Maybe we should pay our teachers so they don’t have to do more work when they’re done with work so they can do stuff like not starve to death or have a roof over their head?
Edit: this is a joke. Im devastated that i need to say this. How is it no obvious? Please do not send me links to her porn.
Is there a reason to downvote me other than thinking im being serious? This is a serious subject, she should not be fired for having a hobby. I 100% believe that.
I was just making a joke.
I know how to google, if i wanted to i could probably find YOUR nudes (even if they dont exist)
Its a reference to a tv show. Im personifying the joke performed by the character Mac.
That’s something she does on the side, and if anyone in the workplace gave her shit, I would tell them to leave it the fuck alone unless they wanted me to bring HR in to the convo.
Can people please not be cunts? (I’m an Aussie…)
Edit: People need to disconnect things. Say there’s leaked nudes (or even just public nudes) of a work colleague. Let’s take it to they used to do porn. Yep, that’s something they did. That has zero impact on their role now or who they are in their role. They don’t deserve shame, or ridicule.
HR where I work is excessively paranoid about terminations. They will want a paper trail of performance failures or argue to death that “then they’ll be able to argue they were really fired for a protected reason. Get me a paper trail of performance failures”.
Not saying our HR is worker-friendly. They’re just VERY lawsuit-averse.
Flip-side, I worked at a company that fired anyone for any reason and just kept cash aside for wrongful termination suits. And they had a HUGE HR team, whose job it was to keep the employers happy.
If the actions of an employee will reflect on a company, why shouldnt they have the right to decide to work with someone that doesnt do those things on the side?
If an america employee went on the news yelling racist things (on the side), shouldnt they company have the right not to work with them?
Yes - and the company should then pay the employee for the termination unrelated in any way to their performance on the job. Keep in mind, the better solution would be to have racism be actually illegal in 'murica, so the employer fires that employee after they explicitly break the law.
'murican being 'murican, as expected. “I don’t wanna go to prison for being a racist cunt, I want black people to keep going to prison for literally no reason instead! wah wah wah!”
Oh gotcha you are just strawman guy… Sure dude, people are just going to prison becuase of their race, you are a genius! I guess you just want them to go to prison for say naughty things or drawing pictures of prophets.
Why is it always corporations that should get the slack. Aren’t you and me more important, our rights? You’re not a megacorp, why do you take their side? They’re not on yours!
Those expressions were her reaction to taste testing some kombucha on a video or stream. Those screenshots were grabbed by the internet and used in a similar format to the Drake meme, “Nah that’s bad” "actually I like that
The bank didn’t fire her specifically because she posted the video where she made a couple faces after trying kombucha. They fired her because her face started to get used for the meme. Completely out of her control, because people started posting “thing I don’t like, thing I like” memes with this format, often times with various political messages. Basically someone else used her face in a “this brings joy, this does not bring joy” meme and she got canned because of the bank’s “image.” As if it was actually her saying these things.
At Will employment. “In a meme” is not a protected class, and a reasonable bank employee could see her meme-attachment having a detrimental effect on business (you don’t have to be in your reasons for firing someone as long as those reasons aren’t protected or being used to hide that you’re firing them for a protected reason). I’d guess she’d have no case in almost any state in the US with their lack of employee protections.
You’re not wrong, but I’ve also worked at companies that successfully contested unemployment claims. It can depend by state, but “it was entirely this person’s fault” is a bad start. Employers win about 30% of contested claims, and then about 15-20% of appeals (#1 cause for an employer losing a contested claim or an appeal appears to be withdrawing or not showing up for it). (Some numbers)
And the main reason employers lose when they show up is lack of preparation. In a case like the above, if they can show a policy (preferably one signed by her) that directly forbids her onlyfans account, they probably have a pretty good case to shut her down.
That said, they’re very unlikely to waste their time and money to fight it. Ultimately (as my current employer’s HR put it) “it’s just a cost of doing business” and a waste of money to pursue.
Here in Sweden this wouldn’t be a problem whatsoever, and she’d have worker rights. Well, the conservatives driven by American cock sucking ideals are dismantling all that, but so far, she’d be ok.
It feels like she knew she would get fired from this new job, leverage it nationwide articles and get even more subscribers to her OF page. She even references the teaching gig in her bio, and the new job in her latest posts.
Her job doesn’t get to decide what she does in her off time. Of course on the streets of the real world they definitely try and succeed. I’m saying that they should not.
God i just want the world to change for the better. This is dumb
Maybe. It doesn’t matter. Jobs shouldn’t be able to fire you because you get naked on the Internet, which requires you to pay to even see in the first place.
Edit:
@meep_launcher made a great point about teacher/student dynamics and I can agree with that in most circumstances (e.g. the students are underage). I still think it’s ridiculous for her second, non-teaching job to fire her.
Eh I disagree with some jobs. Teachers are supposed to be role models to students and keep certain things private.
The problem is we aren’t paying teachers adequately for that. It reminds me of essential workers during the pandemic. If we need these people so badly, or we’re asking them to be role models and be private about certain things, then we should be paying them much, much more.
Even if teachers are supposed to be role models for students which I think is debatable it certainly is not applied outside the classroom. They will never be paid enough in any world to warrant them crafting their entire being as if they are some K-pop idols.
I’d take it a step further and say that nude modeling doesn’t make a bad role model. People don’t generally get into a line of work unless they want to or are pressured into it (directly or indirectly). Someone who doesn’t want anyone to see their body won’t start a nude OF just because their favorite teacher did it. They’ll start one because they want to sell nudes or because they want to pay bills and have exhausted other options.
That last bit is more evil than any kind of voluntary sex work. People sell their bodies for worse things than sex work. Like mining, the farming work that depends on illegal immigrants (or legal ones whose bosses assume they won’t raise a stink if labour laws aren’t followed), or a bunch of factory or construction work that exposes people to fumes and dust they probably shouldn’t be inhaling. Shit that leaves them broken, or with cancer or some other disease that shortens their life. If someone can sell pictures of their bodies to avoid that kind of work, IMO that’s a good role model.
I want you to know that I don’t have an answer for this and that you’ve made me think about this from a different angle, which I very much appreciate. It’s a very good point.
Thank you for saying so! I have to admit that my comment is almost adressed to myself as much as to you. I was raised with all the sexual hang ups of conservative Christianity. The idea of my daughter growing up and choosing to do sex work certainly makes me uncomfortable. But I also would like my daughter to be unashamed of her sexuality when she grows up, and I wouldn’t want her to be judged no matter how she chooses to express herself. I also believe sex work can be an incredibly compassionate form of labor, providing human connection to people starved of affection.
On the other hand, I do have some reservations about sex work, particularly when it comes to outright prostitution. Can someone have sex with so many people and still maintain the ability to have a full, healthy relationship with a partner? What are the consequences for social stability of making it so easy for men to cheat on their partners?
I think I’m in the exact same position as you. Generally speaking I tend to be personally conservative about sex and relationships – not really into hook up culture, thinking sex should be with someone you deeply love, etc.
That said, as a single, nearly 30 year old dude, I do watch porn, and it’s usually by independent content creators, not studios. I find the idea of maligning those women for what they do to be utterly reprehensible, and peak hypocrisy. If I were in their shoes, there’s a decent chance I’d also post nudes and try to monetize it.
Yet, at the same time, I don’t like subscribing to only fans, because it just feels wrong, like on a core level personally. On some level, I’m wary of getting overly invested in someone and having a weird parasocial thing. I’m glad that I’ve given them money in the short term though.
Human sexuality is really weird, and the way society plays into it makes it nigh incomprehensible sometimes how we feel and act about it.
Is it, in your eyes, morally wrong to sell naked photos of yourself?
The porn industry has many, many problems, and OnlyFans has just recently been targeted by an investigative piece by Reuters journalists for doing little about people using their platform to sell non-consensual nude pictures, or even videos of rape, but as long as you yourself are doing it of your own free will, I don’t see the problem, even if you are a teacher.
I’m a teacher and they specifically have guidelines on what you’re behavior online should be. Keeping your socials clean. Making sure my interactions with students are kept professional.
The fact is that kids these days are nosey and great researchers. Having an only fans as an educator has a huge risk of students discovering it, and will ultimately change the relationship between student and teacher from a student/ teacher relationship to a viewer/ pornstar one.
Thanks for adding some sanity and nuance to this conversation. I agree with the general sentiment here that stuff that a person does on the side of their career should not affect their employment for most careers, but when it is a teacher, especially one that works with minors, it’s a bit of a different dynamic.
That being said, we should absolutely pay teachers enough so that they don’t have to get side gigs to survive. It is disgusting how little teachers are paid for the amount of work they do, and their importance to society as a whole.
And depending on their age, they might even have sex. People want one easy solution to all problems, but being a teacher and a regular office worker is not the same, hence the standards are different too.
Here’s a wild idea that seems to never catch on in 'murica - have the parents actually educate their children about how socially unacceptable that’d be.
I think it’s pretty reasonable for an employer to fire someone for posting racist things on the Internet. I think we can all agree on that. Actions outside of work can have an effect on work and so I think it’s reasonable to make employment decisions based on how the employer acts outside of work. I would argue racism is morally wrong and sex work is not, but I don’t think it’s possible to define employment laws in a way that fits a universal moral code.
I love the protected classes we have for employment now: age, gender, color, religion, etc. I think these protections are valuable to employees everyone, and I think they make sense because they don’t affect your ability to do the job. I having “does sex work on the side” on this list makes much less sense.
I think many, maybe even most, jobs wouldn’t be affected by an employee having an onlyfans, and so in my opinion someone shouldn’t get fired for it most of the time. But I think there’s a clear line between the protected classes and people who post on onlyfans.
Simple answer. Most of us (and most of the world) thinks At-Will employment is barbaric.
It is entirely reasonable to require some substantive effect to warrent termination, even if that substantive effect is not directly the teacher’s fault. Her having an onlyfans account, not grounds for firing. Her onlyfans account passed around by students? Grounds for termination.
There’s a (not so new) trend in the US for companies to crack down on side gigs. Yes, sex work is a politically charged side-gig, but we shouldn’t ever be supporting a company’s right to fire people having side-gigs without a very good reason. So long as your side-gig never encroaches into your day job in any real (not hypothetical) way, there really isn’t a good reason.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.
I hear what you’re saying about not firing someone until an actual effect on the business is felt. I think that makes sense in this situation but there’s certainly situations where you could find something out about an employee and should be able to fire them before it’s affecting the business. Maybe my accountant committed tax fraud when they filed their taxes. That’s totally in their personal life and if no one finds out about it, then it doesn’t affect the bussiness. I still think it would be totally reasonable to fire that person.
I’ve worked my whole career in salary positions where side gigs are against my contract/need special approval so I think I’m just used to that way of thinking.
If someone were willing to pay for pics of my ballsack and I made a lot more selling those pics than I make teaching in high school I would still miss my less-paying job
Well what sort of talents does your ball sack have? I bet you’d make some money on Lemmy if you could document your ballsack installing arch on a computer it built.
It will make you money in "addition* to your current job.
Unless they find out and shame you for your filthy immorality, because the economy will not stand for unnatural acts like sex or the human body. Well, apart from advertising its products, at least.
Do they pay extra for non-gays doing gay stuff? I’d do gay non-gay stuff for money. It’s just dicks, oh no, so what if it gets stuck up my ass. I tried that as a kid, it’s not impossible!
If there was karma on this place then I’m about to yeet it into oblivion but nevertheless. Teachers are not paid nearly enough but doing only fans and teaching to not combine at all. I won’t bother explaining why because it’s obvious.
that’s actually what I’m saying as well. The pay for teachers and the conditions they are working in are absolutely horrendous. I can’t imagine working with a bunch of, lets face it, zoo animals who have a near free rule because the school and the parents back them all the time and that 5 days a week for hours. but at the end of the day you can’t expect to post porn online and then be suprised that you’re getting fired. The reality is that teachers are still held to high standards while received little to no pay and students are not. in a perfect world I expect both of them to be held to high standards.
So I’m just curious as to who exactly reported her because presumably they don’t look at that kind of content and when they did find that content they were appalled and they just sort of stumbled onto it?
My sauce is that it is not how a teacher should act period. Also it’s not private she also has some pornhub which is publicly available website. no matter the pay.
C’mon dude, just say the sexist parts out loud. We all know that’s where this conversation is headed anyway.
It’s the only reason you keep sticking to circular logic to defend yourself. You know if you say what you really mean here, it isn’t going to go over well.
When someone works in education, they take on a role that involves being a model of behavior and a guardian of social and ethical standards for their students. Engaging in online (which by design is inevitably public) sexual activities can be seen as inappropriate for teachers for several reasons:
Professional Standards and Ethics: Most educational institutions have codes of conduct that outline expected behaviors both inside and outside the classroom. Engaging in these activities can be viewed as a violation of these professional standards and ethics.
Role Modeling: Teachers are seen as role models by their students and the community. Engaging in behavior that is generally considered to be private and intimate in public can undermine the respect and trust that students and parents have in educators. It can also send conflicting messages to students about privacy, consent, and appropriate social behavior.
Social Norms: Engaging in these online practices can offend community standards. Educators, as public figures to some extent, are expected to uphold social norms to maintain the integrity of their profession.
Impact on the Educational Environment: Such behavior can distract from the educational mission, potentially creating an environment that is not conducive to learning. It might lead to gossip, disruptions, and a breakdown in the professional atmosphere of an institution.
Privacy and Professional Boundaries: Teachers engaging in this blur the lines between their private lives and their professional roles. Maintaining a clear boundary between these spheres is essential for maintaining professional integrity and ensuring that the focus remains on education and student welfare.
In essence, teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that maintains the dignity of their profession, respects the norms of society and fosters a positive, respectful, and effective learning environment. Online sexual activities, due to their private nature and potential to conflict with social norms, can significantly undermine these goals.
Finally, I want to add that it is specifically because of all this that teachers must be paid way more due to the CRITICAL role they play in society.
1/2: You’re basically saying the same thing twice here. You’re saying that making adult content is bad, which has so far been your only argument. You have yet to explain why it is bad/immoral/unethical/unprofessional, just confidently asserting that your opinon on the matter is actually fact. You are also taking huge liberties by trying define the private production and distribution of pornography as a form of public sex.
3: Very close again to 1 & 2, but worth bringing up that America is a free country with free speech and expression. Being offended isn’t a valid argument here. People have rights and shouldn’t be obligated to conform with a concept a vacuous as “social norms” to hold public employment.
4: This is just conjecture. Firing a teacher for this requires solid evidence that is true. Not just concern trolling that it might be true, which is all you’ve offered so far.
5: That’s why she has always produced adult content pseudonymously. The people who doxxed her violated her privacy. That’s hardly her fault.
And finally, literally every single point you made could be (and regularly is) used to argue that LBGTQ+ people don’t belong in education, because hatred of sex workers and hatred of queer people are both rooted in a deep fear and opposition to sexual freedom and empowerment, and a belief that those things make a person’s mere existence inappropriate for children.
They claim that I violated their social media policy, but will not respond to me with how I violated it.
This second part is what is going to get her a nice piece of damages. What was the policy? Was it spelled out when she started? Is Only Fans actually social media?
The answers are: There’s a vague one that certainly doesn’t cover the use of OF; she wasn’t given it; and no, she’s an actress.
Only if she can prove the firing was related to being a member of a protected class. Unless it was not at will employment but I’m not aware of any private sector jobs like that anymore.
Edit: people keep telling me I’m wrong so that may be true.
As said below, they gave a reason. It has to be consistent with the actual policy and that policy has to be applied fairly and universally. If someone is making it up as they go, then they did it wrong.
Lots of teachers are part of a union. There’s no mention of it in the article that I see, but union workers tend to be a little bit more protected than at will workers.
No, they gave a reason and that reason isn’t covered under their policy, so she should still be covered.
If they let her go without a reason, then she would have to prove discrimination. But if they say “You violated our social media policy” and refuse to show how, and she can prove that nothing she did was on violation of the policy as written, then that is a clear case of unlawful termination.
Does the employment policy specifically make this distinction? Probably not. I can guarantee that they never thought of OF when the policy was written and OF may not have even existed back then.
I might be a stray data point, but I had a smoking hot partial differential equations professor who dressed for the weather during the summer semester. Didn’t learn a damn thing.
The attractive teachers must have really been frustrated by me. I only cared if you were a cool teacher. Most of the time, the attractive teachers were not the cool teachers.
There’s so much to unpack there, but let’s go out on a limb and bet you appreciate the skilled application of a little force to inspire accuracy and attention to detail.
For sure it’s different when kids would just find out and start downloading her naked photos. Then parents would find out and be insanely mad that kids are viewing their teacher’s naked photos. It’s different case than secretly fantasizing about your pretty teacher lol
They’re already watching porn and making nudes of their friends using photo editing software and AI tools. At this point I don’t quite understand what does it matter if they’re somehow able to find their teacher’s OnlyFans pictures.
The important piece of this to me is this: She made $1 mil on OnlyFans and $42k/year as a teacher. She wants to be a teacher despite making plenty of money from other sources. This tells me that unless you have other evidence of impropriety she’s someone we want in the classroom. It also reinforces my stance, along with plenty of other studies that have been performed, that a universal basic income won’t stop people from working.
Pay people better and we’ll just keep working because we like it. It’s part of being human, but we shouldn’t be suffering to survive at the same time.
I was fired at the beginning of the year. I had sufficient funds I coulda retired if I wanted to. I’m not quite 40.
It’s been 2 months and I am so fucking bored I got a job. I didn’t go get a part time job to fill my time, I got a job in my field continuing to work at “my level” because it fulfills me.
I’m now able to do what I want because I want to rather than because of some existential need. My work product is WAY better.
Add in that id you don’t blow it all, you get to count the interest income. A long term investment gets about 6-7% per year. That’s actually more than the teaching job pay.
To go the other way, her tax bracket is a lot higher than the base salary alone would be. And if it’s $1m in a year, almost all of that will be in the highest bracket.
If shes single, her combined effective federal and Missouri income tax is around 40%, so she took home roughly 600k. If she’s married, then her total effective tax is 25%, so she took home 750k.
For the 600k investment at a conservative 4%, which right now you can get in some savings accounts, her interest alone would be 24k/yr. For the 750k, it would be 30k/yr.
With a more realistic return of 7-8% in today’s high interest rate markets, both of those sums would net more than her old salary of 42k/yr.
While I’d trust this person to do a good job better than the teachers hired by Catholic schools, being an Only Fans performer doesn’t really qualify you for that.
My school had a sex ed class although I can’t honestly remember anything that we were told in it. But basically if students managed to get to the end of formal education without getting pregnant that was generally considered to be a success.
They seriously had no real interest in educating students at all.
yeah - we had a sex ed class in highschool too - it didnt take. small town but close to 35% of my graduating class dropped out due to teenage pregnancy (or died because of drunk driving).
Depends if the school’s in Texas or not. But more broadly In my experience the problem is that they go on and on about no sex outside of marriage which is an unrealistic expectation, and don’t actually ever explain things like preventatives.
You can’t pay for groceries with your net worth but given million bucks I’d retire immediately. That amount of money invested to the stock market pays around 50 - 70k interests every year and you get to keep the million.
Someone else calculated that $1 million is about 30 years of the teaching salary. So you cannot retire on a career either.
If I were forced to choose I’d take the $1 million up front over a low-paying career and let it grow in the market while I found other work to avoid using it. $1 million up front over $1.3 million across 40-some years is a very good investment. Consider the decreased value of future money.
yea but you can teach all life long, whereas on Onlyfans you… uh,… nevermind
y’all misunderstood my post, I think. I was trying to joke about the fact that even if you’re getting on in years, there will always be an audience for your OnlyFans. Anywayyyy
I have no idea why you’re being down voted. You’re absolutely right. You can’t live on back interest from $1M, so you have to invest it, and while some years you’ll make more than 10% average invested in the stock market, over 10 years you’ll average 8% because some years you’ll not only make no returns but you’ll lose some of your investment. Which means if you’re living off those returns, some years you’ll have to eat into those investments, slowly eating down the money you have making money for you. You’re paying taxes on those returns, and if you’re living off them, they’re considered short term investments and you pay a higher tax rate - because you pay taxes on returns on your investments.
Rich people get richer because they have other income and can leave the money and the returns untouched; they aren’t living on the returns until they have far more money invested than $1M.
I think they just mostly don’t understand economics, taxes, or have spent any time thinking about these things. Which isn’t surprising, because why waste time thinking about it when it’s increasingly unlikely to happen to you? Not understanding it is one thing, but thinking and then voting with your hormones is another.
Yep, people acting like it’s plausible for someone to retire and live the rest of their life renting a room, at the same income as they got fresh out of college.
Plus they’re citing studys aimed at 35-40 years life expectancy, for someone retiring in their 20s, maybe early 30s.
And in one breath will decry the inflation calculations being cited by the government to show we have a “healthy” economy. And in the next, try to pretend cost of living isn’t sky rocketing and someone can live the rest of their long life on 40k/yr.
That’s lemmy for you, though. No point fighting the tide.
Edit - also, I’m sure those studies probably included some amount of social security helping out, which you’re not getting if you retire in your 20s.
You’re paying taxes on those returns, and if you’re living off them, they’re considered short term investments and you pay a higher tax rate
(US tax info) Investments are taxed as long term (the lower tax rate) if you hold them for at least a year. Meaning, after the very first year, there is no reason to every pay the higher short term capital gain rates. A solid strategy is to invest in index funds and hold them for decades. If you aren’t retired, put the dividends back into more index funds. The long term trends earn you (conservatively) 8% per year average.
The capital gains which you are, supposedly, drawing off of to live on (this was the original premise) is short term capital gains. The amounts you draw in your loss years are, yes, long term, and taxed at a lower rate, but that’s the hole in the boat causing your revenue stream to sink - the bigger problem is that what you draw from ROI is taxed at the higher rate.
You don’t get taxed on losses, or on loss years, whatever that means tax-wise. You get taxed on gains, period, which is the increase over your basis. Less than a year held is short-term, more than a year is long.
Average investment returns are (conservatively) 8% per year, with a safe draw down being 4% per year. Which means she can safely withdraw $40,000/yr indefinitely without her investment decreasing in value over the long run.
Easily enough to retire in a decent cost of living area if she wishes, or work a small side job to boost her income to support a higher cost of living.
The safe withdraw for an extended early retirement is 3.5%
With 4%, while the chance is small, you could end up running out of money.
Someone did all the numbers for 35-40+ years looking back historically, and there were 4 or 5 years where if you started then and didn’t adjust your plan, you’d run out of cash.
Especially considering she was making $42k annually as a teacher (according to another comment, I didn’t actually read the article). So she was able to live on roughly that amount already.
Realistically, she could continue to create OnlyFans content for some time and make and invest more than the initial $1m.
Yeah, except she can go makeinimum wage working full time for benefits and call it a day. You can live on minimum wage if you also have a mil in the bank to start. One door closed but a bunch of others opened. She can do that job you want that you don’t do because it doesn’t pay much.
You also have a weird notion about benefits, and employers willingness to give full time hours so you even qualify. But that’s not even the slightest bit related to this discussion.
Most folks with the degree and certification required to teach can find another full-time job that offers benefits, e.g. health insurance (which even a million dollars will get burned up quickly if a serious medical issue arises and you have no insurance).
But I think the point you’re missing is that she can continue making shit loads of money on OF for as long as she can while also working another job, as OF isn’t exactly something you need to 8 hours a day to do (though, some models probably do when you factor in advertising and getting your name/rep established).
Ditto. Ive met countless older people now who kept up doing the work they were passionate about, even if it in time became a hobby that they did at a loss. People like to work. They like to see the fruits of their labor take shape before their eyes, and they like feeling like theyre doing something that benefits someone other than themselves.
As it stands, the rules we live by only reward the infinite pursuit of profit, but that doesnt align with the values people find themselves holding whether they like it or not.
People probably will choose to work on different things though. It’s harder to exploit a workforce that isn’t as desperate. That’s the real reason why UBI isn’t happening.
a universal basic income won’t stop people from working
A bit offtopic, but I came to the same conclusion during a somewhat philosophical discussion with a friend who expressed skepticism with the increased automation aspect of the world, and we extrapolated this into a hypothetical world where almost everything was automated.
His concern was that one day humanity could find themselves dependent on an automated system over which they had no control.
My response, being a bit of a techno-optimist, was that:
We kind of already do
Someone has to keep this system running
Even if I was paid an UBI, I would still like to be part of #2.
I’m the kind of guy who makes the little gears spin so that the cog can turn, and I derive entertainment from reviving broken complex systems, and I wouldn’t want it any other way
We ARE dependent on systems over which we have no control, since a LONG time, the hell are you on about? One cog in this machinery busts, and you die, and you won’t be able to do a thing about it.
Edit: jesus I was drunk when I wrote this shit, sorry
I completely agree. I tinker and change my PC to parts because it’s fun. Did it make a difference to performance? Kinda. Was the effort put forth because of performance alone? No. People like making Legos and just put them on a shelf. There are consumer products where the customer is paying to do the work themselves for little gain above the fun of the journey. Why wouldn’t it expand to many other areas? And if there’s not enough people willing to do something, make it worth their while to fix it, but that’s already a problem and UBI isn’t the big smoking gun people claim it to be.
Add comment