4 ms·

I've read all the comments and the main argument is that people will not want to work with Basic Income being provided. This comes from a basic lack of understa

I've read all the comments and the main argument is that people will not want to work with Basic Income being provided. This comes from a basic lack of understanding how basic incomes work. They are intentionally very low. Imagine making in the bottom quartile. You have enough to eat something each day, you have something that shelters you from the environment, you can afford to shop a thrift stores and craigslist. However, you would want for more. New Apple stuff, disneyland tickets, a vacation. There are 2 main veins of basic income that I've heard: 1. Basic income that distributes goods from automation (ie, robot economy) . Not really what's being discussed here. 2. A basic income that is enough to not die and not enough such that most people would be satiated. Those that are not satiated would be encouraged to work on something, both that others want and that they want to do. Jobs that people would love to do would pay very little, jobs that suck (something to do with poop, surely) would pay more, the market forces are still at play. If #1 ever becomes real such that all human want is satiated (I do not believe in infinite demand for consumption) or #2 pays too much, then yes it sounds like a scene from that movie WALL-E

joeyespo 11y ago
I think your comment is pretty spot-on. One thought about the WALL-E scene though. While I'm not at all advocating the satiation of everyone, I do wonder about its perceived inevitability. If that was the only outcome, wouldn't we see evidence of this with the extremely rich today? (I'm talking about the case where wealth was strictly inherited here, not the self-made fortunes from hard work.) I don't have any examples in mind, but I do think it's worth asking the question. If we assume those who are satiated would not work on anything of value, that might very well contain a similar misunderstanding to what you've highlighted here. We just need more data to know what level "too much" really is, or if that's even a thing at all (I believe it is, but I certainly can't prove it).
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  When I think about infinite consumption, it says to me "There is literally no limit to how many X a person would take". I really think there is a limit. I will never (consistently) eat more than 3000 calories a day. I couldnt imagine living >1000 sq ft per person. 3 cars per person ought to satisfy every occasion (Sports car, SUV, Comfort car), etc etc. There is some finite limit before the marginal object is worth less than the difficulty of obtaining/maintaining it. ex, adding a car means I, at the very least, need to buy it, drive it to my garage and walk around it to get to my other car each day. I think food is the ultimate example of a post scarcity good: if pizza was free (forever), how many would you take? 1, 1000, 1000000? I'd take 1 a day and maybe put a few in my freezer just in case. But I certainly wouldnt have 1000x or even 10x as much pizza. The extremely wealthy display wealth for differentiation, not because they actually enjoy all 100000 sq ft of living space they own. Its a status symbol to say " I have a house in every state" or whatever else they brag about. IMO part of the reason its so absurd to have those in want of health care, whilst others brag about horsepower, square feet, planes and yachts.
Mz 11y ago
One of my concerns is that modern peoples are already very out of touch with what matters for the creation of things of real value. We already have bizarre ideas that money = value. We already have people who fail to understand the real world underpinnings of the creation of value -- of how you need certain resources and preconditions to have any hope of creating value. We already have too many people who think you fix financial problems, like depression, by manipulating the market economy. We already have a great many people who are intelligent, educated and well-paid who are very out of touch with reality in terms of where food and other important resources come from. The reason it matters to me to have people get money by participating in the economy and not just for existing is because that participation shapes their ideas about what matters. There is no upper limit to what humans can spend or consume. We see this again and again and again. And about 2/3 of lottery winners are bankrupt within 5 years. People who have no education in dealing with wealth just run through it. Their lottery winnings seem "limitless" to them and they just run through it all and end up bankrupt. You are talking about doing that as a universal thing. You are talking about spreading the belief that we have so much wealth right now that every last person can just consume and not produce and it will somehow be okay. I very strongly disagree with this notion. It is not that it simply disincentives work. It is that it further poisons the minds of people who already are out of touch with where real value comes from. I find this incredibly scary stuff. You have to deal with the mental space of humans, not just their bodily needs. You talk about distributing enough money to keep people fed and what not at some basic level and you ignore what that does to their minds and self concept. I think this is extremely dangerous territory and will be disastrous.
- joeyespo 11y ago
  > We already have too many people who think you fix financial problems, like depression, by manipulating the market economy There's a doctor who treats debilitating mental and health issues by doing exactly this. He "prescribed them income"[1]. That alone solved more problems for these people than any other approach. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRT0bvaz98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRT0bvaz98
  - Mz 11y ago

joeyespo 11y ago

I think your comment is pretty spot-on. One thought about the WALL-E scene though. While I'm not at all advocating the satiation of everyone, I do wonder about its perceived inevitability. If that was the only outcome, wouldn't we see evidence of this with the extremely rich today? (I'm talking about the case where wealth was strictly inherited here, not the self-made fortunes from hard work.) I don't have any examples in mind, but I do think it's worth asking the question. If we assume those who are satiated would not work on anything of value, that might very well contain a similar misunderstanding to what you've highlighted here. We just need more data to know what level "too much" really is, or if that's even a thing at all (I believe it is, but I certainly can't prove it).

maerF0x0 11y ago
When I think about infinite consumption, it says to me "There is literally no limit to how many X a person would take". I really think there is a limit. I will never (consistently) eat more than 3000 calories a day. I couldnt imagine living >1000 sq ft per person. 3 cars per person ought to satisfy every occasion (Sports car, SUV, Comfort car), etc etc. There is some finite limit before the marginal object is worth less than the difficulty of obtaining/maintaining it. ex, adding a car means I, at the very least, need to buy it, drive it to my garage and walk around it to get to my other car each day. I think food is the ultimate example of a post scarcity good: if pizza was free (forever), how many would you take? 1, 1000, 1000000? I'd take 1 a day and maybe put a few in my freezer just in case. But I certainly wouldnt have 1000x or even 10x as much pizza. The extremely wealthy display wealth for differentiation, not because they actually enjoy all 100000 sq ft of living space they own. Its a status symbol to say " I have a house in every state" or whatever else they brag about. IMO part of the reason its so absurd to have those in want of health care, whilst others brag about horsepower, square feet, planes and yachts.

Mz 11y ago

One of my concerns is that modern peoples are already very out of touch with what matters for the creation of things of real value. We already have bizarre ideas that money = value. We already have people who fail to understand the real world underpinnings of the creation of value -- of how you need certain resources and preconditions to have any hope of creating value. We already have too many people who think you fix financial problems, like depression, by manipulating the market economy. We already have a great many people who are intelligent, educated and well-paid who are very out of touch with reality in terms of where food and other important resources come from. The reason it matters to me to have people get money by participating in the economy and not just for existing is because that participation shapes their ideas about what matters. There is no upper limit to what humans can spend or consume. We see this again and again and again. And about 2/3 of lottery winners are bankrupt within 5 years. People who have no education in dealing with wealth just run through it. Their lottery winnings seem "limitless" to them and they just run through it all and end up bankrupt. You are talking about doing that as a universal thing. You are talking about spreading the belief that we have so much wealth right now that every last person can just consume and not produce and it will somehow be okay. I very strongly disagree with this notion. It is not that it simply disincentives work. It is that it further poisons the minds of people who already are out of touch with where real value comes from. I find this incredibly scary stuff. You have to deal with the mental space of humans, not just their bodily needs. You talk about distributing enough money to keep people fed and what not at some basic level and you ignore what that does to their minds and self concept. I think this is extremely dangerous territory and will be disastrous.

joeyespo 11y ago
> We already have too many people who think you fix financial problems, like depression, by manipulating the market economy There's a doctor who treats debilitating mental and health issues by doing exactly this. He "prescribed them income"[1]. That alone solved more problems for these people than any other approach. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRT0bvaz98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRT0bvaz98
- Mz 11y ago