In the current system, if you want to do X, you have to prove to the people who are willing to pay you a living wage/market rate to do X that you are worth hiring to do it.
Under a (hypothetical) post-scarcity system, if you want to do X, you find a group that's working on X and say you want to spend some of your time working on it, and you do it, possibly getting trained first if you don't yet have all the skills needed. Depending on the particular work and/or the particular system that's been implemented, either your financial needs are entirely taken care of by the UBI, or you get the UBI and then you may get paid some extra to do X—but the amount you would be paid to do it would be determined by completely different factors than under today's system.
This more-or-less eliminates the gap between what people want to do with their time and what society will let them do with it...though it will still require a cultural shift away from the idea of the Rugged Individualist Man Providing For His Otherwise Helpless Woman And Children With Nothing But The Sweat Of His Brow.
What if men providing resources to their families is a drive that runs deeper than some kind of vestigial macho chauvinism? We already have mass depression, isolation, falling educational outcomes, suicide, and even radicalization of men who are unable to find purpose to attach themselves to in the modern economy.
Are we to gloss over the function and instincts of half the population as an attitude problem? Social engineering is way too easy inside a theoretical bubble, where expecting billions of people to fundamentally reconstruct their entire identities can be handwaved in two words. Progressivism is supposed to meet people’s social needs, not dictate them.
If it is true—and I do not for a second believe it is—that the latter is an actual biological drive in men specifically, then that's something we need to work on developing strategies to mitigate and work through in a healthy way, because it's not helpful in our modern society. Y'know, much like our panic response is not helpful in our modern society, and when someone has an overdeveloped one, we treat it as a mental illness to be treated, not a "function and instinct" that needs to be catered to.
Personally, I find the idea that men have a biological imperative to be the sole reason their families survive to be nothing more than a ludicrous extension of modern toxic masculinity, on par with "of course men will rape women, once they get aroused they can't help themselves, they have a biological imperative to propagate their genes."
Back to the claim, sexual dimorphism and sexual division of labor are such a fundamental and ubiquitous element of human physiology and society that it is a mistake to assume there is no adaptation to speak of, or that the role of the male provider is suddenly maladaptive.
It may be that we can restructure society by common agreement in a different way that continues to harness the productivity of testosterone. That is not what you are espousing. Your ideas are a form of social high modernism which assumes the sexes are interchangeable as a premise, then categorizes any deviation as toxic and unhealthy (or even on par with rape apology, which is just... you've got to be kidding).
I don't see any basis to believe this other than that it simplifies the theory and makes utopia seem within reach. But we do have evidence to believe that sexual division of labor is effective (in a word, "civilization") and we are also seeing festering male issues in the decades since we've been experimenting with the alternative premise.
Highly educated people like lawyers also suffer from self-doubt and stress, e.g. thinking "there must be something wrong with me since nobody wants to hire me".
The "lawyers union" in Denmark asked 127 unemployed lawyers who recently graduated. 65% percent responded that unemployement "to a large degree" negatively affect their everyday lives. Only 3% responded that they are not affected at all. (in Danish) https://www.djoefbladet.dk/artikler/2013/8/ledighed-kan-kn-a...
So even people who are highly educated and for whom it should be easy to do a lot of fulfilling activity, still wants a job. They talk about the emotional burden, they don't talk about wanting more money.
EDIT: Also, at least here the unemployment benefits are predicated on actively seeking a job. If you actually go and admit you don't want a job, that can backfire in a situation that sucks to start with.
I was unemployed for nearly 2 years and it was a fucking nightmare. Because I had no idea what would happen to my life next week or next month. It's an unsustainable and extremely hostile situation. Can't make any long term plans, can't start any project that requires investment. The only way out of that situation is to get a job, which is everything you need to focus on, in place of all those interesting and fulfilling free-time activities one could think of doing during a period of true freedom and financial independence.
A steady, guaranteed, stable source of income would've changed it completely. You wouldn't need to deal with the stress of trying to find a way out of a terrible situation.
I don't think most pensioners, for instance, think that they've got into a fucking nightmare of a situation. Sure, some get depressed because suddenly their days aren't filled with the activity and people they're used to. But I think most pensioners are quite content as long as they are healthy, have enough money for comfort, have friends, and are free to find activities for themselves. And yes, some even get something that resembles a job. Maybe volunteer somewhere. It's still a rather different situation compared to being employed, and usually volunteers have only as much responsibility as they volunteer for, and they can pretty much quit or reduce their load any time. Around here, becoming a pensioner is something that is mostly celebrated. You can rest in ease knowing that you've earned your future and no longer need to compete in the rat race.
I can say that I enjoyed the heck out of long summer vacations and time between studies when I had zero pressure to worry about getting a job. I would FIRE if I could. There are so many things I want to do with my life, and 9-5 only gets in the way.
If you’re on a sickness benefit you’re supposed to be too sick to work. If you’re on an unemployment benefit you’re supposed to be finding a job. If you spend most of your time doing volunteer work you’ll probably lose your benefit.
Because public assistance in the US sucks. It's designed to. It is political tool more than social policy. There's a word of difference between these two things:
1. We as a society value families and children, so stay home and take care of yours, and we'll make sure you have enough resources to meet your needs. 2. Better get a job soon, parasite, your benefits expire next month.
In which of those situations do you feel safe, or free to create? Or to nurture, itself the greatest act of creativity? Is it not enough labor for society to raise a family? Must every mother also constantly be generating profits for someone else?
This is not my direct experience -- I consider myself fortunate -- but I've seen plenty of it. Getting public assistance is humiliating, time-consuming, and uncertain.
Humiliating - asking for public assistance immediately labels you as a problem and a failure, even for many of those tasked with providing assistance.
There are limited resources (artificially limited, because of course we can always afford weapons programs and tax breaks for owners of capital and real estate). The public assistance system is non-trivially optimized to weed out people who don't need it, in order to conserve these resources, and this process can be fraught and combative. "Prove to me that you're a failure" is the message and the context.
Time-consuming - it takes forever. People on public assistance are often assumed to have no jobs. They have to go (usually slowly, on mass transit if they're lucky) from one government office to another, making and keeping appointments weeks or months ahead. They have to do this often while they live in car that provides shelter, but not transportation, since they can't afford gas.
Uncertain - a large portion of the US political apparatus has for decades spent vast energy and resources in reducing public assistance, and in demonizing those who use it ("welfare mothers"). As we speak the US administration is pushing through further reductions, designed (they say) to "push people from welfare to work."
No surprise that people in that context don't feel free or safe enough to create.
Hell, yes. There are a vast number of low-education people with what the HN crowd would call "old fashioned attitudes". From https://archive.is/CCTXs#selection-1205.100-1205.363:
"'Being a man means supporting your family,' says Mr Davis. 'You’ve got to do whatever it takes so they eat, [or] you’re no man at all.' Being a man, says Mr Redden, means you 'work hard, provide for your kids, have a car and [maybe] get your own house some day.'"
What would UBI do for them? It isn't going to fulfill their emotional or spiritual needs. (What they really need is a universal jobs program, IMO.)
> "With UBI, I would expect to see many more people building open–source software. I would expect many more going into the arts. I would expect many more doing volunteer work. There are so many fulfilling and valuable things to do that are not easily profitable!"
Funny, then why aren't people on public assistance already doing all these things you imagine? As others have noted, EU nations provide benefits better than any UBI proposal likely to succeed in the US. So where is this magical wave of creativity?
Could it be (shock, horror) that the vast majority of people don't have the creativity to build things or make art and don't feel they would be fulfilled by volunteer work?