Hacker News Reader

If you look at, for example, post-industrial regions of the Nordic countries where a good amount of people have been terminally on state benefits, they didn't start using all that free time for political involvement.

View on HN

Good point, and I see where you are coming from. The difference compared to UBI would be that UBI is unconditional while “terminal state benefits” can require means testing. Where they might intersect or not is that they are poor. Having time is one precondition for political engagement but having money also helps.

Overall I’m not a fan of UBI. Especially if it would create people who you indirectly describe in the way you do. I don’t want a society of the haves and the merely can-survivs.

But this feels disconnected. The “terminal state benefits” group have been viewed that way long before algorithmic feeds and before the socializing less part got really obvious. So which is it? Both, all of the above?

reply

I wouldn't agree that having money is necessarily for grassroots political involvement. Perhaps the opposite: since the mid 20th century, skint students have been among the most active political forces in many countries. True, deep-pocketed figures often then step in and try to use their money to coopt those young people's political energy, but this is often a negative thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com