> The article's central premise is based on a false assumption, which is that people taking UBI will be idle. There is no significant evidence to support that claim.
You really think there would not be a massive increase in the number of coach potatoes, watching netflix and doomscrolling tiktok all day long? Where do they make such optimists? It's almost as if this very website has a strong selection bias, congregating people with higher than average drive, who would never, who just can't imagine not having it.
And even if they won't be technically idle, you can bet your ass that the total supply of labor would drop like a rock, and many jobs that are generally beneficial to the society but not glamorous wouldn't be done.
You also completely ignore the massive problem which is the shift in the society's collective psychology in regards to work, which the article did mention. Quote:
The problems are significant, however. First, all existing pilots are small in scale, temporary in duration, and limited to populations already experiencing poverty or precarity. None of them test the psychology of a society in which nobody is economically compelled to contribute. Temporary income relief and permanent unconditional income are fundamentally different phenomena — the first is a cushion, the second is a permanent reorientation of the relationship between individuals and economic necessity. The pilots tell us nothing useful about the second.
Currently we collectively derive personal worth from work etc, and the society applies significant pressure on individuals "incentivizing" them to work even if they can't have a dream job, increasing the aggregate amount of work done. We just don't know and can't really imagine what it's like to live in a world where you are entitled to money for existing, no strings attached, pretty much from cradle to grave. Imagine being a kid who grows up in such a world with no real responsibilities, playing vidya all day long, who knows that once he formally reaches adulthood, he can just continue doing nothing. The model of family life is falling apart as we speak, so why bother chasing it? Just lower your expectations and desires - and you are set for life.
>We just don't know and can't really imagine what it's like to live in a world where you are entitled to money for existing, no strings attached, pretty much from cradle to grave.
Sure we can. As I noted, wealthy people live in this world already. And we don't see all of them turning into couch potatoes once they have passive income equal to UBI. Sure, there's a human tendency to enjoy leisure. But there's also a human tendency to enjoy work. And a human tendency to project negative attributes onto others we don't know. ;-)
in the world of antivaxxers, flat earthers you really trust a jury full of laymen to make judgements?
Quoting Blazing Saddles: "These are people of the land, the common clay of the new west.... you know, morons"
The vast majority of people believe what they want to believe and if that's how their roll, no expert in the world will convince them that 2+2=4
you really think that in a world chock-full of antivaxxers, flat earthers and the climate change deniers it's hard to pad a jury with clueless mouthbreathers and exploit widespread anti-corpo sentiments?
Same shit with glyphosate. It's pretty much the least bad pesticide of the bunch, with the alternatives being legitimately, undeniably cancerous, yet it's glyphosate that gets banned left and right, and sued for billions by anti-science twats, because "monstanto hurr durr".
Hell, the damage of covid19 vaccines is actually proven and was noticed a few months in, yet in the case of talc used by millions of people for decades all they have is some weak, inconclusive shit.
The fact that Monsanto lost their case despite their massive legal team and virtually unlimited resources against a school groundskeeper suggests how weak/horrible their case was. They lost because glyphosate is carcinogenic, their counter argument boils down to a bunch of research they directly or indirectly paid for. “Hur dur”, from my perspective, more aptly characterizes the defense of Monsanto/Bayer.
Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute.[7] Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode and so participate in the primary and secondary frequency control.
If you operate them at 33%, that is equivalent to their power output costing 3x as much, because it costs the same to build and run, 33% or 100%. But their output is already not competitive at 100%. Power offered at more than 3x the going rate finds no bidders. Your debt service demands revenue from sales of 100% output.
You have to take whatever you can get for the power, even if it doesn't cover operating cost, to pay down the capital you spent building. When it becomes clear that you cannot bring in enough to pay for operations and debt service, you have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
Of course, all this is foreseeable. So, you don't get the capital to build at all, because who wants to loan money that will predictably be defaulted on?
no, it traces back to the same thing pretty much, but in modern Polish it's indistinguishable from ż (ž?)
I assume that long time ago it went like this r' -> ř -> řż -> ż, which effectively removed the foundational r-ness of the thing.
Off the top of my head, the Polish language has lost the phonetic distinction between
rz and ż -> ż,
h and ch -> ch,
u and ó (flat u vs long o) -> u
In some regional dialects near southern/eastern borders you could still find some of these distinctions, but in modern Polish it's gone.
at a glance shit looks unnecessarily confusing especially for non-slavic foreigners, but once you look more into it explains many things and helps greatly with writing of related words, declination and conjugation, eg where grammar mandates sound substitution (assuming you are Czech you are probably aware of this effect already)
For example there are clusters of sounds that often change one into another.
g/h/ż are one such cluster of closely related sounds
noga (leg, noun) vs nożny (adjective)
drugi (second) vs druh (friend, companion) drużba (guy helping the newlyweds with wedding)
Sapieha (noble name of Ukrainian origin) vs Sapieżanka (daughter of Sapieha)
rz/r:
drzewo (tree) vs drewno (wood)
ch/sz is another:
mucha (fly) -> muszka (diminutive)
ó/o/e is another:
bóg (god) vs bożek (lesser god)
pióro (feather) vs pierzyna (bed cover stuffed with feathers)
It also helps seeing similarities between Slavic languages, as this stuff preserves a ton of the common roots. Any Slav seeing 'góra' will know what's up, not so much with phonetically equivalent 'gura'.
there is still distinction between ř and ž in Czech and it would be noticable to native speaker, though I guess non-native speakers would not notice the difference, same can't be said about Slovak ä vs e unless you try to speak extremely clearly and pronounce very hard (which would look odd), for most of the people ä was completely replaced with e
dřevo in Czech is actually drevo in Slovak
noga, drugi, bog, you can in all replace g with H and you will have CZ/SK version, seems Polish is in this aspect way closer to Russian with overused G instead H
You really think there would not be a massive increase in the number of coach potatoes, watching netflix and doomscrolling tiktok all day long? Where do they make such optimists? It's almost as if this very website has a strong selection bias, congregating people with higher than average drive, who would never, who just can't imagine not having it. And even if they won't be technically idle, you can bet your ass that the total supply of labor would drop like a rock, and many jobs that are generally beneficial to the society but not glamorous wouldn't be done. You also completely ignore the massive problem which is the shift in the society's collective psychology in regards to work, which the article did mention. Quote:
The problems are significant, however. First, all existing pilots are small in scale, temporary in duration, and limited to populations already experiencing poverty or precarity. None of them test the psychology of a society in which nobody is economically compelled to contribute. Temporary income relief and permanent unconditional income are fundamentally different phenomena — the first is a cushion, the second is a permanent reorientation of the relationship between individuals and economic necessity. The pilots tell us nothing useful about the second.
Currently we collectively derive personal worth from work etc, and the society applies significant pressure on individuals "incentivizing" them to work even if they can't have a dream job, increasing the aggregate amount of work done. We just don't know and can't really imagine what it's like to live in a world where you are entitled to money for existing, no strings attached, pretty much from cradle to grave. Imagine being a kid who grows up in such a world with no real responsibilities, playing vidya all day long, who knows that once he formally reaches adulthood, he can just continue doing nothing. The model of family life is falling apart as we speak, so why bother chasing it? Just lower your expectations and desires - and you are set for life.
reply