UBI feels like a natural solution to what I assume is a ubiquitous problem in the workforce: A certain percentage of people are absolutely worthless in their job, and everyone would be better off if we just paid those people to stay home.
Even if you’re competent and useful, work is an incredible sacrifice. Perhaps only 10% of workers (the most unattached and lacking in obligations) would voluntarily work. For example for parents there are only a litany of bad choices available.
If UBI is offered, why would most people suffer through their work sacrifices.
> Perhaps only 10% of workers (the most unattached and lacking in obligations) would voluntarily work.
That's not even close to true. Basically every study on UBI, everywhere, has shown that either more people work, or employment stays about the same, but in each case happiness and health go up vs the control.
Since it's very clear you haven't researched your claim whatsoever - why are you making it? Why would you say something so wrong with so much confidence?
All those studies are flawed because they are always a few years of sub-subsistence income. Of course most people rationally don't drastically change their employment in response to that - as expected per the permanent income hypothesis. A permanent, liveable UBI would be quite another beast.
If humans only work so that they can live, and wouldn't ever work if they didn't have to - then why do so many of our best inventions and advances come from people who didn't give a toss about profit?
If we have the technological means and capability to reduce employment to 10% - why wouldn't we?
Is it so impossible to imagine a world where people only work when they want to? Where the jobs that "no one would do if they weren't desperate" just pay very well instead?
Also, if you really think every UBI study is fundamentally flawed, feel free to design and run your own. Until then, maybe you could do better than waving a hand and invoking a hypothesis to try and invalidate literally every study that speaks against your claim, lol.
Lots of people enjoy working on high skill, fulfilling jobs like inventing things. Few people love working menial labour jobs. AI will probably take the former jobs but leave the latter, which will still need to be done. If everyone gets a decent UBI, how will we allocate these unfulfilling but necessary jobs?
> Also, if you really think every UBI study is fundamentally flawed, feel free to design and run your own.
All temporary studies are fundamentally flawed, because people act based on their permanent lifetime income. It's not like I can design it better, it's just not something that can easily be studied (on any reasonable time scale).
I see what you're saying but I don't think that's the answer for everything, because people also pay for conveniences, like a Ring subscription so that Amazon stores footage in their cloud for you.
The problem is centralization is more convenient for consumers. You can easily control your doorbell, your garage door, your security cameras with 1 app, and everything just works.
Open source and decentralized solutions need to be just as convenient and cheaper than centralized ones for consumers to choose them.
> A typical debugging session illustrates the pattern: I describe the bug by voice (Wispr Flow), Claude searches memory (claude-mem) for prior context on that area of the code, creates a task in Beads, and spawns a debug team (Agent Teams) with competing hypotheses. [...]
So at the end of this process, you've spent anywhere from $1 to $5 to fix a bug, and you don't have any of the knowledge you would have gained from being directly involved in the fix. It seems like this approach would keep a developer easily replaceable over time, regardless of how long they've been working with a codebase, because they build very little internal knowledge on it.
> What exactly is wrong with a world where software is borderline disposable?
One problem is that people don't like learning new software interfaces, and another is that communities help support software, but communities need stable, long-lived software to foster.
This may be an unpopular opinion but I like the effect where the cursor turns into the button hover state when you hover over them, like the pause icon button on the video.
Nice, I do this often enough that I created a bookmarklet to download an HTML file from clipboard after copying ChatGPT's code block.
I've also been using LLMs to create and maintain a "work assist" Chrome extension that I load unpacked from a local directory. Whenever I notice a minor pain point, I get the LLM to quickly implement a remedy. For example, I usually have several browser tabs open for Jira, and they all have the same company logo as the favicon, so my Chrome extension changes the favicon to be the issue type icon (e.g. Bug, Story, etc) when the page loads. It saves a little time when I'm looking for a specific ticket I've already opened.
reply