Basic income as an answer to all out automation(newstatesman.com)
newstatesman.com
Basic income as an answer to all out automation
http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/06/basic-income-versus-robots
26 comments
Basic Income has been a hot topic in Germany for years, and while it is radical, I still think it's worth a try. It completely shifts the labor market, and has the potential to raise average life quality tremendously.
It's not a topic in Germany at all. At least not for the majority of citizens and the parties making up at least 90% of parliament seats.
Not true. With the exception of CSU perhaps, every party with a seat in the Bundestag either has internally passed its own concept for a basic income or is discussing the idea:
[1] http://www.die-linke-grundeinkommen.de/WordPress/
[2] http://www.gruene-partei.de/cms/partei/dokbin/207/207470.auf...
[3] http://www3.fdp-bundesverband.de/files/363/Abschlb-Buergerge...
[4] http://www.kas.de/wf/de/33.20403/
[5] http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/06193.pdf
I have not claimed that it is wished for by a majority of the population. It is a serious thought for both the established Die Linke and the (until recently) rising Piratenpartei, and discussed at the main stage of SPD conventions. Not sure about die Grünen, but I can easily see some potential there. The peak of the idea in the public discussion was about 2-3 years ago, but obviously there is no perspective in a conservative-right-liberal coalition.
As soon as aggressions between die Linke and SPD fade away, I can easily see this as an realistic way to take.
As soon as aggressions between die Linke and SPD fade away, I can easily see this as an realistic way to take.
It was a widely debated topic inside the Pirate Party during their heyday 1-2 years ago. They declared basic income as one of their core goals, which rendered them unelectable for many people and accelerated their downfall.
The Pirate Party was largely a media phenomenon. The media has a short attention span. That, and there was a long period where the party leaders were acting in a rather unclever way.
(I personally think that people should be allowed to act in that way - but the reality is that it made them very easy targets for journalists who wanted to paint a negative impression of the party.)
(I personally think that people should be allowed to act in that way - but the reality is that it made them very easy targets for journalists who wanted to paint a negative impression of the party.)
You are just assuming that.
It certainly is a reason why I might vote for them in the coming election.
Well, I know a number of economically liberal Pirates and Pirate voters who gave up simply because of the basic income and other leftist policies.
While this clearly is just anecdotal, it might explain the bigger pattern why the Party had more success 3 years ago while it was clearly economically liberal, and while it is stagnating today where it is clearly turning more and more to the left. Younger Germans, who initially grew the Pirates, neither wished nor need yet another leftist utopia lying to voters about things they cant finance.
While this clearly is just anecdotal, it might explain the bigger pattern why the Party had more success 3 years ago while it was clearly economically liberal, and while it is stagnating today where it is clearly turning more and more to the left. Younger Germans, who initially grew the Pirates, neither wished nor need yet another leftist utopia lying to voters about things they cant finance.
Basic income is leftist? If you have basic income you can do away with most of the wellfare that disincetvises people, with minimum wage that raises labor costs, perhaps even with retirement funds. Employment environment becomes so much clearer and unburdened. I'd argue that basic income is very libertarian as it liberates large amount of people from governemnt interference.
Jeremy Rifkin - 1995 - The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work
In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminated tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He predicted devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers would reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class would continue to shrink and the workplace become ever more stressful.
As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that would create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers.
--------------
Jeremy Rifkin - 2005
http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%2...
European politicians often like to blame outsourcing for the disappearance of jobs. But in reality the work isn't going to the Chinese --it's going to the robots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work
In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminated tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He predicted devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers would reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class would continue to shrink and the workplace become ever more stressful.
As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that would create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers.
--------------
Jeremy Rifkin - 2005
http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%2...
European politicians often like to blame outsourcing for the disappearance of jobs. But in reality the work isn't going to the Chinese --it's going to the robots.
They have been predicting automation will destroy jobs for centuries, and it hasn't happened. Looking at the unemployment statistics for the past century, the trend line seems very weak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2011....
The history of technological innovation is that new job categories are created faster than old ones are lost. There are many job categories which will be opened up as a result of automation. We will see a shift to creative / performance jobs instead of mechanistic / routine jobs. Demand will be artificially created for the products of these new categories, just like it has been for more than a century (without artificially created demand the economy would collapse, as we consume a multiple of what we need). The demand will be focused on "unique", on products tailored by a human for an audience of one, but produced using mass-production technologies. The more renowned the bespoke designer, the higher the price tag will be.
Still, if the singularity does happen and we end up in a true post-production society, I imagine it will look like the Culture (Iain M. Banks). Or at least, I hope it will.
The history of technological innovation is that new job categories are created faster than old ones are lost. There are many job categories which will be opened up as a result of automation. We will see a shift to creative / performance jobs instead of mechanistic / routine jobs. Demand will be artificially created for the products of these new categories, just like it has been for more than a century (without artificially created demand the economy would collapse, as we consume a multiple of what we need). The demand will be focused on "unique", on products tailored by a human for an audience of one, but produced using mass-production technologies. The more renowned the bespoke designer, the higher the price tag will be.
Still, if the singularity does happen and we end up in a true post-production society, I imagine it will look like the Culture (Iain M. Banks). Or at least, I hope it will.
> They have been predicting automation will destroy jobs for centuries, and it hasn't happened.
We have replaced jobs by consuming more. This concept growth is infinite is not practical(Or mathematically possible), and it's probably not linear either, when it hits and growth stops being able to replace lost jobs it could be sudden.
Bespoke is interesting, but I'll probably only visit 1000 different houses in my lifetime etc 'Bespoke-esque' products will be able to be mass produced and appear unique, currently they are limited by space time, small markets overseas trips will have little meaning to goods in the future.
Once 3D printers/scanners work well I can copy anything that an artist creates why would I buy it off them personally, especially since I'll probably be unemployed myself.
Sure I'll go to a fancy humans serve me restaurant every now and again, probably when I'm young and hip, but normally I'll do what everyone else will do, get a excellent, cheap hassle free meal made to order served by automatons.
Building and driving are dangerous jobs, it won't take many lawsuits before they get shut down for humans.
More of a dystopian fan myself.
We have replaced jobs by consuming more. This concept growth is infinite is not practical(Or mathematically possible), and it's probably not linear either, when it hits and growth stops being able to replace lost jobs it could be sudden.
Bespoke is interesting, but I'll probably only visit 1000 different houses in my lifetime etc 'Bespoke-esque' products will be able to be mass produced and appear unique, currently they are limited by space time, small markets overseas trips will have little meaning to goods in the future.
Once 3D printers/scanners work well I can copy anything that an artist creates why would I buy it off them personally, especially since I'll probably be unemployed myself.
Sure I'll go to a fancy humans serve me restaurant every now and again, probably when I'm young and hip, but normally I'll do what everyone else will do, get a excellent, cheap hassle free meal made to order served by automatons.
Building and driving are dangerous jobs, it won't take many lawsuits before they get shut down for humans.
More of a dystopian fan myself.
And yet slowly it has happened. It's the underlying reason why we haven't yet recovered from the financial bubble.
A shift to creative/performance means talent an even more scarse resource than people with high education.
Less jobs are created than lost. It is a real problem and can't just be brushed of this time.
A shift to creative/performance means talent an even more scarse resource than people with high education.
Less jobs are created than lost. It is a real problem and can't just be brushed of this time.
Take a look at state government employees most of whom are middle class. A major portion of this labor force is involved in managing data. Rough guess ~30000 * 50 states=1500000. Pretty sure its a much bigger number.
Facebook can manage the data of a billion people with 5000 employees.
Facebook can manage the data of a billion people with 5000 employees.
We already now have a lot of jobs that simply aren't necessary. I mean look at all the bureaucracy… Haven't you ever looked at some buraeucrats' job and just thought "Wow, I could replace that guy with 200 lines of perl."?^^
There is much hidden unemployment. Prisoners, guards, government white collar workers. All those people and the like should count towards unemployment because they do no benefit to the economy and are occupied with government sponsored busy work.
In the future, even this small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers (to which I belong) may not be needed either, as computers will become self-deterministic.
What will be the real long-term solution when the value of a person to society can no longer even be roughly approximated by his income?
What will be the real long-term solution when the value of a person to society can no longer even be roughly approximated by his income?
Why would we need a solution? I find it tragic that the lack of need for forced labor is seen as a problem...
The problem isn't the lack of need for forced labor -- it is the unemployment it creates.
My thought exactly. Fuck work, we can have a lifestyle driven by curiosity and cooperation, full of open research and celebration; Imagine constantly living like you do at hacker cons and camps.
When talking about this I often encounter people going "BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE FAT LAZY SLOBS WHO WON'T DO ANYTHING?!1!?" to which I can only reply: What about them? So a few people will sit around and do nothing. What's so bad about that if their labor isn't needed? It's not like a few lazy people will bring about the end of our civilization…
When talking about this I often encounter people going "BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE FAT LAZY SLOBS WHO WON'T DO ANYTHING?!1!?" to which I can only reply: What about them? So a few people will sit around and do nothing. What's so bad about that if their labor isn't needed? It's not like a few lazy people will bring about the end of our civilization…
> THOSE FAT LAZY SLOBS WHO WON'T DO ANYTHING
To the people who hold that view (not you, clearly) I would say, I have never met anyone who doesn't do anything; the hopelessly unemployable people I've met have usually been a really poor match to the workplace. They don't like the 9-5, they don't like being told what to do, they don't like hierarchy. They tend to invest heavily in their hobbies and non-work interests. This is probably something which hackers and entrepreneurs can relate to, btw. Of course, it makes no sense to people who feel comfortable and warm inside a hierarchy, like to know their place, and like being told what to do (and, hopefully, acquiring a coterie which they in turn can tell what to do).
Personally I share your vision of a more interesting and stimulating future free from the shackles of mandatory work and based around willing collaboration. I'm not sure it will happen though, if a small group of people with wealth can opt out of society altogether, except for using it as a source of greater wealth, on which they refuse to pay any tax.
I'm not opposed to capitalism, btw, I just feel it should serve everyone, not just the few.
To the people who hold that view (not you, clearly) I would say, I have never met anyone who doesn't do anything; the hopelessly unemployable people I've met have usually been a really poor match to the workplace. They don't like the 9-5, they don't like being told what to do, they don't like hierarchy. They tend to invest heavily in their hobbies and non-work interests. This is probably something which hackers and entrepreneurs can relate to, btw. Of course, it makes no sense to people who feel comfortable and warm inside a hierarchy, like to know their place, and like being told what to do (and, hopefully, acquiring a coterie which they in turn can tell what to do).
Personally I share your vision of a more interesting and stimulating future free from the shackles of mandatory work and based around willing collaboration. I'm not sure it will happen though, if a small group of people with wealth can opt out of society altogether, except for using it as a source of greater wealth, on which they refuse to pay any tax.
I'm not opposed to capitalism, btw, I just feel it should serve everyone, not just the few.
I'm not opposed to capitalism, btw, I just feel it should serve everyone, not just the few.
Then that wouldn't be capitalism. Sounds like you want some sort of democratic economy.
I personally am against capitalism, I think we don't even need money in the long run. I'm pretty sure we could obsolete it within the next few decades. Just distribute goods according to need…
I personally am against capitalism, I think we don't even need money in the long run. I'm pretty sure we could obsolete it within the next few decades. Just distribute goods according to need…
We've adapted to a life of work, both positively and negatively. Culturally and socially our jobs validate and define us. Think about people who are already in the situation of not having to work, e.g. those with large trust funds from their parents - my impression is that while they have more free time than those who have to work they often find their lives less fulfilling.
I'm not saying we shouldn't remove work, but culture will need time to adapt. Maybe we should try to reduce working hours and days - move to a 4-day week, then a 3-day - rather than abolishing work all in one go.
I'm not saying we shouldn't remove work, but culture will need time to adapt. Maybe we should try to reduce working hours and days - move to a 4-day week, then a 3-day - rather than abolishing work all in one go.
When talking about this I often encounter people going "BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE FAT LAZY SLOBS WHO WON'T DO ANYTHING?!1!?" to which I can only reply: What about them? So a few people will sit around and do nothing. What's so bad about that if their labor isn't needed? It's not like a few lazy people will bring about the end of our civilization…
It's always important to remind those people that it's better to have some parasites at the bottom of society (under basic income) than to have parasites at the top of it (under the current corporate elite).
I support BI because it will change the workplace dynamic outright. It will be focused more on getting things done and improving the world and less on servility.
It's always important to remind those people that it's better to have some parasites at the bottom of society (under basic income) than to have parasites at the top of it (under the current corporate elite).
I support BI because it will change the workplace dynamic outright. It will be focused more on getting things done and improving the world and less on servility.
It's also better to have them being given some income instead of having to steal for it which generally costs way more than if the money was just given to them directly in the first place.
The parasites at the top will not want the parasites at the bottom, because without the parasites at the bottom, they get a bigger slice of the pie!
Basic income, whether its a good idea (for society in general or not), will not come to be. Those who have something to lose with BI will certainly oppose it, and they are the people who have real voting power (or should i say lobby/political power).
Unless, the west turns on its head and adopt communism...but i highly doubt that.
Basic income, whether its a good idea (for society in general or not), will not come to be. Those who have something to lose with BI will certainly oppose it, and they are the people who have real voting power (or should i say lobby/political power).
Unless, the west turns on its head and adopt communism...but i highly doubt that.
If ~all the goods are produced automatically we are all parasites living off of the labor of the machines, if you really want to use that word. The way I think about it it's simply taking away the necessity to labor for your survival.
I guess most people will spend a very large chunk of their newly won time socializing and I don't see anything wrong with that. If everyone can celebrate each and every day of their lives, I'm strongly in favor of it. :)
I guess most people will spend a very large chunk of their newly won time socializing and I don't see anything wrong with that. If everyone can celebrate each and every day of their lives, I'm strongly in favor of it. :)
> we are all parasites living off of the labor of the machines
but some parasites are more equal than others - namely, those who owns the machines.
You might ask, why do some own the machines (or means of production), while others dont? Its not a question i m in authority or knowledgable enough to answer, but my take on it is that its a snowball effect - once you gain enough capital (or, as i called it above - means of production), you can effectively get other people's productivity as a lever to increase your own. Note, only those who already have capital can do this - people who cannot accrue capital either take big gambles (like borrowing lots of money without being able to pay it back, if they can borrow it at all). Or they just don't do it, and remain status quo. Either way, the only option left for them is to live or work. Thus the cycle perpetuates, and this is the "cause" of the wealth divide - not because some people worked harder, but because opportunities don't come knocking equally.
In aa he world where automation is completely replaced all labour, either everyone is capable of being an owner, and thus, all profit to be made using automation is so thin you don't get much of an advantage doing it compared to someone else. Or, some small group basically owns all means of production, and essentially owns the world and everyone in it (either via their power to control resource supply, since they own it!), or indirectly via lobby/"taxes" they pay that the rest of the meeples gets to live off.
I m hoping the first scenario comes to pass, but i highly doubt it. Looking at the world now, its much more likely that the 2nd scenario comes to pass.
but some parasites are more equal than others - namely, those who owns the machines.
You might ask, why do some own the machines (or means of production), while others dont? Its not a question i m in authority or knowledgable enough to answer, but my take on it is that its a snowball effect - once you gain enough capital (or, as i called it above - means of production), you can effectively get other people's productivity as a lever to increase your own. Note, only those who already have capital can do this - people who cannot accrue capital either take big gambles (like borrowing lots of money without being able to pay it back, if they can borrow it at all). Or they just don't do it, and remain status quo. Either way, the only option left for them is to live or work. Thus the cycle perpetuates, and this is the "cause" of the wealth divide - not because some people worked harder, but because opportunities don't come knocking equally.
In aa he world where automation is completely replaced all labour, either everyone is capable of being an owner, and thus, all profit to be made using automation is so thin you don't get much of an advantage doing it compared to someone else. Or, some small group basically owns all means of production, and essentially owns the world and everyone in it (either via their power to control resource supply, since they own it!), or indirectly via lobby/"taxes" they pay that the rest of the meeples gets to live off.
I m hoping the first scenario comes to pass, but i highly doubt it. Looking at the world now, its much more likely that the 2nd scenario comes to pass.
Well, we already see a democratization of the means of production.
Look at open source 3D printers. Did you know there is an open library for smart materials? For genetic information? Open Hardware projects are multiplying, think arduino, raspberry pi, beagleboard…
I mean shit - even the last CCCamp had it's own piece of open hardware. I myself am thinking about developing a little robot that can tend plants, basically an open source toolchain for vertical farming… There is more and more stuff like this coming up all the time.
And of course there's even an open source civilization starter kit you can inform yourself about at http://opensourceecology.org
IMHO the risk of one faction being all-powerful is nearly zero. We have good times ahead. Even though the road may have a few bumps.
Look at open source 3D printers. Did you know there is an open library for smart materials? For genetic information? Open Hardware projects are multiplying, think arduino, raspberry pi, beagleboard…
I mean shit - even the last CCCamp had it's own piece of open hardware. I myself am thinking about developing a little robot that can tend plants, basically an open source toolchain for vertical farming… There is more and more stuff like this coming up all the time.
And of course there's even an open source civilization starter kit you can inform yourself about at http://opensourceecology.org
IMHO the risk of one faction being all-powerful is nearly zero. We have good times ahead. Even though the road may have a few bumps.
I think BI will be a necessity, but it will be an ugly discussion. The rich will want the poor to self-sterilize after N (0? 1?) children before it's allowed. I know what people in that set talk about when no one else is listening, and they will be able to get behind paying poor people not to reproduce.
I think that is the only way to get the current elite ("the 1 percent") behind basic income; tie it to voluntarily sterilization.
Right now, society's really fucking barbaric. If you don't have health insurance and get sick, you die in a lot of pain and spend your last hours in some ER. If you're unemployed for 6+ months, you can't get a job unless you hire a guy like me to consult you on how to re-work your story and arrange references, and even then it's dicey because there's only so much that can be done. This isn't civilization; it's the decaying remnant of one. It either improves dramatically (which I wouldn't rule out) or it falls further because right now it even turns good people into vultures[0].
[0] Actually, I dislike this metaphor. Vultures are good citizens; but you know what I mean.
I think that is the only way to get the current elite ("the 1 percent") behind basic income; tie it to voluntarily sterilization.
Right now, society's really fucking barbaric. If you don't have health insurance and get sick, you die in a lot of pain and spend your last hours in some ER. If you're unemployed for 6+ months, you can't get a job unless you hire a guy like me to consult you on how to re-work your story and arrange references, and even then it's dicey because there's only so much that can be done. This isn't civilization; it's the decaying remnant of one. It either improves dramatically (which I wouldn't rule out) or it falls further because right now it even turns good people into vultures[0].
[0] Actually, I dislike this metaphor. Vultures are good citizens; but you know what I mean.
you do realize that the constant evolution of smart computers would eventually remove the need of you as a researcher and leave absolutely everyone unemployed?
would you know what to do when all of your work would essentially be shallow and useless? can you entertain yourself 24h?
would you know what to do when all of your work would essentially be shallow and useless? can you entertain yourself 24h?
I imagine that small enclaves and communes with DIY aesthetics would start to spring up everywhere.
Look at the Raspberry Pi - only today a tutorial on creating a basic Pi command-line OS was front page of Hacker News. And yet we all have access to highly sophisticated operating systems with slick GUIs.
Discovery and exploration is its own reward. It doesn't matter if someone or something else has already discovered it.
Look at the Raspberry Pi - only today a tutorial on creating a basic Pi command-line OS was front page of Hacker News. And yet we all have access to highly sophisticated operating systems with slick GUIs.
Discovery and exploration is its own reward. It doesn't matter if someone or something else has already discovered it.
Actually I'm totally amazed when thinking about the possibilities we might get with supportive AIs and implants to boost our neural power.
And even if we're not needed for research it doesn't take the joy out of doing it anyways; Learning is pretty much self-rewarding. Plus there will always be enough projects to keep yourself busy, even if it's "just" organizing the next rave, party or other social event. But before that happens we will have plenty of new frontiers to conquer.
And even if we're not needed for research it doesn't take the joy out of doing it anyways; Learning is pretty much self-rewarding. Plus there will always be enough projects to keep yourself busy, even if it's "just" organizing the next rave, party or other social event. But before that happens we will have plenty of new frontiers to conquer.
I certainly can. Just thinking of the movies and TV shows I missed, the books I never read, essays I never wrote, recipes I never tried, places I didn't visit...
(of course, I would procrastinate all of these things even if I had the time to do them...)
(of course, I would procrastinate all of these things even if I had the time to do them...)
Maybe the future of the planet involves no humans (ie we all die off eventually)... just robots that can create themselves.
Or maybe we stay on board, reaching a point where technology lets us live forever, and we just sun-tan all day with robots massaging us.
Or maybe we stay on board, reaching a point where technology lets us live forever, and we just sun-tan all day with robots massaging us.
> In the future, even this small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers (to which I belong) may not be needed either, as computers will become self-deterministic.
If that ever happens (and I hope that it does), the solution space will look more like "post-scarcity non-monetary economy" rather than "basic income".
If that ever happens (and I hope that it does), the solution space will look more like "post-scarcity non-monetary economy" rather than "basic income".
[deleted]
[deleted]
>as computers will become self-deterministic
[citation needed]
Also, the most problematic will be the transition phase, where 50% don't find work at all, most others only find low-paying jobs and a small elite has the highly-payed jobs and has to either support the others or emigrate.
[citation needed]
Also, the most problematic will be the transition phase, where 50% don't find work at all, most others only find low-paying jobs and a small elite has the highly-payed jobs and has to either support the others or emigrate.
Do we really need these [citation needed] comments? It's clearly that someone expresses his own opinion, and thus needs no citation.
Btw, you forgot the provide citation that in the transition phase 50% will not be able to find work at all.
Btw, you forgot the provide citation that in the transition phase 50% will not be able to find work at all.
When this topic comes up, I tend to refer people to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment
Rifkin's work also gets a mention there.
What I find weird about the article posted here is that it treats it as a new thing, as if this time is so different that the only time it can be compared to is the industrial revolution.
Rifkin's work also gets a mention there.
What I find weird about the article posted here is that it treats it as a new thing, as if this time is so different that the only time it can be compared to is the industrial revolution.
Basic income could pay for itself with the things created by people who are doing what they want, as a result of losing their fear of falling below a basic level of living.
Yes, the four million in Britain who have never had a job in their lives are immensely productive and make an outstanding contributon to cultural life. Five million would be even better.
I am assuming your comment is meant to be sarcastic.
Be careful about assigning cause and consequence properly. Mass unemployment is an involuntary, macroeconomic problem. [1]
I am not an expert in the British economy, so I don't know whether your numbers make sense. But just taking them at face value, it is quite likely that those millions of people are unproductive precisely because they have never had a job. So it's not their fault.
Incidentally, I partly agree with you in that I think that basic income advocates are too starry-eyed about what people would do on basic income.
This is part of why I prefer a Job Guarantee, as I have explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931534
[1] http://alittleecon.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/the-parable-of-1...
Be careful about assigning cause and consequence properly. Mass unemployment is an involuntary, macroeconomic problem. [1]
I am not an expert in the British economy, so I don't know whether your numbers make sense. But just taking them at face value, it is quite likely that those millions of people are unproductive precisely because they have never had a job. So it's not their fault.
Incidentally, I partly agree with you in that I think that basic income advocates are too starry-eyed about what people would do on basic income.
This is part of why I prefer a Job Guarantee, as I have explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931534
[1] http://alittleecon.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/the-parable-of-1...
They never had a job, but, still, they need to make ends meet. They live under the pressure to make some money. Removing that pressure may allow them to find more interesting things to do.
Basic income is a nice idea, but as long as we cannot automate everything, I do feel that it misses the point somewhat because it doesn't address unemployment.
As long as somebody has to work, unemployment is very divisive for society. Those who are employed tend to be valued over those who do not work, even when the unemployment is involuntary (actually, unemployment is usually defined to be involuntary).
This can have jarring psychological consequences. It also reduces the overall size of the economy. If somebody wants to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them? Finally, it means that a basic income is always going to be a politically unstable proposition. It will always be easy for those who hate basic income to attack it with "welfare queen" type smears. This attack will likely be even more effective than it is with current welfare programs.
This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage.
One can still have Basic Income on top of a Job Guarantee, of course. The two proposals aren't mutually exclusive. But I think the Job Guarantee is better at addressing the real issues, at least as long as we cannot automate everything.
As long as somebody has to work, unemployment is very divisive for society. Those who are employed tend to be valued over those who do not work, even when the unemployment is involuntary (actually, unemployment is usually defined to be involuntary).
This can have jarring psychological consequences. It also reduces the overall size of the economy. If somebody wants to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them? Finally, it means that a basic income is always going to be a politically unstable proposition. It will always be easy for those who hate basic income to attack it with "welfare queen" type smears. This attack will likely be even more effective than it is with current welfare programs.
This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage.
One can still have Basic Income on top of a Job Guarantee, of course. The two proposals aren't mutually exclusive. But I think the Job Guarantee is better at addressing the real issues, at least as long as we cannot automate everything.
>This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage.
Oh good lord no. First of all, this means the creation of countless "dig a hole, fill it back in" jobs. Second of all, it will leave us stuck in this barbaric form of living once we can automate everything because the mega-rich with their robot work force aren't going to want to contribute "their" earnings to basic income.
And finally, basic income is just that: it's income for everyone. It doesn't mean you can't work if you want to. In fact it's better because it means you can truly choose what you want to do with your life instead of being under pressure to avoid starvation or living on the street.
Oh good lord no. First of all, this means the creation of countless "dig a hole, fill it back in" jobs. Second of all, it will leave us stuck in this barbaric form of living once we can automate everything because the mega-rich with their robot work force aren't going to want to contribute "their" earnings to basic income.
And finally, basic income is just that: it's income for everyone. It doesn't mean you can't work if you want to. In fact it's better because it means you can truly choose what you want to do with your life instead of being under pressure to avoid starvation or living on the street.
The mega-rich will _never_ want to contribute any significant amount of their money (gained from the output of their automated robots and factories/greenhouses) towards feeding those who are not working, unless forced to. They might pay lip service, and donate to some charity/feed the poor program, but they don't do it due to the goodness of their hearts - they do it due to the need to look to be charitable (i.e., marketing/PR reasons). Its a business cost. I bet if you asked them to make these donations completely anonymously, and never admit to having made them to anyone, most would not comply (and note, not like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw).
Except for, you know, All these people: http://givingpledge.org/
I can't help but notice that they are still super rich.
What has that got to do with anything? If someone donates half their wealth to charity and keeps the other half for their heirs and family, is that morally wrong? How does them still being super rich in any way negate their massive charitable contributions?
At what point is it enough? 50%? 70%? 90%? I bet I can find examples for each of those percentages where billionaires gave up about that percentage of their wealth. Surely that disproves the OP's claim that the super rich NEVER give significant portions of their wealth to charity.
At what point is it enough? 50%? 70%? 90%? I bet I can find examples for each of those percentages where billionaires gave up about that percentage of their wealth. Surely that disproves the OP's claim that the super rich NEVER give significant portions of their wealth to charity.
> If someone donates half their wealth to charity
They haven't yet have they.
They haven't yet have they.
Do you suspect that they are lying? I guess only time will tell. I sincerely, for the good of all of us, hope that you are wrong. But there are many wealthy philanthropists who have already given away the majority of their wealth. For instance, John Templeton and Chuck Feeney. And perhaps you're forgetting about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?
And they shouldn't be forced, because it's their money after all. Just because they are richer than you that doesn't mean they owe you anything. Also, you contradict yourself by first saing that rich "never want to contribute" and later giving example of people actualy doing this for "marketing/PR reasons". Those reasons may be selfish, but still people like Bill Gates donate literaly billions of dollars to help others.
> contradict yourself by first saing that rich "never want to contribute" and later giving example of people actualy doing this
its not an contradiction - i assumed it was obvious that "never want to contribute" implies true altruistic behaviour, where as doing it for "PR" reasons dont count.
IN any case, yes its true that the rich shouldn't be forced to give up their assets for those who didn't earn it. But for BI to work, this essentially _has_ to be the case! Lets say the total amount of money (however you want to count it) is M, while the total amount of goods and services produced in 1 period of time is P. If BI were instated, how could it be paid for? Either increase M (by printing money essentially), or by keeping M constant, but redistribute it from those who have more (the machine owners) to those who don't have as much. Increasing M simply causes inflation, since P didn't change in this case, and so after a while, shit just gets more and more expensive. Redistributing M is what you said above - forcibly taking the assets from someone and give it to someone else. Neither is going to work imho. You might say P would increase, offsetting the problem of increasing M and the inflation it causes. THat might happen, but i don't think the rate at which P increases will match the rate at which M increases.
its not an contradiction - i assumed it was obvious that "never want to contribute" implies true altruistic behaviour, where as doing it for "PR" reasons dont count.
IN any case, yes its true that the rich shouldn't be forced to give up their assets for those who didn't earn it. But for BI to work, this essentially _has_ to be the case! Lets say the total amount of money (however you want to count it) is M, while the total amount of goods and services produced in 1 period of time is P. If BI were instated, how could it be paid for? Either increase M (by printing money essentially), or by keeping M constant, but redistribute it from those who have more (the machine owners) to those who don't have as much. Increasing M simply causes inflation, since P didn't change in this case, and so after a while, shit just gets more and more expensive. Redistributing M is what you said above - forcibly taking the assets from someone and give it to someone else. Neither is going to work imho. You might say P would increase, offsetting the problem of increasing M and the inflation it causes. THat might happen, but i don't think the rate at which P increases will match the rate at which M increases.
Ok, so now you're saying that "the rich shouldn't be forced to give up their assets for those who didn't earn it." and still "for BI to work, this essentially _has_ to be the case!" So basically you're saying that BI is in it's essence totally immoral, which is exactly what I wanted to prove.
It's not "their money after all". They did not make it alone, they were supported by the community in countless ways. How do you propose the government be paid for? How do you propose we deal with people for which there is no work to do?
If you don't have some kind of solution for the poor then they'll simply kill these rich people and take everything they have. And since you don't want taxes to pay for the police, they'll be shooting in the same direction.
If you don't have some kind of solution for the poor then they'll simply kill these rich people and take everything they have. And since you don't want taxes to pay for the police, they'll be shooting in the same direction.
> If you don't have some kind of solution for the poor
puts on tin hat
these NSA/illegal surveillance is a ploy to gain control of information, such that when time comes for the poor to revolt, they will have no privacy with which to organize their actions. Their every move will be monitored, and the smallest spark will be snuffed out before it spreads, leading to a state where each citizen is too afraid for their own personal safety (or safety of their loved ones) to really commit much, and such is a way to end revolutions before it starts.
Don't agree to laws that might seem benefitial now, but will be used later to enforce laws you don't agree to later.
puts on tin hat
these NSA/illegal surveillance is a ploy to gain control of information, such that when time comes for the poor to revolt, they will have no privacy with which to organize their actions. Their every move will be monitored, and the smallest spark will be snuffed out before it spreads, leading to a state where each citizen is too afraid for their own personal safety (or safety of their loved ones) to really commit much, and such is a way to end revolutions before it starts.
Don't agree to laws that might seem benefitial now, but will be used later to enforce laws you don't agree to later.
They were not "supported by the community", they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money, called "salary". that's all they owe society: paying their workers their salary.
I also never told I don't want to pay the police, in fact it is one of three things that are worth paying taxes for: police and courts to provide internal safety and justice, and army to protect from external enemies (other countries, terrorists etc.)
Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. You can only break this by introducing high employment costs. If you tax work at the same level as luxury goods (and all taxes average worker has to pay add up to about 50% of his gross income) then work itself becomes "luxury". And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job.
I also never told I don't want to pay the police, in fact it is one of three things that are worth paying taxes for: police and courts to provide internal safety and justice, and army to protect from external enemies (other countries, terrorists etc.)
Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. You can only break this by introducing high employment costs. If you tax work at the same level as luxury goods (and all taxes average worker has to pay add up to about 50% of his gross income) then work itself becomes "luxury". And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job.
>they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money
If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons?
Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? And on, and on, and on. Anyone rich today got there on the backs of the society they lived in. Elon Musk would be nothing had he been born and raised in an Amazon tribe and you know it.
>Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies.
Now you're just showing off ignorance [1]. Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from?
>In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available.
Ideological dreaming. Nothing more.
> And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job.
Reagan's "welfare queens" lives on. Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? I suspect we'd get enough Tesla's out of such a system to offset all your mythical welfare queens.
[1] http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html
If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons?
Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? And on, and on, and on. Anyone rich today got there on the backs of the society they lived in. Elon Musk would be nothing had he been born and raised in an Amazon tribe and you know it.
>Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies.
Now you're just showing off ignorance [1]. Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from?
>In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available.
Ideological dreaming. Nothing more.
> And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job.
Reagan's "welfare queens" lives on. Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? I suspect we'd get enough Tesla's out of such a system to offset all your mythical welfare queens.
[1] http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html
> If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons?
If police, streets and so on were funded from taxes, then yes, they paid much more. If they were built by private companies - the same is true.
>Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege?
That's that pure luck, agreed. But you can't punish people for being lucky. You just have wrong understanding of the concept of people being equal. We can be considered equal in our basic rights, but we'll never be equal in talent, IQ, motivation, and so on. So if two people start doing the same thing they can have equal chances at the beginning, but will never achieve exactly the same results. One person will always be more successful than other, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It is like sprinters race on the Olympic games: you have to ensure that all competitors will start running at the same time, but forcing them to also cross the finish line at the same time is just ridiculous. And that's what you postulate.
> Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from?
Stupid monetary policy (fixed exchange rate between dollar and peso), which was against liberalism philosophy that Friedman tried to impose. However Chile basically continues this liberal economical politics and their unemployment rate is currently 6.1%
>>In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. >Ideological dreaming. Nothing more.
That's not a dreaming, just a mere fact: people's needs are unlimited, we always want new cars, computers, clothes, exotic holiday journeys, etc. otherwise economical growth would have stopped once we had learned how to provide basic food and shelter for everyone (which was in late Middle Ages, i think)
>Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives?
That is just ridiculous statement when coming from your mouth: it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes" Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me.
If police, streets and so on were funded from taxes, then yes, they paid much more. If they were built by private companies - the same is true.
>Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege?
That's that pure luck, agreed. But you can't punish people for being lucky. You just have wrong understanding of the concept of people being equal. We can be considered equal in our basic rights, but we'll never be equal in talent, IQ, motivation, and so on. So if two people start doing the same thing they can have equal chances at the beginning, but will never achieve exactly the same results. One person will always be more successful than other, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It is like sprinters race on the Olympic games: you have to ensure that all competitors will start running at the same time, but forcing them to also cross the finish line at the same time is just ridiculous. And that's what you postulate.
> Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from?
Stupid monetary policy (fixed exchange rate between dollar and peso), which was against liberalism philosophy that Friedman tried to impose. However Chile basically continues this liberal economical politics and their unemployment rate is currently 6.1%
>>In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. >Ideological dreaming. Nothing more.
That's not a dreaming, just a mere fact: people's needs are unlimited, we always want new cars, computers, clothes, exotic holiday journeys, etc. otherwise economical growth would have stopped once we had learned how to provide basic food and shelter for everyone (which was in late Middle Ages, i think)
>Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives?
That is just ridiculous statement when coming from your mouth: it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes" Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me.
>However Chile basically continues this liberal economical politics
No they don't. They use the mix of capitalism and socialism that every functioning country on earth uses (though their settings and dials are unique, like everyone else is).
>people's needs are unlimited
And at some point, given enough time, robots will be able to fulfill even unlimited demands. Your world view has no answer to such a situation.
>it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes"
It's not "robbing". Money itself is something the state made, so consider taxes a charge to use it. You're welcome to trade in "widgets" if you can find anyone who will.
> Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me.
No they can't because you've bought up all the land and allocated all the resources despite using a small fraction of them.
No they don't. They use the mix of capitalism and socialism that every functioning country on earth uses (though their settings and dials are unique, like everyone else is).
>people's needs are unlimited
And at some point, given enough time, robots will be able to fulfill even unlimited demands. Your world view has no answer to such a situation.
>it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes"
It's not "robbing". Money itself is something the state made, so consider taxes a charge to use it. You're welcome to trade in "widgets" if you can find anyone who will.
> Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me.
No they can't because you've bought up all the land and allocated all the resources despite using a small fraction of them.
> Money itself is something the state made, so consider taxes a charge to use it
That's a nonsense. Money itself are not a goods, because they are worthless: you can eat those banknotes you have in your wallet or do anything usefull with them. They only serve as a symbol that allows more convenient trade of real goods. And I'm not gonna create any "widgets" to replace them, but still many people uses alternative to state made money, like Bitcoin. Thinking about money the way you think is a main reason of the current economical crysis.
>No they can't because you've bought up all the land and allocated all the resources despite using a small fraction of them.
Billionaires usually don't spend much on consumption, neither they keep their resources unused. Most of every billionaire wealth is his company, or companies, in which they employ thousands of people (giving them opportunity to earn for their living) and produce things that fulfill needs of millions. That's all they owe to the rest of society.
That's a nonsense. Money itself are not a goods, because they are worthless: you can eat those banknotes you have in your wallet or do anything usefull with them. They only serve as a symbol that allows more convenient trade of real goods. And I'm not gonna create any "widgets" to replace them, but still many people uses alternative to state made money, like Bitcoin. Thinking about money the way you think is a main reason of the current economical crysis.
>No they can't because you've bought up all the land and allocated all the resources despite using a small fraction of them.
Billionaires usually don't spend much on consumption, neither they keep their resources unused. Most of every billionaire wealth is his company, or companies, in which they employ thousands of people (giving them opportunity to earn for their living) and produce things that fulfill needs of millions. That's all they owe to the rest of society.
> or do anything usefull with them
O'rly?
>They only serve as a symbol that allows more convenient trade of real goods.
That sounds pretty fucking useful.
>Thinking about money the way you think is a main reason of the current economical crysis.
That's a rather silly thing to say. You need to step your game up when posting on HN.
>Billionaires usually don't spend much on consumption, neither they keep their resources unused.
Did you miss the part where I mention land?
>Most of every billionaire wealth is his company, or companies, in which they employ thousands of people (giving them opportunity to earn for their living) and produce things that fulfill needs of millions.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is the case for billionaires that you see on HN because that's what we're interested in. There are plenty of billionaires who don't work and don't have businesses. "Old money" families.
O'rly?
>They only serve as a symbol that allows more convenient trade of real goods.
That sounds pretty fucking useful.
>Thinking about money the way you think is a main reason of the current economical crysis.
That's a rather silly thing to say. You need to step your game up when posting on HN.
>Billionaires usually don't spend much on consumption, neither they keep their resources unused.
Did you miss the part where I mention land?
>Most of every billionaire wealth is his company, or companies, in which they employ thousands of people (giving them opportunity to earn for their living) and produce things that fulfill needs of millions.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is the case for billionaires that you see on HN because that's what we're interested in. There are plenty of billionaires who don't work and don't have businesses. "Old money" families.
No, you can't do anything useful with money themselves. they are just junk pieces of paper.
People created money as a way of remembering favours they did to each other. So basically your income reflects your worth for society (how much society values things you can produce). That worked pretty well as long as money were somenthing physical and rare, as gold. Once money became "state made", as you called it, government won an opportunity to manipulate them. And that manipulation, creating money without creating actual goods that you can buy in exchange for them, is in fact the reason for the crisis. Banks created derivates from risky mortgages, do some mathematic voo-doo to convince everyone that they are safe and profitable.
>Did you miss the part where I mention land
No, but what's the point of keeping the land unused? it's much more profitable for a billionaire to build some houses, apartments, offices there and then rent them. And by renting apartments to poor people you're making them a favour, because they have not enough money to build their own place to stay.
>You don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is the case for billionaires that you see on HN because that's what we're interested in. There are plenty of billionaires who don't work and don't have businesses. "Old money" families.
How much money can you spend on your own needs? House (or houses)? $200M? private jet? another $100M Collection of sport cars (Ferrari, Bugatti, etc.)? Let's give it $30M Travel around the world? that's hardly $10$ So you see that spending BILLIONS of dollars just for your own good is not an easy thing. That's why sooner or later every billionare engages in a some big project which is supposed to be his legacy for the mankind.
Your problem is that you see people that earn more than you as inherently evil and want to punish them.
People created money as a way of remembering favours they did to each other. So basically your income reflects your worth for society (how much society values things you can produce). That worked pretty well as long as money were somenthing physical and rare, as gold. Once money became "state made", as you called it, government won an opportunity to manipulate them. And that manipulation, creating money without creating actual goods that you can buy in exchange for them, is in fact the reason for the crisis. Banks created derivates from risky mortgages, do some mathematic voo-doo to convince everyone that they are safe and profitable.
>Did you miss the part where I mention land
No, but what's the point of keeping the land unused? it's much more profitable for a billionaire to build some houses, apartments, offices there and then rent them. And by renting apartments to poor people you're making them a favour, because they have not enough money to build their own place to stay.
>You don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is the case for billionaires that you see on HN because that's what we're interested in. There are plenty of billionaires who don't work and don't have businesses. "Old money" families.
How much money can you spend on your own needs? House (or houses)? $200M? private jet? another $100M Collection of sport cars (Ferrari, Bugatti, etc.)? Let's give it $30M Travel around the world? that's hardly $10$ So you see that spending BILLIONS of dollars just for your own good is not an easy thing. That's why sooner or later every billionare engages in a some big project which is supposed to be his legacy for the mankind.
Your problem is that you see people that earn more than you as inherently evil and want to punish them.
> that's all they owe society: paying their workers their salary.
No, that's what they owe their workers. What they owe society is tax [0]. And society can decide to use that tax to provide basic income, or anything else.
[0]: see also http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#theft which addresses the "taxation is theft" view of the world
No, that's what they owe their workers. What they owe society is tax [0]. And society can decide to use that tax to provide basic income, or anything else.
[0]: see also http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#theft which addresses the "taxation is theft" view of the world
Why do you assume that a Job Guarantee would mean the creation of "dig a hole, fill it back in" jobs?
Out in the real world, there is a wealth of useful things that could be done, especially at the local level but also in non-profits, but that are currently not being done because of a "lack of money".
Just put one and one together.
Out in the real world, there is a wealth of useful things that could be done, especially at the local level but also in non-profits, but that are currently not being done because of a "lack of money".
Just put one and one together.
If somebody wants to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them?
The point of a basic income is that it allows people to work. Because it's unconditional (at least in the variant I support), there are no marginal disincentive effects.
If you want to call having people dig holes and fill them back in "work," okay, fine. But at that point I don't see why we shouldn't just call simply living a job and call it a day, because at least that way people can focus on valuable economic tasks that a government can't necessarily see or effectively plan.
And it's harder to attack because it is universal and unconditional. Compare foodstamps and Medicaid to a program that's available to all income classes, such as, say, Medicare or Social Security. One class is constantly attacked, while attacking the other ends political careers.
The point of a basic income is that it allows people to work. Because it's unconditional (at least in the variant I support), there are no marginal disincentive effects.
If you want to call having people dig holes and fill them back in "work," okay, fine. But at that point I don't see why we shouldn't just call simply living a job and call it a day, because at least that way people can focus on valuable economic tasks that a government can't necessarily see or effectively plan.
And it's harder to attack because it is universal and unconditional. Compare foodstamps and Medicaid to a program that's available to all income classes, such as, say, Medicare or Social Security. One class is constantly attacked, while attacking the other ends political careers.
Because it's unconditional (at least in the variant I support), there are no marginal disincentive effects.
If you believe in diminishing marginal utility, there certainly are.
Compare foodstamps and Medicaid to a program that's available to all income classes, such as, say, Medicare or Social Security.
These programs are not universal - no one under 65 receives them. Those programs are popular because the beneficiaries of redistribution vote for them at high rates, while the people being redistributed from vote at lower rates.
It's nothing but a standard "pay some people to vote for us" scheme.
If you believe in diminishing marginal utility, there certainly are.
Compare foodstamps and Medicaid to a program that's available to all income classes, such as, say, Medicare or Social Security.
These programs are not universal - no one under 65 receives them. Those programs are popular because the beneficiaries of redistribution vote for them at high rates, while the people being redistributed from vote at lower rates.
It's nothing but a standard "pay some people to vote for us" scheme.
Isn't the point that many unemployment benefits actually penalize people for taking a job? i.e. it's the difference between the marginal utility falling towards 0 as you earn/receive more money and the the utility being below 0 as you are punished for working by having welfare equal to more than you have earned taken away.
It's not actually that bad. Your consumption is basically flat as you go from $0k/year to $20k/year earned income.
http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...
http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...
I don't have a strong disagreement with his overall point, but think there's some strange data leading to those values. The families (average 1.7 people) earning less than $5,000 per year, seem to better educated, "whiter" and have more cars and homes than you might expect when compared with other earning levels.
One possibility is that these data are skewed by small business owners that made a loss that year. Together those who earn less than 5K actually have an average income of -2,500 and list average self-employment income at -8,000 dollars.
One possibility is that these data are skewed by small business owners that made a loss that year. Together those who earn less than 5K actually have an average income of -2,500 and list average self-employment income at -8,000 dollars.
Interesting. If true, this would skew the numbers I cite and basically every other poverty number out there.
> If you want to call having people dig holes and fill them back in "work," okay, fine.
Well, it is work, but it's not what I want people to do. Why on earth would you assume that that is what I want?
Whatever happened to giving the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps showing some curiosity as to what the other person really intends?
I have explained that a bit in response to another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5936103
Well, it is work, but it's not what I want people to do. Why on earth would you assume that that is what I want?
Whatever happened to giving the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps showing some curiosity as to what the other person really intends?
I have explained that a bit in response to another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5936103
I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction.
This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage.
But how does it do this? I'm not disputing that it could, I'm just uncertain how you are proposing to implement this. For example, will I have a choice over the sort of work I like to do? What if I feel like changing that? I also a see a bit of a problem when people who are much more competent at some particular task feel unhappy that they are not able to earn more than someone who is unskilled or lazy and does inferior work.
This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage.
But how does it do this? I'm not disputing that it could, I'm just uncertain how you are proposing to implement this. For example, will I have a choice over the sort of work I like to do? What if I feel like changing that? I also a see a bit of a problem when people who are much more competent at some particular task feel unhappy that they are not able to earn more than someone who is unskilled or lazy and does inferior work.
Yes, semantics can be fun...
As for the implementation, I am partial to the proposals of MMT economists like Bill Mitchell. They boil down to an arrangement where certain institutions - mostly local and regional government and non-profits, but the details vary - can post jobs. Those jobs will administrated by the institution itself with minimal central oversight. However, funding comes from the central (monetarily sovereign) government at an hourly wage that is fixed by law.
So it is simply an offer that you can take or not. If there is nothing that you like, don't take anything. The theory is that there are so many useful things that could be done once money stops being the limiting factor, it's extremely unlikely this would happen.
Basic income advocates like to say that it allows you to do whatever work you want to do. Well, the Job Guarantee intends to allow essentially the same freedom as long as what you want to do provides some public benefit.
That said, there are other proposals for how to generate infinite demand for labor at a fixed price, e.g. this one: http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-in...
As for the implementation, I am partial to the proposals of MMT economists like Bill Mitchell. They boil down to an arrangement where certain institutions - mostly local and regional government and non-profits, but the details vary - can post jobs. Those jobs will administrated by the institution itself with minimal central oversight. However, funding comes from the central (monetarily sovereign) government at an hourly wage that is fixed by law.
So it is simply an offer that you can take or not. If there is nothing that you like, don't take anything. The theory is that there are so many useful things that could be done once money stops being the limiting factor, it's extremely unlikely this would happen.
Basic income advocates like to say that it allows you to do whatever work you want to do. Well, the Job Guarantee intends to allow essentially the same freedom as long as what you want to do provides some public benefit.
That said, there are other proposals for how to generate infinite demand for labor at a fixed price, e.g. this one: http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-in...
Having a job is a privilege. just think of all the people who need one but don't have one.
> I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction.
In my language, "employer" is an concatenation of "work" and "give": "workgiver". While "employee" is an concatenation of "work" and "take": "worktaker". :)
In my language, "employer" is an concatenation of "work" and "give": "workgiver". While "employee" is an concatenation of "work" and "take": "worktaker". :)
The economy cannot be controlled nor manipulated by external means. Job Guarantee will only lead to people working in unproductive jobs such as brooming highways (ok, I know it's an extreme example, but you get the idea).
The productive economy assimilates a number of jobs naturally, and forcing it won't fix the issue, just like a basic unconditional income will only lead to inflation.
The productive economy assimilates a number of jobs naturally, and forcing it won't fix the issue, just like a basic unconditional income will only lead to inflation.
I am from Poland and I've seen that Job Guarantee policy in action when our country was ruled by communists. It ends in disaster: companies are forced to hire more people than they need to do the job, employees come to their workplace and have nothing to do so they spend a whole day chatting, doing nothing, sometimes even drinking alcohol as a way to fight boredom. At the end of the month they all receive a paycheck, which quickly leads company to bankruptcy but since goverment promised everyone Job Guarantee it has to support bankrupting company with some money to continue operating. This leads to a huge debt and eventualy bankruptcy of a whole country, as it was the case of Poland in 1980s
I guess something like that will be inevitable. Unfortunately it will have to be combined with a control of population size or it will be unsustainable.
Population will continue to stabilize and possibly fall in the developed world and population growth will lessen in the developing world.
Also, a life on basic income would probably be similar psychologically to unemployment -- more depression, disease, shorter lifespans, etc. These things contribute to a reduced rate of childbirth.
Also, a life on basic income would probably be similar psychologically to unemployment -- more depression, disease, shorter lifespans, etc. These things contribute to a reduced rate of childbirth.
Not sure - unemployment would cause a lot more anxiety, I would imagine. Are pensioners especially depressed (if age and diseases are factored out)?
It has to be only for adults. Or else people are going to have many children to get more money.
And it has to be only for native citizens, to avoid mass immigration.
And it has to be only for native citizens, to avoid mass immigration.
It would be difficult to let kids live in squalor, though. Presumably parents would receive at least some extra money, but perhaps it would decline with the number of children.
More people requesting entrance isn't going to magically increase the quotas all developed nations have for residence.
I don't see countries with a growing population being able to implement that at all, not because of the rising population, but because they are poor.
I think these things tend to miss that work is not only about providing sustenance for oneself (and family) but also about what people want to do with their lives.
Also these things assume the role of some centralized entity in this age when governments have been cutting back massively on things considered to be for the public benefit (because of their own financial short falls eg. Detroit). We seem to be thinking of doing more of the same in this paradigm when its falling apart around us…
Who is going melt the PVC to build this pipe dream?
Also these things assume the role of some centralized entity in this age when governments have been cutting back massively on things considered to be for the public benefit (because of their own financial short falls eg. Detroit). We seem to be thinking of doing more of the same in this paradigm when its falling apart around us…
Who is going melt the PVC to build this pipe dream?
It's unclear what your argument is, here.
Are you saying it's financially unsustainable? I agree that that's the big question, but saying "Detroit" isn't an argument.
Government expenditures aren't decreasing or being cut back massively: they're consistently rising, year on year. This isn't merely some artefact of Democratic administrations (which are hardly anomalies and can't be ignored anyway), because even the Ryan budget included year on year increases, albeit at a slower rate (that didn't keep pace with medical inflation, for better or for worse).
After medical costs, I would argue that people becoming unemployable is the main cause of this increase. That's why we see spiraling post-secondary education expenditures, massive SSDI increases, neverending unemployment benefits. Even SS itself reflects this a bit. If you buy the automation thesis or a variant--the zero marginal productivity worker--this tendency will not only continue but accelerate in the coming years and decades.
How do we deal with it? The contours of the issue is that automation simultaneously makes the world richer but also, because of increased skill requirements and increased human and informational capital management costs, makes some people too expensive to hire at any (positive) wage.
What do we do with them? Horses we just turned to glue, but thankfully no one is suggesting that. But ignoring them effectively does the same. So the question is how do we most efficiently provide them with the necessities of life?
If you buy into mainstream economic theory, cash payments are superior to in-kind ones. And also according to mainstream economic theory, giving benefits that phase out creates sharp disincentive effects to marginal labor, creating a welfare trap.
A basic income is the simplest answer to this. People not only have the same incentives to work as they do today, but indeed more if they're poor, as additional labor will not cost them benefits. It also undermines employer monopsony power in the marketplace. Those two things substantially increase the efficiency of the market.
That doesn't even touch on the possibility of an "entrepreneurial explosion" that some argue a basic income will allow for, which I'm cautiously optimistic about.
So, costs: the question as always. I did a rough calculation awhile back, and if I recall correctly swapping out Medicare, Medicaid, and SS for a basic income gets us to around $6k/adult citizen in the USA. That's more than halfway there. The rest? Well, there's the tricky part: some will come from increased economic efficiency and removing bureaucratic administrative costs from Medicare and Medicaid, but I'd like some other programs to be cut and, yes, taxes to be raised. My preferred version is a flat federal income tax comparable to what the well-off pay as their marginal rate now.
We can debate all the particulars, but the inexorable logic of the world's economic development demands we do something. A basic income is, in my view, the something that lets the market do its magic in the most unimpeded and efficient way possible.
Are you saying it's financially unsustainable? I agree that that's the big question, but saying "Detroit" isn't an argument.
Government expenditures aren't decreasing or being cut back massively: they're consistently rising, year on year. This isn't merely some artefact of Democratic administrations (which are hardly anomalies and can't be ignored anyway), because even the Ryan budget included year on year increases, albeit at a slower rate (that didn't keep pace with medical inflation, for better or for worse).
After medical costs, I would argue that people becoming unemployable is the main cause of this increase. That's why we see spiraling post-secondary education expenditures, massive SSDI increases, neverending unemployment benefits. Even SS itself reflects this a bit. If you buy the automation thesis or a variant--the zero marginal productivity worker--this tendency will not only continue but accelerate in the coming years and decades.
How do we deal with it? The contours of the issue is that automation simultaneously makes the world richer but also, because of increased skill requirements and increased human and informational capital management costs, makes some people too expensive to hire at any (positive) wage.
What do we do with them? Horses we just turned to glue, but thankfully no one is suggesting that. But ignoring them effectively does the same. So the question is how do we most efficiently provide them with the necessities of life?
If you buy into mainstream economic theory, cash payments are superior to in-kind ones. And also according to mainstream economic theory, giving benefits that phase out creates sharp disincentive effects to marginal labor, creating a welfare trap.
A basic income is the simplest answer to this. People not only have the same incentives to work as they do today, but indeed more if they're poor, as additional labor will not cost them benefits. It also undermines employer monopsony power in the marketplace. Those two things substantially increase the efficiency of the market.
That doesn't even touch on the possibility of an "entrepreneurial explosion" that some argue a basic income will allow for, which I'm cautiously optimistic about.
So, costs: the question as always. I did a rough calculation awhile back, and if I recall correctly swapping out Medicare, Medicaid, and SS for a basic income gets us to around $6k/adult citizen in the USA. That's more than halfway there. The rest? Well, there's the tricky part: some will come from increased economic efficiency and removing bureaucratic administrative costs from Medicare and Medicaid, but I'd like some other programs to be cut and, yes, taxes to be raised. My preferred version is a flat federal income tax comparable to what the well-off pay as their marginal rate now.
We can debate all the particulars, but the inexorable logic of the world's economic development demands we do something. A basic income is, in my view, the something that lets the market do its magic in the most unimpeded and efficient way possible.
>It's unclear what your argument is, here.
Because I'm not making one. I'm stating what current "mainstream" economic thinking has been doing.
>Government expenditures aren't decreasing or being cut back massively: they're consistently rising, year on year. This isn't merely some artefact of Democratic administrations (which are hardly anomalies and can't be ignored anyway), because even the Ryan budget included year on year increases, albeit at a slower rate (that didn't keep pace with medical inflation, for better or for worse).
That is very true! But the prices of commodities and other equities is going up faster, while wages and salaries have been stagnant for decades (gas for example when I was a kid in the 90s was around a dollar, now its 4x that). We can automate all the things in the world, but if the masses can't afford them without massively leveraging themselves to the point they can't make payments (or without refinancing their houses), the economy isn't going to do any better.
Printing money and giving it to people and expecting things to be stable is like trying to make two sides of an equation balance out by adding more to one side than the other, it's just inherently unstable. In markets, if consumers have more to spend on things they supposedly need, then sellers will be incentivized to raise their prices on their goods. Boom, your printing just did jack shit for stability. My IB friends talk to me about this all the time… just look at corporate balance sheets vs the DOW (can you say POMO?)…
Until the value of things robots will be manufacturing is closer to the range where people can actually afford to buy them (and meet their needs comfortably), you will only see things getting worse.
Until then, my crystal ball is for CDS backed by securities student loans/housing/faltering governments and municipalities, Defense Distributed/3-d printing/urban-ag, and cheap valuable land, and writing code to integrate these things…
Because I'm not making one. I'm stating what current "mainstream" economic thinking has been doing.
>Government expenditures aren't decreasing or being cut back massively: they're consistently rising, year on year. This isn't merely some artefact of Democratic administrations (which are hardly anomalies and can't be ignored anyway), because even the Ryan budget included year on year increases, albeit at a slower rate (that didn't keep pace with medical inflation, for better or for worse).
That is very true! But the prices of commodities and other equities is going up faster, while wages and salaries have been stagnant for decades (gas for example when I was a kid in the 90s was around a dollar, now its 4x that). We can automate all the things in the world, but if the masses can't afford them without massively leveraging themselves to the point they can't make payments (or without refinancing their houses), the economy isn't going to do any better.
Printing money and giving it to people and expecting things to be stable is like trying to make two sides of an equation balance out by adding more to one side than the other, it's just inherently unstable. In markets, if consumers have more to spend on things they supposedly need, then sellers will be incentivized to raise their prices on their goods. Boom, your printing just did jack shit for stability. My IB friends talk to me about this all the time… just look at corporate balance sheets vs the DOW (can you say POMO?)…
Until the value of things robots will be manufacturing is closer to the range where people can actually afford to buy them (and meet their needs comfortably), you will only see things getting worse.
Until then, my crystal ball is for CDS backed by securities student loans/housing/faltering governments and municipalities, Defense Distributed/3-d printing/urban-ag, and cheap valuable land, and writing code to integrate these things…
> So the question is how do we most efficiently provide them with the necessities of life?
the problem is this question begs the question - why do we need to provide for those who is unable to provide for themselves? The moral argument is that you must help your fellow human being, but i don't think you can use morals, when logic dictates that it may not be possible to do so.
the problem is this question begs the question - why do we need to provide for those who is unable to provide for themselves? The moral argument is that you must help your fellow human being, but i don't think you can use morals, when logic dictates that it may not be possible to do so.
But it certainly is possible to do. People in contemporary society are allocated some division of material resources, and most people get by, though at the edges there's some suffering. And disruptive automation and investment inherently increase material production, so it's not a lack of goods that is killing us. It's just a question of how to get those goods to people who can't provide value in the production chain of them in the most economically efficient way possible.
Another solution would be to shrink the work week to 4 days.
This would be my preferred solution as it would provide a clear benefit to both the unemployed and the employed!
Doubtful on the latter: most employed people spend more than 80% of their income and most employers would not be willing to increase their rate of pay by 25% (especially now, with salaries increasing below inflation).
Although it's often claimed that trade unions were instrumental in reducing the work week to 5 days, I'm curious to know what their stance would be on this now.
Although it's often claimed that trade unions were instrumental in reducing the work week to 5 days, I'm curious to know what their stance would be on this now.
Weirdly I've ended up spending a lot less money during the times of my life I've been in situations that allowed me to work 3-4 days a week.
Partly in that I didn't have to pay other folk to do stuff I'm happy to do myself when I have the time... the other factor is that the absence of free time brings out an annoying tendency in me to try and make up for it by spending money on stuff I really don't need!
Partly in that I didn't have to pay other folk to do stuff I'm happy to do myself when I have the time... the other factor is that the absence of free time brings out an annoying tendency in me to try and make up for it by spending money on stuff I really don't need!
Progressive taxation that starts from negative tax rate and goes upwards from there as more income is generate by working more is quite reasonable.
You always get something but most people want slightly more or much more, so they can choose to work just enough to get what they wanted. The tax rate goes up as the more work you do, so at some point you actually start paying taxes instead of receiving money as negative taxes. In this scheme, if you work more then you always get more money. Currently it doesn't always make sense to go to work because welfare/unemployment subsidies will disappear at some point.
You always get something but most people want slightly more or much more, so they can choose to work just enough to get what they wanted. The tax rate goes up as the more work you do, so at some point you actually start paying taxes instead of receiving money as negative taxes. In this scheme, if you work more then you always get more money. Currently it doesn't always make sense to go to work because welfare/unemployment subsidies will disappear at some point.
> welfare/unemployment subsidies will disappear at some point.
Indeed, as a houseworker my parents employed discovered a decade or so ago (she had been completely out of the loop and on welfare for a decade or so, started trying to fix things by doing housework in order to "re-integrate") who one day found out she'd gone above the magical threshold and had lost a number of benefits including holidays subsidies for her children which her income wouldn't compensate by a very long shot.
Sharp cutoffs on welfare are a disincentive, because they create a serious discontinuity in which your effective income craters as you lose all benefits but your income doesn't come close to compensating, and thus you work harder but your quality of life declines.
Indeed, as a houseworker my parents employed discovered a decade or so ago (she had been completely out of the loop and on welfare for a decade or so, started trying to fix things by doing housework in order to "re-integrate") who one day found out she'd gone above the magical threshold and had lost a number of benefits including holidays subsidies for her children which her income wouldn't compensate by a very long shot.
Sharp cutoffs on welfare are a disincentive, because they create a serious discontinuity in which your effective income craters as you lose all benefits but your income doesn't come close to compensating, and thus you work harder but your quality of life declines.
Progressive taxation has always been something of a hack: it's easier to get a greater proportion of someone's money when they're relatively well off than when they can barely pay for food and housing.
Perhaps for good reason. But one of the compelling parts of a basic income is that it cuts away the moral argument for progressive taxation: the basic income amount people are provided is enough to pay for the necessities of life, which is what progressive taxation tries to allow for. Replacing the progressive income tax with a basic income funded by a flat tax on all earned income combines the respective moral appeals of progressive and flat taxation while also being more economically efficient.
Perhaps for good reason. But one of the compelling parts of a basic income is that it cuts away the moral argument for progressive taxation: the basic income amount people are provided is enough to pay for the necessities of life, which is what progressive taxation tries to allow for. Replacing the progressive income tax with a basic income funded by a flat tax on all earned income combines the respective moral appeals of progressive and flat taxation while also being more economically efficient.
The premise for the progressive tax is that those that have benefited the most from the infrastructure provided by the government should repay the most. I don't think that tenant disappears the second you include a basic income allotment.
In my experience, most educated proponents of progressive taxation believe in something like "the marginal utility per dollar for poor people is higher than that of rich people, and the government should attempt to tax toward some concept of equi-utility," though I'm certainly open to hearing that that's not what most believe. In other words, taxing $1 from a poor person takes food out of their mouth while taxing $1 from a rich person delays the purchase of a new yacht by 1 second, so we should take that money from the person who'll lose less utility by its taking.
We also don't realistically attempt to tax people according to some abstract conception of who has benefited the most from government infrastructure.
We also don't realistically attempt to tax people according to some abstract conception of who has benefited the most from government infrastructure.
Also true, and equally applicable even if a base income were provided.
But if that were the case, then we would have a progressive consumption tax, not a progressive income tax.
Consumption is the benefit received from society. Income is merely potential consumption. And the rich tend not to consume to their full potential - rather, they tend to reinvest significant chunks of their income in society instead.
Consumption is the benefit received from society. Income is merely potential consumption. And the rich tend not to consume to their full potential - rather, they tend to reinvest significant chunks of their income in society instead.
> one of the compelling parts of a basic income is that it cuts away the moral argument for progressive taxation: the basic income amount people are provided is enough to pay for the necessities of life
It doesn't provide for necessities in many (most?) of the basic income proposals. Many proposals still leave a lot of the circumstance dependent benefits in place (eg providing for kids if you have them) so the basic income can be kept fairly low.
But yes, tax progression it does replace.
It doesn't provide for necessities in many (most?) of the basic income proposals. Many proposals still leave a lot of the circumstance dependent benefits in place (eg providing for kids if you have them) so the basic income can be kept fairly low.
But yes, tax progression it does replace.
I think this is the sensible implementation of the basic income. You get basic payment and then you can get rid of not just many benefits but also tax allowances and thresholds and pay a flat rate on all earned income.
This would eliminate further the cliffs/incentive changes with the basic income payment added to the tax the actual effect would be pretty progressive while everyone (who earns anything above the basic) would feel they are contributing.
What I have never done is really make an attempt to calculate the necessary rate of tax to support a useful basic income. I suspect it would be quite high.
This would eliminate further the cliffs/incentive changes with the basic income payment added to the tax the actual effect would be pretty progressive while everyone (who earns anything above the basic) would feel they are contributing.
What I have never done is really make an attempt to calculate the necessary rate of tax to support a useful basic income. I suspect it would be quite high.
The transition is rough but I would like automation to reach 100% and nobody having any jobs.
At that point money is no longer needed, as long as there is an abundance of things (what the 100% automation is all about).
People spend their days doing what they like and the robots do the heavy lifting.
At that point money is no longer needed, as long as there is an abundance of things (what the 100% automation is all about).
People spend their days doing what they like and the robots do the heavy lifting.
A couple of questions:
It currently appears that further automation concentrates income to a smaller and smaller group of folk, how do you propose we mitigate that?
While automation will provide for an abundance of some things, we are running out of other things (oil, rare metals, bluefin tuna). How should scarce resources be allocated?
It currently appears that further automation concentrates income to a smaller and smaller group of folk, how do you propose we mitigate that?
While automation will provide for an abundance of some things, we are running out of other things (oil, rare metals, bluefin tuna). How should scarce resources be allocated?
> It currently appears that further automation concentrates income to a smaller and smaller group of folk, how do you propose we mitigate that?
You know, every time I read such discussions I think that the communists probably have it right. The answer is to make the means of production (i.e., the robots) owned by the community rather than by individuals.
This could even be achieved without changing any laws: http://www.demos.org/blog/how-about-us-sovereign-wealth-fund
You know, every time I read such discussions I think that the communists probably have it right. The answer is to make the means of production (i.e., the robots) owned by the community rather than by individuals.
This could even be achieved without changing any laws: http://www.demos.org/blog/how-about-us-sovereign-wealth-fund
Yes, that's what everybody would like, I think. The article rightly points out that (in our present capitalist structure) this type of society exclusively benefits the robot-owners: why should my robot do heavy lifting for you?
The economically powerful see the benefit and the economically weak have no access to robots and no escape route from poverty.
The economically powerful see the benefit and the economically weak have no access to robots and no escape route from poverty.
Question "why should my robot do heavy lifting for you?" is pointless, because it literally costs you nothing to let your robot do the job. The only reason we now have to pay for anything is because there's always someone (human) who spent his time and effort to make it. Once everything is made by robots it can cost nothing
At a very minimum, there are opportunity costs.
I can make my robot work for myself, to build myself a palace, or I can make my robot work for you, to build you a simple home.
A capitalist is only motivated to do the latter because they get something beneficial in return - if I already have a robot who can work for free, then you may have nothing much more to offer me: I would have to be really an unusually altruistic capitalist to bother to help you.
I understand the concept of a post-capitalist utopia, but we have to get through the intermediate stage first.
I can make my robot work for myself, to build myself a palace, or I can make my robot work for you, to build you a simple home.
A capitalist is only motivated to do the latter because they get something beneficial in return - if I already have a robot who can work for free, then you may have nothing much more to offer me: I would have to be really an unusually altruistic capitalist to bother to help you.
I understand the concept of a post-capitalist utopia, but we have to get through the intermediate stage first.
i believe that the post-capitalist utopia is on a disjointed line to the current world (i.e., there is no step, short of complete jump, that will bring us from here to there). The reason i have is that people either have a way to escape the poverty trap or they don't. I argue that most don't (the rare ones who do are exceptions). This way, the poor either eventually die out (not likely - welfare keeps the group of poor people limping on while not giving them any way out), or somehow, a truely altruistic person/group (the likes of Bill Gates, but much much more resourced) ends up being able to carry the entire burden of resource production for each and every single person ; ala the big jump i mentioned above.
That's not entirely true. There are nonrenewable material and energy costs that went into making said robot. It may be a sunk cost, but it's not zero.
[deleted]
It will be cheaper to engineer a die-off via covert bioweapons and such. From the perspective of the superclass, why give useless eaters money when that money could be invested in the consolidation of power?
Power over who?
If you as an elite kill your subjects, who will provide for your needs? Who will work the fields that provide your food, who will repair your cars and house automations, who will mow your lawn? We're still far from a sustainable fully-automated food cycle.
So I believe the superclass don't want their subjects dead; they want them submissive, healthy enough to work without dying, and happy enough to not be motivated to try to change the system.
P.S. from a certain POV, money itself is a consolidation of power. The superclass uses money as an enslavement method -- see how most of middle-class are constrained to wage-work for paying back their debts.
So I believe the superclass don't want their subjects dead; they want them submissive, healthy enough to work without dying, and happy enough to not be motivated to try to change the system.
P.S. from a certain POV, money itself is a consolidation of power. The superclass uses money as an enslavement method -- see how most of middle-class are constrained to wage-work for paying back their debts.
When I saw the first X-Men movie where Magneto tried to kill all the humans, I told my wife "I hope the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants likes subsistence farming"
It will be cheaper to engineer a die-off via covert bioweapons and such.
That's not easy-- how does one keep that kind of secret while setting it up?-- and the precedent it sets is dangerous. If the non-elite are all killed off, then most of the remaining people (formerly elite) are non-elite and the cycle repeats.
That's not easy-- how does one keep that kind of secret while setting it up?-- and the precedent it sets is dangerous. If the non-elite are all killed off, then most of the remaining people (formerly elite) are non-elite and the cycle repeats.
>how does one keep that kind of secret while setting it up?
The same as with any controversial program. Claim the program is intended for non-domestic purposes, compartmentalize the development into different complimentary components, perform controlled leaks about the development that allow you to frame the public perception of the program (and makes it "old news"), and discredit any public "conspiracy theorists".
>If the non-elite are all killed off, then most of the remaining people (formerly elite) are non-elite and the cycle repeats.
Enough non-elite should be retained to keep the lights on, provide security, and serve any unforseen purposes in the future.
The same as with any controversial program. Claim the program is intended for non-domestic purposes, compartmentalize the development into different complimentary components, perform controlled leaks about the development that allow you to frame the public perception of the program (and makes it "old news"), and discredit any public "conspiracy theorists".
>If the non-elite are all killed off, then most of the remaining people (formerly elite) are non-elite and the cycle repeats.
Enough non-elite should be retained to keep the lights on, provide security, and serve any unforseen purposes in the future.
He does have a good point and this is going to happen eventually the question is how it's going to happen.
Are the big corporations going to accept this or are the going to lobby their asses off to stop it.
If they do and they win then we will most likely have another massacre of the rich and greedy.
Seems World War 3 is inevitable if corporations are going to fight this. Hope nobody uses the nukes or we're all screwed.
The poor do not have the means or capabilities to "fight" a war, because it isn't a war in the traditional sense. Its more like boiling a frog alive - little things slowly happen, and at every step, most people don't think much of the laws being passed. Until one day, they wake up and see that the world they live in no longer gives them the freedom they remembered having, and any efforts to organize change is quickly stamped out by those who rule.
Things like information gathering and surveillance is the first step. In the name of fighting "terrorism". I predict in 2100, fighters who revolt against greed/riches of the elite will be called terrorists.
Things like information gathering and surveillance is the first step. In the name of fighting "terrorism". I predict in 2100, fighters who revolt against greed/riches of the elite will be called terrorists.
>and it allows for a recognition of the value of certain types of non-market labour, like caring or raising children.
How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded.
That said, I agree with the idea in general, the removal of the claim stigma is pretty important.
How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded.
That said, I agree with the idea in general, the removal of the claim stigma is pretty important.
> How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded.
I don't think any basic-income scheme has anything to do with paying the people that work and the people that don't work the same. It's just about giving the unemployed a basic income, while those who actually work can have any income that people are willing to pay them (like now).
I don't think any basic-income scheme has anything to do with paying the people that work and the people that don't work the same. It's just about giving the unemployed a basic income, while those who actually work can have any income that people are willing to pay them (like now).
I'm not talking about paying everyone the same, I'm talking about the difference between non-market-work and non-work.
The article states that Basic Income allows for the recognition of the value of non-market-work. I can't see how.
In order to "recognize the value" of non-market-work, such workers must be treated differently to non-workers (unless the value is recognized to be zero). Any difference in the treatment of non-market-workers and non-workers is equally possible without a Basic Income system.
If those who do non-market work (e.g caring for their disabled partner) get paid the same as people who do no work at all, then it is valued identically to non-work. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it can hardly be said to be "recognition of the value" of non-market-work.
This means that a parent who takes time away from market-work to raise children; a person who provides full-time care for their disabled spouse; and a person who divides their time between playing CoD and watching Jersey Shore; are all paid the same.
The article states that Basic Income allows for the recognition of the value of non-market-work. I can't see how.
In order to "recognize the value" of non-market-work, such workers must be treated differently to non-workers (unless the value is recognized to be zero). Any difference in the treatment of non-market-workers and non-workers is equally possible without a Basic Income system.
If those who do non-market work (e.g caring for their disabled partner) get paid the same as people who do no work at all, then it is valued identically to non-work. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it can hardly be said to be "recognition of the value" of non-market-work.
This means that a parent who takes time away from market-work to raise children; a person who provides full-time care for their disabled spouse; and a person who divides their time between playing CoD and watching Jersey Shore; are all paid the same.
If we envision an eventual time with mostly-automation or full automation, there will be a transitioning period. Say that there are jobs for 50% and the rest have basic income: how will those two classes look? The people that are working will probably want to be compensated fairly well, since they are dedicating their time and sometimes taking on heavy responsibilities (like doctors). But how will the folks on basic income handle this new income-divide? Will they be content with their hobbies, non-profit work etc; or will they be jealous of the people with (I'm guessing) a substantially higher income and all their status symbols and trappings? Will this mean a much, much more competitive labour market, starting from early school and continuing into university and eventually a more demanding wokplace? Will the "jobless" be seen as a new low-class, being looked down on not simply for having low-skill jobs while at the same time working hard, but truly being people with no responsibilities (like I said, non-profit work and such might be a possibility)?
In short; will human nature be able to gracefully handle the transitioning period?
In short; will human nature be able to gracefully handle the transitioning period?
There are two answers to this:
First of all, the idea of basic income is that it is universal: there won't be a divide between those who have basic income but not work, and those who have work but not basic income. Everybody will have basic income; the divide will merely be between those who have work and those who don't.
The solution this divide is to eliminate the minimum wage, which acts as a significant hurdle to creating employment. In a basic-income world, there is no more moral argument for minimum wage to exist, because basic sustenance no longer comes from labour. Everybody will have sufficient food and shelter whether they work or not, so the exploitation of labour is no longer possible, and the safeguard of minimum wage is no longer needed. In a basic income world, labour becomes a privilege for both the employee and the employer.
Eliminating minimum wages means that employment can become a much smoother continuum of activities, rather than the sustenance-or-nothing proposition that it is right now. This opens up a vast range of lower-wage job opportunities, which people could purse when they want to, not actually because they need to. Want to earn £2/hr working in a community theatre? No problem. Want to earn £50/week helping to organise a supper club or being an assistant at a hackerspace? Go for it. Under a minimum wage regime, it's not even legal to employ people in this capacity; under a basic income regime, the distinction between "hobby" and "job" will blur into irrelevance. This means that you will be able to create dramatically more work -- and higher-quality work, because it would only be things that people pursue out of choice rather than necessity -- with a basic income than you could ever have without one.
EDIT -- As to how to handle the transition period: phase in the Basic Income at the same rate that you phase out Minimum Wage and all other forms of income support. A good Basic Income should be roughly equivalent to a good minimum wage; in most countries this works out to be about 50% of the mean individual income. If the Basic Income payments are phased in at the same rate that the minimum wage and other benefits are phased out, then there will be virtually no "losers". High-earners will get a little bump from the Basic Income; low-earners will see their take-home pay unchanged, but they will be increasingly less reliant on their jobs for it. This will put them in a better bargaining position vis-a-vis undesirable jobs, while new types of low-wage desirable jobs will become possible as the minimum wage is reduced. Do this transition over a course of a decade and it should be relatively smooth.
First of all, the idea of basic income is that it is universal: there won't be a divide between those who have basic income but not work, and those who have work but not basic income. Everybody will have basic income; the divide will merely be between those who have work and those who don't.
The solution this divide is to eliminate the minimum wage, which acts as a significant hurdle to creating employment. In a basic-income world, there is no more moral argument for minimum wage to exist, because basic sustenance no longer comes from labour. Everybody will have sufficient food and shelter whether they work or not, so the exploitation of labour is no longer possible, and the safeguard of minimum wage is no longer needed. In a basic income world, labour becomes a privilege for both the employee and the employer.
Eliminating minimum wages means that employment can become a much smoother continuum of activities, rather than the sustenance-or-nothing proposition that it is right now. This opens up a vast range of lower-wage job opportunities, which people could purse when they want to, not actually because they need to. Want to earn £2/hr working in a community theatre? No problem. Want to earn £50/week helping to organise a supper club or being an assistant at a hackerspace? Go for it. Under a minimum wage regime, it's not even legal to employ people in this capacity; under a basic income regime, the distinction between "hobby" and "job" will blur into irrelevance. This means that you will be able to create dramatically more work -- and higher-quality work, because it would only be things that people pursue out of choice rather than necessity -- with a basic income than you could ever have without one.
EDIT -- As to how to handle the transition period: phase in the Basic Income at the same rate that you phase out Minimum Wage and all other forms of income support. A good Basic Income should be roughly equivalent to a good minimum wage; in most countries this works out to be about 50% of the mean individual income. If the Basic Income payments are phased in at the same rate that the minimum wage and other benefits are phased out, then there will be virtually no "losers". High-earners will get a little bump from the Basic Income; low-earners will see their take-home pay unchanged, but they will be increasingly less reliant on their jobs for it. This will put them in a better bargaining position vis-a-vis undesirable jobs, while new types of low-wage desirable jobs will become possible as the minimum wage is reduced. Do this transition over a course of a decade and it should be relatively smooth.
Arguing by your logical suppositions, i claim that what would happen is that jobs that is required for society to function, but nobody wants to do, but is not automate-able (does toilet cleaning count? it might be automate-able...) would mean either an increase in the cost of performing that job, or it doesn't get performed at all at any cost because the benefit doesnt outweight the cost of getting it done.
THis could mean one of two things - if the job is really really essential, then the BI income will eventually not be able to cover the cost of that job (because people would be using their share of BI to cover it). If the job isn't really that essential, then it will end up being undone, much to the detriment of society perhaps.
My basic argument for BI's probable failure (i'd very much like to be proven/convinced otherwise tho), is that the resources invested in the infrastructure to replace labour must make some sort of return on investment (especially if it is made by private individuals). In this case, taxing these automation investments will either make it not worthwhile, or that the owners of these investments will just raise the price of the goods created to counteract the tax, thus raising inflation rate, and doesn't really do any good. The only way it will work is if the investment into automation doesn't "earn" much profit, and produces goods almost at cost. I doubt that would happen at all.
THis could mean one of two things - if the job is really really essential, then the BI income will eventually not be able to cover the cost of that job (because people would be using their share of BI to cover it). If the job isn't really that essential, then it will end up being undone, much to the detriment of society perhaps.
My basic argument for BI's probable failure (i'd very much like to be proven/convinced otherwise tho), is that the resources invested in the infrastructure to replace labour must make some sort of return on investment (especially if it is made by private individuals). In this case, taxing these automation investments will either make it not worthwhile, or that the owners of these investments will just raise the price of the goods created to counteract the tax, thus raising inflation rate, and doesn't really do any good. The only way it will work is if the investment into automation doesn't "earn" much profit, and produces goods almost at cost. I doubt that would happen at all.
This would create strong incentives to make these things automateable.
[deleted]
I see more problems than benefits.
1. Poverty is a relative term. Giving the entire population a basic income would shift everyone up, but ultimately it's a zero sum game. Obviously, the additional income will be marginal for high earners and the income gap will largely remain.
2. Massive distribution of money tends to be inflationary. As purchasing power and demand go up, so does the market pricing. Think of rent prices around poor neighborhoods for example.
3. It will not mitigate the "reverse Darwinism" that occurs across the socioeconomic layers. High earners have neutral or negative population growth, while the poor are procreating at a much higher rate. This phenomena crosses communities, countries and continents. It's the reason some rich European countries have declining indigenous population, with any growth attributed to poor immigrants.
4. It reduces the incentive to adapt to the new employment situation.
5. It does nothing to curb to social unrest that will happen due to income gaps. I don't want to sound like "The Man", but in effect this has the potential to make the income gap much more volatile; a large portion of the population that's idle and feels neglected is a massive unrest waiting for a cause.
The talks of automation as if it's the end of the materialistic society - as everything is produced effortlessly and cost effectively - are premature. We'll be there when we ultimately master the matter at a particle level (think of the Culture novels). Society can, and will adapt to the added manufacturing capabilities with strong demand for better products and services. In fact, I think automation will be the saving grace of manufacturing in the first world nations.
As controversial as it sounds, I think the solution lies in balancing the growth across the different socioeconomic levels. There should be a policy of encouraging growth across the upper echelons of society, while discouraging the growth among the lower ranks:
1. Immediately, it will reduce poverty levels;
2. It will provide a better opportunity to take care of low income families, including government sponsored education, health and food programs;
3. In the long run, it will be the most effective redistribution tool of wealth. For every kid the Walton family had, each of the others had billions less in inheritance. Accumulation of individual wealth is greatly amplified when successful families make 1 or 2 children. If they have an average of 4 children, the transfer of wealth between and across generations will be more reasonable.
The current situation of the financially weakest population multiplying in the quickest rate is bad for everyone (first and foremost to themselves); it is a demographic and economic dead end. No matter how much you try patching it with wealth redistribution, you WILL eventually "run out of other people's money".
1. Poverty is a relative term. Giving the entire population a basic income would shift everyone up, but ultimately it's a zero sum game. Obviously, the additional income will be marginal for high earners and the income gap will largely remain.
2. Massive distribution of money tends to be inflationary. As purchasing power and demand go up, so does the market pricing. Think of rent prices around poor neighborhoods for example.
3. It will not mitigate the "reverse Darwinism" that occurs across the socioeconomic layers. High earners have neutral or negative population growth, while the poor are procreating at a much higher rate. This phenomena crosses communities, countries and continents. It's the reason some rich European countries have declining indigenous population, with any growth attributed to poor immigrants.
4. It reduces the incentive to adapt to the new employment situation.
5. It does nothing to curb to social unrest that will happen due to income gaps. I don't want to sound like "The Man", but in effect this has the potential to make the income gap much more volatile; a large portion of the population that's idle and feels neglected is a massive unrest waiting for a cause.
The talks of automation as if it's the end of the materialistic society - as everything is produced effortlessly and cost effectively - are premature. We'll be there when we ultimately master the matter at a particle level (think of the Culture novels). Society can, and will adapt to the added manufacturing capabilities with strong demand for better products and services. In fact, I think automation will be the saving grace of manufacturing in the first world nations.
As controversial as it sounds, I think the solution lies in balancing the growth across the different socioeconomic levels. There should be a policy of encouraging growth across the upper echelons of society, while discouraging the growth among the lower ranks:
1. Immediately, it will reduce poverty levels;
2. It will provide a better opportunity to take care of low income families, including government sponsored education, health and food programs;
3. In the long run, it will be the most effective redistribution tool of wealth. For every kid the Walton family had, each of the others had billions less in inheritance. Accumulation of individual wealth is greatly amplified when successful families make 1 or 2 children. If they have an average of 4 children, the transfer of wealth between and across generations will be more reasonable.
The current situation of the financially weakest population multiplying in the quickest rate is bad for everyone (first and foremost to themselves); it is a demographic and economic dead end. No matter how much you try patching it with wealth redistribution, you WILL eventually "run out of other people's money".
So we should just breed away poverty? For all the assumptions and various levels of truthiness in your five enumerated problems, this is awfully optimistic pie-in-the-sky thinking.
Have you considered how long it would take the 1% families to achieve meaningful growth relative to population sizes even if every woman has 15 children starting at age 18? On the flip side, have you considered how hard it is to get poor people to stop getting pregnant? What would the incentives look like?
Have you considered how long it would take the 1% families to achieve meaningful growth relative to population sizes even if every woman has 15 children starting at age 18? On the flip side, have you considered how hard it is to get poor people to stop getting pregnant? What would the incentives look like?
[deleted]
Income redistribution is just a fancy name for stealing. Everyone should have just as much money as he is capable of earning. There is nothing wrong in high income gap. It's existence is just an evidence that society works as expected.
Redistribution is just a way of punishing smart and hardworking people for their success and reward the rest of society for their laziness. This would surely end in a disaster: people loose motivation to do anything, because they cannot see any correlation between their effort and income. This is also known as "learned helplessness" and will occur in most of middle class people.
Also, nothing depraves people more that money got without effort.
Redistribution is just a way of punishing smart and hardworking people for their success and reward the rest of society for their laziness. This would surely end in a disaster: people loose motivation to do anything, because they cannot see any correlation between their effort and income. This is also known as "learned helplessness" and will occur in most of middle class people.
Also, nothing depraves people more that money got without effort.
> Income redistribution is just a fancy name for stealing.
And many of world's greatest fortunes were and are created by stealing and other equally immoral practices. Your apparent ideology that government taxation is inherently evil, and capitalist markets are inherently good is incredibly naïve.
And many of world's greatest fortunes were and are created by stealing and other equally immoral practices. Your apparent ideology that government taxation is inherently evil, and capitalist markets are inherently good is incredibly naïve.
It is a role of the state to prevent creating fortunes by stealing. Guarantying fair rules of making business, prevent cheating and stealing is a prerequisite for capitalist market to even exist. That's a government role to provide such conditions by creating and enforcing the law. That's also the only thing that money from taxes should be used for.
Capitalist markets are good because they allow people to have a vote in everything that concerns them. But instead of putting their vote in a ballot box they vote with their money, which has much more power.
Capitalist markets are good because they allow people to have a vote in everything that concerns them. But instead of putting their vote in a ballot box they vote with their money, which has much more power.
While i understand your argument (and i wish the world really worked that way too), the problem with determining "vote" by money is that not everyone started off with equal vote in the beginning. Some people got rich thru schemes that was only available to them, and thru either luck, force of coercion, or trickery/deceit. Thus, the honest poor will remain poor, and any influence their vote has will be crowded out by the ill gotten gains by the dishonest ones. Which is what we have today, ala lobby money, political campaign money, transnational corporations which pay way less tax than they "should" be, yet enjoy the same rights as a tax paying citizen (e.g., property rights protection).
When I was talking about "voting with money" i didn't mean any political vote. I just meant that if you are in capitalist market and all services are provided by private companies then you have power over that companies because you can decide not to buy their products or services. That's something that gives you a freedom of choice. Lobby money, political campaign money and other things you mentioned can only matter if government rules most of fields in our lives. If you limit goverment's powers to minimum then bribing politicians has just no incentive to a person giving a bribe.
Things that tend to have a natural monopoly (for example, water pipes) don't work very well in a truly capitalistic market where everything is privatized. Unless you start with everyone being on equal footing, the incumbents can employ a strategy where they force new entrants to the market to pay exponentially more and thus snuff them out before they become a threat, and therefore can set their price to whatever the market will beare. Imagine you have to spend the majority of your income on potable water, simply because you can't get it anywhere else! You will pay it, because its your life, and it has infinite value if you can't get enough of it. Therefore, whoever controls the water can control others thru this power.
> It is a role of the state to prevent creating fortunes by stealing.
If you can point to even one single state that has successfully done so, it would be of immense help to this discussion.
> But instead of putting their vote in a ballot box they vote with their money, which has much more power.
This way you reintroduce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage.
If you can point to even one single state that has successfully done so, it would be of immense help to this discussion.
> But instead of putting their vote in a ballot box they vote with their money, which has much more power.
This way you reintroduce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage.
> If you can point to even one single state that has successfully done so, it would be of immense help to this discussion.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ will be helpfull
> This way you reintroduce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage.
Yes, and that's the point, because it immediately cures main deficency of the democracy: decisions about country's major issuess would be made by people who are smart, successfull and have experience leading big organizations or companies, instead of being made by every idiot that happens to be of the legal age.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ will be helpfull
> This way you reintroduce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Census_suffrage.
Yes, and that's the point, because it immediately cures main deficency of the democracy: decisions about country's major issuess would be made by people who are smart, successfull and have experience leading big organizations or companies, instead of being made by every idiot that happens to be of the legal age.
> decisions about country's major issuess would be made by people who are smart, successfull and have experience leading big organizations or companies, instead of being made by every idiot that happens to be of the legal age.
You then confuse financial success with competence or intelligence. Also, keep in mind those "idiots" will have to obey their "smart, successful" rulers without right to question their rule. They are also in much larger number and may resent that. How do you intend to oppress them?
You then confuse financial success with competence or intelligence. Also, keep in mind those "idiots" will have to obey their "smart, successful" rulers without right to question their rule. They are also in much larger number and may resent that. How do you intend to oppress them?
> You then confuse financial success with competence or intelligence.
I stated from the beginning that I consider ruling out any possibility of stealing and cheating to be prerequisite for existence of the capitalism. Given that,the only remaining ways to become rich are to be competent and intelligent.
> Also, keep in mind those "idiots" will have to obey their "smart, successful" rulers without right to question their rule. They are also in much larger number and may resent that. How do you intend to oppress them?
Funny thing is that they do not need to be oppressed at all. Most people are just mentally incapable of questioning rules that were imposed on them, they are totally happy with explanations like "it has always been like that. It has to be like that". They even like being told what to do because it is easier and gives them sense of security.
And those few who are brave enough to question rules are welcomed to be successful, earn a lot of money and join the class of "rulers".
Moreover, provided that the "rulers" are really intelligent they will know how much they can push their minions without causing resentment. This is basically how US politics works these days :)
I stated from the beginning that I consider ruling out any possibility of stealing and cheating to be prerequisite for existence of the capitalism. Given that,the only remaining ways to become rich are to be competent and intelligent.
> Also, keep in mind those "idiots" will have to obey their "smart, successful" rulers without right to question their rule. They are also in much larger number and may resent that. How do you intend to oppress them?
Funny thing is that they do not need to be oppressed at all. Most people are just mentally incapable of questioning rules that were imposed on them, they are totally happy with explanations like "it has always been like that. It has to be like that". They even like being told what to do because it is easier and gives them sense of security.
And those few who are brave enough to question rules are welcomed to be successful, earn a lot of money and join the class of "rulers".
Moreover, provided that the "rulers" are really intelligent they will know how much they can push their minions without causing resentment. This is basically how US politics works these days :)
> Given that,the only remaining ways to become rich are to be competent and intelligent.
Inheritance is another possibility. Do you intend to rule that out too? And, again, if the "smart, successful" are the ones making the rules, you can bet none of them will ever be caught cheating.
> Most people are just mentally incapable of questioning rules that were imposed on them
> Moreover, provided that the "rulers" are really intelligent they will know how much they can push their minions without causing resentment.
Sigh...
Inheritance is another possibility. Do you intend to rule that out too? And, again, if the "smart, successful" are the ones making the rules, you can bet none of them will ever be caught cheating.
> Most people are just mentally incapable of questioning rules that were imposed on them
> Moreover, provided that the "rulers" are really intelligent they will know how much they can push their minions without causing resentment.
Sigh...
As existing jobs get automated, why would be stop seeing new roles which the automation cannot service?
The argument is that as more work gets automated, the rate at which new roles get created slowly decreases (indefinitely - as i m sure theres an infinite amount of roles out there). But population increases at a rate faster than new roles come out, and so the logical conclusion would be that there are going to be displaced people that have no roles for them.
But isn't this just rephrasing the question? AFAICS, there is no general trend towards global unemployment, and we've been automating things for a long time already. Why should we now suspect that redundancy will outstrip the volume of new roles?
Also, consider how many people would be incapable of fulfilling such role: if something cannot be done by robot it probably means it requires creativity, intelligence and other assets that are in shortage even in humans.
>Now, redistribution is already, prima facie, one of the absolute best things a government can do. Simply put, rich people don't need money, and poor people do. All else being equal, taking some money from rich people and giving it to poor people is therefore the absolute best way to improve worldwide welfare we know of.
This is the most bullshit paragraph I have read all year.
This is the most bullshit paragraph I have read all year.
I like that they point out that alternative to basic income isn't business as usual but rather all out communist-like revolution like the last time.
> We are continually being pushed into the territory that distinguishes us from machines: emotion, relationships, synthesis, abstraction, beauty, art, meaning, and more.
Our future depends on the humanization work: http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2013/02/our-future...
We still have the idea of a discrete education, that once we obtain a skill, we can be employable using that skill. Such specialization is not going to cut it going forward. We have to view learning as a life-long continuous endeavour of an experimentation of ideas.
Start by making university free. Pay people to study. Don't let young people go 30K+ in debt just to get a basic education. That load of debt starting out limits possibilities. Mostly limiting the ability to be creative or entrepreneurial but it can also hinder one's ability to be mobile and to travel and acquire new perspectives.
Our future depends on the humanization work: http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2013/02/our-future...
We still have the idea of a discrete education, that once we obtain a skill, we can be employable using that skill. Such specialization is not going to cut it going forward. We have to view learning as a life-long continuous endeavour of an experimentation of ideas.
Start by making university free. Pay people to study. Don't let young people go 30K+ in debt just to get a basic education. That load of debt starting out limits possibilities. Mostly limiting the ability to be creative or entrepreneurial but it can also hinder one's ability to be mobile and to travel and acquire new perspectives.
As a Briton, I never thought I'd see a New Statesman link on the Hacker News front page - especially not to see that people are defending it in the comments! (It's the leftest of left wing magazines, save the SWP rags, even a wooly liberal like me finds it a bit much.)
There must be fewer Americans on here in the middle of the night or something...
There must be fewer Americans on here in the middle of the night or something...
In Switzerland there will probably be a voting about introducing a basic income. At least if the initiators manage to get 100'000 signatures for their initiative until October (so far they have about 90'000 valid signatures).
Basic income is an interesting idea but the argument that automation and robots will replace all our jobs is no more true now than it was when I started my career as an engineer 20 years ago or when the Luddites smashed the power looms. Anybody who has worked in manufacturing knows that introducing robotics is expensive and a lot less flexible than you would hope. I guess it would be a scary prospect for believers of the singularity.
Suppose you give a bar of gold to everyone, for nothing, every month.
Question: what's gold going to be worth on the market in half a year?