4 ms·

> The actual case against basic income: it reduces work effort drastically (13%) in the experiment where this was measured. That's not a case against it, that'

> The actual case against basic income: it reduces work effort drastically (13%) in the experiment where this was measured. That's not a case against it, that's one of the benefits of it. The notion that everyone must work is antiquated in this continually automating world and will soon no longer be possible. The people who are losing jobs don't have the skills to be in demand and demand for human workers will only continually decrease as time passes. When you automate people, the rules change; it's not going to be like the past where people just did different jobs. There won't be enough jobs that require human skills enough to keep more than a small part of humanity working.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
In that case, lets have more banking crises! They also reduce work effort. We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. We still need Uber drivers, house cleaners, and day care workers. Once we reach the era where robots have made everyone obsolete, BI will be so cheap to provide that no one will bother to oppose it.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. I didn't say we were, I said it's coming, and we need to adapt before then or it'll be terribly hard on society.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  You can do better than this straw-man. As best I can tell reducing work effort is good, but neither the banking crises nor a BI hold much of ceteris anything like paribus. The banking crisis saw work effort fall, but also saw productivity fall and saw incomes fall for a great many individuals. It's not hard to imagine that that nets out negative.
zghst 11y ago
I think many place too much faith that while someone isn't working, they will be doing good things with their time and not having negative effects on the society or economy or the human race. Everyone earning their keep is not an antiquated concept. It humbles people. Fills their time with purpose. Improves their intelligence and resiliency. I have known many idle people in my life, none have been worth a damn. Supporting someone because they exists is a horrible idea! Maybe these elites should step out of their bubble and into the real world of poverty. A paycheck is not the only issue in the world of being poor!
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > I think many place too much faith that while someone isn't working, they will be doing good things with their time and not having negative effects on the society or economy or the human race I think you need to look into the assumption that humans require so much work; it's not historically true, hunter gatherers spent much less time working and much more time in leisure, even tribes today. > Everyone earning their keep is not an antiquated concept. Earning your keep doesn't require 40 hours work a week in a world full of automation, what is antiquated is the notion that there's enough work to keep everyone working all time; look around, that's changing. > It humbles people. Fills their time with purpose. Improves their intelligence and resiliency. So do other things, like art and culture; there's more to life than work. Seems you've been brainwashed into thinking only work fulfills people. > Supporting someone because they exists is a horrible idea! No, it's called being human and it's what has to come whether you like it or not; there simply isn't going to be enough work to go around to rely on a labor based means of distribution anymore and automation is going to further distribute what's left into the hands of a very few. Those trends can't end well without a radical change in how society is organized.
  - mamon 11y ago
    > So do other things, like art and culture; there's more to life than work. Seems you've been brainwashed into thinking only work fulfills people. So far in human history the only people that were able not to work, but instead have an effortless lives devoted to "art and culture" were members of aristocracy. This happened few times, since the ancient civilizations till 19th century and always resulted in that "noble" class degenerating into bunch of perverts. Basic income would result in pretty much the same, just on larger scale.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      No one said anything about devoted entirely to art and culture; I said there are other things that fulfill people besides work. Also aristocracy's issues weren't art and culture, it was wealth and power that lead their degenerating because as we all know power corrupts. So no, basic income is not pretty much the same, in fact they're nothing at all alike.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

In that case, lets have more banking crises! They also reduce work effort. We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. We still need Uber drivers, house cleaners, and day care workers. Once we reach the era where robots have made everyone obsolete, BI will be so cheap to provide that no one will bother to oppose it.

gnaritas 11y ago
> We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. I didn't say we were, I said it's coming, and we need to adapt before then or it'll be terribly hard on society.
dllthomas 11y ago
You can do better than this straw-man. As best I can tell reducing work effort is good, but neither the banking crises nor a BI hold much of ceteris anything like paribus. The banking crisis saw work effort fall, but also saw productivity fall and saw incomes fall for a great many individuals. It's not hard to imagine that that nets out negative.

zghst 11y ago

I think many place too much faith that while someone isn't working, they will be doing good things with their time and not having negative effects on the society or economy or the human race. Everyone earning their keep is not an antiquated concept. It humbles people. Fills their time with purpose. Improves their intelligence and resiliency. I have known many idle people in my life, none have been worth a damn. Supporting someone because they exists is a horrible idea! Maybe these elites should step out of their bubble and into the real world of poverty. A paycheck is not the only issue in the world of being poor!

gnaritas 11y ago
> I think many place too much faith that while someone isn't working, they will be doing good things with their time and not having negative effects on the society or economy or the human race I think you need to look into the assumption that humans require so much work; it's not historically true, hunter gatherers spent much less time working and much more time in leisure, even tribes today. > Everyone earning their keep is not an antiquated concept. Earning your keep doesn't require 40 hours work a week in a world full of automation, what is antiquated is the notion that there's enough work to keep everyone working all time; look around, that's changing. > It humbles people. Fills their time with purpose. Improves their intelligence and resiliency. So do other things, like art and culture; there's more to life than work. Seems you've been brainwashed into thinking only work fulfills people. > Supporting someone because they exists is a horrible idea! No, it's called being human and it's what has to come whether you like it or not; there simply isn't going to be enough work to go around to rely on a labor based means of distribution anymore and automation is going to further distribute what's left into the hands of a very few. Those trends can't end well without a radical change in how society is organized.
- mamon 11y ago
  > So do other things, like art and culture; there's more to life than work. Seems you've been brainwashed into thinking only work fulfills people. So far in human history the only people that were able not to work, but instead have an effortless lives devoted to "art and culture" were members of aristocracy. This happened few times, since the ancient civilizations till 19th century and always resulted in that "noble" class degenerating into bunch of perverts. Basic income would result in pretty much the same, just on larger scale.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    No one said anything about devoted entirely to art and culture; I said there are other things that fulfill people besides work. Also aristocracy's issues weren't art and culture, it was wealth and power that lead their degenerating because as we all know power corrupts. So no, basic income is not pretty much the same, in fact they're nothing at all alike.