing it’s because that was the closest they could find that fit on their feet so they just had to go with that. It’s really not adequate though because it could be a tripping hazard.


Homeless people pick their own clothing. They are often too zonked to even care


Umm, please use a more appropriate term, like consciously-divergent.


Regressivist scum keeps attacking strawmen. More non-news at 11.


Source: your anus



@Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Not everyone is so lucky that standard sized clothing and shoes will fit them, or are even manufactured.


Additionally, facilities to wash clothing. This was one of the biggest struggles when I was homeless.


So what if now hear me out we do none of that, and do number go up instead - you know - for the shareholders?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • politicalmemes@lemmy.world
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • Backrooms
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • everett
  • tester
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • kavyap
  • ngwrru68w68
  • provamag3
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tacticalgear
  • Durango
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • ethstaker
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines