NEETzine

I love lainzine so much it inspired to make something similar with a focus on NEET culture: https://neetpride.wordpress.com/2022/04/29/neetpride-magazine-volume-1/ We're also accepting submissions and classified ads, though I suppose anyone here would only want to contribute to lainzine.

Based AF Avoiding real jobs is an important endeavor. The only reason people suffer for it is absence of a supporting culture, so building that culture is also important.

>>7582 Exactly! I noticed throughout modern history, it's time and again the NEETs who create culture. Beatniks, hippies, punks, slackers, even more recently, memes and anime (hallmarks of NEET culture) have become mainstream.

i fail to see the point of neets these days. many companies offer remote work and some you wont even need to talk to anybody all day and its only through some soykafty chat app when you actually need to. you can literally have the best of both worlds now, you just wont get paid a ton, but who gives a fuarrrk most neets dont spend a lot and can just throw it into saving for a comfy retirement

>>7589 Work is bad for a lot of reasons. First of all there is the figurative dick you have to suck. Obviously being a wageslave or tradeslave is like kicking dead whales down the beach, but even if you're the CEO of a company, you still have to kowtow to the board of directors. Content creators are at the mercy of their audience or the platforms they use. Point is, whenever money gets involved you're gonna have to suck someone's dick. There's also the fact that the mere act of doing things in exchange for money makes you enjoy those things less. Many an artist has grown disillusioned after years of commissioned nazi futa hentai. A programmer might get paid a lot to make bespoke financial software, but he probably won't have the time or energy to work on that passion project indie game that he's been kicking around since college. Think about it, fuarrrking sex gets less enjoyable when you're paid for it. It might be counterintuitive, but this is a robust psychological phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect Then there's how unfair the modern economy in general is. As much as I like bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, there is no denying that the wealth it generates is not commensurate with the effort put in. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve are orders of magnitude worse in this respect. The more you participate in that broken system, the more you're condoning it. Not working is progress. I don't think I even need to explain why education/training are bad. There is nothing wrong with learning things, but paying to learn things is dumb.

>>7592 Baesd Bassed Basted Biased Bless4d

>>7592 >The more you participate in that broken system, the more you're condoning it. Not working is progress. It's here my frens, the most based thread on Lainchan.

>>7581 i had my reservations but this was not a bad read at all. the graphic design leaves a little to be desired but there's some good info in here. i give it a thumbs up

>>7592 >Work is bad for a lot of reasons. First of all there is the figurative dick you have to suck. That applies to NEETs as well, except the figurative dicks belong to their parents and/or government. I fail to see how this is any better. As wagie you also have some choice of whose dick to suck. >There's also the fact that the mere act of doing things in exchange for money makes you enjoy those things less. Well, there's pretty easy solution: just get job in some other field. It's probably easier, anyway. >Then there's how unfair the modern economy in general is. As much as I like bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, there is no denying that the wealth it generates is not commensurate with the effort put in. Perhaps, but how is NEETdom, any better in this regard? >I don't think I even need to explain why education/training are bad. ...why are education/training bad? Serious question. If the argument is just about paying for learning things: Sure, you can learn a lot of things on your own, but having teacher helps a lot. Not to mention many skills require specialized equipment that is impractical to get at home.

>>7589 Not everyone wants to slave for some overseas corporation paying peanuts. Even if it's from home.

>>7604 >Perhaps, but how is NEETdom, any better in this regard? NTL, but my experience with being closely involved in crypto projects is, when you succeed you are building your success on the broken dreams of those who failed, and anyone who stays in long enough to lose their naivete must accept and embrace their role as predators. I agree that traditional finance is the same deal and even worse. Money is fundamentally just slightly indirect and obfuscated ownership of other people. NEETs have a moral superiority that comes from declining to pursue money. They only ask for the basics. They are doing everything anyone could possibly do to resist being a part of the machine grinding up the lives of their fellow humans.

>>7589 These NEET/leech types are usually manchildren who are hedonistic, have social anxiety and are doing mental gymnastics justifying their lifestyle of living off their parents (or welfare). >"I am not failing at life because I'm 35 and living off my parents, I'm actually superior to others because making money is bad and is predatory and ..." For some reason Lainchan attracts these types, as you can see from this thread. There's also the other thread about "leeching as a lifestyle", where lainons recommend stealing soap and toilet paper from public restrooms as a revolutionary act. I can see these ideologies acceptable for teenagers who are going through a phase, questioning the reality and the system they live in when stepping into the "adult" world. But if someone is, let's say, 25+ years old and unironically thinking NEETdom is somehow superior to being financially independent, that is the sign of an adult baby. Even if being financially independent was predatory, to me that's better than being a parasite.

>>7604 Education/training as defined by NEETdom necessarily means paying for them. You're still a NEET if you take a free MIT course online or if your dad teaches you carpentry, but not if you paid to do either. Similarly, only doing something for money that you wouldn't do for free counts as work. Getting laid doesn't count as "in employment", but receiving money in exchange for having sex while working as a prostitute does. >>7597 >>7602 >>7603 fuarrrk yeah, thanks guys! >>7609 *Yawn*... we've heard it all before. People have been saying the exact same things you're saying throughout history: "First these, these, these... anarchists were demanding that slavery be criminalized, then they wanted legal protections for workers, then a 40 hour work week, and now they want to ban prepubescent children from working in factories? How selfish! What's next? Paid time off? Mandatory break time? Stimulus checks given to commoners instead of business owners? Pretty soon they won't be suffering in exchange for their meals at all! These spoiled children parasite leech sociopaths need to man up!"

>>7609 Since you're alluding to my comment and using assumptions about people's personal situations to question the objectivity of their arguments, I feel like I should point out that I am myself financially independent, I just despise what it took to get there. In an ideal world it would not have been necessary. I hate that financial success is used as a metric of credibility, and I hate having to cite it as one, but it's impossible not to be influenced by this type of thinking. There is no point in questioning reality and the system if you are just going to cave less than a decade later and accept whatever they tell you because you realize everyone will think of you as pathetic unless you obey. What's really admirable is a person who stares down the full weight of society's contempt and continues to say "No" even when it isn't cool anymore, even when they are going to be denied the trappings of a normal life. The world of money and what actions may result in money is profoundly limiting, and as a species we're going to come out mega retarded without people willing to explore beyond those limitations.

I enjoyed this zine. I reached financial independence at 28 following aggressive FIRE while working in tech. Got lucky with stock options and crypto all while making $300k+ with monthly costs of ~$800. Now I'm 30 and don't see myself ever working again. If being a NEET was a realistic option for me before reaching financial independence I would've started a decade earlier. My best friends are also NEETs. We game together, talk about shows we pirate, and occasionally travel to conventions together. I can't stand people who commit to the rat race of life. There's nothing noble about working your life away.

>>7609 >to me that's better than being a parasite. You probably don't remove anyticks off your skin because you see them as productive, functional members of your body-system. Working your ass off for the real parasites in society who make you and everyone else miserable, no wonder you have to point somewhere else and say "these, these are the leeches that keep me working 9-to-5 for peanuts!"

>>7615 Predators: kill what they live off of Parasite: do not kill what they live off of Yep, parasite > predator

>>7614 OP here. Would you be interested in being the focus of a NEET Spotlight for the next issue? I've never covered a bona fide leanFIRE guy before so I'd want as many details about that as possible. We can use whatever platform you're most comfortable with to conduct the interview, but to initially get in touch just use the contact link: https://neetpride.wordpress.com/contact/

>>7617 That sounds like work, lainon. jk, I'd be happy to contribute to something I got value from. Actually I've already submitted the contact form, including a background essay that I hadn't initially intended to share. I started writing and it just flowed. So there you go. For more info and interview you can contact me at the Telegram handle provided. (as noted in the form, I check my email only a few times a year.)

>>7617 >>7618 I suppose after reading my background, you may think being a NEET was always available to me-- and it was. But I would feel trapped if I couldn't afford to live and support my lifestyle completely independently. If one fight with my parents was the difference between comfy life and destitution, then I would probably be miserable and don't think I could enjoy being a NEET. The financial security provided by FIRE means there's no strain on my relationship with my parents. I could, in theory, leave whenever I want to. That same financial security is also what allowed me to move up in income while building up my nest egg. It's easy to not get demotivated from lack of better job offers when I never immediately needed more income. So I could just keep fishing and fishing until an offer for double my salary came in.

>>7614 I wish so badly that. I'm just a wage slave and been working since I was 15 basically. Would like to try a bit of the neet life

>>7592 >whaaaa I've been working full time for decades and don't have any savings. Nice try, Ann.

>>7609 >>7604 >>7589 You equate NEETs with antisocial, anxious people living in mom's basement and playing video games. That is what people picture usually. Take it literally though, Not in Employment, Education or Training and that includes a lot of other people. I had a better social life and was more productive/creative when I was living out of a backpack and sleeping outside most nights than I am now, that's for sure. I spent a lot of the time in whichever library was nearby, I wrote everyday and even "published" some of it (well... xeroxed you know), and did volunteer work too. I look forward to reading OP's zine tonight.

>>7592 Completely changed your message just by swapping the two people around kek

>>7621 pro tip: fitting as many memes as you can into an image doesn't make it funny, and fitting as many tropes as you can into a story doesn't make it interesting.

>>7592 Manual labor is the only form of labor that has any >work with your homies >you literally don't have to care what the client thinks of you, that's the boss's job >you can swear all you want and play music you like >all you have to do is not fuarrrk up >everyone respects you because you have a real job and they don't

In a week I will be graduating from college (got a full ride thanks to being autistic as fuarrrk) and becoming a NEET again. I'm not sure if I want to bother trying to return to the workforce again given the current state of political affairs and the impending threat of climate change. If the apocalypse is upon us, kinda silly worrying about job interviews, you know? >>7621 You are a male who gets no maidens and stacks no bread. From the sound of this meme, your life is empty and hopeless and devoid of any lasting pleasure. Your blatant hatred of women will come back to bite you one day, in this life or the next.

>>7622 >You equate NEETs with antisocial, anxious people living in mom's basement and playing video games. That is what people picture usually A lot of the NEETs I know are people who drift from town to town, busk, train hop, and all that punk/hippie stuff. The other NEETs I know are people who are temporarily not working, though they're only NEETs in the technical sense of the term since they'll soon return to work. I know a couple people who don't have a job and live off their family, but they come from families where the parents stated that they earned their money to give their children the opportunity to not worry about money and pursue their passion projects instead. This isn't to say that NEETs don't usually meet the stereotype. I'm not a NEET and don't make friends with people online, thus I'm unlikely to meet a stereotypical NEET.

Your grasp of political terminology is atrocious, and your list of potential friends or foes is quite off base because of this. Libertarians are not your allies, they are people who simply don't care. They definitely place a high value on work, and being free to work how they want with who they want. "Neomarxist" and "progressive" are in no way interchangeable (though they share a few common goals and definitely common enemies). Some progressives are potentially a NEET's best friend since they are the ones advocating for universal basic income and can point to the social experiments in countries where it was attempted and proven successful (including details that cause the opponents of guaranteed basic income policies to run, scream, and bury their heads in the sand). The most successful NEET subculture incidentally has been radical ecologists who not only survive for years without work but see it as an ethical and strategic imperative to be unemployed, since everything causing harm to the environment is tied to work somehow. The cleaner air, quieter cities and sudden revival of many wild species observed during covid lockdowns demonstrated what they've been saying in theory for decades. Also, unemployment frees up their time for what they consider more important activities. Finally if you really mean to promote anything with this, lose the *chan imagery. It's 2022, everyone knows that aesthetic to see it, and anyone new to these concepts is going to go "yawn, 4chan" and move on. This is only going to appeal to imageboard dwellers who are already living the life.

>>7628 >Your grasp of political terminology is atrocious, and your list of potential friends or foes is quite off base because of this. Whoa there chief I said right in that article's intro that you have to make a video essay if you disagree with my list of culture war allies and enemies. You can't just criticize me without increasing exposure of my ideas! >The most successful NEET subculture incidentally has been radical ecologists What do you mean by radical ecologists? I've never heard that term before. Like crustpunks or no-impact men? Is it this kinda stuff or what: https://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/ Also what are the other NEET subclasses? I'm thinking: leanFIRE, welfare king, homeless, trustfunder, crustpunk, backpacker, actually disabled, slacker/part-time NEET, housewife, and guy with chill parents >Finally if you really mean to promote anything with this, lose the *chan imagery. Any suggestions? What should the symbol of NEETdom and/or NEETpride be if not a comfy pepe? I've always liked the antiwork logo but they already have that. I don't want it to be a specific anime girl either because it needs to be something that's more generalizable. >>7619 So you still live with your parents despite having all that wealth? That's relevant info I'll be sure to include that. >>7625 I'd say the biggest downside of manual labor is being too drained to do anything interesting after. Also you definitely have to suck your manager's dick. And where did you get the idea that anyone respects people who do manual labor? Being a gay prostitute might be something most people aren't physically/mentally capable of either, but no one respects them. >>7626 >I'm not sure if I want to bother trying to return to the workforce again given the current state of political affairs and the impending threat of climate change. If the apocalypse is upon us, kinda silly worrying about job interviews, you know? Damn I totally regret not including this sentiment in the NEETdom Goes Mainstream piece. It's an under-credited factor for going NEET. My personal reasoning is either we'll have better welfare by the time I'm 60 or it'll be a Mad Max situation. Either way, getting some soykafty food service or retail job now won't really help me. Also I have no desire to cling to life in a nursing home for 20 years.

>>7629 I pointed out the misapprehensions you seem to have about terminology, the research is up to you if you even care to pursue it. Radical ecologists are exactly as the name suggests. They reject mainstream environmentalism as being an attempt at recuperation by governments, corporations and the wealthy. The most famous is Ted Kaczynski but he is not universally respected by them. Actually yes, it does include some crust punks, the ones who realize that writing songs about the problem doesn't change anything. Also a lot of hippies who realized that the drugs were not enlightening after a certain amount of usage, just a chemical pacifier. You have clearly spent too much time on imageboards if you think Pepe means anything to the rest of the world other than "I am an entitled, brainwashed alt-right retard" to the average person. It does not mean "cozy", "comfy" or any of that other stuff outside of chan culture. >I don't want it to be a specific anime girl either You really don't, that's for sure.

>>7629 >other NEET subclasses Oh right, I forgot. You should check out The Abolition of Work by Bob Black (who did some bad things to his friends in real life but we're above that canceling crap, right?) and you already know about Steal This Book but it was the anti-work bible of a previous generation. The tricks and tips are outdated but the mental processes behind it and the ethical justifications it uses are 100% still thought provoking and useful.

Just my 2 cents... please stop promoting UBI. Unless UBI is given to all, and I mean all, then terms and conditions apply. If any record of employment, financial, residential, or criminal history (or even if considered a 'terrorist') causes one to lose access to UBI, then it is nothing more than a social credit reward. I personally have seen zero reason that suggests if UBI becomes reality that this will not be the case. There are plenty of reasons to suggest that terms and conditions will apply to UBI. Furthermore, unless UBI is offset by economic contribution, or cut costs greater than the cost of UBI, or offset the cost with resources outside of the UBI country, then UBI will aggravate inflation and increase the cost of goods & services, and will only at best offset these increases. Combine these two things, and you have far less of an opportunity to prevent bootlicking. It will destroy virtuous NEETs, struggling wagies, and anybody else lacking resources that the state doesn't like. Please stop wasting energy towards this pipe dream unless it's to fight against it, and put it towards something that will actually help.

>>7634 Every single time it's been tried it's led to less unemployment and higher average wages for people already employed. People use it to go to school, start businesses, etc. The people who are going to abuse it are going to find a way to abuse any other system as they already do. It's usually sabotaged by some politician or party that distracts voters from these facts and uses it to rally anger against freeloaders and secure votes for themselves. Look into it. Which NEETs are the "virtuous" ones exactly? What does that even mean?

>>7634 >If I'm not allowed to stab people and still get their tax dollars it's literally CCP social control, not UBI. >Also UBI will cause inflation Are you two different people?

>>7635 The root issue to the things you propose UBI will fix are not addressed by UBI. It'll be corrupted just the same. It's like proposing fixing a docked ship with a leak in its damaged hull by installing a water pump to rid of the water. >who are the "virtuous" ones Certainly not none of them. What NEETs would you consider virtuous? >>7636 And nobody is ever wrongfully accused, nor would there be any advantage or added pressure on an individual if wrongly accused. All laws are moral, just, and perfectly enforced, and nobody takes advantage of them. Good people are perfect and bad people are bad. /s It's interesting some people have lived their life always being on the right side of society, on a cyberpunk board no less.

>>7637 You're still talking out of your ass, therefore I'm not going to waste any more time here. It's been implemented before and you're wrong. ...and we don't make a distinction between who the "virtuous" and non-virtuous are here.

>>7638 How about we meet in the middle and get universal free healthcare, minimum wage matched with inflation, better support for the homeless, fixing financial systems that predate on the poor, reform policing, and promote further regulation to prevent corruption such as that which caused the 2008 housing crash? That would be a decent start that would prevent parasiting any benefit UBI could bring, and I'm not so optimistic to think these problems were by accident, one hint being that very little if at all has been done for the aforementioned. Perhaps I speak of little faith in this not running into similar problems. Yes, in regards to 'virtue' it's not productive to attempt to make that distinction, which was my point. Our own definition of virtue still exists, which is relevant to the discussion of NEETs... aka why some people love or hate them. No problem in merely saying the word with that in mind, right? Not worth pointing out unless a distinction is explicitly being made.

>>7639 I don't know what country you are from but in the country most Lains seem to hail from, the admirable reforms you list are as unlikely as UBI due to conservative screeching and fear mongering. In my own country, where we allegedly already have some of these things but in reality don't, there is more support for the other such measures. The governments we elect are consistently too incompetent to manage it. Housing becomes less and less affordable when a sizable percentage of new homes are unoccupied, having been bought up by speculators, and existing ones turned into AirBnB and so on. With a system like this, being NEET is a duty not an easy luxury. They're getting nothing from me unless it's at gunpoint.

What do you guys think of the antiwork movement in general? Aside from a portion of antiwork people who are more allied with neomarxists or wokeists, they seem to just be NEETs or people who wish they were NEETs. >>7630 So you have the inside scoop on how to define culture war factions, but you're afraid to state your definitions here as well as suggest NEET subclasses? Why do you have so many opinions on what you dislike, yet you struggle to come up ideas you would like? You made it seem like you were some kinda expert... >>7634 >Unless UBI is given to all, and I mean all, then terms and conditions apply. Don't worry, I exclusively advocate for truly UNCONDITIONAL basic income for people who have been citizens of the United States for 16 years. Because you're right: anything less than that would quickly become something heinous and... (in response to this guy) >>7635 ...not function correctly, then be used as evidence against basic income. >>7636 Criminals cost about $25K/year to shelter, clothe, feed, and guard in prison. So even if you stabbed someone you'd still receive UBI but it'd just go toward paying your guard's salaries. A lot of private prisons for rich people already charge you for staying there. >>7646 I'd go further and say that UBI is actually more likely to happen than meaningful welfare reforms in the USA.

>>7649 Culture war factions? I'm talking about basic dictionary definitions. >You made it seem like you were some kinda expert No, it's more like you're too lazy to do basic research. Maybe you're one of the "unvirtuous" NEETs the other Lain mentioned. >you're afraid to Oh boy. You got it, I'm so scared. Or lazy, like you.

>>7649 >What do you guys think of the antiwork movement in general? Aside from a portion of antiwork people who are more allied with neomarxists or wokeists, they seem to just be NEETs or people who wish they were NEETs. Most anti work people I've met were ancoms. I can dig it, but I think the idea that all labor will one day be unnecessary and everyone can be a NEET is a little far-fetched. Someone's gotta keep things running. I would prefer a massive change in the nature of labor. Wage work is degrading as fuarrrk and so is paying taxes. Can't say I have a solution but I don't think anti work people do either.

>>7655 Bob Black was mentioned earlier, he was despised by hard left anarchists and he took a lot of shots at them too. The anti-work faction was part of what they used to call post-left anarchism (maybe they still do?) which wasn't meant to be a single ideology but an umbrella of different weirdos. I don't agree with all of Bob's writing but goddamn, he was so funny. That alone made it worthwhile. The labor movement has always been... not anti-work but in favor of reducing hours at least. The eight hour day, five days on with weekends off is thanks to them. The wobblies had a song "Hallelujah I'm a Bum" which suggested that there would be no unemployed homeless people if the hours of working people were spread around to more people. There is a push from organized labor to reduce the five day week to four in some countries now.

>>7649 >What do you guys think of the antiwork movement in general? I happen to need food to stay alive. I also quite like being alive. Do you have another question? > or people who wish they were NEETs. Buckle up, Jammy because we are going for a ride. Everyone want to be a neet. Yes, you read that right. You, me, the guy in the bus, everyone would be a neet if he could. This is why we all have a vital need to make being a neet hard. None of us would survive the other option. >$25K/year Give that to every citizen and it's 8 trillions a year. 33% of the GDP. Where do you get that money?

>>7658 Wow what a thought provoking post full of creative and original ideas that have never crossed anyone's minds before, ever. Certainly not already in this thread.

>>7659 As long as you don't explain how food would be provided, this single argument undo your entire movement. You just want free stuff from the taxpayer but if we give it to you, society collapse.

>>7660 I think most anti work people are willing to accept that some amount of labor is necessary, they are simply critical of the idea that all -- or even most -- of the labor that people currently do is necessary.

>>7662 Okay, then, start by changing the name. It's like an antidrug movement that say it's fine if you snort cocaine once in the week. If you want farmers to work 50 hours a week, the entire tractor industry to stay strong, all the chemical fertilizers, all the transports, the distribution to work... Then you are not anti work. The name misled me to think that you wanted a livable wage without working, haha. Second, make marketing and advertising illegal. Remove 95% of the laws and regulations. There is two reasons for why Mr Boss give his cherished money to the people who do the unnecessary labor: the law say that they have to, or it make their product sell.

>>7663 Most anti-drug people are okay with caffeine or even alcohol. The name is about the fact that work is undesirable and should be eliminated as much as possible, allowing a maximum amount of people to be NEETs.

>>7658 >Everyone wants to be a neet. Obviously not. Otherwise, why would anyone with millions of dollars bother to continue working? Why would anyone bother working a job that paid above minimum wage? Hell, a not insignificant of portion of NEETs don't want to be NEETs. >Give $25K/year to every citizen and it's 8 trillions a year. 33% of the GDP. Where do you get that money? Calm down buddy. In your anti-UBI/pro-work rage you have become a little confused. The $25K/year figure is the cost to imprison a criminal for a year and the government seems to have no problem paying for this. >>7655 There are a lot of ancoms in the antiwork crowd. While every job might not be able to be 100% automated, I'm fine with the prospect of a worker having 50x more USD than me while they use technology to do the work of 10 people.

>>7665 They are okay with oxygen, sleep and water too. >The name is about the fact that work is undesirable and should be eliminated as much as possible It have a MGTOW taste. Of course work is a constraint, but they are not slave. No one force them to work more than to provide for their vital needs. So, it all fall on one questions: Do they have an ideal they want to achieve and personally work as little as possible to enjoy life, or do they want to change all of society to make the worker's life harder? And yes, by that I mean, do they want to provide for their own needs or do they want Mr State to tell Mr cop to jail the workers who refuse to give the fruit of their labor to neets? >>7666 > why would anyone with millions of dollars bother to continue working? Anyone who got millions in the bank got it without working. What they do is to continue to not work. >Calm down buddy. In your anti-UBI/pro-work rage you have become a little confused. There is a thing I have ovserved. The disscution about UBI always have 3 phases. The first one: we point things that are not right in the current system. Everyone will argue that giving money to people only if they don't work is literally paying them to leave their job. Everyone agree that welfare should not be overcomplicated as it is now, making living off it a skilled full time job and preventing workers who have a bad day from having it. Then, it's time to talk about what money will be taken fot the UBI. Unemployement funds? Yes, of course. Retirement? Well, not so fast. Housing allocations? Well, it's complicated. And the third and final phase, the one no UBI project have managed to pass: the numbers. You either give so little that is is not possible to live off it, and if it have to be a complement of regular welfare, then it's too little to be noticed, or you give enough and then it's half of your GDP and you just can't get that sum. How many would YOU give?

>>7671 >You either give so little that is is not possible to live off it, and if it have to be a complement of regular welfare, then it's too little to be noticed, or you give enough and then it's half of your GDP and you just can't get that sum. first of all, what sorts of figures are we talking about that's impossible to live off of ? The figure I've most heard cited is always (in USA) 1000 bucks a month--totally livable in most of the country. Its expensive but I'm pretty sure its less than the behemoth wellfare system we have going now, which mostly sees to the wellfare of bureaucrats, who themselves one might argue would be better off with a simply 1kusd cheque every month. Ideally for a UBI you'd cut everything. State funding to homeless shelters ? Food stamps ? state assisted investment programs ? the whole shebang. The only thing I can see an argument that a thousand bucks ain't good for is healthcare, but the american medical mess is another topic. Its also worth noting that if suddenly there's a lot of people with an exactly known income, provided its not wholly ridiculous (yes thank you for this 50 usd Uncle Sam), this might be the impetus for a new industry to serve these exact people in the conditions they can reasonably afford. You might imagine practically a whole paralell society sprouting up for these people in certain areas if there are enough of them, with their own housing spaces, stores, etc. Probably not great in any area, but adequate.

>>7671 >>7672 and so to answer your particular question: I guess a thousand bucks a month seems alright (at least lets say before covid and recent inflations). Frankly I might even lean a bit less than that, say about 750. Enough for a private appartment and food but not much more. Obviously this figure needs to be adjusted relatively regularly for inflation.

>>7672 >The figure I've most heard cited is always (in USA) 1000 bucks a month--totally livable in most of the country *332 millions= 4 trillions The GDP is 25 trillions. It's already 16% of the GDP. Almost all of the federal budget. It's far from enough to live in the city and with the rising energy price you won't be able to leave your village with that. And it's already way too much for the state to function. Numbers defeat UBI.

>>7671 This must be your first time learning about UBI. There are lots of ideas to fund it. One possibility is basically something like a federally enforced Amazoncoin cryptocurrency. You could buy anything from Amazon (or some other megacorp) with Amazoncoin which means you can buy pretty much the basics for running a household. Basically food stamps on steroids. Amazon would not be allowed to control the cryptocurrency and the federal government would force them to accept it as payment. What does Amazon get out of this? The government would refrain from breaking up the megacorp, lower their taxes, remove regulations, etc until the megacorp agreed. Its not like the government isn't already in bed with tons of corporations. If everyone receives a UBI of Amazoncoin, and it's guaranteed that it will always be easy to buy groceries with it, other people will be more likely to accept the cryptocurrency as payment for rent, bills, services. No one other than Amazon would be legally forced to accept it. Another option is a more general fedcoin everyone is forced to take as legal tender that essentially is just a new USD. Instead of the federal reserve creating new currency whenever, it automatically generates coins in everyone's permanent deposit wallet that's tied to a social security number or biometric data. There are tons of ideas for a decentralized UBI. None have worked yet, but things have to get much worse for any of them to have a chance: https://cryptoslate.com/coins/decentralized-universal-basic-income/ Besides, we seem to have no problem finding infinite money for senator salaries, military budgets, deep state agencies, prisons, bank bailouts, etc. Why would it suddenly become difficult to find money when it's for something not evil? Remember, the state giving citizens money is functionally identical to cutting their taxes: in both cases the state gives everyday citizens more purchasing power without work. What do you think would happen if we cut everyone's taxes by $10000/year? That is also what would happen if we implemented a true UBI. Tax cuts have a pretty good track record of stimulating the economy. Why would a monthly stimulus check be any different?

>>7675 >There are tons of ideas for a decentralized UBI Yes, there is always a lot of ideas on how to spend money. A lot less about how to get it, how to actually get it and not just make a law that have loopholes made on it on purpose and how to deal with the consequences of taking that money. See, the border is open. Tax the rich and they leave. Tax the corpos and they leave. This is why they are not taxed in the first place. This is why economic protectionism is given such a bad press. Press owners know they may have to pay taxes if they have to leave their assets in the country. The financial transaction tax is supposed to make wall street be a place of investment made to produce and not the speculation circus it is now. It is not suppose to give a lot of money, because if you get it at more than 0,01%, microsecond transactions stop and 99% of what you wanted to tax have disappeared. Carbon fee? You are just increasing the cost of energy, making everyone life harder. Well, everyone except the ones rich enough to not have a significant portion of their income being spent on energy. Reduced poverty expenses? Good, now you have another BLM on your hands. People who depend on public assistance to live spend a lot of time being implied in politic, and they have shown they have no problem with violence. You may think they won't say a word if you give them UBI, but they have it and they won't give it. They want both and will destroy the country rather than having to choose. Economic growth? Come on it's not the 70's anymore. Benefit consolidation? What is this even supposed to mean? VAT? Good, not the consoomer have less money to spend. It will not just make him go poorer, it will also slow the entire economy. And your second pic... please. A government is made up of people, they run the fed, and the banks... Ain't how any of this work fella. >Besides, we seem to have no problem finding infinite money for senator salaries, military budgets, deep state agencies, prisons, bank bailouts, etc. Why would it suddenly become difficult to find money when it's for something not evil? An UBI of $1000 would cost 5,6 time all the armies. Prisons have to exist, banks owners run the government and there isn't many senators.

>>7671 >And yes, by that I mean, do they want to provide for their own needs or do they want Mr State to tell Mr cop to jail the workers who refuse to give the fruit of their labor to neets? This is a false dichotomy. Most of the anti-work crowd are anarchists and would not accept the second answer.

>>7677 Would they accept the former one?

>>7678 Depends on the person. I think most would elaborate on answer C rather than pick A or B.

>>7676 >Yes, there is always a lot of ideas on how to spend money. A lot less about how to get it. Should I have used smaller words? You appear to not understand what a blockchain is or how money is generated currently. You clearly didn't understand anything I posted, so you responded to my pictures instead of my post, but even those are just more misunderstandings or unfounded assertions (reduced poverty expenses mean we get more riots? economic growth was only possible in the 1970s? lmao ok bud) You lured me in with your unnecessarily long posts, but you have proven that anything you say can safely be disregarded. Keep parroting those easily debunked conservative talking points though. It only benefits me for people ideologically opposed to me to be retarded. If you'd like to be less retarded, learn to read, then click this link: https://old.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index

>>7674 >The GDP is 25 trillions. It's already 16% of the GDP. Almost all of the federal budget. you're only looking at federal budgets. Programmes like foodstamps are usually state based and there's quite a lot of money going on in those, many states individually appear to pay more than 1kusd/head already. Its a big fraction of GDP yes, a pretty scary one to be honest. I'm not sure I like UBI but I like (the sound of ) it better than what I've seen of what we've got. >It's far from enough to live in the city lol so what. Its also not enough to own a private jet. >and with the rising energy price you won't be able to leave your village with that. Intercity buses are surprisingly cheap. If fuel prices double then it will be harder, but they'll still be not terribly expensive, and people seeking to travel can always hitch hike. And again, so what ? UBI is about slightly elevating the baseline, and making it harder for people to fall into abject poverty. I know crazy homeless people who live on the street out of old grocery carts who travel by interstate bus multiple times a year, so I don't think some travel is out of the realm of possibility for a determined person with a whole thousand dollars a month. Worst case scenario you can just leave your flat, stay with a friend a little bit, and then have a few hundred dollars in the next month.

>>7679 >Do you want your labor to provide for your own needs, or the labor of someone else >It isn't that simple Well, I have my answer. And no, you can't have my money. >>7680 Money is just a representation of how hard it is to acquire things. You can't print wealth. You can't emit wealth. It don't matter if the FED is adding more $ of if an algorithm decide to emit more corpocoin. It don't add wealth. It don't add value. If you take value and don't add another, then you are lowering the value of each $/corpocoin. Two number economic growth is indeed a thing of the past, even for China now. Here we will be happy if we have 2% per year. Politicians keep saying that the cake will grow and he will have more money to play with but so far, all the very optimistic prediction they made were made optimistic on purpose. >reduced poverty expenses mean we get more riots? Well, yes. Why do you think it even exist? Because Mr Politician is nice and like people, or because if the mass don't have bread they bite? >>7681 Listen, come with numbers and you will make the debate progress. And don't try to say it will come from new taxes because in a democracy you can't tax the rich. Buses are cheap but you can't buy your soykaf going around in a bus. You can't go to the nice forest you like. You get trapped. Sure you can live like a rabbit and only leave your trap every two weeks, but I like doing things with what I made, not being in poverty and dependent of a government. Poor people are poor for a reason, and often that reason is that they are crazy or on drugs. Give them money and it make their life and everyone life worse. You think the junkie will go to uni just because you gave him some money? He will just move to a harder drug. The guy fukked in the head will keep being what he is but now he will also waste some of the precious wealth of the nation.

> politics and economics lololol I'm still over here being a NEET and you can't stop me.

>>7684 >come with numbers and you will make the debate progress. lets take the budget of the state of california, perusable here: https://ebudget.ca.gov there's some fuzzyness as you said earlier over what would/should be cut, but considering the department of social services (part of health and human services) who's budget in 2020-2021 was 37.1billion usd, for california's population of about 39 million; a bit less than 1kusd per person. >I like doing things with what I made, not being in poverty and dependent of a government. good for you, you don't have to live on the ubi just because its there. Maybe you could get a job and make things, and not be a dependant of the government. Nothing stopping ya. >You can't go to the nice forest you like by intercity bus well depends which forest you like. Worlds a big place, but if you're a neet you have all the time in the world to walk through it. I really don't get why you seem to want people living on pure ubi to be able to live in luxury; thats not the point. >You think the junkie will go to uni just because you gave him some money? He will just move to a harder drug. The guy fukked in the head will keep being what he is but now he will also waste some of the precious wealth of the nation. we're already giving poor users money, and we're already pouring billions of dollars into social wellfare programmes. The best argument I can think of for UBI is that its quite possibly more efficient, easier, and gets more money to people for whom it is ostensibly intended without forcing them to jump through a giant bureacratic obstacle course just to prove they are meritous of this service ostensibly built for their benifit. If you want to argue the merits of state sponsored wellfare to begin with, sure. But this is arguing ubi vs what we have now. What makes you think UBI is inferior? I'd be happy to settle for just saying kill all the social wellfare programs and redirect their funding to UBI, whatever that amount of money would end up being, it would almost surely be better spent than what we're doign with it now.

>>7673 I lived off of about $7k per year for several years when I was in college, which is less than $750 per month. My rent was about $5k per year. I didn't have food stamps or any financial support system. It was possible to do if you didn't have any health problems, didn't need a car, and lived in a low cost of living area. I'm not saying that's the right number for UBI or anything, just wanted to share that from experience, $750 was enough to have a roof and food a decade ago. >>7684 >I like doing things with what I made, not being in poverty and dependent of a government. UBI doesn't prevent you from working a job to afford those things you like. Just makes it so that you won't starve to death in the street if you lose your job or ability to work. >Poor people are poor for a reason, and often that reason is that they are crazy or on drugs. Poverty is notoriously hard to escape even if sober and not insane. There's a lot of other well-documented reasons for poverty besides drugs and mental illness. >You think the junkie will go to uni just because you gave him some money? He will just move to a harder drug. Stable housing and income is shown to increase likelihood of getting sober, not decrease it. >The guy fukked in the head will keep being what he is but now he will also waste some of the precious wealth of the nation. A lot of the mentally ill homeless are homeless because their financial and housing situations prevent them from getting properly medicated. Even the ones who are able to get their medications run high risks of being robbed or having their legitimate prescriptions confiscated by police. UBI gives them a better chance at housing stability and medication stability. There's a lot other arguments you can make against UBI, but "it won't help poor people" is not one.

>>7686 Weee lol I was looking at annual figures and reading months I am a retard

>>7634 I am a big fan of UBI, but this is honestly the best argument against it. There is a sustained effort to corrupt the ethos of the movement and make people forget what the U stands for. Those people have a better than even shot at succeeding and the whole thing is just about worse than useless if they do. The only counterargument I have is, there really isn't anything else that will actually help. Every other mainstream plan for stabilizing things is useless, insane, or actively worsens the problem.

>>7684 What counts as labor? Some people make a soykafload of money masturbating on the internet. Some people make money by smoking weed and recording it. Some people make money by sitting on the street and begging. Some people make soykafloads of money by watching TV and giving their opinions. Some people make money because they invested in property and rent it out. You may not personally find these services valuable but if other people make a living out of it then clearly they are providing value to someone. The reason why you're incapable of stating a clear definition of wealth and labor (and why you will deflect) is that your worldview is incoherent. Your mind has been crippled by puritan propaganda and a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality.

>>7691 >You may not personally find these services valuable but if other people make a living out of it then clearly they are providing value to someone. This is a common misconception that is easily debunked. Consider people who do nothing but cause problems for others and force people to pay to make them stop. An example of one totally legal way to do this is to bring frivolous lawsuits forward. Many people would rather settle out of court for cash rather than pay for a lawyer. If you're willing to start taking a more pessimistic view, it could be entertained that the state, banks, pharma corps, and insurance companies all engage in this and get filthy rich doing it. Theft is another example of an activity which makes some people very very rich but benefits absolutely nobody else. Sometimes it even doesn't benefit the thief due to opportunity cost.

>>7686 Please don't use Cali as an exemple. It's a lost cause and the full state will go Detroit as all the skilled people and all the jobs are fleeing it, mostly to Texas. >good for you, you don't have to live on the ubi just because its there But if I work I will have to pay for UBI, while if I don't I won't. So, the money you stop giving me if I get a job now become money you are taking from me if I get one. If I make $2k/m, I will still get one additional k from UBI but the money will have to come from somewhere, and only workers add value. If I make 2k, my salary is 2+1-1=2k. I will loose my days for little more, and so the rational choice is to stay trapped in poverty and dependent from a government that haven't proved to be benevolent in the past. There is also the issue of too many people leaving the workforce. This is why food is often used as an argument. I think the only welfare the state should give to anyone who can physically work is a job. Not a fake one like in the Soviet union, no an actual job, like being a woodcutter. You are not forced to get the job, but if you can provide for society and choose to not, then don't expect society to provide for you. >What makes you think UBI is inferior? Numbers. The one question you seem to avoid. How many? From where? Second point: how do we ensure that the great resignation that we are already living don't get worse. I don't have to say it again: we both need food to stay alive. >>7688 You lived in poverty in the hood. That's not a problem because taxes aren't heavy enough to discourage you from working. >Poverty is notoriously hard to escape even if sober and not insane. Are we talking about the hobos or the redneck trailer trash? Yes, it will help the poor worker. No it won't help the junkie. What would help the junkie is to be forced to go in detox centers and then to be forced to learn a job and then to be forced to actually do it and to get something from it. But that won't happen in a democracy. Some free state money thrown at them by politicians who want to look like they are helping is the best we will have. >Stable housing and income is shown to increase likelihood of getting sober, not decrease it. Stable housing and income come with having a job right now. It's the symptom of escaping the causes of poverty, not the cause. >>7691 If you can get people to think that you deserve their money for what you are giving to them, I won't argue. You produce.

>>7694 >the full state will go Detroit as all the skilled people and all the jobs are fleeing it, mostly to Texas. I sure fuarrrking hope so, rent is insane here.

>>7692 You didn't "debunk" anything until you provide a coherent definition for labor. Because right now you're saying "anything I personally dislike doesn't count nyeh nyeh!" The most wealthy people in society tend to also do the most damage, not contribute the most. >>7694 The most wealthy people in society tend to also do the most damage, not contribute the most. The average NEET has a much more positive impact than Martin Shkreli, Mitch McConnell, or Harvey Weinstein. Even call center wageslaves and insurance salesmen do more damage than NEETs, despite earning an income. If you structure society to incentivize making more money and nothing else, society will be soykafty. With a UBI we would change the incentives. At the end of the day, you're just mad that you have to do something you hate for money or else. You're envious of NEETs. You think your taxes going up to pay for a UBI is unfair (not realizing that you would then be free to stop working and rely on UBI too). So you come up with all these absurd copes like "millionaires don't do REAL work" or "money isn't REAL wealth". Btw, you seem heavily invested in this puritan narrative. Why not tell us what your job is so we can be impressed by how you spend a third of your adult life?

>>7696 >You didn't "debunk" anything until you provide a coherent definition for labor Why should I need to do such a thing if the flaws in your line of reasoning are not related to what the definition of labor is? >you're just mad that you have to do something you hate for money or else. to be honest I love my job as a researcher. I'd do it for free if I could. But I suspect that you have assumed quite a lot about the people you are quoting.

I got curious and did the math and based on the 2021 personal income amount ($21,056 billion) a flat tax of 18.8% would be needed if you wanted a $1,000 per month UBI for all 331 million citizens. The United States personal income tax rate is about 37%, so that would raise it to 55.8%. This assumes the money is solely coming from personal income tax, and assumes UBI is an additional program to, not a replacement program for, the existing welfare programs 55% tax is high, but on par with some countries such as Denmark, so it's not unworkable. However, it must be noted that this is an upper bound. The real cost would be lower as those assumptions aren't going to be true in practice. UBI would replace a lot of existing welfare programs so much of the money would come from what is now being allocated to those, and not all of the money needs to come from income. I'm sleepy so I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine the net increase when accounting for replacement of welfare programs that can be replaced by UBI (caution: in some brief searching, it seems like a medicaid and some other health programs are considered welfare in the budget, so if you just assume the trillions spent on welfare can be replaced, you'll be over adjusting)

>>7698 As someone that usually poo poos on UBI, that actually sounds entirely reasonable.

>>7699 Yeah, I wouldn't mind ~20% of my salary going to ensuring a UBI. For a lot of Americans, they have to save more than that if they want a $12k a year retirement. There's also some math to be done on how much the tax increase is offset by the $12k. If you make $100k a year, you're paying 18.8k, but getting 12k, so you're really paying 6.8%. If you're making less than about $64k, you're effectively seeing a decrease. When I started doing the math on it, I was expecting to come away thinking that it was fiscally infeasible. But with that as an upper bound, I'm into it. The other consideration is the money that needs to go into the systems that pay people out, but we already have that as demonstrated by tax refunds, stimulus checks, and existing welfare programs, so it's likely negligible.

>>7698 I've been idlely trying to dig through some state budgets and find what figure is actually being spent on wellfare per capita, unfortunately its not entierly easy to tease out what's wellfare vs what's something else, and where all the wellfare is. What even is wellfare, afterall ? This combined with the fact that much of individual state funding for some projects is sometimes fedgov money passed along to them. It seems like its very easy to find a few hundred per person per month (especially from fedgov), social security (~1.1 trillion/year) by itself is a little over 300usd/person/month, but that's the biggest fish in this sea. Many other programs are pocketchange--even a billion dollar program is only a couple dollars per person per year when spread over the whole country. >>7674 posts an image which might be misleading, programs like the paycheque protection programme are new corona era expenses, but if you add up s.s., p.p.p., and unemployment from that page you get a whopping 6k/person/year, so about 500 per month. Not too shabby, and with state and local funding that might get bumbed up a little, maybe even to the 750 figure. But thats in the time of corona money printing, not proven sustainable for any length of time. Another angle we should think about is that, while the us population may be ~330 millions, probably somewhat fewer will actually be obtaining this income. If we follow the yang yang outline, it only is available to people 18+, which by itself brings us down to closer to 250million if my rough math is right. That's a pretty big difference. That brings the 500/month I mentioned earlier up to 700, without any state or local funding. Still, corona times. >>7694 >Why I hate UBI: the numbers the questions is: UBI or conventional wellfare. Same budget as we have today. Which is better ?

and to all the 'this will stop people from working' people: I think part of the point of this is that its shamefully little money. If you live off UBI alone you should be barely scraping by in a way that strongly discourages people from doing it. It should be very difficult to travel, effectively impossible to save money. Your choice of where to live is tightly limited, and ability to take care of children, marginal. You probably won't own a car, and if you do you'll probably live in it. Its a step above being homeless and broke, but it ain't a terribly big one. We already have a similar system that humiliates and frustrates people trying to live off wellfare via a guantlet of bureacratic requirements to prove that you're poor and deserving. One trouble with this system that also provides quite a bit of money and a certain amount of pride to the people who run the bureaucracy, as though they were real workers. UBI, dispensing of all questions of merit other than 'have you already got yours ?', should cut back on this considerably.

>>7699 What does not sound reasonable is that UBI homosexs expect anti UBI to do the math. You are the one who come with an idea, clear your mind before you present it to the public. >>7702 >the questions is: UBI or conventional wellfare. Same budget as we have today. Which is better ? Since I get nothing from the welfare stem that we have now and since this system is made to provide for all expenses of professional welfare queen while leaving the temporarily embarrassed worker on the street, of course I am for UBI. But with the current spending it will be like €400/m. I welcome that money but the millions who decided to live off it will go hungry and they are more likely to riot BLM style than to get a job. >>7702

>>7701 >Yeah, I wouldn't mind ~20% of my salary going to ensuring a UBI. For a lot of Americans, they have to save more than that if they want a $12k a year retirement. Exactly. An ideal society wouldn't require bailing out big banks every couple of years because most people have 401Ks.

>>7704 >I welcome that money but the millions who decided to live off it will go hungry and they are more likely to riot BLM style than to get a job. That's not what happens in America. A bunch of states cut you off food stamps after 3 months such as NC and they don't have widespread rioting. They just tell you "it's not the government's responsibility to keep you fed" and hang up the phone or remove you from the premises. Of course, it's super-easy to get food from private food banks or churches, but the point remains: a UBI is an unambiguous improvement over the current system.

>>7697 >I'd do it for free if I could. put up or shut up: https://www.citizenscience.gov/ https://osf.io/ https://www.blockchainforscience.com/ https://www.kolabtree.com/blog/why-amateur-scientists-are-needed-for-mainstream-science/

>>7697 > I love my job as a researcher. I'd do it for free if I could. If everyone was free to do what they wanted put of love and not out of need for employment, I suspect the first industries we'd lose would be fast food and tourism. Imagine the positive impact this would have on the environment.

>>7705 You know you can get that by just making illegal for deposit banks to trade. >>7706 >a UBI is an unambiguous improvement over the current system. Okay, just don't create any tax and give me the welfare of the hobos. >>7708 I am afraid regular food industries would close too.

>>7706 >gov isnt the only support for these folk this is a good point. There's a lot of privately run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, yadda yadda. These things might reorient somewhat in a UBI world but they would probably not go away, and would help pure ubi folk extend their incomes further than one might initially assume possible. >riots personally I've always thought of riots as being tied to people with lots of free time. We had lots of riots right when coronalockdowns commenced, for instance, when students were told to go back home from dorms, children not to go to school, and lots of other people suddenly given considerable time off from work with various buisness closures and remote reorientations. There are obviously other factors, but thats a big one. I'd be worried a UBI that's sufficient to let people live in comfort would (lets forget for a moment about how this might destroy the economy) might lead to more riots just for this reason. >>7708 ya know, I'm not sure. lots of fast food is with students, sometimes highschoolers, trying to make money for cars, uni, just in general building some wealth, what have you. I almost imagine this sort of person might get a job anyway, and especially if UBI is 18+ then it won't much affect the 16-17 crowd that I see in a lot of fast food joints around here. Management is also usually people who aren't just doing it to get by, but want to own their own buisnesses and make a good bit of money. Certain chains and certain areas that draw a lot from the convict labour pool might suffer though, but at least some of those people are also driven by some amount of ambition to reform and get things sorted out in their lives/take care of families. Tourism likewise, I imagine some particular parts of it would suffer, but I've known a lot of people who enjoy giving tours, or teaching people to ski for instance. At least some get burned out, or try and find better paying and more stable employment, but they do enjoy it. I'd almost lean to assuming that some of these jobs that are just considered fun (ski instructor) might become more competitive because people who need stable incomes would be a little less worried about the possibility of a bad winter screwing them over.

>>7709 >Okay, just don't create any tax People are working on it: https://www.swiftdemand.com Homeless people are homeless precisely because they don't receive welfare you dumbass. There's also the idea of copying Norway and socializing natural resource profits, putting it in mutual funds, and using the resulting money to fund all welfare. Instead of oil we could use data. Your taxes wouldn't go up if all of the big tech companies suddenly stopped making money. It's not like they don't give all their data to the government anyway.

>>7711 >https://www.swiftdemand.com Inflation, the crypto. >the idea of copying Norway and socializing natural resource profits The fact that it isn't the normal is revolting, but do you know what is even more revolting? The IMF threatened Norway to remove their ability to make transactions with the rest of the world if they didn't privatized their oil. They do privatized it because [redacted] forced them to, but they tax 90% of the profit. Hey, speaking of oil, Alaska get an UBI of $1000 a year so people would shut up about acting against the big oil. >Instead of oil we could use data. Data have value only if big tech use it to produce something, like what to tell in TV to get people to think one thing, or to support one policy. You can't seize the data, only what is done with it have a commercial value. Now, big tech are basically kingmakers. You can't tax them because they are the ones who get politicians in line. Look at the treatment Trump got for steeping out of the line just a little bit.

>>7707 You seem to have missed the qualifying statement "if I could". The stuff you listed is mostly crowd source type stuff. It has nothing at all to do with what I do for money or what I research on the side in my free time. >>7709 >regular food industry would close too I'm not so sure. I have a friend who currently works as a programmer at a FAANG company but she's told me she misses being a waitress. They would have to make the work and pay less soykafty, sure. Right now there's a bit of a " labor shortage" in the US, because min wage paying companies are unwilling to improve the working conditions, pay, or benefits in the face of extremely low labor demand. Probably if UBI were implemented most of the megacorp service sector would collapse because their bureaucracies are brittle and unable to adapt, and their business model basically depends on a steady stream of disposable wagies to do all the dirty work. The only companies that would survive would have extremely low managerial overhead to compensate for narrow profit margins, meaning, small businesses would be able to compete more. The downside is that the landlord class would immediately hike rents, and probably most service sector megacorps would pivot to land speculation which would only make it worse.

>>7709 >regular food industries would close too You don't seem to be aware of what's becoming of farming and transportation in the next decade or so. Both will be increasingly automated and require less and less human labor. There are self checkouts at grocery stores already too. In fact we will need something to do with all these out of work farm hands, truck drivers and cashiers.

>>7714 Call me the day human labor isn't needed anymore. The robots still need people to make them, to operate them and to maintain them. What you are talking about is science fiction for now. Sure, going to the moon used to be science fiction as well, but we do not have automated food production so you will wait until we do to get your UBI.

>>7716 What wagetards like you fail to realize is that we don't need to eliminate literally 100% of jobs with fully autonomous humanoid robots like in the Jetsons before societal problems arise. A little information is often all it takes to decimate an industry. Take plumbers for instance. 40 years ago if your toilet was fuarrrked up you called a plumber and gave him $300. Unless you were a plumber yourself, that was a pretty much your only option. I guess you could try to figure out the problem by poring over books at the library, but that clearly wasn't feasible for most people. These days it's trivial to google the problem, find a video tutorial, buy a $10 replacement for the broken part online, and fix it yourself. I did this earlier this year. I am a job destroyer. Programmers are another great example. 20 years ago if you were a small restaurant owner who needed a website, your only option was pay a programmer $600 to whip you up a webpage. Your only other option was to learn to code a website from scratch yourself. These days a restaurant owner can just make a facebook page or use a squarespace template which requires no additional skill outside typing. New software i.e. new technology has already made the less competent programmers obsolete, without fully automating their job. There are some industries where this is extremely apparent, such as travel agents or the writing industry. Nowadays people create entire magazines using free software on their computers. People generate seemingly infinite amounts of content for free because it's so much easier than it used to be. Did you know people used to get paid $7,000 for selling a *single short story* to a magazine? From https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/vonnegut-writing-iowa-workshop/: >Kurt Vonnegut began writing short stories in order to make money. Imagine doing that now! “I had a family and wasn’t making nearly enough money to support the family so I started writing short stories on weekends and there was an enormous magazine industry at that time which paid very high prices for the stories and they needed lots of them.” Just as technology enables a layman to complete tasks that once required trained professionals, technology also enables a single trained professional to do the work of 4 trained professionals. Lawyers, doctors, researchers who are ashamed to specify what they research, it doesn't matter. In a Capitalist economy every for-profit business has a strong incentive to reduce overhead, and they do that by acquiring technology which allows them to maintain growth with fewer people on the payroll. This forces all the people who would have once obtained income by doing that job to do something else, which is fine for them, but obviously displaces another person. The displacement keeps happening until someone can't find a job. Maybe the top 50% of every industry will be totally fine. But what happens to the bottom 50%? They rarely retrain: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-false-promises-of-worker-retraining/549398/ Our economy has become too highly specialized. Or rather, it's fine that's it's highly specialized but we have too many people without profitable specialties. Not everyone has the chops to be a petroleum engineer or a hentai artist. That's just a fact. Most people are capable of farming or working in a factory. Which is good because 100 years ago, 1 in 3 people had to be farmers for everyone to have enough food. Thanks to modern technology, that is no longer necessary. 50 years ago, 1 in 3 people had to be factory workers. Thanks to outsourcing, that is no longer necessary. In the past there used to be work that actually needed to be done which is part of why wages used to be so much higher. Another reason is that unions were more effective in demanding at least partial freedom from work: https://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/8hourday.html Perhaps the most important reason for why wages were so much higher is there used to be fewer people competing for jobs. Women entering the workforce doubled the supply of labor. At the same time, advances in medical technology increased lifespans and reduced infant mortality rates. Then there's the fact that we stopped sending our young men to war to cull the population in the 1970s. A triple whammy increase in the supply of labor. If nothing changes this will inevitably result in a world where there are essentially 4 classes of people: comfy NEETs, violent criminals, exploited wageslave working 14 hours/day (such as yourself), and whores i.e. the service industry/sugarbabies/e-beggars/etc. Surely you're not obstinate enough to deny that society is already trending this way. I'm already in the best possible situation I can be in. I actually agree that you're getting the short end of the stick which is precisely why I'm advocating for UBI on your behalf. Remember, if you had a UBI you would also be free to quit your job to pursue what you actually want to do with your life too. Maybe you could experiment with trying to make the world better for others instead of just for yourself. Remember, literally all we need to do to implement this is convince people to vote for it. How will we pay for it? The national debt is currently something like $30 trillion. It was $5 trillion 25 years ago, which means we've been on average a trillion dollars over budget every year. I noticed someone who "cares about the numbers" in this thread keeps bringing up the trillion dollar figure. Spending keeps going up yet has your life gotten better or worse in the past 25 years? My guess is that it got better for you too, despite the pandemic, despite all the gay bullshit that happened. Now imagine if the country going a trillion dollars into debt next year (because we're not gonna stop spending) resulted in you receiving some cash instead of Raytheon, the Ukraine government, and Hunter Biden's meth dealer. I get why you're so struggling so hard to wrap your head around this. You clearly don't know much about the economy, presumably because you've been too busy working. But I think you truly want to improve so I'll throw you a bone: the reason why the US has been able to kick the can this long (so far) without experiencing hyper-inflation is predominantly the petrodollar system. Now please tell me how you think the petrodollar works first, then I will evaluate your response and correct you as necessary.

>>7717 >40 years ago if your toilet was fuarrrked up you called a plumber and gave him $300. Unless you were a plumber yourself, that was a pretty much your only option. That or hours pouring over books at the library. Good grief, can hardly articulate how utterly stupid this is. Plumbing isn't some sort of occult art only known to its initiates and fvcking library books, a large amount of it is common sense, and experience that you've very likely got at least a little of. Basic 'handyman' and home maintainance skills are not a new thing brought to us by the Internet and Youtube, these things have been around forever. And if you don't know what to do yourself, well probably you ask your dad, or your neighbor, or some friend who's a little handy-er than you are. What the fuarrrk.

>>7716 Slow down and read what you are replying to. I said they will need "less" human labor. Guess what, it already happened throughout the 20th century and it continues now. Robots will eventually make the other robots. Humans might still design them but that isn't classified under labor.

>>7718 >neurosuggesting the internet did not exponentially increase people's access to information Is that really the best you got? Come on man, you're better than this... I suppose my post was unassailable, but it's not too late for you to explicitly concede that you were mistaken and earn my respect

>>7717 Have you read http://thelightsinthetunnel.com/ ? Good discussion of exactly what you're talking about - people losing jobs and being unable to retrain. "What happens when there's no more new technological advancements?" We are already seeing the impacts.

>>7720 sorry man, I didnt even read the rest of your post There's a big diffence between 'the internet has increased the accessibility of a lot of information to the average man', and 'ya know back fourty years ago people couldnt do basic household chores because information was so scarce'. Maybe your point had merit, maybe it has merit. But your absurd introduction doesn't support it any more than the clouds above my house support my roof. pic related

>>7718 >And if you don't know what to do yourself, well probably you ask your dad NTL, but I think this is something like blue collar privilege. My dad actually did occasionally use library books for that stuff. But mostly just guessing what to do and spending hours cursing. He didn't have anyone to teach him those skills. I replaced a leaky drain pipe in my crawl space and my parents were disproportionately impressed. Pretty sure it's because, for them, pre internet, figuring out what parts they needed to get and the process of correctly attaching them would have been basically insurmountable. I could do it without too much trouble because of access to search engines and youtube. There have been a lot of things I definitely would have had to hire a specialist for if I didn't have the internet, because I simply don't have the kind of generational knowledge or social network that would be necessary otherwise.

>>7717 Poor examples. Plumbering haven't changed much, you could do it yourself before, you can do it yourself now. Any barmen could learn how to set up an apache server and to write 10 pages of html to get a site, they still can. But they choose not to because it's easier to pay $600. You sound like the people who said the printing press, the tractor and the harvester or the lightbulbs would put millions on the streets. It didn't happened in the past, it won't happen. They will move to another job. >Perhaps the most important reason for why wages were so much higher is there used to be fewer people competing for jobs. That is correct. This is why capitalists insist that the borders should be wide open and we must get as many as we can on the job market: surplus of labor make the labor cheap.

It's quite simple, most people don't have the luxury + the shamelessness to be neets. You'd be surprised how many otherwise regular dudes in their 20s there are playing video games in their parents basement all day. They've checked out for now but at some point they'll have to do something. If you have to constantly justify your lifestyle to strangers online, it tells me you aren't truly comfortable with it because it comes at someone's expense, despite the fact that you enjoy it. I think the best you can do is the most you can do without having actual employment. At least look into stocks if you're making $0

>>7865 >You'd be surprised how many otherwise regular dudes in their 20s there are playing video games in their parents basement all day. They've checked out for now but at some point they'll have to do something. I'm already an imageboard moderator.

>>7867 Whatever category "video games" goes under includes that as well... unless you get paid.

>>7589 Remote work is not as available you think, neither is there always a job market that supports it. Although this is oftentimes called "temporary unemployment", there are economic factors which makes neetdom more attractive than financial independence because the latter is precarious or not even available. I'm not sure about the demographics of lainchan, but it's not as uncommon as you think.

>>7604 >That applies to NEETs as well, except the figurative dicks belong to their parents and/or government. I fail to see how this is any better. I don't think a lot of us would disagree with this nor the rest of the rest of your post. Proud neets are just another strand of anarchist adjacent people that share a sense of individualism in combination with a distrust in hierarchy. We're all coping with our lot in life one way or another. The only thing I disagree is that people have a choice in whose figurative dick you suck. You really don't unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Whatever options you have were put through an arbitrary system. And, for a lot of people that means your choices flipping burgers, moving boxes, or starvation.

>>7870 >anarchist adjacent The people I knew when I was younger who saw unemployment as some kind of "political" imperative were some of the most active people I ever knew. They scavenged and thieved for the material things they needed and spent the rest of the time rehearsing and playing shows or painting, writing, doing something creative anyway. They also organized soup kitchens and needle exchanges (needle exchanges used to be illegal, now the government funds them). Etc. They certainly weren't sitting in a basement with the blinds drawn playing video games waiting for mom to lower the next basket of pizza pockets and gatorade on a rope.

>>7871 That was my experience with the neets in the punk subculture too. Some people in the hippie subculture also share the same "unemployment is a "political" imperative" ideology, but the few I've met seemed a lot less active. Maybe thats because they were all much older, or maybe they were active in some communities and I just didn't get to see it.

>>7871 Be aware that you're almost certainly filtering out a lot of people just by how you meet them -- don't expect to meet litteral shutins by hanging out in public, any more than you'd expect to meet fish by hanging out on mountaintops. Shutins are unfortunately very difficult to observe in the wild, and I think this leads to widely varied estimates on their actual population, behavioral characteristics, and other attributes.

>>7870 >Proud neets are just another strand of anarchist adjacent people that share a sense of individualism in combination with a distrust in hierarchy. Can't be that individual if they all seem to subscribe to a subculture that originated in Japan, and mainly promote NEEThood as a way to spend all your waking hours watching anime, manga and playing dating sims, that it's a cope for being a social outcast rather than just pure laziness. Also I dunno if you can claim that this is also down to a distrust in hierarchies, if you're a NEET living at home with your mom, then surely you're clinging on to the hierarchy that you had at birth, namely you're the child and you have to do what your parents say?

>>7874 Nothing is without contradiction. Being apart of a subculture may be how someone expresses themselves as an individual. There's no need to define individuality as being positive even if it is a gopd value. As for parents, I'm pretty sure a lot of neets loathe their parents to an extent, but cling to their charity because it's financial support. Beggers can't be choosers. Again, motivations don't have to be deep nor admirable. I think it's good to be sympathetic even if it is to an ingrate. You share board space with them after all. >>7871 >They certainly weren't sitting in a basement with the blinds drawn playing video games waiting for mom to lower the next basket of pizza pockets and gatorade on a rope. I hope you didn't think I was trying to depict neets this way. I wasn't, but I admit that all of the neets I know are burnouts.

>>7875 >I think it's good to be sympathetic even if it is to an ingrate. No can do, because sooner or later they're going to demand sympathy from me about their loneliness and lack of fulfilment, which is a very obvious trait of the modern world but that's depressing because most people feel that way despite working and trying to engage with society and that's worth talking about. If you were a NEET then that reality is inevitable anyway for obvious reasons, so they're a grief thief.

>>7581 damn, reading the neet-friendly jobs was grim. I'm 5'8" 135 lbs, which makes being a security guard not an option, and makes selling plasma a lot less profitable. I don't live in a small town. I'm a tranny (and take vitamin D supplements), which for medication reasons rules out the lab rat option, and I don't live in a small town, so no gas station clerk option. guess I'll see if there's any cushy library jobs in my area

>>7874 I guess up until recently I took the term NEET at face value. Not in education, employment or training. But I understand now it doesn't apply to everyone who meets those three requirements and is a specific internet based subculture. People avoiding paid employment one way or another go all the way back to the introduction of money in civilization I'm sure but it's rarely been possible in history to refuse to participate altogether. >>7876 According to this, if you work hard and try to integrate socially you will end up isolated and miserable anyway. So why bother?

>>7877 i will pay to lick trap ass i want tranny fren

>>7884 I'm not the trap you're looking for, lain. I only like to top and don't do it for money.

>neet culture lmao jesus christ

>>7882 >So why bother? Not everyone has parents wealthy enough to keep a manchild

Say what you want, but I don't like pepe memes. It feels like an intrusion from 4chan. Everything else is okay though.

>>7888 Good point, Pepe and Wojak killed 4chan’s capacity for making memes stone dead. Suddenly everything has to be a variant of Pepe or your meme is “Reddit”, ergo every single goddamn post on 4chan contains a fuarrrking frog or a cartoon of some miserable wanker

>>7887 ...and of course you completely sidestepped the rest of the points being made.

>>7581 Well, lets say if i was neet, and had basically an infinite flow of money from the goverment, i would be building nuclear reactors inside of my basement, and testing retroviruses on myself, not hang out on a soykafty website, soykafposting about how i'm better then the wagies. Essentially why are you hanging around sites like 4chan instead of actually doing soykaf with the money you're being given for basically sitting around all day.

>>7890 What other points? Like I said, NEETs can’t complain about alienation because they chose a lifestyle that results in that, so it’s not a tragedy that they feel alienated. It is a tragedy when people try to live a fulfilling life by the conditions of society in the modern age are too oppressive to allow it. I get what you’re saying “why even bother with trying to seek fulfilment when the modern world only allows for alienation?”, but that’s putting the cart before the horse as far as NEETs are concerned, most of the NEETs I’ve seen describing their life story generally follows the same pattern >Socially awkward at school >Resent their teenage years because no gf >reach an age where they’re not obligated to leave the house to go to school anymore >Immediately refuse to tolerate the awkwardness of interviewing for jobs >Surrender instead and just try to live for the rest of their lives as an overgrown 16 year old watching anime and playing games forever more So their issues were always more internal than external, they couldn’t really claim the cold hard reality of adulthood slapped them upside the head and they chose NEEThood instead, they’re NEETs because they barely functioned as people even as children with everyone trying to guide them and protecting them, they’re terrified of losing the training wheels.

>wojacks >pepes Delete your soykaf

>>7896 Agreed, that fuarrrking frog and miserable wanker killed 4chan.

>>7891 >Essentially why are you hanging around sites like 4chan instead of actually doing soykaf with the money you're being given for basically sitting around all day. Quit projecting, jack. I made a magazine. If you're looking for Interesting Projects, get in touch with me and I will assign you some. You will be paid exactly as much as I will. >>7892 >Surrender instead and just try to live for the rest of their lives as an overgrown 16 year old watching anime and playing games forever more And this is how I know to disregard everything you say. The only reason more old people don't watch anime is because it didn't exist when they were children. Everyone just likes doing the same stuff they did as a kid, though if you get too old to play sports you tend to prefer watching them as you get old. Even for having kids that's another thing most people want to do, or don't want to do, from a young age. My mom knew she wanted to be a mother at 16. Is she still a "16 year old playing house forever more"? No way. My dad first read LOTR as a 12 year old and he still rereads the whole series like every decade. Is he still a "12 year old reading fantasy novels forever more"? Of course not. You anti-NEETs are all the same. You just hate anything that bucks the status quo. Same as it ever was.

>>7916 >Quit projecting, jack. I made a magazine. If you're looking for Interesting Projects, get in touch with me and I will assign you some. You will be paid exactly as much as I will. I already know lots of patents that i would love to build, don't need to take jobs from someone on an imageboard to do that, also you made a magazine, thats great and all, but think of all the cool stuff you could do with the money you're given, all im saying is don't waste your chances.

>>7916 >The only reason more old people don't watch anime is because it didn't exist when they were children. Well considering anime first got really popular in the west in the 90s, basically anyone up to 40 (maybe even 50 if they were in their 20s in the 90s) could have grown up watching anime so that’s bollocks. >My mother dreamed of being a mom, something you cannot do as a child, does that make her childish now she is a mother? No, what a ridiculous point to make. >My father read Lord Of The Rings when he was 12 and now as an adult You can’t really compare LOTR to “oniiii san yamate! My hips are moving on their own!”. A lot of the most popular anime is aimed towards people of a certain age, not only are they categorised by age with genres like shounen they’re also often set in a semi-real world at school because it’s aimed at kids who are still at school. People grow out of anime for a reason, it’s pure cringe once you’re no longer 14-17 yourself and you have life experiences other than getting the legendary indirect kiss from your crush. It attracts NEETs for this reason, if you don’t want to grow up and hanging around schools trying to talk to 16 year olds will get you sent to prison, most popular animes allow you to immerse yourself in a school setting as a surrogate for your old school.

>>7918 NTA but >oniiii san yamate! My hips are moving on their own! isnt all or even the majority of anime.

>>7919 There’s still a lot of fan service in anime in general, on top of that though NEET-Lain is also comparing his life that revolves around watching anime to his dad reading LOTR once a decade

>>7891 The flaw here is that NEETs do not get infinite money. They receive enough money to survive, but not enough to pursue costly hobbies like building nuclear reactors.

>>7917 >don't need to take jobs from someone on an imageboard to do that Then what's stopping you? Your job? Yes, it is. Free yourself from work my brother. >>7918 >No, what a ridiculous point to make. Correct, I was taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion. Thank you for conceding that your argument is ridiculous! >>7920 Most people's parents spend a large portion of their time watching TV, reading books, & talking about it. That is no different from spending a large portion of their time watching anime, reading manga, & and talking about it. Do you think the majority of society are diligent little communists being productive 12 hours/day? fuarrrk no. And even the people who do work 12 hours/day are solely "producing" more money in already wealthy people's bank account. They actively exacerbate inequality. Conversely, NEETs do not. In fact, we let people have jobs who really need them. Explain to me how that's not the more moral choice. It may be a more difficult road for some, but that makes it all the more something to have pride in.

>>7922 >I just interpreted your post like a retard! Thanks for letting me win lmao XD Your mom wanting to do something only adults can do and then doing it in adulthood is in no way comparable to your desire to sit around watching anime all day as a grown man, there was no other way to interpret the point. >Non-NEETs also consume a lot of media Missing the point entirely, it's not about that. It's about you spending all your time watching shows that statistically is almost certainly aimed at teenagers, something you should have developed enough emotional maturity by now for most of it to no longer be relatable, and yet with NEETs it still is because they're overgrown 16 year olds. >Do you think the majority of society are diligent little communists being productive 12 hours/day? The irony is most people would call you a communist for doing no work and expecting life support from the state so you can watch anime. >fuarrrk no. They do when they don't have parents who have the combination of enough money to support a manchild and being complete pushovers to spend their money on one >it's moral to let my parents work on my behalf Very warped, they probably fall asleep crying while hearing the J-pop song thudding through their wall, indicating their son's all night moeshit marathon has just begun.

Didn't realise there was actually a PDF, that the OP seriously made a magazine about doing fuarrrk all. It's cringey as fuarrrk, it's just 20 pages of seething about how employed people look down on NEETs. I mean I get that work is hard and many jobs suck, but a life living on tendies, playing increasingly poor games and getting "the talk" from your parents about responsibility and being an adult a few times a week is like kicking dead whales down the beach in its own way. I'm all for trying to forge a new path that works for yourself, but NEETdom just isn't the liberating lifestyle OP is trying to make it out to be. Being a runaway, taking a backpack with only the essentials and basically going off-grid but within urban contexts is far more liberating I'd imagine, it would be hard work trying to find/earn/steal food, water and shelter everyday and to not just wind up like hobo, but you'd have no concept of "the man" to work for lest he take your soykaf away, either that's your rented studio apartment or your chicken tendies. It can be done. You could conceivably live the "high tech, low life" dream we all have if you shun NEETdom, get some damn marketable skills you can do on a laptop and be a runaway to all the places digital nomads like to go. Overall, NEETdom isn't hacking society and it's not beating the man, it's being a quitter and coping with it.

>>7922 >Then what's stopping you? Your job? Yes, it is. Free yourself from work my brother. I meant that sitting inside all day doing fuarrrk all arguing on the internet is not something i would love to do with that kind of freedom, i get it that you love watching anime, i have simillar habits, but you certainly don't want to do that all the time, everyone has hobbys they like to do or things they like to learn about, so go do that, do something you actually like.

>>7925 That’s what I’m saying, without placating yourself with intoxicants and mindlessly watching anime, being a NEET is actually a really oppressive reality. Effectively self-imprisonment and all the theoretical talk about spending a life reading philosophy, perfecting a skill or any other kind of self-improvement is all for nought because the boredom of day-to-day idleness means you spend most days out of your mind on something. Too fuarrrked on drugs, alcohol and porn to get it together to even start the classics of the philosophical giants.

>>7925 >>7923 why do you think being a NEET means I do nothing but watch anime?- quit projecting bro, this aint the projects. sounds like you're just jealous you're poor and I get that bud. that's why I'm fighting on your behalf to have a UBI! the best thing you can do is support the NEETpride movement as much as you can :) >>7924 If you live a cowardly life it won't matter whether or not you have a job, you will struggle. Being a NEET means you have to be okay with most people not being comfortable with your existence. Unlike being trans or a homo, being NEET is a choice we make to bow out of the social fabric and pursue what we actually want with our lives.

>>7924 >NEETpride is totes a cope bro! Ａｒｅｎ＇ｔ　ａｌｌ　ａｂｓｔｒａｃｔ　ｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｅｓ　ｔｅｃｈｎｉｃａｌｌｙ　ａ　ｗａｙ　ｏｆ　ｃｏｐｉｎｇ　ｗｉｔｈ　ａｃｔｕａｌ　ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ？　Ｙｏｕ＇ｒｅ　ｇｏｎｎａ　ｎｅｅｄ　ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ　ａ　ｌｏｔ　ｍｏｒｅ　ｐｏｗｅｒｆｕｌ　ｔｈａｎ　ｓｅｍａｎｔｉｃ　ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔｓ　ｉｆ　ｙｏｕ　ｈｏｐｅ　ｔｏ　ｄｅｆｅａｔ　ｍｅ　ｉｎ　ｉｎｔｅｌｌｅｃｔｕａｌ　ｃｏｍｂａｔ．　こーギ苛イ縁ざ　ゼ下汚おイクドイ　ヶ遠疫行そ科代ビぅヒ威日い苛唄で

>>7933 >Not reading all that >NOOOOO, WHY DOES THIS CONTAIN WORDS!??!?!?! Dopamine burned receptor zoom zoom spotted in the wild That text doesn't have it though, it's more an attack on the concept of work and how it's misunderstood. A popular anti-work book that talks about organization is Conquest of Bread. Which you should read, if only to train your mind to take in more than 300 words at a time.

>>7935 So I was correct, it is a waste of time?

>>7936 >a waste of time Like debating something you're too lazy to read in a forum thread? Nah that's a productive use of your attention span. Kids these days, my lawn, etc...

>>7937 Not being able to fuarrrking read an short essay is nothing to be proud of. And this genuinely annoys me. You have such midwits as you who can't fuarrrking take 15 minutes off their time to read a short text posting the most basic and dumb opinons possible. It's no wonder conversation on the internet are so shallow if this is the average users.

>>7938 We’re debating being a NEET, you’re the one who has tried to inject a political discussion into the thread with anarchist essays and expecting everyone to both care and already be educated on anarchist theory

>>7937 You are arguing with two different people now. We know you're not going to read Kropotkin either but I'll agree, he is more worth your time.

>>7940 If anyone expected you to already know things they wouldn't be sharing texts for you.to read. Based on your posts so far, no one expects you to be "already educated" on much else either.

>>7939 I’m not adverse to reading dipshit, but where is this entitlement coming from that you can demand even 15 minutes of my time to read about something I didn’t even bring up, while you’re arguing against work on the basis of subordination of all things, jfc the irony

>>7943 >you’re arguing against work on the basis of ....actually I didn't. I just posted a link. >demand even 15 minutes of my time ...which is clearly so valuable you've just wasted twice that in a stupid internets fight already. lolz

>>7944 This was more fun at least

>>7933 >>7935 Wrong insult. He's not too stupid to read it. He's smart enough on level to know that he was really just deflecting because forcing some people to work or else they die is morally indefensible. When you can't argue in defense of work, the wageslave becomes better at deflecting than a superdeflector. You caught him and now he is cornered, like a rat in a trap. You can practically see in squirming in your follow-up attacks on him. Delicious.

>>7947 He would rather stand on the principle of not being subjugated to some (in this case intellectual) labour that he is personally opposed to doing. In a way then, he is no different than us.

>>7947 Despite all this talk about anti-work, you’re all putting a surprising amount of effort in talking about literally anything other than the contents of essay you’ve also admitted is a waste of time and ackshually reading some book about bread is better

>>7952 >like a complete tryhard. This is the most glorious thing I have read all week, ending that bitter rant with this. Lain please keep it, this is great stuff.... if you have time before your rectal reconstructive surgery that is. Seriously, don't stop now.

>>7956 The way I read it, no one was bragging about their own intelligence, just berating you for your lack of any. Seriously, stop feeding the trolls now.

>>7968 >just berating you for your lack of any. Which presupposes their own intelligence predicated on a middle-school level of reading ability required to read an essay. Seriously, stop dickriding the tryhards now.

>>7969 How can you possibly still be this buttravaged? You got annihilated by at least three people and have been watching the thread for 12 hours waiting for replies so you can deflect more. Give it a rest.

>>7970 It's pure coincidence that you decided to bump the tread with a pointless remark at the same time I happen to be browsing. >annihilated This thread has really checked every box on the psuedo-intellectualism checkbox, the emotive language declaring victory without at all engaging with the post you're replying to is just the bottom of the barrel as far as intellectualism goes. Couldn't expect more from anarchists really.

>>7971 I'm not an anarchist. OP is not either, he thought lolbertarians and MGTOW incels were good allies to his cause. Man, I'll paypal you the money for some Preparation H, you clearly need some.

Since UBI came up... This remembers me of this theory from a Stanford professor and economist (https://atom.singularity2050.com/1-prologue.html). The main thesis is that the increasing efficiency of technology generates deflation, but governments can (and do) print money to offset it. So, with the passage of time it will be possible to print more and more money without causing runaway inflation, and use it as UBI.

>>7980 Yep. It's no secret that everyone with an advami economics degree think UBI is the way to go moving forward. It's so simple: instead of printing trillions of dollars and giving it to megacorps, print out trillions of dollars and disperse it among us commoners.

>>7983 Thanks anon, that's really all I wanted to know before spending more time reading it to the end. Seeing an essay posted with no details about what the essay contains or why it's worth reading left me a bit skeptical after a few paragraphs that just reiterated over and over that work kind of sux, ditto people seemingly being offended, angry and insulting my intelligence because I asked if it's going anywhere, as if it's just normal that you would read something in its entirety practically for no reason other than just because it got posted.

>>7984 We expect a full review by tomorrow in that case.

>>7985 You do? That's a shame.

who fuarrrking wrote this? why in the world would libertarian ever want to support neet culture? read anti-work marxism, you fuarrrking mid-wit. i thought i found something actually good. disappointed it's retarded.

>>7987 All libertarians I've talked to about a basic income think it's a good idea.

>>7987 I thought "luxury space communism" sounded fun. It's a silly name but the people behind it are at least half serious about it. Trouble is it requires Star Trek level magitech but the idea is that once technology eradicates hunger and most diseases, there will be so much wealth going around that no one will need to work unless they are passionate about a particular field. I think the NEET movement should be more like the Anti-work Party in Bruce Sterling's Islands in the Net. They practice martial arts in the park in Singapore, produce and distribute propaganda and live entirely off of protein paste. I'm joking, alright? That's obviously a crap life

>>7990 They used to purge people who wanted idealism, utopia because that's communism.

>>7988 My experience has been the same. Libertarians want to eliminate welfare and replace it with UBI. They are also cool with you not working provided you also dont tax them

>>7987 You must not have read much theory. Marx was viciously pro-work. Antiwork communism is an oxymoron. Why do you think the symbols of communism are the sickle and the hammer? Why do you think communists have forced labor camps? Even right now in capitalist society NEETpride is socially acceptable so long as you’re rich. Not so under communism. Even those with enough social clout to not work still had to pretend they did. Communism glorifies work and the worker. https://neetpride.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/neetpride-is-a-capitalist-movement/

>>8000 >Marx was viciously pro-work Not really, no. While never exactly saying "there will be 0 work", it's pretty obvious a man who writes about the future "society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." doesn't support what we think of as work. Unless work to you means just an activity. Which is a very weird definition of work because then anything can be considered work. >Why do you think the symbols of communism are the sickle and the hammer? That's more a thing of SU. Before that it was just a red flag everywhere. The fact that the sickle is even there, seeing it represents agricultural workers, should make it obvious. Less and less people were working in agriculture in places around the world with industry. So it makes no sense for a political movement of the industrial age to have a sickle in it. As for the aritcle you linked >NEETdom is only *possible* in a capitalist society. It requires capitalists to automate industry so NEETs can live comfortably without needing to work. That's just dumb conclusion. If we live in a society where no one works, it's no longer capitalism. World without work is something like star trek, which the writers were always smart enough to give a future shock when explaining it's economy. One of the famous quotes from that show is "The economics of the future is somewhat different….You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." and that was written to emphasize the world has completely changed. The thing too is, capitalist would be against something like the article states with >Those NEETs need to be buying stuff in order for capitalists to be incentivized to continue automation. Otherwise it all falls apart. That’s where UBI comes in. because there's nothing to win there. It's just not capitalism. You give people money for free so that they can buy products you produced for essentially free (remember, no wages to pay since no work) so you get your money back that you gave them? Unless you mean a less efficient version of that. Which assumes some people do work. So you have a group of people who works and you get profits from that work and you hand them to the neets so they buy more stuff. Issue is, that's unstable. You can't have essentially a big worker group that you don't give enough money for them to reproduce themselves and expect them not to fight back.

>>8001 >You give people money for free so that they can buy products you produced for essentially free (remember, no wages to pay since no work) so you get your money back that you gave them? Why do you people think UBI means everyone gets infinite money? Do you not understand what basic income entails? Receiving a basic income means that if you wanted to not starve to death, you don't have to suck someone's dick for money. However, if you want a PS5 you would still have to suck someone's dick. Seems fair to me and all other reasonable people.

>>8002 >Why do you people think UBI means everyone gets infinite money? I didn't say that. I meant that being a capitalist in a world without work just doesn't make sense. But alright, if we talk about just giving everyone some fixed amount of money that they don't need to work. I have few issues with it. For the system to be stable and not being revoked by the powerful when people don't want to do dirty jobs, which will happen, you need to make sure that the economy ownership is redistributed which is inherently anti-capitalist. It's basically as lefty talk as you can get. Second thing that I'm skeptical of is that by paying everyone some amount you actually make sure that automation doesn't happen. The reason is that because a part of what people need is already paid for, the wages to pay would be lower too because company wants to save on costs. So essentially human labor would be cheaper which means there would be no need for automation. Automation happens when the costs are so high there's no place to cut them besides investing or inventing better machinery. If you have something like we have now since the 80s, you simply move production to a third world nation where you can pay them pennies. So UBI is against automation in my eyes.

>>7990 minus the protein paste that sounds alright

>>8004 It reminds me quite a lot of the people who glorify a certain manufactured food, the name of which I assume is on the derezzed words list on this site because the constant talk about it dropped off instantly a couple of years ago. Think Charlton Heston and "made of people".

>>8003 You seem to live in some bubble where a system can only be capitalist if its a near completely deregulated rolling clusterfuck like the American economy is where working conditions are so abhorrent in entry level low education jobs that people would rather lie at home staring at the ceiling or stare at a monitor instead of doing them if not doing them didn't mean starving to death. The two primary causes of stress and discontent with crap jobs as you call them is the high workload coupled with low pay and lack of respect, if people in these jobs were treated better, and compensated better for their necessary labour the jobs wouldn't be regarded as crap, plenty of people quite happily worked as cleaners and coffee waiters and fry cooks in periods of history when they were paid much more in real terms than they are now and were treated with basic civility, people checking out of such jobs as soon as they have alternative income streams is a symptom of the way people in those roles are currently treated, not because such jobs are inherently unsatisfying to literally everyone. Companies that do treat their employees well and pay them properly shockingly have far fewer issues with staff retention and burn out and their profit margins are still plenty healthy (notice how places that paid well during this resignation epidemic everyone is screaming about have no problem finding and retaining staff?) but there is little incentive in an environment defined by desperation for the big players to sacrifice 2-5% of their margin to stop treating the people that work for them like insects. These conditions are entirely addressable by the companies themselves but they won't do so, UBI would be one interesting way of pressuring them without introducing hard legislation, in fact it would even cushion the transition for these companies by removing a large part of the stress on their poorest employees allowing them to get away with smaller wage increases. For middle classes UBI would essentially just ease off the pressure of cost of living increases and give them back some disposable income, which is important for them to have in a consumer capitalist society last time I checked

>>8005 soykaf? soykaf?

>>7581 >>7923 >>7922 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Be_Lazy https://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/ >According to Lafargue, wage labour is tantamount to slavery, and to fight as a labour movement for the extension of slavery is preposterous.[1] In the book Lafargue proposes the right to be lazy, in contrast to the right to work, which he deems bourgeois. Me thinks the commies won this one to be honest. this thread is fuarrrking cool

I really liked reading this moar soon pls

>>7581 literally pro-globalist magazine. haha!

>>7581 I totally get NEETs. If I could do nothing and live/eat/drink/smoke I would, but I can't. People who talk soykaf about NEETs are just jealous. But still I wonder: >would you really go after a soykaf job on McDonalds at 50 yo when the person with money dies? I'd fuarrrking shoot myself