4 ms·

I do not think basic income is a solution. I know programmers are thrilled at the magic of modern AI but its very simple to tip it over even theoretically. Se

by 1971genocide 11y ago

I do not think basic income is a solution. I know programmers are thrilled at the magic of modern AI but its very simple to tip it over even theoretically. Self Driving cars are not even that good, they are better than the average and that is an immense amount of creative labour destruction. But if you look back at history there has been a greater amount of labour destruction both physical and mental. Coming back to basic income. Do you think the way we use resources in the modern world is anyway efficient ? Speaking from Physics we are still way off from having solved major problems in society. Right now 1/2 of adults in the UK are on entitlement which puts immense debt burden on the other half. Both US and Europe are heading in that direction. Both US and Europe need a massive restructuring of their infrastructure if climate change is to be dealt with. Not to mention helping african countries get on their feet. Right now that burden is shared mostly be china who are helping build roads and other developed nations within africa like nigeria. The faster we can get contraceptives to africa we can stop the problem of the african baby boom due to industrialization right at its toes. We know from data that the country of Nigeria alone will have 750 Million people by 2100. These are real problems facing the globalized economy. There also the problem of deflation. Economically once the poor global south industrialize there will be immense downward pressure of wages for all forms of jobs. We know what happened when 700 million chinese joined the global economy. What happens when the rest of the 3 billion join ? Most of them of younger age and would constitute higher labour productivity. China as a country is already much more efficient - they have high speed rail links connecting their entire nation. No need to buy fossil fuels when all their transportation is powered via electric. which is generated by solar panels in the gobi desert. They have one of the most sophisticated supply chain producing all our iphones and computers. Now they are interested in doing the same in central asia which geographically is the most mineral rich regions on earth. Yes all of this doesn't matter if you are in Europe where the population is low enough and the resources is high. But the cost of production will get lower and labour gets cheaper along with resources. We will end up with a situation where something in Europe costs significantly higher than produced in africa.

TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
Basic income could absolutely create a better minimum for the poor (and everyone, really) if it replaces the current entitlement disaster. It would most likely be cheaper (edit: it might not be, depends on the details) and become much more efficient considering you're sending a cheque that would ideally have no conditions associated with it. When large quantities of manual labor jobs or easily automated jobs are replaced, basic income, I think, would push that class of folks to a livable standard. Not much, but just enough. You'll have more people transitioning off the streets and into normal lives. (Even as a libertarian, I say this, which at first, might be at odds with the philosophy but there are good arguments that make it perfectly compatible.)
- tempestn 11y ago
  Yes, exactly. A basic income would both make sense for the ideal future we're trying to create (but which the parent correctly states is a long way off) and also for many of the issues of the present. I'm personally pretty skeptical that it would indeed cost less than what we have. (I'm in Canada, but basically the same arguments apply.) I expect there would have to be a significant tax hike, which could be structured so that it cancels out the basic income somewhere in the middle class range, leaving the poor better off and the wealthy nominally paying more. However, it could also achieve so much more than the current minimally effective (if that) safety nets. People would not be forced to take a job just to survive. They could instead pursue work that they enjoy, and most likely end up making a greater contribution to society. This would apply for the middle class as well. Rather than being so focused on compensation, people would have more freedom to pursue the job that gives them maximum satisfaction, again benefiting all of society. Sure, some few would just milk the system, but it's ingrained in human nature both to produce something of value and to try to better one's state in life, so I expect that would be the minority. Even though I wouldn't directly benefit financially from a system like that, I would love to see it seriously explored.
  - TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
    Absolutely! (I also live in Canada) It might be more expensive than the status-quo. It depends on the details of such a system. To add to your point about people working not to survive but to thrive: re-education, or education would be a more realistic possibility. Currently, going back to school at 30 or 40 years old when you've held low wage jobs is really hard. A family member of mine, after a divorce that ended her up with nothing, was able to raise her 6 kids, upgrade her high school and get a university degree, all without a job. This is simply not possible with the safety nets currently available (welfare helped but definitely wasn't enough). This was only possible because of her family taking a second mortgage to buy a house that she "rented" and a line of credit for food and necessities. The amount of people that will have to be re-educated to find a job will only increase. This would only be a positive for the workforce.

TheHydroImpulse 11y ago

Basic income could absolutely create a better minimum for the poor (and everyone, really) if it replaces the current entitlement disaster. It would most likely be cheaper (edit: it might not be, depends on the details) and become much more efficient considering you're sending a cheque that would ideally have no conditions associated with it. When large quantities of manual labor jobs or easily automated jobs are replaced, basic income, I think, would push that class of folks to a livable standard. Not much, but just enough. You'll have more people transitioning off the streets and into normal lives. (Even as a libertarian, I say this, which at first, might be at odds with the philosophy but there are good arguments that make it perfectly compatible.)

tempestn 11y ago
Yes, exactly. A basic income would both make sense for the ideal future we're trying to create (but which the parent correctly states is a long way off) and also for many of the issues of the present. I'm personally pretty skeptical that it would indeed cost less than what we have. (I'm in Canada, but basically the same arguments apply.) I expect there would have to be a significant tax hike, which could be structured so that it cancels out the basic income somewhere in the middle class range, leaving the poor better off and the wealthy nominally paying more. However, it could also achieve so much more than the current minimally effective (if that) safety nets. People would not be forced to take a job just to survive. They could instead pursue work that they enjoy, and most likely end up making a greater contribution to society. This would apply for the middle class as well. Rather than being so focused on compensation, people would have more freedom to pursue the job that gives them maximum satisfaction, again benefiting all of society. Sure, some few would just milk the system, but it's ingrained in human nature both to produce something of value and to try to better one's state in life, so I expect that would be the minority. Even though I wouldn't directly benefit financially from a system like that, I would love to see it seriously explored.
- TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
  Absolutely! (I also live in Canada) It might be more expensive than the status-quo. It depends on the details of such a system. To add to your point about people working not to survive but to thrive: re-education, or education would be a more realistic possibility. Currently, going back to school at 30 or 40 years old when you've held low wage jobs is really hard. A family member of mine, after a divorce that ended her up with nothing, was able to raise her 6 kids, upgrade her high school and get a university degree, all without a job. This is simply not possible with the safety nets currently available (welfare helped but definitely wasn't enough). This was only possible because of her family taking a second mortgage to buy a house that she "rented" and a line of credit for food and necessities. The amount of people that will have to be re-educated to find a job will only increase. This would only be a positive for the workforce.