Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.
I don't think you mean IT... perhaps bench work is like that.
-
@IRJ said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@IRJ said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
I'd happily live on a BGI so long as it maintained my standard of living at the time the system was created.
It's a basic income. Should maintain you comfortably, but should not maintain you above a minimum level. Maybe in 200 years when we are at Star Trek level, but that's a long way off. For now, it's acceptable housing, food, public transportation, television, etc. It's the basics, it's the minimum.
It is possible with free energy. Literally things that cost $10 would cost pennies. When you consider the fuel costs, costs of gather resources, any machining, etc.
Energy is never free. Nor does it matter. Because what makes GBI work is that it uses less energy than the alternatives.
In theory energy could 100% be free. There are already workable theories out there for it. There are propulsion systems that should work in theory, but they are missing a single element or enough power generation at the current time. So if one of those pieces were to be solved, we could have free energy.
Actually, theory says energy can't be completely free. Cheap, sure. Sustainable, sure. But not free. Unless you mean that in theory the energy to build solar plants could be made up by the solar plant itself and generate income on its own - then yes, but that's not what people normally mean when saying that something is free.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
What are the exact terms of GBI as it would be implemented in the real world? This whole discussion here seems based on no real info that I can find anywhere.
Does someone have a link for an actual fully proposed GBI?
It's a generic concept. But most basics are assumed. Like that it does what it says, lol.
GBI is one thing, Scott's 98% useless theory is what it is based on, but lots of people believe in GBI and not in the 98% theory.
UBI\GBI goes a lot further back then Scott Adams IIRC.
-
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.
I don't think you mean IT... perhaps bench work is like that.
Both. Almost all IT isn't necessary. Most of us support things that have little to no purpose.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
perhaps it would be possible to bring all the poor people up to the level you are accustomed to.
That's not at all realistic, since GBI isn't about bringing people up to others standards of living. But getting people out of the workforce who are redundant.
Doesn't matter, equal is equal. You have no way to "earn" more if you are doing nothing. What you did in the past is irrelevant.
For the first generation it absolutely is relevant. Those first 2 billion of "middle class and upper class" will require a SOL that matches what they have today. Otherwise the system would never get off the ground.
You think they'd opt to starve instead? Since their jobs wouldn't exist and their standard of living would be "starvation."
They wouldn't starve though. They'd just keep working and killing of the GBI idea by showing what "working smart and hard" can produce. Making others envious of them and refusing their NP food and board.
No, workers have no decision making power in the GBI / 98% theory. Their jobs don't exist and they have no means of creating more value since working for no purpose would not be rewarded.
GBI means you are giving a minimum standard to live off of. Not that you aren't allowed to work and make more. Look at the link I posted.
The issue is that these "1 percenters" would simply outshine the value of a GBI program and make people envious and want more than GBI can provide without people going and working more.
-
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.
I don't think you mean IT... perhaps bench work is like that.
IT too. Most positions are actually there to support the welfare jobs.
-
@coliver said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
What are the exact terms of GBI as it would be implemented in the real world? This whole discussion here seems based on no real info that I can find anywhere.
Does someone have a link for an actual fully proposed GBI?
It's a generic concept. But most basics are assumed. Like that it does what it says, lol.
GBI is one thing, Scott's 98% useless theory is what it is based on, but lots of people believe in GBI and not in the 98% theory.
UBI\GBI goes a lot further back then Scott Adams IIRC.
In the Star Trek sense, yes. In "proposed economic theory", I am not aware of it for a long time after Scott Adam's proposed it.
-
@coliver said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.
I don't think you mean IT... perhaps bench work is like that.
IT too. Most positions are actually there to support the welfare jobs.
And most IT jobs are welfare within IT, too. As most careers are. It's "unneeded jobs on top of unneeded jobs". It's a cycle.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@coliver said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
What are the exact terms of GBI as it would be implemented in the real world? This whole discussion here seems based on no real info that I can find anywhere.
Does someone have a link for an actual fully proposed GBI?
It's a generic concept. But most basics are assumed. Like that it does what it says, lol.
GBI is one thing, Scott's 98% useless theory is what it is based on, but lots of people believe in GBI and not in the 98% theory.
UBI\GBI goes a lot further back then Scott Adams IIRC.
In the Star Trek sense, yes. In "proposed economic theory", I am not aware of it for a long time after Scott Adam's proposed it.
Look up Thomas Paine's Utopia. IIRC that's the first document that argues in favor of a basic income. I think Scott Adams refined it but it was a working economic thought experiment long before him.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.
I don't think you mean IT... perhaps bench work is like that.
Both. Almost all IT isn't necessary. Most of us support things that have little to no purpose.
Automation needs set up and managed. Physical server equipment constantly needs added and replaced, so automated scaling can take place at minimum. Business needs and goals continuously need translated into good IT solutions, etc...
-
There's so much to IT that isn't replacing mouse batteries or fixing a broken Win10 machine. So much is non-break-fix or user related.
-
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.
I don't think you mean IT... perhaps bench work is like that.
Both. Almost all IT isn't necessary. Most of us support things that have little to no purpose.
Automation needs set up and managed. Physical server equipment constantly needs added and replaced, so automated scaling can take place at minimum. Business needs and goals continuously need translated into good IT solutions, etc...
You're making the point for us. We agree that some IT personnel is necessary... but the vast majority really isn't.
-
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
There's so much to IT that isn't replacing mouse batteries or fixing a broken Win10 machine.
Right... and a lot of the IT work that isn't bench work could be done by people who WANT to do the job, not those who do the job because they would starve otherwise.
-
Think about this quick example...
@coliver works for a university, a shitty university where essentially no one of value is attending. They could, in theory, close the entire university. Everyone attending it is headed for GBI if we implemented it with the SA98 approach.
No professors needed, no IT needed, no students needed, no janitors, administrators, finance people, marketers, facilities workers, the list goes on and on. All of them have jobs based off of the premise that the students are going to be useful someday to the economy. If we stop pretending that and realize that all of them are a drain, then literally 100% of the support jobs get exposed as wasteful as well. All of them, every last one. So do loads of secondary jobs, like most of the restaurants and service careers in the town. Even most of the city infrastructure. Roads aren't needed, buildings, country jobs. Daycare, Uber, you name it, all impacted.
Then the tertiary jobs, the IT that supports those secondary jobs goes away, and on and on. Just take out one fake central "prop up" and the cards just start falling. IT is hit heavily because we tend to be insanely bloated (often caused by inefficiency forced on us) and also almost exclusively support the worst parts, of the worst companies.
-
@dafyre said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
There's so much to IT that isn't replacing mouse batteries or fixing a broken Win10 machine.
Right... and a lot of the IT work that isn't bench work could be done by people who WANT to do the job, not those who do the job because they would starve otherwise.
Most of that could be automated, too.
-
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
There's so much to IT that isn't replacing mouse batteries or fixing a broken Win10 machine. So much is non-break-fix or user related.
"So much" is a stretch. What aspect of your jobs or mine or @coliver's do you think would exist without 98% of our users? Some, yes, of course. Much? Hardly. And the part that is left is the hardest, most creative, most limited back office type stuff.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
Think about this quick example...
@coliver works for a university, a shitty university where essentially no one of value is attending. They could, in theory, close the entire university. Everyone attending it is headed for GBI if we implemented it with the SA98 approach.
No professors needed, no IT needed, no students needed, no janitors, administrators, finance people, marketers, facilities workers, the list goes on and on. All of them have jobs based off of the premise that the students are going to be useful someday to the economy. If we stop pretending that and realize that all of them are a drain, then literally 100% of the support jobs get exposed as wasteful as well. All of them, every last one. So do loads of secondary jobs, like most of the restaurants and service careers in the town. Even most of the city infrastructure. Roads aren't needed, buildings, country jobs. Daycare, Uber, you name it, all impacted.
Then the tertiary jobs, the IT that supports those secondary jobs goes away, and on and on. Just take out one fake central "prop up" and the cards just start falling. IT is hit heavily because we tend to be insanely bloated (often caused by inefficiency forced on us) and also almost exclusively support the worst parts, of the worst companies.
It will get converted to something else.
Nobody working at the University anymore, but they will end up somewhere else, causing more work in other ways. Perhaps buying more video games and consuming more snacks while they sit at home getting their GBI. That will add more work for those video game publishers, snack warehouses, manufacturers, etc...
-
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
perhaps it would be possible to bring all the poor people up to the level you are accustomed to.
That's not at all realistic, since GBI isn't about bringing people up to others standards of living. But getting people out of the workforce who are redundant.
Doesn't matter, equal is equal. You have no way to "earn" more if you are doing nothing. What you did in the past is irrelevant.
For the first generation it absolutely is relevant. Those first 2 billion of "middle class and upper class" will require a SOL that matches what they have today. Otherwise the system would never get off the ground.
You think they'd opt to starve instead? Since their jobs wouldn't exist and their standard of living would be "starvation."
They wouldn't starve though. They'd just keep working and killing of the GBI idea by showing what "working smart and hard" can produce. Making others envious of them and refusing their NP food and board.
No, workers have no decision making power in the GBI / 98% theory. Their jobs don't exist and they have no means of creating more value since working for no purpose would not be rewarded.
GBI means you are giving a minimum standard to live off of. Not that you aren't allowed to work and make more. Look at the link I posted.
The issue is that these "1 percenters" would simply outshine the value of a GBI program and make people envious and want more than GBI can provide without people going and working more.
That's correct. But the full theory with the SA98 is that once we stop making fake jobs just to make people feel better, there won't be jobs for everyone to just run out and get. Just because people will want to work won't mean that there are jobs for them. They would have to find someone that wants to hire there and in theory, those would be few and far between because employers would be free to point out when someone is a drain, not a benefit.
-
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
Think about this quick example...
@coliver works for a university, a shitty university where essentially no one of value is attending. They could, in theory, close the entire university. Everyone attending it is headed for GBI if we implemented it with the SA98 approach.
No professors needed, no IT needed, no students needed, no janitors, administrators, finance people, marketers, facilities workers, the list goes on and on. All of them have jobs based off of the premise that the students are going to be useful someday to the economy. If we stop pretending that and realize that all of them are a drain, then literally 100% of the support jobs get exposed as wasteful as well. All of them, every last one. So do loads of secondary jobs, like most of the restaurants and service careers in the town. Even most of the city infrastructure. Roads aren't needed, buildings, country jobs. Daycare, Uber, you name it, all impacted.
Then the tertiary jobs, the IT that supports those secondary jobs goes away, and on and on. Just take out one fake central "prop up" and the cards just start falling. IT is hit heavily because we tend to be insanely bloated (often caused by inefficiency forced on us) and also almost exclusively support the worst parts, of the worst companies.
It will get converted to something else.
Nobody working at the University anymore, but they will end up somewhere else, causing more work in other ways. Perhaps buying more video games and consuming more snacks while they sit at home getting their GBI. That will add more work for those video game publishers, snack warehouses, manufacturers, etc...
No, that's the magic of GBI / SA98, they DON'T go somewhere else. Jobs create nearly all consumption. Letting people stay home effectively eliminates them. People at an office need lots of roads, buildings, janitors, professors, cars, drivers, delivery, support, guidance, training, cooks, cleaners, etc. People at home need none of most of that and just tiny bits of the rest. A fraction as much.
We will still need roads, but very few and those taht we have will last far longer. We still need houses, but we don't need offices. Imagine how small a town would be if it wasn't full of buildings empty half the time (empty homes while at work, empty office while at home.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
perhaps it would be possible to bring all the poor people up to the level you are accustomed to.
That's not at all realistic, since GBI isn't about bringing people up to others standards of living. But getting people out of the workforce who are redundant.
Doesn't matter, equal is equal. You have no way to "earn" more if you are doing nothing. What you did in the past is irrelevant.
For the first generation it absolutely is relevant. Those first 2 billion of "middle class and upper class" will require a SOL that matches what they have today. Otherwise the system would never get off the ground.
You think they'd opt to starve instead? Since their jobs wouldn't exist and their standard of living would be "starvation."
They wouldn't starve though. They'd just keep working and killing of the GBI idea by showing what "working smart and hard" can produce. Making others envious of them and refusing their NP food and board.
No, workers have no decision making power in the GBI / 98% theory. Their jobs don't exist and they have no means of creating more value since working for no purpose would not be rewarded.
GBI means you are giving a minimum standard to live off of. Not that you aren't allowed to work and make more. Look at the link I posted.
The issue is that these "1 percenters" would simply outshine the value of a GBI program and make people envious and want more than GBI can provide without people going and working more.
That's correct. But the full theory with the SA98 is that once we stop making fake jobs just to make people feel better, there won't be jobs for everyone to just run out and get. Just because people will want to work won't mean that there are jobs for them. They would have to find someone that wants to hire there and in theory, those would be few and far between because employers would be free to point out when someone is a drain, not a benefit.
GBI frees up people to do things they WANT to do.
- Want to be a lazy bum? Fine.
- Want to write an open source program? Have at!
- Want to learn how to build something? Go forth and tinker.
- Want to work as an IT person in a company for (extra) pay? Find a company that will hire you.
- Want to be an artist? Get started!
The sky is pretty much the limit.
