
Why free money beats bullshit jobs - imartin2k
http://fusion.net/story/288907/why-free-money-beats-bullshit-jobs/
======
mindslight
> _a Senate committee report stated that by 2000 the workweek would be down to
> just 14 hours, with at least seven weeks off a year._

This is the heart of the matter. And the real question is why has this not
happened yet! Depending on your political paradigm -

1\. Government simply has shirked their duty to be gradually lowering the
standard of full time employment. In fact, they've even let these laws erode
through "exempt" positions, etc.

2\. The Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy creates an ever-growing
housing bubble that eats up people's surplus income, giving people no
security, and keeping them on the rent treadmill.

BI is essentially just throwing fuel on this fire. The desire for the idea is
understandable - everyone thinks of what they could accomplish if they could
quit their job, and the #1 impediment to doing that is the rent they pay every
month.

Unfortunately, the _only_ sustainable lifestyle that BI can pay for is to move
to the sticks, where land can be bought outright or a dwelling rented for less
than the BI. For anyone who wants to stay in a populated area, it's a fantasy
- any in-demand real estate market will adjust to eat up the additional
surplus. Rather than a nice gradient between the two worlds, it will further
cement the divide between rural poverty and urban rat racers.

If we want a world where people can casually move in and out of employment
(such technical/memetic pollination is likely necessary to encourage natural
tinkering rather than ignorant idleness), then we've really got to fix the
underlying economic/regulatory issues.

~~~
erroneousfunk
Third option:

It hasn't happened yet because we've decided we didn't want it, in favor of a
much "better" (for some economic definitions of the word) quality of life.
Even in 1970, only 19% of US homes owned dishwashers. In the 1960's the
majority of homes didn't own a washer/dryer, didn't have air conditioners,
about a quarter of homes didn't have a telephone. We were just barely seeing
the beginnings of "fast fashion" as opposed to something like "you five
outfits, three for work, one for play, one for Sundays, and that's it"

A quarter of people's income was spent on food in the 60's. What do you spend
your income on now? Internet/cable, phone plan, bars and restaurants, movies,
education? We spend money on stuff they didn't even dream of in the 60's! If
you really wanted to cut all that out, and preserve a 1960's lifestyle, yeah,
you could probably do that on a 14 hour work week.

Urban areas were less popular, so that saves on rent. I'd cook the vast
majority of meals from scratch, at home, rarely buy clothes, and do my own
vehicle maintenance. I likely had a TV, but I didn't pay a monthly
subscription for it. My home had electricity, but there wasn't all that much
to use it. I'd read the paper a lot. Basically, as a middle class denizen of
1965 (ish) I'd live like a very frugal, or poor, citizen of 2016. And that's
why most of us don't work 14 hour weeks.

~~~
mindslight
(fwiw those weren't necessarily mutually-exclusive "options", but different
ways of decomposing the problem)

I don't really buy it. The capital costs of dwelling amenities aren't what has
driven up the price of housing so much, and the interest on that price is what
drives monthly rent, dominating monthly expenses.

The variable expenses end up so high because the alternative doesn't get one
ahead much. Why live that frugal lifestyle when doing so nets comparatively
little? When you're caught in the time==money trap, it's worth it to pay
$20/day to have dinner taken care of. When you don't spend the time picking
out and customizing a decent computer/phone, fixing its problems by getting a
new one every year seems reasonable. That's the treadmill.

Obviously I'm fine with people explicitly choosing this. I just see many
people defaulting into this lifestyle due to economic trends, which are really
hidden policy decisions masquerading as inevitabilities.

~~~
erroneousfunk
Dwelling expenses have increased in large part because more people want to
live in the same places, like I mentioned in my previous comment. In the last
50 years we've gained another 130 million people and a larger percentage of
the population wants to live in urban centers than ever before. You want to
live in an apartment on the Upper East Side in the 60's? $90:
[http://www.6sqft.com/new-york-in-the-60s-apartment-
hunting-j...](http://www.6sqft.com/new-york-in-the-60s-apartment-hunting-job-
searching-and-starting-out-in-the-big-city/)

With inflation, that $90 is $725, which won't get you a closet in Brooklyn
these days. However, it will get you a cute little house, in downtown Lubbock,
TX:
[http://lubbock.craigslist.org/apa/5559051429.html](http://lubbock.craigslist.org/apa/5559051429.html)

This doesn't have anything to do with inflation or the Federal Reserve. This
is just competition for the available space.

Stay on the treadmill or get off of it, it doesn't matter. My point is that we
work the same number of hours, not because of hidden policy decisions, or "the
man" keeping us down, or what the Federal Reserve decides, but because we
_like_ it! You could have a very similar lifestyle to someone living in the
60's and only work ~14 a week if you wanted to, right now! You'd have to make
some adjustments, with TV no longer transmitted by radio waves and all, and
the population/city problem mentioned earlier, but it's definitely possible,
even if you're raising a family, especially for a software engineer. We just
really like the treadmill...

------
matt_wulfeck
> An allowance that should be enough to live on, and how you spend it, is up
> to you.

Is there a plan to adjust for cost of living? I have a feeling San Francisco
alone would bankrupt the country!

~~~
bry0n
Due to the scarcity of attractive living places, I imagine one would be
required to work to augment their basic income to live in a place like SF.

~~~
bolivier
Which would mean that it wouldn't solve poverty, as the author suggested it
would.

