|
| ▲ | zweih 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| People who are specifically not employed because they aren't motivated to do anything at all don't seem to be the best sample for what average people could do if they had more free time during their waking hours. |
| |
| ▲ | nickff 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It seems unlikely that the most motivated people will take up UBI; the most likely UBI recipients are those who are marginally employed, and likely marginally motivated. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Counterpoint to your counterpoint: the flourishing of the arts in Bohemian districts[1] in the 19th and 20th centuries. Maybe there’s a feedback loop with societal expectations regarding the hikikomori / NEETs? The more they are demonized as unproductive, the less productive they become. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemianism |
|
| ▲ | christoff12 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| a) I'm not sure it logically follows that the hikikomori would be a particularly artistic group, thus don't understand the assertion; b) how do we know they aren't? By definition, they wouldn't be out promoting their works or gaining recognition. Also, there is at least one example of UBI contributing to an increase in activity: "According to the research, 31% of BIA recipients reported an increased ability to sustain themselves through arts work alone, and the number of people who reported low pay as a career barrier went down from one third to 17%. These changes were identified after the first six months of the scheme and remained stable as the scheme continued." [1] [1] https://musiciansunion.org.uk/news/ireland-s-basic-income-fo... |
|
| ▲ | dpark 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hikikomori seems to be largely a symptom of mental illness. NEETs almost by definition are not productive. The fact that these groups are not producing mass amounts of creative works in no way implies that currently-productive people would not produce significantly more creative works if they had the time and resources to do so. |
|
| ▲ | robrtsql 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| NEETs are, by definition, people who are either unwilling or unable to do anything productive, so I don't think they are a good example. I expect you'd get better results if you include the people who are employed today. |
|
| ▲ | anonymous908213 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Um, hikikomori are a hotbed of creative works, though. Your entire premise is false. I don't know that you could get reliable statistics proving this claim, but Japan likely has the highest number of creatives per capita of any country in the world, and a ton of them are NEETs who spend their time drawing fanart or writing trashy webnovels. The vast majority of this creative work isn't commercially successful, of course, which is part of why they're NEETs. |
| |
| ▲ | nickff 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can it really be a 'hotbed' if there is no demand (or even maybe awareness) of the works? That just seems like a hobby done for selfish reasons. | | |
| ▲ | anonymous908213 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Quoting GGGP: >There are many many creative, caring people that are motivated to create things or care for each other for the sake of it, not for some financial reward. Imagine the incredible programs, websites, games, crafts, artworks, animations, performances, literature, journalism, hobby clubs, support groups, community organizations that would spring into existence if we all just had more bandwidth for them while having our baseline needs met. As it happens, the Japanese internet is absolutely rich with content created by individuals, most of it done for the sake of love for creative work rather than financial motivation. I spend much of my free time either consuming it or contributing to the pool of such work myself. The entire point of this discussion thread was about the potential for creativity if you were to unshackle it from the demands of financial self-sustenance. As an aside, I believe this phenomenon manifested as strongly as it has in Japan because of the extremely low cost of living relative to the level of economic development; a studio apartment can be had for less than the equivalent of $200 USD per month, and many parents can afford to and are willing to pay this price to get the NEETs out of their house. In essence enabling them, not that they want to enable their adult children to depend on them but the burden is small enough that they can tolerate it. | | |
| ▲ | nickff an hour ago | parent [-] | | I have no problem with people doing whatever they want, but if nobody else values it, there’s no ‘contribution’ to society, art, or anything else. | | |
| ▲ | anonymous908213 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think that's an unbelievably cynical worldview, one I don't agree wtih at all, but within that view: what of the things people value, but which they do not pay for? Much of the tech of the world is built on the free labour of FOSS developers. Are they not contributing to society because they are not compensated for their contributions? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | skinnymuch 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No that wouldn’t. If the zeitgeist, culture, society at large are antagonizing toward you, if you are meant to feel like a useless negative part of society, why would we expect amazing output from them? This reinforces others talking about the flaws of hustle and grind culture. The status quo create the conditions for the negatives and then point to that and say “see”. |
|
| ▲ | tehjoker 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The UK music culture of the 1960s was in large part due to the "dole" or cash payments to poor people. |
| |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't think that's the only reason since the dole exists today too and there's not as much good music coming out. Jazz and other music genres in the US came without government welfare, they came from struggle and oppression. Motivated artists will still work part time to fund their dream, they don't necessarily wait for welfare to start making art. IF you were to give a lot of people free money today, will you get more and higher quality art in return, or will most people just drink and smoke that money while playing videogames at home? Society, people and the world today are vastly different than back in the 1960s, so we need new polices targeting the society of today, not 1960s policies. | | |
| ▲ | tehjoker 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What do you think those policies might look like? It's true that we have more screen based entertainment options today. We also have a very different music distribution system that is likely influencing things substantially. In the 1960s, I imagine getting on the radio was what it took to launch a career, now it's matching the algorithm on spotify. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't know what the right policies would be, but I noticed that smart, driven and disciplined driven people will always find a way to work around algorithms to get to the top, it's not something the government can legislate in order to get a desired outcome. It's not like becoming famous back then was easy either. Plenty of good bands never got anywhere. The Mona Lisa wasn't a famous painting until someone stole it in 1911, before that nobody gave damn and now it's the most famous of them all. Survivorship bias and randomness in art is real. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | adezxc 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| and yet their hypothesis is true, there are already many people, with or without UBI, that volunteer, create things and in general help people surrounding them without any reward and they are the backbone of every society, not the career-chasers |
| |
| ▲ | pixelready 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think phenomena like hikkikomori have more to do with (at least perceived) social rejection than lack of motivation. If the only acceptable message you receive from society is that you must chase the brass ring constantly and any setback means you are an abject failure, then withdrawing from the pain of that rejection makes sense for anyone who has experienced enough setbacks or strongly feels alien to that culture. A broader societal shift would occur if it was truly universally understood that everyone has value as a human being separate from their labor market leverage or capital accumulation. There will always be strivers who measure their self worth against superficial standards (Russ Hanneman “doors go up” hand gesture here), I just don’t see why everyone should be forced to play that game or starve I suppose. Giving everyone the option to settle for a life of basic dignity while caring for those around them, or going all in on some academic / creative pursuit seems equally valid investments for society. | | |
| ▲ | skinnymuch 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes. The only real conclusion from people like NEETs is that society failed them. Outside of a fraction of total people (or when addictions are at play), it is very rare that someone never wants to be productive. |
|
|
