Devil's advocate: Joe's rationalization of UBI being a "moral/philosophical good" and the fact that people often do need a push in order to improve, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For example: It is still morally good to treat and heal a suicidial patient or a smoker.
True. Plus the tests that we've done here in Finland did not improve people's motivation to work, it just made people feel less stressed out.
There are some minor positive ramifications to improving people's perceived levels of anxiety and stress (like health), but it wasn't a sustainable model long-term.
I've also never heard one proposal that wasn't either more costly than the entire federal budget or wasn't just a straight wealth redistribution scheme.
Maybe they aren't mutually exclusive if he had different views on them. But his ideas on them are pretty much the same, just described from different starting points. If you take them to their logical conclusions, they contradict.
For example if he hates what his personal experiment did, making people lazy, undriven, sad potato sacks, why would he want an entire society to do that?
In his UBI argument, he argues back to Tim something along the lines of "But it's just enough to live, people will want more" His argument for UBI is that people will drive to succeed BEYOND their basic needs, and Tim's idea that people will choose not to work is preposterous.
But then he contradicts that with his own experiment of how people don't drive beyond the basic needs. The comedians he helped didn't put more effort into their comedy. They had all this extra time to focus on comedy instead of struggling to survive, and they didn't utilize it. They became lazy and undriven.
Why would he argue people won't become undriven lazy people, but then give his own example of why they do? Why would he say that benefits people, but then explain in his own example why it doesn't?
The way I understood Joe is that he is in favor of UBI because of the freedom that it gives people to pursue avenues and tasks that truly interest them, but he also points out that being given everything for free some people lose the drive that they need to better themselves and their craft.
It's like having a sailboat with a working rudder to go anywhere they like, but having no wind to push them. You have more freedom, but potentially less purpose and/or drive to act on it. So actually moving forward becomes even harder for some people and they are stuck in idle water.
I see what your saying about “drive” and “will” but I don’t see how that’s not a contradiction. His own experience shows that giving people money robs them of drive, so in essence UBI is directly the reason people are held back. Which he constantly complains about, he constantly says he wants society to get its shit together, and touts Jordan Peterson principals, but then touts a system in which that mentality will not thrive.
Sure. You could however argue that it is not necessarily a contradiction in the sense that you could possibly manifest that missing drive in other ways than just through the necessity to generate capital.
Cultural and/or social rank could be one (meaning you would be seen even more of an utter deadbeat if you had no passion, discipline and/or drive).
Devil's advocate: Joe's rationalization of UBI being a "moral/philosophical good" and the fact that people often do need a push in order to improve, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For example: It is still morally good to treat and heal a suicidial patient or a smoker.
One can then counter the moral good angle by demonstrating that it doesn't work. UBI defies basic economic concepts like inflation.
True. Plus the tests that we've done here in Finland did not improve people's motivation to work, it just made people feel less stressed out.
There are some minor positive ramifications to improving people's perceived levels of anxiety and stress (like health), but it wasn't a sustainable model long-term.
I've also never heard one proposal that wasn't either more costly than the entire federal budget or wasn't just a straight wealth redistribution scheme.
Maybe they aren't mutually exclusive if he had different views on them. But his ideas on them are pretty much the same, just described from different starting points. If you take them to their logical conclusions, they contradict.
For example if he hates what his personal experiment did, making people lazy, undriven, sad potato sacks, why would he want an entire society to do that?
In his UBI argument, he argues back to Tim something along the lines of "But it's just enough to live, people will want more" His argument for UBI is that people will drive to succeed BEYOND their basic needs, and Tim's idea that people will choose not to work is preposterous.
But then he contradicts that with his own experiment of how people don't drive beyond the basic needs. The comedians he helped didn't put more effort into their comedy. They had all this extra time to focus on comedy instead of struggling to survive, and they didn't utilize it. They became lazy and undriven.
Why would he argue people won't become undriven lazy people, but then give his own example of why they do? Why would he say that benefits people, but then explain in his own example why it doesn't?
That's a direct contradiction.
The way I understood Joe is that he is in favor of UBI because of the freedom that it gives people to pursue avenues and tasks that truly interest them, but he also points out that being given everything for free some people lose the drive that they need to better themselves and their craft.
It's like having a sailboat with a working rudder to go anywhere they like, but having no wind to push them. You have more freedom, but potentially less purpose and/or drive to act on it. So actually moving forward becomes even harder for some people and they are stuck in idle water.
I see what your saying about “drive” and “will” but I don’t see how that’s not a contradiction. His own experience shows that giving people money robs them of drive, so in essence UBI is directly the reason people are held back. Which he constantly complains about, he constantly says he wants society to get its shit together, and touts Jordan Peterson principals, but then touts a system in which that mentality will not thrive.
Sure. You could however argue that it is not necessarily a contradiction in the sense that you could possibly manifest that missing drive in other ways than just through the necessity to generate capital.
Cultural and/or social rank could be one (meaning you would be seen even more of an utter deadbeat if you had no passion, discipline and/or drive).