Cook'd and Bomb'd

Forums => General Bullshit => Topic started by: bgmnts on September 07, 2021, 02:38:02 PM

Title: Workshy
Post by: bgmnts on September 07, 2021, 02:38:02 PM
I was watching (well..) some shit on something called The Steph Show or something and they were talking about the lack of British workers and the short term solution of bringing in the forrins what we want to kick out to work. They sort of inferred that a lot of young British people dont want to work in lots of labour intensive sectors and I just thought surely that is bollocks isn't it? Even the laziest fat cunts like me would be happy doing the graft if we actually had agency over our work, good conditions and shared in the fruits of labour. This is surely universal?

Are there actually any people out there who just outright refuse the notion of hard work, regardless? Have you met anyone like that?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: holyzombiejesus on September 07, 2021, 02:41:01 PM
I hate hard work. I'd like nothing more than being able to sit on my fat arse doing fuck all, all day every day. Doing fuck all > job you like > death > job you hate
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Chollis on September 07, 2021, 02:43:49 PM
Are there actually any people out there who just outright refuse the notion of hard work, regardless? Have you met anyone like that?

God no, never!
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: checkoutgirl on September 07, 2021, 02:45:34 PM
I hate hard work. I'd like nothing more than being able to sit on my fat arse doing fuck all, all day every day. Doing fuck all > job you like > death > job you hate

Yeah this. Work is a big scam a lot of the time. Everyday off is one over on the man. Although there is a limit. I want to get a job again soon for my own sanity and a few extra bob in the account.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 07, 2021, 02:58:46 PM
I dunno the way you're saying 'hard labour' isn't really selling it to me, it implies the work is still unfulfilling and hard work so while I'd prefer more money and more agency, if I had to do it, I'd rather not do it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Buelligan on September 07, 2021, 03:36:48 PM
I hate hard work. I'd like nothing more than being able to sit on my fat arse doing fuck all, all day every day. Doing fuck all > job you like > death > job you hate

Not sure I agree.  Why do people have hobbies like restoring shite or allotmenting or clock making or you know, loads of stuff like that?  If they all wanted to sit on their fat arses, why are they poncing about with metal detectors or putting up bat boxes?  Asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: metaltax on September 07, 2021, 03:38:28 PM
Even the laziest fat cunts like me would be happy doing the graft if we actually had agency over our work, good conditions and shared in the fruits of labour.

If you have all of that it's not hard work, it's just work.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: bgmnts on September 07, 2021, 03:39:00 PM
If you have all of that it's not hard work, it's just work.

Well, you know what I mean by hard work. Intense work or demanding work.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Buelligan on September 07, 2021, 03:42:02 PM
I know what you mean, you mean not sat round drinking tea, chatting about the telly and secretly playing some game on your phone whilst really hating someone else for opening or closing the blinds, actually being somewhere where active physical work is happening.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 07, 2021, 03:51:24 PM
Well, you know what I mean by hard work. Intense work or demanding work.

Define "work" then we can talk about what hard, intense and demanding mean.

My hunch is that a cost-benefits analysis is what might cause young British workers to have an aversion to some kinds of work. If a potential benefit of work is getting, say, a foot on the housing ladder and a pension which will keep you in comfort in your old age, how much progress towards that goal will spending a summer picking soft fruits in a Marches farm get you, and is the experience of the job worth that progress? If a potential benefit of work is around ideas of agency, satisfaction in a job well done, providing wider benefits to society, how far towards that does the same summer job get you, and is it worth it?

Some forrins may have different views on the costs and/or benefits than some young British workers.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Shoulders?-Stomach! on September 07, 2021, 03:58:45 PM
The 'hard, labour intensive' jobs they are referring to often have awful pay and conditions and the only reason the associated businesses operate is because of being able to recruit people for whom the pay is still superior than a better job in their home country.

The result of that is often cheap goods, but the beneficiaries of those cheap goods are disproportionately rich people who can spend even less of their income on, let's say, fruit and veg, even though they can easily afford them.

Logically we should be trying to push pay and conditions of ordinary people up even at the cost of basic goods increasing with it. This has not bankrupted Denmark or Scandinavia.

It feels like we would all benefit from spending more time in different workplace environments to appreciate what that job is like and not take our own job, or what they do, for granted.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: bgmnts on September 07, 2021, 04:01:14 PM
Define "work" then we can talk about what hard, intense and demanding mean.

My hunch is that a cost-benefits analysis is what might cause young British workers to have an aversion to some kinds of work. If a potential benefit of work is getting, say, a foot on the housing ladder and a pension which will keep you in comfort in your old age, how much progress towards that goal will spending a summer picking soft fruits in a Marches farm get you, and is the experience of the job worth that progress? If a potential benefit of work is around ideas of agency, satisfaction in a job well done, providing wider benefits to society, how far towards that does the same summer job get you, and is it worth it?

Some forrins may have different views on the costs and/or benefits than some young British workers.

You are definitely thinking about it in a more pragmatic and real world way than me I'm just being a bit vague and utopian. Like if you told a young person, or anyone really, that they could graft all week but they'd own the means of production and benefit from the fruit of their labour, rather than just lining rich cunts' pockets, would they ever say nah I just wanna lie down all day?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 07, 2021, 04:04:13 PM
Not sure I agree.  Why do people have hobbies like restoring shite or allotmenting or clock making or you know, loads of stuff like that?  If they all wanted to sit on their fat arses, why are they poncing about with metal detectors or putting up bat boxes?  Asking for a friend.

These things are toiling but they're more like leisurely toiling away at a garden in your leisure rather than toiling away at you, your soul or body.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 07, 2021, 04:05:43 PM
You are definitely thinking about it in a more pragmatic and real world way than me I'm just being a bit vague and utopian. Like if you told a young person, or anyone really, that they could graft all week but they'd own the means of production and benefit from the fruit of their labour, rather than just lining rich cunts' pockets, would they ever say nah I just wanna lie down all day?

What if they collectively owned machinery that could do the work for them? Does that sound more utopian?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: bgmnts on September 07, 2021, 04:06:33 PM
What if they collectively owned machinery that could do the work for them? Does that sound more utopian?

Well of course but there would always be jobs.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 07, 2021, 04:09:19 PM
Well of course but there would always be jobs.

But it would decouple the amount of required work and the population size to some extent, only some people would have to do the few jobs the machines couldn't. Which is sort of what would happen anyway if you had more people than jobs and people to go round. Maybe the human jobs could be rota'd a bit like jury duty so everyone still gets more leisure time, or maybe they could be given to the few people who found them fulfilling.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 07, 2021, 04:20:14 PM
You are definitely thinking about it in a more pragmatic and real world way than me I'm just being a bit vague and utopian. Like if you told a young person, or anyone really, that they could graft all week but they'd own the means of production and benefit from the fruit of their labour, rather than just lining rich cunts' pockets, would they ever say nah I just wanna lie down all day?

I'm not sure what this utopia is where the options are 1) graft all week, receive co-ownership of the means of production AND labour fruits in return, or 2) lie down all day.

Personally I'm in favour of something like UBI where option 1 is "do some form of paid work if you want to", and 2 is "lie down all day if you want to, or any other unpaid option e.g. stargazing, volunteering, wanking".

Whether or not you own the means of production, directly enjoy the fruits of your own labour, or line the pockets of a rich cunt become academic in that sort of world, because employment isn't the necessity that it is in the current world.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse on September 07, 2021, 04:23:48 PM
god it's almost like it's harder to exploit workers when they qualify for social welfare and have family who they can go to for support
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: bgmnts on September 07, 2021, 04:27:45 PM
I'm not sure what this utopia is where the options are 1) graft all week, receive co-ownership of the means of production AND labour fruits in return, or 2) lie down all day.

Personally I'm in favour of something like UBI where option 1 is "do some form of paid work if you want to", and 2 is "lie down all day if you want to, or any other unpaid option e.g. stargazing, volunteering, wanking".

Whether or not you own the means of production, directly enjoy the fruits of your own labour, or line the pockets of a rich cunt become academic in that sort of world, because employment isn't the necessity that it is in the current world.

Well of course! We would all have a social safety net and UBI etc but there are surely very few people out there who would only want to veg out on the sofa for 40 years? Don't we all sort of want to create or produce something?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Shoulders?-Stomach! on September 07, 2021, 04:28:32 PM
UBI is an incendiary, revolutionary tool, one reliant on other policies in order to work and not be subverted, which is probably why it stands no chance whatsoever.

However, 2 key things strike me as innately valuable.

1) Unchaining compulsion to work in order to survive.

2) Accountability. Allowing every citizen the time to pursue causes they care about, to join marches, to do all the volunteering and the campaigning they can't do when they are getting home at 8pm every day tired and hungry. Governments would suddenly be aware that they are one false move from millions marching to the capital.

One of the things a country powered by UBI would benefit from is a paradigm shift where politicians are accountable and the weak suddenly have a voice. Combine that with useful organising apps and you have the makings of a different future.

How we get from a consumerism propped up by cheap labour to there is another thing, but a political voice is a start.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: robhug on September 07, 2021, 04:34:50 PM
Today, I drove 45 minutes to the office for 9, did about an hour of genuine work, then feigned* work should anyone walk near me till about 2 , then an hours lunch till 3, then another couple of hours feigning work before the 45 minute drive home. I get about 26k plus yearly bonuses of upto 10k, although a lot less in the last couple of years due to the pandemic. Would anyone consider that a dream job?

*mainly chatting, making tea, dicking about on the internet
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 07, 2021, 04:36:13 PM
Well of course! We would all have a social safety net and UBI etc but there are surely very few people out there who would only want to veg out on the sofa for 40 years? Don't we all sort of want to create or produce something?

What are people creating when doing hard labour though? You can tell yourself it's useful, if you're ploughing the field or something (which is more than can be said for paperwork creators in offices in many cases) but I find it doubtful people would do it to give themselves purpose. I think the idea with UBI is it would liberate them from having to do labour and fill up their time with side-hustles they actually enjoy.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: bgmnts on September 07, 2021, 04:38:02 PM
What are people creating when doing hard labour though? You can tell yourself it's useful, if you're ploughing the field or something (which is more than can be said for paperwork creators in offices in many cases) but I find it doubtful people would do it to give themselves purpose. I think the idea with UBI is it would liberate them from having to do labour and fill up their time with side-hustles they actually enjoy.

But then if that's the case then that means only the monetary incentive would get people working most jobs, most of the actual needed jobs. I'd like to think most of us would pitch in regardless.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 07, 2021, 04:40:48 PM
But then if that's the case then that means only the monetary incentive would get people working most jobs, most of the actual needed jobs. I'd like to think most of us would pitch in regardless.

I think you need to find a way for this undesirable work to be filled so that people don't feel obliged to "pitch in" for it to truly be utopian. I think the idea that people need to be working or that it's better that humans are still doing the hard work when machines could potentially do the work instead is only inherently bad when people need to work to survive. If you could tax the profits of the machines adequately, or have them benefit the many by releasing them to chase their own pursuits, well that's not bad.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: sevendaughters on September 07, 2021, 04:54:39 PM
I think I could be described as workshy, an idler, something of a malingerer at times. I'd love to say it was me seeing through the politics of it all, but I had some nice easy jobs that I couldn't take to at all. Put me in front of that computer screen, conveyor belt, pile of boxes, whatever - my mind just didn't want to do it, and would always wander and think what else I could be doing instead of this.

I've never earned more than £17k in a calendar year (am 38) and I got fired from that job, as I have been from loads of work. When I was younger I was apologetic for my failings but as I got older I became more hostile; walked out of jobs, actively dared people to fire me by breaking their dumb rules. I'm not born rich and can't really afford to slack off either, but dole life sucks worse than having a shit job most of the time.

It annoys me because my parents worked incredibly hard (my dad *literally* worked down the pit before I was born) and developed this dawn 'til dusk attitude about work both for bread and to keep a household going. I do my bit around the house, but to be honest Mrs 7D always thinks it is too slow, slapdash, and not exactly done with alacrity. 'cos it's fuckin' work, maan. Pathetic.

I never had an idea of a career until recently but I still only work precariously in my line of work. I'm fumbling towards some kind of success and it sort of frightens me, but at least it is something that isn't earning money for some terrific cunt and has outcomes that I actually believe in. But even in this role I cut corners, slack off, leave things late, etc. I'm even doing it now by writing this, which was harder and longer than the thing I was meant to do.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 07, 2021, 04:56:12 PM
Well of course! We would all have a social safety net and UBI etc but there are surely very few people out there who would only want to veg out on the sofa for 40 years? Don't we all sort of want to create or produce something?

I honestly don't know, and the point of UBI is that it shouldn't matter. I think that some people probably would only want to veg out, but to go back to the OP I don't see that as being a uniquely British attitude towards the idea of creation and production. I would say that I do see the attitude from the OP among British workers, but I think it's down to things like the housing situation in the UK, austerity in the UK, and plentiful[1] supply of cheaper labour from outside the UK.
 1. Or some value of plentifulness
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 07, 2021, 05:04:12 PM
I honestly don't know, and the point of UBI is that it shouldn't matter. I think that some people probably would only want to veg out, but to go back to the OP I don't see that as being a uniquely British attitude towards the idea of creation and production. I would say that I do see the attitude from the OP among British workers, but I think it's down to things like the housing situation in the UK, austerity in the UK, and plentiful[1] supply of cheaper labour from outside the UK.
 1. Or some value of plentifulness

And we are kind of a service economy too. I think this is an important thing psychologically. In times when people made things if you worked on a production line, you may not be a skilled worker, compared to say, a carpenter, but if you're making widgets it's easy to tell yourself "i make them, and they go in things people need". Nowadays lots of people are creating information society doesn't need, the only reason they're paid to do it is because a company thinks it's important for itself, or possibly worse, that information isn't useful to them but they can charge someone else for it and skim a bit off in the process. On a psychological level that is bad I think. It's a bit like how Russians used to break prisoners by making them move large volumes of water from one container and back again, for no reason at all.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: PlanktonSideburns on September 07, 2021, 05:06:46 PM
Would gladly toil feildwize if I had a Ukrainian family I could spend my fortune with, but the sort of work they want, I’d be bailiffed from house and home two months in.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 07, 2021, 05:35:10 PM
The 'hard, labour intensive' jobs they are referring to often have awful pay and conditions and the only reason the associated businesses operate is because of being able to recruit people for whom the pay is still superior than a better job in their home country.

Exactly feeds; into the conversation about liberals and FBPE types who were disgusted at the xenophobic elements of Brexit but were very happy for the forrins to a) work for shit wages and live on top of each other in shoddy accommodation and b) they did it all far away from them.

How we get from a consumerism propped up by cheap labour to there is another thing, but a political voice is a start.

We are neck deep in a culture that doesn't just tolerate elitism and competition; but sees it as the essence of life; people don't want to be "equals" they just don't want to be the one that at the bottom; hence why the psychology of Brexiteers was one of being betrayed by their country in allowing English nationals reduced to the statues of imported labour.

As you've pointed out UBI would need to deal with these problems; it couldn't just give money as markets would tailor around it and new inequalities would emerge. 

There is also the problem here in that UBI attributes wellbeing and a life lived to money; which is at best a partial truth as a safety net it works but as form of subsistence to "live off" there is already evidence of problems with this where it over laps with benefits and it doesn't always relate to people "doing what they want to do".

Btw we are all away that the inventor of UBI was Milton Friedman - not saying this rules it out; it should be taken on it's merits but there are quite a few neoliberal proponents of it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Lemming on September 07, 2021, 05:58:05 PM
I would lie around all day doing fuck all if given the chance. Only reason I held on for a couple years at Tesco was because I had a crush on the woman who stacked the aisles with me (not a euphemism).

In a hypothetical world where work isn't mandatory and isn't a prerequisite for economic survival, I assume the culture around it would massively change, and there'd be far less unnecessary stress surrounding work. No working unmanageable hours just to survive as your mind begins to flay, no constantly thinking "if I leave/get fired now I'll probably fucking die thanks to the welfare reforms of Sir George Iain Duncan Smith", no staying at it for months/years after your mind has already gone and you're doing everything on shitty inertia autopilot.

Also in Hypothetical Utopia World, there would presumably be far fewer useless hierarchies, and of course, less unnecessary, pointless jobs to start with. This would probably persuade a lot of people to go out and do something relatively worthwhile. In such a world, I could see myself going down to a local store and running the tills or stacking the shelves for a couple days a week purely to help out The Community and meet new people. But as it is right now, I'd genuinely rather just lay on the floor in a barely-surviving fugue state than deal with any of this shit.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: AllisonSays on September 07, 2021, 06:15:23 PM
I have definitely internalised a kind of Calvinist thing where I 'enjoy' all kinds of work, even when I also find it alienating or demeaning or whatever. One of the big psychic changes for me of being more on the left was realising how deletorious that mindset was. I still get mad depressed when I'm not working though, so...
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: checkoutgirl on September 07, 2021, 06:20:18 PM
Maybe the human jobs could be rota'd a bit like jury duty so everyone still gets more leisure time

The four day week is coming back in France I think. I'm all for it. A five day week is just piss, unless you actually really enjoy your job which is the minority I'm sure.

Doug Stanhope did a bit about the ideal being 100% unemployment which seems fanciful now but it is possible and why shouldn't it be the ultimate goal?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: The Culture Bunker on September 07, 2021, 06:20:33 PM
I have definitely internalised a kind of Calvinist thing where I 'enjoy' all kinds of work, even when I also find it alienating or demeaning or whatever. One of the big psychic changes for me of being more on the left was realising how deletorious that mindset was. I still get mad depressed when I'm not working though, so...
For me, my time being unemployed (when I was fresh out of university) was depressing because I felt like I was a drain on both my family - through living with my parents - and the state, by claiming dole. When I look back on that period nearly 20 years on, I wish I'd appreciated having so much free time more - maybe learned to play guitar or something.

I deeply hate working for a living, and if I had the cash, I'd retire tomorrow and quite happily spend the rest of my life mainly sat on my arse playing video games. I've been lucky to go through my working life not really having to graft too hard, but I'm still acutely aware of my life passing me by.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Better Midlands on September 07, 2021, 06:30:19 PM
Bullshit Jobs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs)

Quote
Bullshit Jobs: A Theory is a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber that postulates the existence of meaningless jobs and analyzes their societal harm. He contends that over half of societal work is pointless, and becomes psychologically destructive when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth. Graeber describes five types of meaningless jobs, in which workers pretend their role is not as pointless or harmful as they know it to be: flunkies, goons, duct tapers, box tickers, and taskmasters. He argues that the association of labor with virtuous suffering is recent in human history, and proposes universal basic income as a potential solution.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: The Culture Bunker on September 07, 2021, 06:32:45 PM
Wasn't Buckminster Fuller saying the same sort of thing decades ago?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 07, 2021, 06:38:15 PM
The most useful, satisfying and praise-worthy (apparently) work that I've done in the last two months has been in my own time, which is probably a sign of something.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Alberon on September 07, 2021, 07:19:53 PM
I’ve a job which, while I don’t love it, I don’t actively hate it. I don’t lie awake at night fretting about it and I don’t dread getting up in the morning. I know I could do a higher paid job, but this way I don’t have the stress and it is so lovely to live without work stress.

Lockdown gave me three months at home and a small look at what retirement is like. If I could afford to I’d pack it all in now. One guy I worked with inherited enough from his parents to retire at 55. Just googled him and he’s had twenty years and counting of retirement in good health.

Lucky bastard.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: The Culture Bunker on September 07, 2021, 07:24:48 PM
One guy I worked with inherited enough from his parents to retire at 55. Just googled him and he’s had twenty years and counting of retirement in good health.

Lucky bastard.
My dad had the chance to retire 11 years ago (at 57) and has told me he never regrets the decision - best thing he ever did from a work perspective and he's been able to spend the time with his grandsons and walking up and down the Cumbrian fells. But then, he did have a nice pension that kicked in at 60.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Dex Sawash on September 07, 2021, 09:10:41 PM

More of a work introvert
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 07, 2021, 09:20:08 PM
My hunch is that a cost-benefits analysis is what might cause young British workers to have an aversion to some kinds of work. If a potential benefit of work is getting, say, a foot on the housing ladder and a pension which will keep you in comfort in your old age, how much progress towards that goal will spending a summer picking soft fruits in a Marches farm get you, and is the experience of the job worth that progress? If a potential benefit of work is around ideas of agency, satisfaction in a job well done, providing wider benefits to society, how far towards that does the same summer job get you, and is it worth it?

Well said.

I've long been skeptical of the "dignity of work" message and the centrality of work in our culture. But the landscape of work today is fucking abysmal and beyond anything I imagined having to work in while at university at the turn of the millennium; we had no idea how bad things would get. Any and every job ad I see today is either so ludicrously specific or highly-skilled that the poster clearly has someone in mind already and a legal requirement to advertise the job; or it's the sort of underpaid (even voluntary!) toil that shouldn't be wished on one's worst enemy. Where I was skeptical in the '90s-'00s, only a moron or someone completely out of touch wouldn't be skeptical today.

Most people do not work because they love to work or get satisfaction from it. They work because they are forced to, economically bullied into it. This is why some people call it wage slavery and why there are no Blues songs about how great the boss is and how splendid the bank manager is for looking after our plentiful and joyfully-earned wedge.

When a potentially meaningful job comes up, managerial bullshit will inevitably wreck it somehow. We live in the age of the manager and the drudge.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 07, 2021, 09:25:17 PM
I have definitely internalised a kind of Calvinist thing where I 'enjoy' all kinds of work, even when I also find it alienating or demeaning or whatever. One of the big psychic changes for me of being more on the left was realising how deletorious that mindset was. I still get mad depressed when I'm not working though, so...

Does the work need to be meaningful? Would your depression be salved by a job that involved digging a hole til lunch break and filling it up again til 5? (Genuine question. I relate to what you said.)
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 07, 2021, 09:28:51 PM
FULLY-AUTOMATED LUXURY COMMUNISM.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Ignatius_S on September 07, 2021, 10:05:12 PM
Bullshit Jobs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs)

The book is an expansion of an article that Graeber wrote - but really would stick to the latter; the former is a good example of the law of diminishing returns. I think that it's worth mentioning that that quote is a tad misleading - Graeber made it clear that he wasn't offering any solutions and although he does give backing to the concept universal basic income possibly offering one, from what I remember, that bit was more in passing and didn't read it as that's something he proposed.

Graeber is on strongest ground when he discusses the psychological harm people can experience when they believe their job is useless. But otherwise, his arguments don't stand up.

Graeber's definition of what is a bullshit job and how he categorises them is very arbitrary and essentially, it comes down to 'I think it's bullshit, therefore it is bullshit.' At best, it could be said that it's debatable; at worst; it reveals much more about the writer than what he's writing about.

There is a reliance on a very small sample of people saying what they felt about their work - didn't feel it made a strong case for the arguments and other research has debunked it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 07, 2021, 10:10:03 PM
My partner’s cousin’s partner developed and then sold some piece of financial services software shortly after he left university. The sale was for enough money that he never needs to work again, and whenever we speak with him he seemingly has no plans to. Lucky, wise bastard.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 07, 2021, 10:15:06 PM
The book is an expansion of an article that Graeber wrote - but really would stick to the latter; the former is a good example of the law of diminishing returns.
That article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210902111628/https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs

Broadly agreeing with Ignatius_S - I think Graeber ended up trying to make "bullshit jobs" do too much work. I recall a particular painful attempt to diagnose Brexit through a "nurses vs managers" lens that managed to ignore 1) the Band 4/5 registration boundary (and the issues of age, ethnicity, and education bound up with this), 2) that nurses are mostly managed by nurses, and 3) repeated attempts to ensure that nurses have as little administrative or managerial support as possible (which is why these tasks fall back to nurses).
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Shoulders?-Stomach! on September 07, 2021, 10:15:38 PM
Quote
I still get mad depressed when I'm not working though, so...

A lot of us are industrious and need to keep moving to different tasks and have structure, it's more that could be towards something more valuable to you and others.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 07, 2021, 10:33:00 PM
Most people do not work because they love to work or get satisfaction from it. They work because they are forced to, economically bullied into it. This is why some people call it wage slavery and why there are no Blues songs about how great the boss is and how splendid the bank manager is for looking after our plentiful and joyfully-earned wedge.

you and touchingcloth are spot on imo.  UBI as vehicle to allow people to just not work is flawed.  Make better jobs, with better terms and conditions and realistically achievable gains for doing them.  The majority of people are not inactive people by desire, work provides growth, opportunities for socialising and the ability to work together (and help others); in short it is actually healthy - when workers are being looked after and properly respected.

Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 07, 2021, 10:40:39 PM
Why can't people be in charge of their own activity though (both as individuals or through self-organisation). Why is it important people still go to adult creches?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: AllisonSays on September 07, 2021, 10:59:41 PM
Does the work need to be meaningful? Would your depression be salved by a job that involved digging a hole til lunch break and filling it up again til 5? (Genuine question. I relate to what you said.)

It's a good question! I think ideally it needs to be meaningful or whatever, but in practice it just needs to be absorbing. I've had kitchen jobs that were obviously stupid jobs washing the plates of dickheads and I've been really happy in being absorbed in that work, that world, and I've had more 'meaningful' office or teaching jobs that have made me feel like shit because I'm doing it with like a tenth of my feeling, body and brain. I dunno!
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: shiftwork2 on September 07, 2021, 11:03:33 PM
Most work isn’t ‘meaningful’.  Some of it is though, and it’s a different life if it is.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: gib on September 07, 2021, 11:11:10 PM
i remember the old days
when we were all young

down the brambles and hedgerows
a songthrush had sung

and along came a tramp
a gent of the road

they put in some steps
back then in the day

course now they get handouts
and do drugs all day
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Lemming on September 07, 2021, 11:32:11 PM
I've had kitchen jobs that were obviously stupid jobs washing the plates of dickheads and I've been really happy in being absorbed in that work

Dishies solidarity. Same here, I quite liked being in the dish-pit back in the day, great sense of camaraderie with the one other person stuck there. Excellent feeling in winter when you step out of the restaurant at 2 in the morning and the chill air makes you realise your clothes are physically welded to your body with sweat. Could only do it for a couple months due to the BACK-BREAKING nature of it, but it was a decent time.

you and touchingcloth are spot on imo.  UBI as vehicle to allow people to just not work is flawed.  Make better jobs, with better terms and conditions and realistically achievable gains for doing them.  The majority of people are not inactive people by desire, work provides growth, opportunities for socialising and the ability to work together (and help others); in short it is actually healthy - when workers are being looked after and properly respected.

It's politically suicidal right now, but UBI should be advertised as allowing people not to work, IMO. Some of the policy's appeal comes from the potential it has to disintegrate the current concept of "work" as we know it, to prevent the demonisation of joblessness and the unemployed, and to give people the agency to focus on whatever projects they desire - many of which will still take the form of paid employment, I assume. It also gives people the option to abandon jobs when they've become exhausted and/or feel they're ill-suited, and makes it easier to pursue a job on a temporary basis without ending up stuck in it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: AllisonSays on September 08, 2021, 07:02:26 AM
And the thing about 'meaningful' jobs (I'm thinking of social work and teaching, as ones that I've done, and nursing, medicine, paramedics, care work as ones that I've been adjacent to) are no less vitiated by managerialism, pettiness, bullshit, the application of inappropriate metrics and mechanisms, and so on. Certainly in teaching you need to try really fucking hard to feel like you're doing something good beyond being the two-in-one cop and creche manager your boss wants you to be, in my experience.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: icehaven on September 08, 2021, 09:10:10 AM
And the thing about 'meaningful' jobs (I'm thinking of social work and teaching, as ones that I've done, and nursing, medicine, paramedics, care work as ones that I've been adjacent to) are no less vitiated by managerialism, pettiness, bullshit, the application of inappropriate metrics and mechanisms, and so on. Certainly in teaching you need to try really fucking hard to feel like you're doing something good beyond being the two-in-one cop and creche manager your boss wants you to be, in my experience.

Quite. The problem with quite a lot of meaningful (i.e. socially useful) work being fuelled by community spirit is that it simply wouldn't get done once the well meaning but perhaps naïve volunteers realise how fucking hard they are and how much crap they have to deal with so a UBI should in theory drive wages for vital but difficult/unpleasant/boring jobs through the roof otherwise no one would train to be a nurse, or work in a care home, or be a binman etc. I'd happily still work if it meant I got paid enough to have a significantly better standard of life than the UBI allowed, but then (as 6 months of lockdown spent watching sitcoms and playing on my phone has proved to me) I don't have that many things I'm burning to do but don't have the time or energy. I can appreciate someone who does preferring to live a more basic life on just their UBI if it allowed them to pursue other projects.     
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 11:23:47 AM
It's politically suicidal right now, but UBI should be advertised as allowing people not to work, IMO. Some of the policy's appeal comes from the potential it has to disintegrate the current concept of "work" as we know it, to prevent the demonisation of joblessness and the unemployed, and to give people the agency to focus on whatever projects they desire - many of which will still take the form of paid employment, I assume. It also gives people the option to abandon jobs when they've become exhausted and/or feel they're ill-suited, and makes it easier to pursue a job on a temporary basis without ending up stuck in it.

I think this is the common thought about UBI at the moment, it being sensible but politically suicidal, there is much more to consider though.

First off UBI isn't a set thing or policy it is just thing people say to wrap around a load of potential policies.  Depending on what we are talking about depends on what problems arise. 

There is the UBI that pays you a base wage regardless of your whether you are working or not; this is very expensive and advantageous to richer people (it's like the winter allowance for people that don't need it); for them it becomes stored as excess capital and tends to not go back into the economy (it gets turned into assets and shares generally) for people subsisting of these they are become victims worse inequality as richer people have just got a pay rise exactly their total wage; it isn't long then that markets adapt to collect monies from this type of UBI (essentially an even more tiered economy than you have now).  I'm not sure what people think this does for mobility; on it's own it is just effectively inflating costs over the long-term.  Want to means test UBI then? OK see below.

There is then the UBI that is only accessible when you are out of work; which is basically the tories Universal Credit of sorts but let's say it was of the living wage standard.  The market will tailor itself again to this; things will cost more because more money is available in the system with those already with capital or access to capital able to best capture this extra capital in the system and turn it into assets (when I say this it basically means higher house prices and even greater concentrated control over commodities).  This doesn't translate to poor people buying their own homes or anything like that it just creates a two-tier economy.

The safety net is absolutely the important thing but I can tell you having originally worked in the industry through the Blair years throwing money at people doesn't work from a reducing inequality/improving mobility; being an able bodied person burdened with work to pay your bills is shite and of course UBI seems to tick the box of ah I wouldn't have to work or I wouldn't be in trouble if I left work; but on enmasse it means lots of people given money to sit out of the "real economy"; we've actually done this with disabled people in the 90s and early 2000s; we paid them for not working; result an economy that excluded disabled people.  This isn't over; there are millions of people out there now in this situation. 

Money is not the solution to things; it's blood in system; it's the structures and organisations that act as the organs which are the most important.  The safety net you describe is important; it's what social security was invented for but that isn't what UBI is about; it is about underwriting the long-term decision to not work and remove oneself form the labour market; it has the potential for lots of negative consequences both structurally and in terms of health.  Personally I see investment in institutions, aggressive tax policies for millionaires, solid working rights for employees with enforced adequate redundancy payments and access to legal representation for work disputes, person-centred, means tested social security with proper support (and a complete rejection of the term "benefit" whilst we are at it).  I loved the Corbyn policy of a National Education Service - that would have been the game changer but it sadly wasn't to be.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: dissolute ocelot on September 08, 2021, 01:45:57 PM
The amount of work we do is completely detached from what we need to do to maintain shelter, warmth, food, health, and even entertainment. If you set up, say, a communal farm with everything for basic needs, how many hours' work would people have to do in total? If you were planting, harvesting, and chopping wood by hand it would be hard, but what if you had all the latest machinery and central boilers and power generators?

But even basic needs like healthcare require such a complex supply chain (to manufacture drugs, make industrial chemicals and materials, produce equipment, train people, etc) that it's very hard to say just what's needed. Even making a tractor requires a vast workforce (although how much of that is necessary, and how much is creating crap you don't need, is another topic).

So I guess working out what's useful work and what's useless work is one way to get around that. But it still doesn't speak to how work is organised. We need to measure productivity to ensure people are working efficiently, but also need to ensure they're not producing worthless crap efficiently. Maybe gradual reductions in hours coupled with minimum wage increases are the realistic way forward, at least within a capitalist society. How a fully planned economy would handle it is an entirely different question.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 01:51:45 PM
We need to measure productivity to ensure people are working efficiently, but also need to ensure they're not producing worthless crap efficiently.

Exactly; the idea that all work is worthless is problematic; work is supporting the elderly, disabled and infirm, its educating children,  performing surgery to restore someones eye sight, allowing people to travel and see loved ones, making sure the water in your taps keeps flowing and is safe to drink.

It isn't that work is bad it is that how the rewards and better working conditions work in the world is badly skewed toward the pursuit of financial gain and not the productive useful societally improving things.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: monkfromhavana on September 08, 2021, 02:47:26 PM
I'm not sure that, if UBI was introduced, the existential "I am doing work of no value" depression wouldn't be replaced by "I am doing nothing of value". I could (and have) spent months on end sat on my arse, but it certainly (for me) heightened depression and anxiety. Whether that would kick in again if I knew I didn't *have* to work or not , is something I am not sure about.

I did fill my time with "hobbies of the unskilled kind"[1], which I continue now that I am a *productive member of society*, but I still think that my hobbies are as useless as when I did them as when I was unemployed. Would your average wage slave, if freed from the drudgery, suddenly decide to create art, or read classic literature, or develop themselves? Some would, but I suspect that a lot of people would just go to the pub.

Basically I think that humans need some form of meaningful work, whether that is meaningful in terms of value to society, or on an individuals terms, or as decent conditions and remuneration. Maybe being able to job share, work 1-4 days a week, work from home, work at times that suit you, get paid a decent wage to enable you to live and have UBI as your back-up, would be preferable to just letting people have UBI and leave them to it.

No-one would be punished for not having a job, but those who choose to do some form of work would be better off for it.

Iain Duncan-Smith, signing off.
 1. No, not masturbation[1]
 1. Not only
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 08, 2021, 03:25:28 PM
Returning to the sub-topic of the current employment landscape, this sort of thing happens too often (from someone I follow on Twitter but don't know personally):

Quote
Another job rejection. This one hurts because I had eight years experience of the work involved. In fact, it was identical to my last permanent admin role. I didn't even get an interview. Absolute horseshit.

This person is a good creative writer with an MA in creative writing and shouldn't have to look for "permanent admin roles" full stop let alone face this sort of shit.

Similarly (or oppositely?), my partner has to interview for her own job today. She doesn't expect to get it because she thinks it's all part of a ploy to move her to a far shittier branch office so that someone else can be moved into hers as a way to eliminate an historic job-share complication (which she objected to at the time).

Basically, we all too often have to beg for work that is beneath us (but we can't say it is because that's taboo for some reason) and which we only "want" because we have bills to pay. And then be treated like shit by managers. And all the while have act professionally and to pretend to love our work and are grateful for it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 08, 2021, 03:38:59 PM
I'm seeing two slightly-related things recurring in this thread:
Conflation between inherent benefits of work and inherent benefits of stability.
"I need some form of [occupation, stability, routine, social contact etc etc] and so do other people too, so that's why we should keep work"

I think point 2 could greatly be satisfied on ones own terms by providing point 1 and the removal of the stigma of being jobless (and the conditioning that only jobs can provide point 2). I think if you remove the need for people to work, people will be more selective, so businesses that want to employ people and commune-like self-organising groups that want to do stuff will begin to appear somewhat similar.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 03:51:38 PM
Returning to the sub-topic of the current employment landscape, this sort of thing happens too often (from someone I follow on Twitter but don't know personally):

This person is a good creative writer with an MA in creative writing and shouldn't have to look for "permanent admin roles" full stop let alone face this sort of shit.

Similarly (or oppositely?), my partner has to interview for her own job today. She doesn't expect to get it because she thinks it's all part of a ploy to move her to a far shittier branch office so that someone else can be moved into hers as a way to eliminate an historic job-share complication (which she objected to at the time).

Basically, we all too often have to beg for work that is beneath us (but we can't say it is because that's taboo for some reason) and which we only "want" because we have bills to pay. And then be treated like shit by managers. And all the while have act professionally and to pretend to love our work and are grateful for it.

My partner is a good creative writer, but we don't have any sort of a safety net for her to write speculatively so she does her own projects when she can and random bits of copywriting, proofreading and "admin roles" to earn money to pay for fripperies like staying alive. It's a recurring story in the creative industries, because talent alone isn't enough to find yourself gainful employment, and almost everyone working in those industries will have some kind of financial support to allow them to pursue a career, especially in the early days.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 08, 2021, 03:52:44 PM
There is the UBI that pays you a base wage regardless of your whether you are working or not; this is very expensive and advantageous to richer people (it's like the winter allowance for people that don't need it); for them it becomes stored as excess capital and tends to not go back into the economy.

That's not right. Sorry. One of the main appeals of UBI is that everyone gets it, even the rich. But the rich lose it again through progressive taxation. The advantages of everyone, including the rich, getting it are that (a) we rid the world of the expensive, onerous and undignified systems currently in place for administering and policing a complex welfare state, and (b) it removes the stigma of receiving state "handouts".

You can probably see why the above is interesting to Libertarians and Socialists alike.

Folks, I know quite a lot about UBI. Not everything (it's an emerging field) but quite a lot. I am willing to answer questions if people are really interested. I can be a little slow to respond though, so bear with me if you do.

I like your thoughts here, Trenter, sorry to pull you up on that one.

Exactly; the idea that all work is worthless is problematic; work is supporting the elderly, disabled and infirm, its educating children,  performing surgery to restore someones eye sight, allowing people to travel and see loved ones, making sure the water in your taps keeps flowing and is safe to drink.

It isn't that work is bad it is that how the rewards and better working conditions work in the world is badly skewed toward the pursuit of financial gain and not the productive useful societally improving things.

I agree with you there, 100%. We need to end the ridiculous stigma that those jobs are menial. And we need to pay those people well.

Where the "work is worthless" attitude comes from is that much work in the UK and US really is worthless and increasingly so. Graeber's Bullshit Jobs book shows how most jobs over the last 50 years have slid from Primary, Secondary and even Tertiary Industry into Quaternary ("knowledge economy") work, most of which is bullshit. We're talking here about desk labour to improve someone else's financial lot or to play a very small role in a very silly and unnecessary (even malign) larger machine, usually a bureaucracy. It's a problem. UBI might be the solution - though there are good reasons to be skeptical.

I enjoyed Bullshit Jobs, but Inventing the Future by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams is the book I'd recommend for getting to the bottom of UBI and the problem of work today. The manifesto on the front cover of the book makes their outlook very clear, but it's all backed up quite rigorously with hard data and qualitative research inside. https://www.versobooks.com/books/2315-inventing-the-future
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 08, 2021, 03:56:10 PM
My partner is a good creative writer, but we don't have any sort of a safety net for her to write speculatively so she does her own projects when she can and random bits of copywriting, proofreading and "admin roles" to earn money to pay for fripperies like staying alive. It's a recurring story in the creative industries, because talent alone isn't enough to find yourself gainful employment, and almost everyone working in those industries will have some kind of financial support to allow them to pursue a career, especially in the early days.

Yup, that about sums it up. UBI claims to take that problem away. Small business and creative industry become viable.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 04:06:24 PM
Yup, that about sums it up. UBI claims to take that problem away. Small business and creative industry become viable.

We sort of had it for a time, even without UBI. Alternative comics (to name a random example) often talk about how the government support they received in the 80s allowed them to move to London and make a start in a seemingly financially nonviable career. There would have been a lot of "worthless" stuff produced thanks to that, but is it worse to have a comic writing a show that's enjoyed by a small handful of people than it is to have someone working in a bullshit knowledge economy job where the benefits are seen only by the employer?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Lemming on September 08, 2021, 04:12:19 PM
I'm seeing two slightly-related things recurring in this thread:
Conflation between inherent benefits of work and inherent benefits of stability.
"I need some form of [occupation, stability, routine, social contact etc etc] and so do other people too, so that's why we should keep work"

I think point 2 could greatly be satisfied on ones own terms by providing point 1 and the removal of the stigma of being jobless (and the conditioning that only jobs can provide point 2). I think if you remove the need for people to work, people will be more selective, so businesses that want to employ people and commune-like self-organising groups that want to do stuff will begin to appear somewhat similar.

Agreed, I've had the "oohhh god no my life and youth are just slipping away while I'm sat doing fuck all" thoughts while unemployed too, but having a job often induced similar feelings. Social contact and some form of structured activity are definitely the big things that are needed to stay in a good mood and good mindset. Annoyingly, society is currently structured in a way where work is the easiest way to accomplish both of these, but you can still achieve them yourself.

I was very happy being unemployed while I was in a relationship and had someone to come over and hang out every other day. Less so when I was sat on my own scrolling through the same five websites for 16 hours a day with nothing to do, no one to talk to and nothing to work on. But finding things to work at is easy when you look - I honestly think documenting and reviewing the history of FPS games for a very small audience here on CaB has been more meaningful/fulfilling than any paid work I've done in my life.

I did fill my time with "hobbies of the unskilled kind", which I continue now that I am a *productive member of society*, but I still think that my hobbies are as useless as when I did them as when I was unemployed. Would your average wage slave, if freed from the drudgery, suddenly decide to create art, or read classic literature, or develop themselves? Some would, but I suspect that a lot of people would just go to the pub.

Nothing wrong with a life spent going to the pub! I had my "I'm going to read all the Great Works of literature, I'm going to watch the entire Criterion Collection, I'm going to find all the best music" phase years ago and concluded that, on balance, it's more fun and rewarding to watch The Chase while shoveling cereal into my gaping mouth.

I suppose the argument is that people would sort of "stagnate" without work, but a lot of jobs essentially offer the experience of stagnating in slow-mo while also having to get up at 7 AM. It says a lot about the way society is currently set up that we have a hard time imagining what kind of worthwhile things people might do in the absence of paid employment. It's a question we'd have to confront collectively, and I suspect our answer might end up one day being "well, there's nothing wrong with a life spent going down the pub/reading the internet/watching those reality shows about fat people, as long as you're enjoying it".
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 08, 2021, 04:17:31 PM
Agreed, I've had the "oohhh god no my life and youth are just slipping away while I'm sat doing fuck all" thoughts while unemployed too, but having a job often induced similar feelings. Social contact and some form of structured activity are definitely the big things that are needed to stay in a good mood and good mindset. Annoyingly, society is currently structured in a way where work is the easiest way to accomplish both of these, but you can still achieve them yourself.

I think the thing about social contact is while you may have colleagues whom you actually get on with, who you enjoy working with, how often do you see them once you change jobs? and what proportion of people you've worked with fall into that category?

It might be better than abject loneliness, but often the social contact is not exactly voluntary and quite often perfunctory.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Capt.Midnight on September 08, 2021, 05:59:40 PM
The 'hard, labour intensive' jobs they are referring to often have awful pay and conditions and the only reason the associated businesses operate is because of being able to recruit people for whom the pay is still superior than a better job in their home country.

Precisely. I have zero sympathy for the employers who created working conditions so vile that they can’t recruit native UK replacement staff.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Alberon on September 08, 2021, 07:29:19 PM
I don’t feel I’d miss the structure of work, the last eighteen months of Furlough, Lockdowns and working from home has shown that.

Admittedly, I’d probably be nine to fiveing Final Fantasy 14, but it wouldn’t be negatively affecting my emotional state.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 08, 2021, 07:37:23 PM
I don’t feel I’d miss the structure of work, the last eighteen months of Furlough, Lockdowns and working from home has shown that.

Admittedly, I’d probably be nine to fiveing Final Fantasy 14, but it wouldn’t be negatively affecting my emotional state.

Which 9 and 5? When I get time off work I typically end up nocturnal, not sure why that's inherently bad though.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Alberon on September 08, 2021, 07:42:18 PM
Even through three months of lockdown I couldn’t help but wake up at 6.30am no matter how late I went to bed. It’s bloody annoying, especially when I know I can sleep in till mid morning and I need to catch up on it, but I’m still awake long before seven.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: imitationleather on September 08, 2021, 07:46:58 PM
Which 9 and 5? When I get time off work I typically end up nocturnal, not sure why that's inherently bad though.

Me too. I'm awake through the night so regularly that I might as well start doing day trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 08, 2021, 07:47:44 PM
Even through three months of lockdown I couldn’t help but wake up at 6.30am no matter how late I went to bed. It’s bloody annoying, especially when I know I can sleep in till mid morning and I need to catch up on it, but I’m still awake long before seven.

Unlucky mate. I thought I was getting set in my ways and my weekend lie-ins were getting closer and closer to my normal waking up time but I managed to drift in and out of sleep on Sunday, waking up and dozing off, and when I finally summoned the energy to look at my watch it was 5pm.

Got a mate who worked as a postie for a bit when in Uni and that permanently changed him to an early riser though.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 08, 2021, 07:52:11 PM
read through all this and come to the conclusion work is a fucking complete waste of time invented by cunts thats now too far into the game to tell people who work at wankzones* that they've wasted their and everyones elses time

*stupid jobs
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 08, 2021, 07:57:26 PM
read through all this and come to the conclusion work is a fucking complete waste of time invented by cunts thats now too far into the game to tell people who work at wankzones that they've wasted their and everyones elses time

It's a bit like the obsession with home ownership. The 'advantages' of owning a home are foremost a rights and stability issue, Germans have leases which let you do things that are often heralded as examples as to why owning a house in the UK is good. But too many people have sunk money into the financialised debt ponzi to admit it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 08, 2021, 08:02:55 PM
I apreciate anyone who wants to work in the way you have to say that now but not mean it so people believe or consider everything else you say after it, so I appreciate anyone who wants to work and the hard work they do but every second ive woked i've wanted to kill someone or go home. Every shift with the most basic understanding of what it is I had to do at the job peformed in the most rudimental, shitarse manner so people wouldnt talk to me any more because they'd think I was boring or weird or whatever you need to get people away from you. Just hate hate hate. If you went through school with an ideal job lines up or found something you love I can get this, but work - fuck off, get 100% to fuck, money aswell, id fuck both off at the same time
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 08, 2021, 08:13:02 PM
Occasionally I do get passionate about solving a problem or learning something new at work, and it grips me. It's usually followed by me not doing much afterwards or sometimes the thing I get drawn into isn't even something remotely important.

And the workplace itself is constantly at odds with with that. Many people have ruined "hobbies" and interests by turning them into real jobs.

I've got a mate who is a music producer, he used to make his own music but now makes a pretty good living ghostwriting stuff or making sample packs and he's totally happy in the sense that he's freelance, at home, with his family but also freely admits turning it into a job means he doesn't want to make music for himself any more "the work aspect makes me not enjoy doing this myself any more but it's the most enjoyable job I've ever had", and he's one of the LUCKY ones.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: icehaven on September 08, 2021, 08:24:22 PM
Precisely. I have zero sympathy for the employers who created working conditions so vile that they can’t recruit native UK replacement staff.

Exactly. If your business model relies on paying your workers less than it costs to live a comfortable life in the same country then your business shouldn't exist.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 09:00:04 PM
That's not right. Sorry. One of the main appeals of UBI is that everyone gets it, even the rich. But the rich lose it again through progressive taxation.

Yes that is the kind of additional aspects that need to be added that I was alluding to but it still has big problems.  So you need aggressive taxation, something that generally doesn't go down well.  Giving rich people UBI and then taking it away via taxation, basically just adds another amount of money rich people can claim is being taxed from them.  This is basically the same as means testing UBI prior to handing it out; and by recouping UBI after by taxation you are essentially making a set of bullshit job.......someone that is having to take back money that didn't need to be given in the first place.  I've got a question for you on this; what benefit does giving rich people money you are later going to remove have? are there not potential logistical problems in ensuring the money is returned?

Quote
The advantages of everyone, including the rich, getting it are that (a) we rid the world of the expensive, onerous and undignified systems currently in place for administering and policing a complex welfare state, and (b) it removes the stigma of receiving state "handouts".

Why is this an advantage to the rich? How is this not more expensive than the current system? the cost savings are in a streamlined service that deposit money into accounts; like Uber for social security (non-health related ESA doesn't cost a lot; it never did; there is no grand scale benefit fraud team and there never has been - unemployment benefits amounts to 1% (£2bn) of welfare expenditure). 

What it does is sound great for people that just do not want to work, receive a citizens payment and take up hobbies or personal interests; this is not the whole population, it doesn't' fit in with lots of other problems; like the very well known relationship between inactivity, poor mental health and early death.

Quote
Folks, I know quite a lot about UBI. Not everything (it's an emerging field) but quite a lot. I am willing to answer questions if people are really interested. I can be a little slow to respond though, so bear with me if you do.

I'm be interested to know the problems with it; most things have consequences and it is the consideration of these consequences and solutions to them that are interesting

Quote
I agree with you there, 100%. We need to end the ridiculous stigma that those jobs are menial. And we need to pay those people well.

Yes but you need people to do them; how do you construct a society that on one hand gives out money for people to live comfortable lives, with no stigma of not working and pay people enough to look after people that need that support?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 08, 2021, 09:26:25 PM
Quote
Yes but you need people to do them; how do you construct a society that on one hand gives out money for people to live comfortable lives, with no stigma of not working and pay people enough to look after people that need that support?

clapping once a week
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 08, 2021, 09:30:30 PM
Yes but you need people to do them; how do you construct a society that on one hand gives out money for people to live comfortable lives, with no stigma of not working and pay people enough to look after people that need that support?

Round up the rich people and take all their stuff.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Lemming on September 08, 2021, 09:32:18 PM
Yes but you need people to do them; how do you construct a society that on one hand gives out money for people to live comfortable lives, with no stigma of not working and pay people enough to look after people that need that support?

On a purely hypothetical level, UBI might provide a "basic"[1] standard of living, which wards off destitution and - when combined with robust state services like housing and healthcare - provides a person with whatever we consider essential for a decent quality of life in the 21st century. But it wouldn't be enough to provide people with luxuries and the types of consumer goods that people already strive towards today - cars, tech gizmos, whatever.

But with a guaranteed minimum standard of living, people would theoretically be able to approach jobs more on their own terms. I'm not sure what that would look like for most people - perhaps part-time work would become the norm, or working at a job for a year or two before leaving to enjoy your earnings. It might lead to upward pressure on wages, too, as we briefly saw glimpses of in America recently where McDonald's suddenly boosted wages in order to lure people in.

Otherwise, I assume many people will work high-stress, unpleasant jobs for the same reasons they work them now - the desire to hang onto what they've got, the desire to attain more, the desire to save enough to move to a new place, the desire to leave their children in a better position, genuinely enjoying the job, etc. I don't mind there being some stigma against (long-term/permanent) unemployment, as long as unemployment isn't accompanied by the threat of destitution.
 1. tough to define
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 09:45:14 PM
This is basically the same as means testing UBI prior to handing it out;
It really isn't, not least in terms of establishing a principle of universal services and a state that works for everyone - rather than hard-working families subsidising dolescum, the latter of which must be subjected to humiliating and distressing processes to prove their scummery (as Mobbd outlines).

Quote
and by recouping UBI after by taxation you are essentially making a set of bullshit job.......someone that is having to take back money that didn't need to be given in the first place.
This makes no sense. Having functioning income and wealth taxes requires jobs[1], yes - the rate at which you set them won't make much difference to how many jobs are needed.

The idea that people working against tax avoidance have more bullshit-y jobs than means-testers - a job which in practice exists only to make difficult lives more difficult - is… difficult to comfortably hold in my head.
 1. I don't think these are bullshit, myself
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:02:56 PM
Round up the rich people and take all their stuff.

Now we're talking
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:04:49 PM
On a purely hypothetical level, UBI might provide a "basic"[1] standard of living, which wards off destitution and - when combined with robust state services like housing and healthcare - provides a person with whatever we consider essential for a decent quality of life in the 21st century. But it wouldn't be enough to provide people with luxuries and the types of consumer goods that people already strive towards today - cars, tech gizmos, whatever.

But with a guaranteed minimum standard of living, people would theoretically be able to approach jobs more on their own terms. I'm not sure what that would look like for most people - perhaps part-time work would become the norm, or working at a job for a year or two before leaving to enjoy your earnings. It might lead to upward pressure on wages, too, as we briefly saw glimpses of in America recently where McDonald's suddenly boosted wages in order to lure people in.

Otherwise, I assume many people will work high-stress, unpleasant jobs for the same reasons they work them now - the desire to hang onto what they've got, the desire to attain more, the desire to save enough to move to a new place, the desire to leave their children in a better position, genuinely enjoying the job, etc. I don't mind there being some stigma against (long-term/permanent) unemployment, as long as unemployment isn't accompanied by the threat of destitution.
 1. tough to define

Agree with all of this; but it comes then down what is the bar for living.......which leads us back to social security or a UBI system in which money given to people that don't need it is reclaimed (via taxation).
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:07:56 PM
It really isn't, not least in terms of establishing a principle of universal services and a state that works for everyone - rather than hard-working families subsidising dolescum, the latter of which must be subjected to humiliating and distressing processes to prove their scummery (as Mobbd outlines).
This makes no sense. Having functioning income and wealth taxes requires jobs[1], yes - the rate at which you set them won't make much difference to how many jobs are needed.

The idea that people working against tax avoidance have more bullshit-y jobs than means-testers - a job which in practice exists only to make difficult lives more difficult - is… difficult to comfortably hold in my head.
 1. I don't think these are bullshit, myself

Sorry none of this makes sense.  UBI is not the only way of removing the problems you cite and means testing does not exist to make people with difficult lives more difficult; it is there to stop people that don't need these funds exploiting the system and directing resources away from those that need it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 10:28:43 PM
means testing does not exist to make people with difficult lives more difficult; it is there to stop people that don't need these funds exploiting the system and directing resources away from those that need it.
Is this a "bit"?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 10:29:43 PM
Sorry none of this makes sense.  UBI is not the only way of removing the problems you cite and means testing does not exist to make people with difficult lives more difficult; it is there to stop people that don't need these funds exploiting the system and directing resources away from those that need it.

There are already things which aren’t means tested in the UK (I should maybe say England) like bus passes for over 60s, winter fuel allowance, basic child benefit.

Means testing isn’t cost-free to administer, so I think it makes sense to avoid the burden in certain cases, and I can see why it’s easier to run things with a set of universal benefits on one side of the ledger and universal taxes on the other, because the alternative is the costs and inefficiencies of means testing everyone, or at least the costs of random audits on some people, like with self-declared tax.

I could probably be persuaded by an argument for not including UBI in taxable income, which is how child benefits work as far as I understand.

I think the past decade of Tory-led austerity has put me heavily off means testing. Too many stories of eligible people receiving their benefits too late, or having to jump through an unnecessary number of hoops at the least.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 08, 2021, 10:30:38 PM
I sense a semantic discussion involving the words 'need' and 'means' coming.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:31:57 PM
Is this a "bit"?

No I really don't see what you said answers any of the questions I posed.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 10:32:25 PM
Means testing isn’t cost-free to administer
Or to be subjected to, far more importantly.


Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 10:33:46 PM
Too many stories of eligible people receiving their benefits too late, or having to jump through an unnecessary number of hoops at the least.
But think of the alternative?! Being exploited by a freeloader.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:38:51 PM
There are already things which aren’t means tested in the UK (I should maybe say England) like bus passes for over 60s, winter fuel allowance, basic child benefit.

Means testing isn’t cost-free to administer, so I think it makes sense to avoid the burden in certain cases, and I can see why it’s easier to run things with a set of universal benefits on one side of the ledger and universal taxes on the other, because the alternative is the costs and inefficiencies of means testing everyone, or at least the costs of random audits on some people, like with self-declared tax.

I could probably be persuaded by an argument for not including UBI in taxable income, which is how child benefits work as far as I understand.

I think the past decade of Tory-led austerity has put me heavily off means testing. Too many stories of eligible people receiving their benefits too late, or having to jump through an unnecessary number of hoops at the least.

Progressive taxation is a form of means testing.  UBI would give a set amount of money to everyone then you would have to means test people to see who would have to return it via taxation.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:40:45 PM
But think of the alternative?! Being exploited by a freeloader.

This is a different issue that doesn't go away with UBI or is related to the other problems that exist with it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 10:45:05 PM
The main problem with means-testing is that while it's a superficially attractive idea on the basis of fairness, it rapidly makes services shit, the experience of trying to access those services even more shit and eventually everyone ends up despising the state as worse than useless.

If you're bad off enough to qualify for a service, you now have to expend extra time and energy proving that this is case - time and energy that you don't have because you're scum. When you finally do access the service it's fucking terrible because the only people who can use it are scum - who wants to make services good for scum?

If you're well off enough not to qualify for a service, you get to be told that the relationship between you and the state is entirely one-way and that the services that you've paid taxes into for decades aren't for people like you.

The former hates the state for making their awful lives even worse - seemingly as a punishment for having a shit life - and the latter hates the state for being a mechanism to distribute funds to a feckless underclass that they're strongly encouraged to other.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 10:45:49 PM
Progressive taxation is a form of means testing.
In people's experience, it absolutely isn't.[1]
 1. Edit: Particularly in the UK, as it happens. I appreciate there are a small number of countries that make the experience of paying taxes as insane as possible as well.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 10:46:42 PM
Or to be subjected to, far more importantly.

Yes, onerous on both sides.

And, Trenter, kind of the point of UBI is that there’s no system to be gamed, because the eligibility is universal. I suspect it would be possible to make it subject to an assessment-free application process rather than mailing the cash to everyone, and like with bus passes there’d be people of means who chose not to apply for it. But also like with bus passes and other benefits there would almost certainly be people who would benefit from it who ended up not claiming for it, possibly due to not understanding or not being able to deal with the application process.

I think anything short of full universality just essentially becomes “why don’t we widen job seekers allowance to include some employed people?” Actually, you could structure that to be tax deductions rather than paid benefits and call it something like a Working Tax Credit.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 10:55:35 PM
Progressive taxation is a form of means testing.  UBI would give a set amount of money to everyone then you would have to means test people to see who would have to return it via taxation.

In practice, you wouldn’t, not nearly for everyone.

Anyone on PAYE would (or could) end up having their UBI reflected on their payslips, and their tax would be worked out from there. Anyone filing a self assessment with no PAYE income would do the same, and the taxation system already caters for people who earn some income under PAYE and other income that they self assess.

Having UBI as something which is means tested would result in everyone being assessed for it, rather than a relatively small proportion of people, a little like how in the US everyone has to file a tax return.

I guess means testing also raises the question of how minors and adolescents are treated. I don’t know how things are handled now, but my student loan was means tested based on my parents income. Would you do the same with UBI, and build income inequality into the system from birth?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:56:20 PM
The main problem with means-testing is that while it's a superficially attractive idea on the basis of fairness, it rapidly makes services shit, the experience of trying to access those services even more shit and eventually everyone ends up despising the state as worse than useless.

If you're bad off enough to qualify for a service, you now have to expend extra time and energy proving that this is case - time and energy that you don't have because you're scum. When you finally do access the service it's fucking terrible because the only people who can use it are scum - who wants to make services good for scum?

If you're well off enough not to qualify for a service, you get to be told that the relationship between you and the state is entirely one-way and that the services that you've paid taxes into for decades aren't for people like you.

The former hates the state for making their awful lives even worse - seemingly as a punishment for having a shit life - and the latter hates the state for being a mechanism to distribute funds to a feckless underclass that they're strongly encouraged to other.

Appreciate the rant and I'm not going to argue that the current system is shit but I don't think this is really looking at anything possible and just stating you think that current means testing is shit.  Im talking about means testing in the broad sense because we are talking about the broad problems with UBI not the specifics of the current situation in this sense working out how much to tax someone and how much to give someone are two sides of the same coin.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:59:40 PM
In practice, you wouldn’t, not nearly for everyone.

Anyone on PAYE would (or could) end up having their UBI reflected on their payslips, and their tax would be worked out from there. Anyone filing a self assessment with no PAYE income would do the same, and the taxation system already caters for people who earn some income under PAYE and other income that they self assess.

Having UBI as something which is means tested would result in everyone being assessed for it, rather than a relatively small proportion of people, a little like how in the US everyone has to file a tax return.

I guess means testing also raises the question of how minors and adolescents are treated. I don’t know how things are handled now, but my student loan was means tested based on my parents income. Would you do the same with UBI, and build income inequality into the system from birth?

Im just pointing out the problems, I'm not pretending I have the solution. You are doing a form of means testing retrospectively that is all.

This is just one of the problems I raised.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 11:01:37 PM
Im talking about means testing in the broad sense
And I don't think you should, because as a specific tool in social democracies it has a particular history and that history is helping kill them.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 11:14:34 PM
Im just pointing out the problems, I'm not pretending I have the solution. You are doing a form of means testing retrospectively that is all.

This is just one of the problems I raised.

It’s quite a different form of means testing, though. Having a UBI payment on the income side of all of the payslips I’ve ever had and then being taxed from accordingly on the deductions side would have made not a jot of difference to my life, because I’ve never not worked as PAYE. On the other hand, I can still remember sitting with my parents one evening filling in that means testing form for the student loan.

We’re probably getting a bit distracted by what means testing is in essence versus in practice. If it were somehow possible to accurately assess every single person while not requiring more than five seconds of their effort or thoughts then I’d maybe be more in favour of it, but then you don’t solve the problems Zetetic mentions around the taxation and benefits systems becoming one way things - pay tax, get benefits.

You know how you hear people say “why should I pay for cycle lanes? I don’t use them, and cyclists don’t pay road tax”? Or “why should I pay for job seekers allowance? Working my fingers to the bone so they can get their massive tellies”? Or “Where is the fairness, we ask, for the shift worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits?”? UBI being properly universal takes away the ability for talking about it in those terms. Or makes it much harder to, at least, I’m not optimistic enough to think it would disappear.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 11:17:54 PM
There would, and I do think Trenter is right to highlight this, be an extremely painful period of "why are we giving all this money to billionaires when we could be buying new legs for the attractive daughters of veterans" and this period would likely last forever.

It's still preferable to indulging this sentiment, which doesn't make it go anyway.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 07:29:19 AM
you need to make people understand jobs are a bunch of fucking shit and only worth being proud of if you do maybe some standard agreed upon chart of worthwhile things first off, that's how you rein them in, as soon as they understand jobs are shit and theyre fucking idiots for being duped into thinking it was anything worth doing or being proud of in the first place you completely break down their defenses and thats when you swoop in and take all their earnings and fuck off immediately without warning, had off
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 09, 2021, 10:23:03 AM
Yes that is the kind of additional aspects that need to be added that I was alluding to but it still has big problems.  So you need aggressive taxation, something that generally doesn't go down well.  Giving rich people UBI and then taking it away via taxation, basically just adds another amount of money rich people can claim is being taxed from them.

Progressive, not aggressive. And a single individual's annual UBI payment is such a small amount of money by the standards of the rich that they should scarcely be concerned about the "loss." The common good case for it can also be made clear [to the rich]. And if there are still objections from the 1% or the 5%, it doesn't matter so long as the informed majority consents. A minority of people currently object to vaccination but we do it anyway for the common good.

This is basically the same as means testing UBI prior to handing it out; and by recouping UBI after by taxation you are essentially making a set of bullshit job.......someone that is having to take back money that didn't need to be given in the first place.  I've got a question for you on this; what benefit does giving rich people money you are later going to remove have? are there not potential logistical problems in ensuring the money is returned?

It is not the same as means testing at all. See Zetetic's notes about that because they are correct. Taxation does not have to create a set of bullshit jobs: it is debatable whether ensuring a tax take is bullshit at all since it is so important, but even if it is this cast of characters already exists. A tax system could be almost fully-automated (and we're already well on our way to that).

The advantage to giving to the rich and then taking away has already been explained: that it reduces bureaucratic complexity to a single non-means-tested and potentially automated system (elegant simplicity) and removes the stigma of a "handouts" system seen to benefit only the poor.

Why is this an advantage to the rich? How is this not more expensive than the current system? the cost savings are in a streamlined service that deposit money into accounts; like Uber for social security (non-health related ESA doesn't cost a lot; it never did; there is no grand scale benefit fraud team and there never has been - unemployment benefits amounts to 1% (£2bn) of welfare expenditure). 

I almost made the mistake of saying that the system of UBI is not supposed to advantage the rich but it actually does! It advantages everyone including the rich. Here's how. The rich should not want to live in a world (a) of suffering and (b) in which a malnourished, over-stressed, bored, unhealthy, uncomprehending, and angry population are providing services for the rich. A world in which people don't have the basics on which to live is dangerous to the rich (and before we go down this line, please remember that not all rich people are sadistic bastards - some of them are but get real). The rich need culture and clean tap water and cars that don't explode just like anyone else; and they are more likely to live in that better, safer world if everyone has the material basics.

What it does is sound great for people that just do not want to work, receive a citizens payment and take up hobbies or personal interests; this is not the whole population, it doesn't' fit in with lots of other problems; like the very well known relationship between inactivity, poor mental health and early death.

It allows people to walk away from bad working situations. Your boss who doesn't care about bad working conditions or only cares about the bottom line will no longer be able to hold you hostage. You can walk away and either become part of the hobbyist community you describe but you might also become a self-starter or, simply, look for a better job.

It will also economically empower women (and other home-based/non-employed partners) to walk away from bad relationships/marriages to which they are currently economically tied.

I'm be interested to know the problems with it; most things have consequences and it is the consideration of these consequences and solutions to them that are interesting

There are several convincing downsides. The main one is that, if something unforeseen happens and we've dismantled the current welfare state to fund or otherwise make room for UBI, we'd be royally fucked. This sort of major potential downside to counterbalance the major potential upsides is why UBI is considered a radical proposal. We should approach UBI with caution but not, in my opinion, hostility. There is potentially too much to be gained. We should be extremely careful but have courage (not faith).

Another often-discussed downside is that UBI could lead to mass inflation (bad news for people with mortgages and bad news for general purchasing power and quality of life). While this is a real concern, I don't find it entirely convincing because it would surely only be the case if we were printing new money and dumping it into the economy (essentially a People's Quantitative Easing). If we finance UBI more responsibly, we might be able to avoid mass inflation. There are other ways to avoid mass inflation but those are unpopular and would have to be ratified somehow, which is another head-scratcher or a problem we'd have to face - but, one might say, that's what State economists are paid to do and they should scratch their heads while the rest of us get back to spending our UBI.

Yes but you need people to do them; how do you construct a society that on one hand gives out money for people to live comfortable lives, with no stigma of not working and pay people enough to look after people that need that support?

UBI provides the material basics. People (those not in the hobbyist mindset you described above and those with higher material standards or consumer desires) will still want to work in order to finance the lifestyle to which they are accustomed or to which they aspire.

There is also the fact (as you have yourself suggested) that money is not the only motivator to work. People work for personal satisfaction, to enjoy working in a team of like-minded people with shared goals, and to play a part in serving the common good. People would be less ashamed to work in, say, a care home if their take-home pay (including their UBI payment) allowed them to live well and if jobs like care work were now more central to life after the pushback against (and hopefully the extinction of) bullshit jobs.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Jockice on September 09, 2021, 10:55:58 AM
It does worry me sometimes that I haven't had a proper job for a decade. But I did work for more than a quarter of a century before that and it was the DWP and doctors who decided I wasn't 'fit for work.' When I got made redundant I was on Jobseekers Allowance for a few weeks, they suggested I apply for ESA, so I did...and got it for life without even an assessment. Which came as quite a shock. It wasn't like my DLA application in the early 90s when I didn't want it and actively tried to sabotage it (yet still got it for life) but I didn't go out of my way to go: "Oh, I'm so terribly disabled I couldn't possibly work." Yet, they decided that was the case. So I thought: 'oh well, I can get on with my PhD now.' Which never happened. So, apart from the very odd bit of freelance stuff - some paid but mainly not - I've been more of less at a loose end for the last five years.

I have applied for several (part-time) jobs in the last couple of years and the only interview I've had was for the charity I do voluntary stuff for and I think that was just as a courtesy as they had already decided to give the job to someone else. Which is actually fair enough. She's more qualified for that particular role than I am. But other jobs I've applied for (like stuff for local magazines) I've been rejected out of hand. This might be because I'm honest in my application about the physical challenges I face (especially with my speech deteriorating) but you know, I'm not thick. Strangely enough, these publications don't object to me writing articles for them, as long as I don't want paid. But they can fuck off. I'm fed up of doing favours.

And I also hate (and have always hated) the amount of sheer creeping that goes into getting and retaining jobs, all the laughing at the boss's jokes and making sure everyone knows how hard you're - apparently - working. I can't do the former without sounding insincere and I used to deliberately downplay whatever effort I made to the extent I once had a stand-up shouting row with a colleague who fell for another guy doing the same job as me who went round telling people he was 'holding it all together' while I just messed about. If Trevor had bothered checking the computer work logs he'd have seen what utter bollocks that was. It was pretty rare for me to react like that though. I just didn't care enough. I really have an aversion to that sort of thing.

Anyway I'm now in my mid 50s (or late 50s from next Friday) and more people I know are retiring or whatever. Some to do freelance stuff and others for health reasons. Two old friends of mine of the same age have had to give up their jobs in the last year or so because of that. One because of arthritis (which doesn't look too bad to me - at least not compared to how my mum was affected - but who am I to judge? I occasionally go for a drink with him. I don't know the full details of his  day-to-day life) and the other because of mental health problems. Again, who am I to judge? Meanwhile my girlfriend got booted out of her job because of her health problems. There may be a constructive dismissal case coming up, and I sincerely hope she puts them out of business. Although, as they are a very wealthy multinational it seems unlikely. We live in hope though.

So in summary, yes I am workshy. Very much so.



Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 09, 2021, 11:08:15 AM
So I thought: 'oh well, I can get on with my PhD now.' Which never happened.

If you don't mind me asking, what happened? Could you still do it? Would you want to?

I sometimes wrestle with that option too. For me it's a lack of personal motivation because I don't like the increasingly corporate/managerial style of the university at which I'd most likely do it.

I have applied for several (part-time) jobs in the last couple of years and the only interview I've had was for the charity I do voluntary stuff for and I think that was just as a courtesy as they had already decided to give the job to someone else. Which is actually fair enough. She's more qualified for that particular role than I am.

You're probably being hard on yourself there. I doubt they were just being pointlessly kind. I suspect that, even if there really was a favourite, they valued your skills and wanted to hear the case for them, to see if they trumped the favourite. It sounds to me like you were at least a player (naff term, sorry, but you know what I mean).
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Jockice on September 09, 2021, 12:36:54 PM
If you don't mind me asking, what happened? Could you still do it? Would you want to?

I sometimes wrestle with that option too. For me it's a lack of personal motivation because I don't like the increasingly corporate/managerial style of the university at which I'd most likely do it.

You're probably being hard on yourself there. I doubt they were just being pointlessly kind. I suspect that, even if there really was a favourite, they valued your skills and wanted to hear the case for them, to see if they trumped the favourite. It sounds to me like you were at least a player (naff term, sorry, but you know what I mean).

Of course I don't mind. I've discussed it several times on here anyway. Basically it was just the worst possible time in my life to do something of that scale. I was in my early 40s when I started it, had medical problems. It's a very complicated story but I have a degenerative condition that has never been fully diagnosed. At one point a couple of years into my PhD doctors thought it was an extremely rare syndrome that can actually be treated, so tested me for that. It turned out not to be that so now they think it's a more common - but still pretty damned rare - thing that can't be treated and is only going to get worse. Didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

In addition I'd lost both my parents in the space of just three years. From cancer so I basically watched them deteriorate. My mum went while I was doing my degree (just as we started the summer break, so I didn't defer or anything) and my dad the week I started my MA, which happened to be exactly a week after my 40th birthday. I did a few months of that then deferred it for a year. I got an award from my department on finishing it, basically I think because they didn't think I'd come back.

I started off quite well with the PhD but I then got hit by a mid-life crisis/slow motion delayed reaction nervous breakdown and found it impossible to concentrate or write anything. Total mental block, which went on for years.  And losing my long-term job - a long-drawn out process in itself - and being told I was unfit for work during this didn't help much either.

And the final straw...the girlfriend situation. Only mentioned because she's told me she feels guilty about this. I was single all through my studies until near the end. I'd been dumped by the woman I thought was 'the one' in my early 30s (ironically, she was a PhD student. Bumped into her last year for the first time in 22 years and it turned out she didn't get hers either, although she did get an MPhil) and basically disappeared up my own arse. I've said it many a time but I was basically single for 17 years and totally celibate for the last 13 of them. Then I met my first teenage crush for the first time since school (during which I didn't say a single word to her) and we ended up getting together. Which completely took my mind off things like studying. I've never been one of those people who has to be in a relationship - which is good news as I rarely was - but adjusting to this took up quite a bit of my time. I blame her. For everything.

Thanks for the therapy session. As for finishing it, I'd basically have to start the thing again as my topic is dated and has now been covered elsewhere. I did see the department head at a meeting a couple of years ago and he suggested I return (after I'd reminded him who I was. I'd only met him once before, as I rarely physically went into the department, despite it being  less than a mile away) but I don't know. My supervisor (a lovely bloke) retired and died a year later, so god knows who I'd have in charge. Plus it sort of brings back bad memories. I did do a presentation for a different university on the subject earlier this year (just to prove I could really) and I've spoken to another university about it as well. But it's committing myself to it that's the difficult part. The last time was such a car crash that I'm very very wary.

As for the job, I think I'm fairly well-liked there but they'd more or less offered the job to this other person when I expressed an interest. But unless I did an absolutely spectacular interview I wasn't going to get it. The boss has said if there is any paid work that would be suitable for me in the future they'll definitely interview me again. Fair enough. But I'm not desperate for it. Lack of ambition has always been a central tenet of my life.

God, I don't half ramble on given half the chance. So tell me, what would yours be in?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: chveik on September 09, 2021, 03:44:12 PM
working sucks, i always feel like vito in the sopranos, can't stand it. the only work i enjoyed while being a student is of no use for society at large sadly cause i don't want to be a teacher. there's also the problem of having to be overqualified for anything these days since there's so much competition for any work that is somewhat meaningful, and i don't have a competitive spirit.

living off state benefits is thoroughly humiliating and each meeting with job centre people/social workers tends to make me consider suicide seriously, it's better than actually looking for shit work though. i guess it's looked down upon to say that you consider some jobs to be beneath you but that's how i feel.

i would gladly do my share in a communist society if i could be left alone the rest of the time.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 09, 2021, 04:17:49 PM
It’s a tricky one that should work from an economic perspective but will probably fail because of human nature. I was brought up a Catholic (the best training to become a strict aetheist) but even at the age of five and being taught the parable of the prodigal son, I was ‘hang on, how’s that fair?’. Following that up with the one about the guy who turns up at the end of the week and gets paid the same as the mugs who worked all week and you can see that this Jesus guy’s a bit off in his thinking.

TLDR, fairness seems to be an instinctive concept in primates (monkeys show it too in studies), so that would be a big problem to overcome.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 04:22:48 PM
Might seem like I'm giving you rough ride here but at least you tried to answers some of the problems rather than just going ah so you want people to starve ay! My feelings are pretty radical on this I just don't see UBI as radically advantageous to poor people.

Progressive, not aggressive. And a single individual's annual UBI payment is such a small amount of money by the standards of the rich that they should scarcely be concerned about the "loss." The common good case for it can also be made clear [to the rich]. And if there are still objections from the 1% or the 5%, it doesn't matter so long as the informed majority consents. A minority of people currently object to vaccination but we do it anyway for the common good.

Sorry I'm not sure that this is a realistic way of looking at it i.e. "individuals".  I'm not sure why this would be the focus when it would be the total increase in expenditure that would be the concern obviously, which is clearly going to be more expensive; there are no "cost savings" at the monetary benefit level; the costs savings as I mention would be in the universal digital administration of UBI (the Uberisation of the social security) which I would want to see projections of what it costs now compared to what the excess costs of the total UBI system is - this is an important but not like-for-like comparison because the other solution is to give people that need social security a proper amount and rather than putting cash in 10s of millions of peoples accounts that don't need it; spending it on proper infrastructure to makes sure the people that need it get it and deal with all of the problems that seems to be cited as UBI being the only solution too.

There is also another problem here it that you appear to be using "rich" as in people that wouldn't notice 18k (outside London) deposited in their bank account each year and therefore wouldn't begrudge an individual poor person receiving this ("chicken feed" as someone once said) but the real problem is with "rich" people making 60k-100k a year that have just received between a 1/3 or 1/5 of their wage a year.  This just increases inequality; 18k to someone with nothing is not the same as 18k for someone with 100k and another 100k in assets (we'll come back to assets in a bit); this is just basic capitalism.

Quote
It is not the same as means testing at all. See Zetetic's notes about that because they are correct.

Nope sorry I'm not buying this; for intents and purposes it is your talking to someone that has worked as both an accountant and in the welfare to work industry; taxation is easy in PAYE and simple tax arrangements but you are ignoring assets and a whole range of other things that would come into play if you wanted to recoup UBI from people that were earning 60k+ which you would absolutely want to do if you didn't want to increase inequality (this is really basic so I'm surprised this is not being considered - if I earn 60k a year, I get 18k UBI, I put 18k a year in assets because I can live on my own wage in less than years I've bought a 200k house that has appreciated in value and I'm on to the next).  This seems like a great deal for the middle classes and hobbyists that don't want to work but really shit for actual poor people; the point is not to be "hostile" to UBI as you seem to think my criticisms might be but to make sure it doesn't fuck poor people over even more. 

Me, personally, I would have a lot gain from it me and my partner could buy our house outright in less than 4 years and then would start accumulating wealth at an incredible pace whilst others would be even more fucked when house prices rocketed - I don't think I should the able too

Quote
The advantage to giving to the rich and then taking away has already been explained: that it reduces bureaucratic complexity to a single non-means-tested and potentially automated system (elegant simplicity) and removes the stigma of a "handouts" system seen to benefit only the poor.

It hasn't been explained any further than how it works; this isn't an explanation of its impact; there hasn't even been a discussion on assets which is a massive issue; very little about house prices other than your belief that it might result in a house price crash as if markets remain stable when money is injected into them; house prices would obviously go up because assets would be more desirable.  This is obvious; what have a shitload people done with any excess cash over the last 30 years.......bought property and become landlords.  This is massively advantageous policy for middle class as it increases their relative purchasing power; only focusing on the super rich is silly for lots of reason let alone they're isn't that many of them.

So you've got accounting for differentials in local rates, pay, how much people have left to pay on their mortgage, what do you do about kids? what about adults that are in shared households paying shared rents, landlords........there is basically a lot of things to consider if you are trying to target the funds towards people that need it; and if you aren't because you think the cultural value of not working is most important then you are dumping excess capital into the hands of people that can then use that (and not necessarily consciously) to create more not less inequality, and all perhaps in the name of "elegant simplicity".  Of course if you do want try and stop this then you are doing something approximates to means testing; I've no idea why suddenly people think this is a bad thing (and can only see it through the lens of a callous and crap current 'benefits' system which is a design not the basis of means testing) lots of neoliberals think the same and would go for a universal payments because of exactly the advantageous points to the rich which I've outlined.

Quote
I almost made the mistake of saying that the system of UBI is not supposed to advantage the rich but it actually does!.....The rich should not want to live in a world (a) of suffering and (b) in which a malnourished, over-stressed, bored, unhealthy, uncomprehending, and angry population are providing services for the rich...

These paragraphs here are really just the case for Socialism; yet you are promoting a financial model that is problematic to some of the fundamentals, the idea that this system provides advantages to groups that already have an advantage should give you some pause for thought here.

Is the idea to bribe rich people with money (and in doing so give them greater financial advantages over poor people) to have a conscious? Is the idea to give them 18k, that they don't care about but will vote for because they don't care about it but will also vote for higher taxes that are actually punitive to them in reality.  I find this quite mad; like rich people aren't massively better situated to pay people to take advantage of the excess money.  My partner and I would be able to buy our house outright in 4 years and sell it at premium because we would need it for the increase in house prices that would occur - net win for me, mega loss for poor people.

Quote
It allows people to walk away from bad working situations. Your boss who doesn't care about bad working conditions or only cares about the bottom line will no longer be able to hold you hostage. You can walk away and either become part of the hobbyist community you describe but you might also become a self-starter or, simply, look for a better job.

It will also economically empower women (and other home-based/non-employed partners) to walk away from bad relationships/marriages to which they are currently economically tied.

These are good goals, they are socialist goals (again), they don't belong to UBI you and few others in this thread are talking about UBI as if it is the ONLY way these things problems can be solved.  This isn't like universal healthcare where health is a largely equalised and static thing; this is more akin to quantitative easing for people; it is debt in the grand scheme of things and an accelerant for inequality for the reasons laid out.  Maybe there are solutions to these problems but I'm not seeing any answers to them (I'm sure Srnciek must consider these as I read his other stuff and he is pretty good on how capitalism operates).

Quote
There is potentially too much to be gained. We should be extremely careful but have courage (not faith).

This is debatable and needs to be considered comparing UBI to other solutions not UBI to the status quo (or some emotive appeal); it also needs to answer its problems around taxation, asset seeking and how effectively raising the minimum wage for everyone working or not translates to people seeking to do jobs that people would neither need or want to do.

Before some more unconscious individualism gets thrown back at me with "but why should I or anyone do a job I hate" I'm asking what do you do about things like social care where there isn't enough staff; you'll say pay them more to make it such an attractive industry to work in........you can do this without UBI and all of the problems that it would create.  At a macro level you would need to direct funds and subsidies from the government bank roll towards these industries when you are literally haemorrhaging money into rich peoples pockets who will then convert this into assets and take it out of the real economy.  The UK isn't the global economy; internal economies are different but there are still thing like trade balances that would need to be considered.  Again would want some actual considerations and answers here if you could.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Alberon on September 09, 2021, 04:24:41 PM
Too much free time is apparently not good for people.

Quote
Researchers have found that while levels of subjective wellbeing initially rise as free time increases, the trend does not necessarily hold for very high levels of leisure.

“The sweet spot is a moderate amount of free time,” said Dr Marissa Sharif, a co-author of the study from the University of Pennsylvania. “We found that having too much time was associated with lower subjective wellbeing due to a lacking sense of productivity and purpose.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/09/study-links-too-much-free-time-to-lower-sense-of-wellbeing

TL;DR - Get back to work, drone!
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: chveik on September 09, 2021, 04:33:53 PM
It’s a tricky one that should work from an economic perspective but will probably fail because of human nature. I was brought up a Catholic (the best training to become a strict aetheist) but even at the age of five and being taught the parable of the prodigal son, I was ‘hang on, how’s that fair?’. Following that up with the one about the guy who turns up at the end of the week and gets paid the same as the mugs who worked all week and you can see that this Jesus guy’s a bit off in his thinking.

TLDR, fairness seems to be an instinctive concept in primates (monkeys show it too in studies), so that would be a big problem to overcome.

all this stuff about 'human nature' is exactly how conservatives want you to think
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 04:42:59 PM
There are lots of survival advantages for groups that partake in communal work (fairness is just a factor involved in this) individualism has been the destructive force in this; hence why wanting to never work but then wanting someone else to work in providing you care and support when you are old or fucked is a lot closer than they'll admit to the Brexiteer expats doing fuck all but moaning about how the NHS ain't wot it used to be.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 09, 2021, 05:03:17 PM
Might seem like I'm giving you rough ride here but at least you tried to answers some of the problems rather than just going ah so you want people to starve ay! My feelings are pretty radical on this I just don't see UBI as radically advantageous to poor people.

Haha, well I "tried" to answer your questions based on a lot of reading and experience on my part. I'm sorry my answers didn't ring true to you. Never mind! As you were.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 05:21:46 PM
Haha, well I "tried" to answer your questions based on a lot of reading and experience on my part. I'm sorry my answers didn't ring true to you. Never mind! As you were.

Well they didn't really address anything like assets, and impact of UBI in relation to inequality and the residual workforce doing jobs that are not "bullshit".  I'm not being bitchy I'm genuinely interested in what the answers are to these questions are; probably things that would need to be considered for any workable version of UBI to be implemented.

As I was trying to highlight all the advantages of UBI; empowerment of women, mobility with work, increase in base rate income for unemployed are achievable without UBI and the associated problems; it was the advantages of UBI beyond what could be done with an improved social security system, apart from the Uberisation element which would have been more interesting to know.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: touchingcloth on September 09, 2021, 05:23:29 PM
So you just want people to starve?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 05:24:38 PM
So you just want people to starve?

Yes.  Rich people.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Mobbd on September 09, 2021, 06:08:04 PM
Well they didn't really address anything like assets, and impact of UBI in relation to inequality and the residual workforce doing jobs that are not "bullshit".  I'm not being bitchy I'm genuinely interested in what the answers are to these questions are; probably things that would need to be considered for any workable version of UBI to be implemented.

But you didn't ask me those questions. If you had, I would have answered. But no more, buddy! You've made me very sleepy. Nighty-night.

As I was trying to highlight all the advantages of UBI; empowerment of women, mobility with work, increase in base rate income for unemployed are achievable without UBI and the associated problems; it was the advantages of UBI beyond what could be done with an improved social security system, apart from the Uberisation element which would have been more interesting to know.

I don't really know what you mean by Uberisation, by the way. If I heard the word in isolation, I'd assume it means the Silicon Valley-inspired disruption or privitisation of what were once public goods or intangibles. But from the context in which you deploy it, I think it means something else.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 07:02:45 PM
But you didn't ask me those questions. If you had, I would have answered. But no more, buddy! You've made me very sleepy. Nighty-night.

Mate.

Quote
I don't really know what you mean by Uberisation, by the way. If I heard the word in isolation, I'd assume it means the Silicon Valley-inspired disruption or privitisation of what were once public goods or intangibles. But from the context in which you deploy it, I think it means something else.

Uber is an example of disruptive technology yer mate Srnicek has a bit to say about it and how it relates to his theories on Platform Capitalism.  Disruptive technologies are technologies or innovations that disruptive the established business ecosystem. This is not by default a bad thing but usually involves the streamlining and automation of processes to make cost savings which in practice usually translates to the removal of the need to employ people, pay them fairly or give them decent terms and conditions; Uber is often seen as the poster boy for this for the way they "elegantly simplified" the taxi industry.  Again that seems pretty obvious as does UBI not being bad news for people with mortgages but an absolute boon; however you've decided that you've been made "sleepy now" and seem to want to behave like a 5 year old so I guess we'll never know if that's true or not.  Have a nice kip.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 07:25:42 PM
money - would not wipe my arse on it, get rid. Can an economist here detail me the pros and cons of getting rid of money entirely? my main one is someone from Chiswick saying something about incentive but thats as far as ive got
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 07:59:38 PM
money - would not wipe my arse on it, get rid. Can an economist here detail me the pros and cons of getting rid of money entirely? my main one is someone from Chiswick saying something about incentive but thats as far as ive got

it is not so much money; you need some kind of trading medium (otherwise buying things becomes particularly tricky) but how the system is abused.  That is why I think if you really want to help people then you invest in publicly owned institutions that can reduce the cost of living; we've got a great example of this - it's called the NHS.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: imitationleather on September 09, 2021, 08:00:26 PM
money - would not wipe my arse on it, get rid. Can an economist here detail me the pros and cons of getting rid of money entirely? my main one is someone from Chiswick saying something about incentive but thats as far as ive got

I wouldn't piss on money if it was on fire.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 08:08:09 PM
the wiping my arse on money thing reminded me how money is exactly like that tracing paper toilet paper shit I had to use as a kid so I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT WIPE MY ARSE ON IT
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: imitationleather on September 09, 2021, 08:09:59 PM
I wouldn't wish money on my worst enemy.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: chveik on September 09, 2021, 08:10:14 PM
yeah GET RID

(https://celluloidwickerman.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/1a544-vlcsnap-00015.png?w=493&h=269)
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 08:10:43 PM
fucking BIN
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 08:15:13 PM
having lots of money is like having lots of pictures of the Queen in your pocket, you perverted fucks.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 08:15:36 PM
I'm going to propose a new rule: if you use numbers for any purpose whatsoever you're not allowed trousers, skirts and/or pants

you gotta go out naked from the waist down
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 08:17:22 PM
After Brexit britain can redeem itself by moving to an entirely qualitative currency system.

OUT: 1s 2s demical points 4s and 8s
IN: blue, moist, oaky, wee, knackered
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 08:40:51 PM
if moneys gone what are mental bastards at the top going to do? things arent going to immediately descend into dragging people like that bare arsed in the street to flog them until they start crying and blaming other people for things but they have to know it will get there eventually, jump off while the goings good and get out of using money before you get the bare arsed treatment
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 08:45:19 PM
Don't complain about money when its clocks that hold all the cards
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 08:46:53 PM
nah sorry I want men running off
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 08:54:51 PM
Don't complain about money when its clocks that hold all the cards

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-raFGFXMAYkyIc?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 09:06:45 PM
The most unbelievable thing about Star Trek including the aliens and ftl travel is that Miles O'brien joined the military
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 09:11:11 PM
The most unbelievable thing about Star Trek including the aliens and ftl travel is that Miles O'brien joined the military

What about the fact Geordi appeared to be the one remaining incel?

Well, maybe creepy Reg too.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 09:13:26 PM
THERES FOUR STAR TREK THREADS AT THE TOP OF PICTUE BOX THIS IS FOR FUCKERS WHO ARE HARD AND HATE MONEY
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 09:16:19 PM
Monay, Monay, Monay, Monay, MONAAAAY!, MONAAAAY!........i hate it.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 09:17:29 PM
Monay, Monay, Monay, Monay, MONAAAAY!, MONAAAAY!........i hate it.

Aloe Black's I need a dollar is a better tune. Make of that what you will.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 09:18:15 PM
In Star Trek times incels are recognised as a distinct minority with their own culture and tradition, if one applies you gotta hire them because of the federations woke inclusivity standards.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 09:19:38 PM
In Star Trek times incels are recognised as a distinct minority with their own culture and tradition, if one applies you gotta hire them because of the federations woke inclusivity standards.

Yes and if someone commits a space crime that isn't serious enough to warrant the brig they get sentenced to cleaning up the holodeck after them.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 09:19:48 PM
Aloe Black's I need a dollar is a better tune. Make of that what you will.

Better than the O'Jays?! Nah not even close.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Zetetic on September 09, 2021, 09:20:31 PM
Quote
but you are ignoring assets and a whole range of other things that would come into play if you wanted to recoup UBI from people that were earning 60k+ which you would absolutely want to do if you didn't want to increase inequality
Regardless of whether we have UBI or not, we need to tax wealth and high incomes. £20k UBI would be largely irrelevant to this need.

Quote
(this is really basic so I'm surprised this is not being considered - if I earn 60k a year, I get 18k UBI, I put 18k a year in assets because I can live on my own wage in less than years I've bought a 200k house that has appreciated in value and I'm on to the next).
If you're earning £60k a year, why aren't you already putting at least £30k into assets?

Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 09:22:15 PM
Yes and if someone commits a space crime that isn't serious enough to warrant the brig they get sentenced to cleaning up the holodeck after them.

That'd be O'brien, the man is a dictionary of punishable space slurs.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 09:24:25 PM
Better than the O'Jays?! Nah not even close.

Nah you're right dunno where I was for a second.

The one done by Troop and Levert with Queen Latifah on it for New Jack City is ace as well.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 09:25:48 PM
That'd be O'brien, the man is a dictionary of punishable space slurs.

I thought he just got 'moved sideways' to a useless cupboard. Constructive dismissal basically, but it didn't work, man's holding out for the pension, and rightly so.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 09:37:10 PM
Regardless of whether we have UBI or not, we need to tax wealth and high incomes. £20k UBI would be largely irrelevant to this need.

Exactly but giving already rich people more disposable income allows them to garner more wealth and assets.  Is what I'm saying at least making sense now? not sure why you think 20k UBI is irrelevant to this need; it would be 100s of billions of pounds.

Quote
If you're earning £60k a year, why aren't you already putting at least £30k into assets?

Just to be clear I'm not but if were then sure I could add 20k to my 30k and be a millionaire in 20 years.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 09:50:57 PM
Monay, Monay, Monay, Monay, MONAAAAY!, MONAAAAY!........i hate it.

(https://m.imgur.com/oGDt1Up.png)

EEEERE SHE COMIN AGAIN SINGIN FUCK ALL MONNNNAAAY
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 10:05:16 PM
Dirty cash, bad cash, IN YOUR BED!
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 10:07:15 PM
Aim higher than Steve Coogan, would be my advice there.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 10:10:33 PM
Pay me 20k a year and I might just finally have the time to do this
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: itsfredtitmus on September 09, 2021, 10:17:56 PM
always a bit uncomfortable that money is counted in numerics it should be something else something less tangible and ego driven something which you want as a mate
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: itsfredtitmus on September 09, 2021, 10:18:47 PM
give money users a disincentive to spend let it rot a hole in their pocket let it burn let the money fester
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: itsfredtitmus on September 09, 2021, 10:32:55 PM
the world would be a lot better if paper money didn't ask and it was instead all coin based
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 10:41:39 PM
the world would be a lot better if paper money didn't ask and it was instead all coin based

it'd avoid the less severe 'trolley problem' this modern technical world has.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Goldentony on September 09, 2021, 10:42:47 PM
you'd have to give the drugs man loads of coins
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 10:52:55 PM
you'd have to give the drugs man loads of coins

many people give him fraction of coins these days, then they arrive through mail
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: itsfredtitmus on September 09, 2021, 11:17:19 PM
BIN OFF ALL HARD CURRENCY UNDER 50p it will literally sort itself out i am convinced you can trust me on this one
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 11:18:06 PM
You need a coin that divides all other coins by half when you pay with it and one that increases by order of ten

Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 11:19:06 PM
If it costs a £2.50 and you only have £5 pay with five £1 and a halving coin and write off to Whitehall to get refunded the £2.50 at the end of the year
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: itsfredtitmus on September 09, 2021, 11:21:18 PM
neil explicitly stated no commoncore when he made this discussion site of comedy
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 11:39:26 PM
If you want a house and you're broke, only a hundred quid in the bank, you could pay with a hundred £1 coins and three order of magnitude coins

Difference comes straight off the national debt and you pay the country back when you're on your feet
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 11:40:32 PM
Make me Chancellor
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: The Dog on September 10, 2021, 12:45:48 AM
I always thought it would be good if money was intensely radioactive although I’m not really sure why.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 10, 2021, 12:54:10 AM
The law should be that at the end of the year everyone should get all their money in a physical pile and the rule is you have to hurt yourself as badly as possible using the total heap.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 10, 2021, 01:17:49 AM
neil explicitly stated no commoncore when he made this discussion site of comedy

thankfully Aaron Funk and Aaron Spectre clearly had trust funds at some point.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: The Dog on September 10, 2021, 01:52:29 AM
I always thought it would be good if money was intensely radioactive although I’m not really sure why.

Oh, yeah, just remembered it was that fruit machine nerd and his dumb coins.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Vinnie01 on September 21, 2021, 07:05:38 AM
I'd rather do work from home than being around others particularly what I noticed recently that contributes to my illness that I been dealing with almost all year. It certainly plays havoc on Scrupulosity particularly with some assholes in the work places.

My last job I would say I work too hard but I don't like not working either. I have been placed on various courses to improve the job related skills and hope to get in to something better even if it working from home.
I think the last job I worked in it too long, it is now time to change it as result of the effects of the lock downs.

Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Retinend on September 21, 2021, 08:24:56 AM
I'm just catching up with this thread, and am thoroughly enjoying all the posts. I think it's an interesting topic.

For a long time growing up, I thought there was nothing wrong with being unemployed for life. The world of work scared me. It seemed like everything I enjoyed was more within my own mind, than the material world (e.g. second hand book stores, playing my old guitar, torrenting, torrenting, torrenting) - and therefore I could get by, monk-like, on no money, for a lifetime. My favourite piece of literature was Kafka's "A Starving Artist". In it, a man pretends to be starving in order to make money from an audience, but in fact, the audience is an impediment to the man's will to seek higher consciousness through starvation. Another favourite was, and remains, Hermann Hesse's "Siddhartha", which demonstrates in parable how acquiring wealth is a mere distraction, knowledge of religion is no better, and that even the acquisition of "wisdom" itself was a distraction from what is really real: whatever part which is left over.


As I finished university life, a lifestyle I took to like a duck to water, I almost had a crisis, realizing that what I had always imagined for myself was becoming a reality: I was finally officially "unemployed", rather than merely "in education". But I didn't relish it. My ego was bothered about what people thought of me. My ego didn't let me do nothing, though my id was, and remains, a workshy, malingering cunt who - when left to its own devices - would work only to reach the desert island where it would be left alone, with a few choice possessions. In the end, I care about appearing to work hard - I care about what others think. The advantage of this is that my internalized "opinion of society", the super-ego, drives me to curb my malingering, withdrawn, introverted self just enough to hold down a job and build good will in others. The secret is that I'm actually still myself, inside, getting away with it all, and benefiting from the sacrifices of the ego, and only contributing distraction, impulsiveness, or apathy. I say this with a lot of satisfaction, knowing that I should never have rightly made it to 30 years old with this kind of attitude.

tldr: a self-indulgent boy grows up, almost
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Vinnie01 on September 21, 2021, 08:37:37 AM
I'm just catching up with this thread, and am thoroughly enjoying all the posts. I think it's an interesting topic.

For a long time growing up, I thought there was nothing wrong with being unemployed for life. The world of work scared me. It seemed like everything I enjoyed was more within my own mind, than the material world (e.g. second hand book stores, playing my old guitar, torrenting, torrenting, torrenting) - and therefore I could get by, monk-like, on no money, for a lifetime. My favourite piece of literature was Kafka's "A Starving Artist". In it, a man pretends to be starving in order to make money from an audience, but in fact, the audience is an impediment to the man's will to seek higher consciousness through starvation. Another favourite was, and remains, Hermann Hesse's "Siddhartha", which demonstrates in parable how acquiring wealth is a mere distraction, knowledge of religion is no better, and that even the acquisition of "wisdom" itself was a distraction from what is really real: whatever part which is left over.


As I finished university life, a lifestyle I took to like a duck to water, I almost had a crisis, realizing that what I had always imagined for myself was becoming a reality: I was finally officially "unemployed", rather than merely "in education". But I didn't relish it. My ego was bothered about what people thought of me. My ego didn't let me do nothing, though my id was, and remains, a workshy, malingering cunt who - when left to its own devices - would work only to reach the desert island where it would be left alone, with a few choice possessions. In the end, I care about appearing to work hard - I care about what others think. The advantage of this is that my internalized "opinion of society", the super-ego, drives me to curb my malingering, withdrawn, introverted self just enough to hold down a job and build good will in others. The secret is that I'm actually still myself, inside, getting away with it all, and benefiting from the sacrifices of the ego, and only contributing distraction, impulsiveness, or apathy. I say this with a lot of satisfaction, knowing that I should never have rightly made it to 30 years old with this kind of attitude.

tldr: a self-indulgent boy grows up, almost



I can hold a job down providing one of my OCDs don't get the better of me. At work I tend to be very introverted and will ignore everything that goes on around me. I worked in 1 place for 10 years before.

Some people in work places are simply assholes, that will trigger one of the OCDs that I deal with towards that asshole which leads to more stress.

Many people say I work too hard. I do deal with apathy on some of work environment which will result in disengagement.

I don't think being a lifeguard will be good to one of the OCDs either, particularly if that person drowing is an asshole.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Retinend on September 21, 2021, 09:13:09 AM
Folks, I know quite a lot about UBI. Not everything (it's an emerging field) but quite a lot. I am willing to answer questions if people are really interested. I can be a little slow to respond though, so bear with me if you do.

Taking you up on this, I have a question: what empirical evidence is there out there on UBI's effects on behaviour once implemented?
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Shoulders?-Stomach! on September 21, 2021, 09:34:54 AM
Taking you up on this, I have a question: what empirical evidence is there out there on UBI's effects on behaviour once implemented?

If I may interject, the various pilots that have been undertaken have all been under different conditions, so both the decisions regarding policy implementation and the wider economic conditions of the country or region at the time of the trial.

I am mentioning this because I think it would be useful to not expect or demand too much in terms of definite conclusions on that score.

The pilot in Canada for example led to an increase in separations, largely due, it was concluded from feedback, to women being empowered by their new found financial independence. This discovery was used by the right wing to claim UBI destroys the family unit, while left wingers thought this was magnificent as women, and often children were no longer trapped in unhealthy relationships.

The trials have all had different budgets, lasted for different lengths of time and also never existed in a vacuum, and so have been subject to external push pull factors which wouldn't be the case if the policy was rolled out nationwide.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Vinnie01 on September 21, 2021, 09:39:29 AM
There are some works I can't do due to medical conditions such as some in the engineering fields which requires a health check. I.e Railway maintenance jobs I would certainly fail on but I was warned about from a friend who used to do this and warned me about how some of the colleagues treat you and said to me that I probley most likely will hit the supervisor.

Nearly went on to a course for this job.

I don't know much about UBI.
Title: Re: Workshy
Post by: Retinend on September 21, 2021, 09:45:27 AM
If I may interject, the various pilots that have been undertaken have all been under different conditions, so both the decisions regarding policy implementation and the wider economic conditions of the country or region at the time of the trial.

I am mentioning this because I think it would be useful to not expect or demand too much in terms of definite conclusions on that score.

I shall manage my expectations. Still, I would like to hear more detail about the pilots that have been done, being too lazy to look it up and digest the info for myself.