4 ms·
You are happy to say that because you don't currently have far, far more than everyone else, and so in your mind, "I get a lot more money, but I have to pay som
by philipov 11y ago
You are happy to say that because you don't currently have far, far more than everyone else, and so in your mind, "I get a lot more money, but I have to pay some of it back" sounds like a nice bargain.
However, the people who already have far, far more wealth than everyone else have nothing to gain from that way of thinking, as they already have most of the wealth without having to pay UBI. So why would they allow it?
- forrestthewoods 11y agoOn a global level if you're posting on this board you almost certainly have far, far more than everyone else. So by "everyone" you really mean "not everyone but only certain geographic groups of someone".
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> However, the people who already have far, far more wealth than everyone else have nothing to gain from that way of thinking, as they already have most of the wealth without having to pay UBI. So why would they allow it? That sounds less like a problem with the idea and more like an obstacle to implementation. Also, what do the rich have to gain by not helping make UBI happen? Probably starvation, unrest and war as automation puts the lower ends of the economy out of jobs and destabilizes the society. Think at least French Revolution levels of mess. Some rich may survive, but their world would be quite shitty, and their conscience may not like it either. What do they have to gain, on the other hand? A stable and growing society, able to continue on the path of scientific, technological growth. They'll maybe lose a zero from the bank account, but they get a fair shot at seeing the world improving for everyone, and being little less rich in a world that's much more wealthy is good - just like being a poor in XXI century West is much better than being a king in Medieval Europe. I think smart rich people will totally go for it. Hell, I think some already say they want to.
- Turing_Machine 11y agoProbably starvation, unrest and war as automation puts the lower ends of the economy out of jobs and destabilizes the society. Yes. We're definitely headed toward a world where significant percentage of the population have no skill or talent that anyone will willingly pay them money to perform. There are ways of papering this over, but most of them are pretty unappealing. For instance, bringing back a servant, or even less appetizingly, a slave, class. You can probably think of others. They're all ugly. The ugliest option, where we just leave people to starve, is a non-starter, both from a moral perspective and a practical one (as you say, if you get enough starving people, property rights are going to go out the window).
- smegger001 11y agoWhy would being a servant be considered ugly or unappatizing? Is it different really than any other service industry job? So instead of being a fry cook at burger king for minimum wage they prepare dinner for someone that is more affluent and that is somehow lacking dignity as more than the former, how?
- Turing_Machine 11y agoWhy would being a servant be considered ugly or unappatizing? Would you do it by choice?
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoEvery day, at my desk job. What are you getting at?
- Turing_Machine 11y agoShuffling papers or writing code is a different thing entirely from scrubbing someone else's toilet.
- 11y ago