4 ms·

This is the correct answer that people don't want to hear. People in Manhattan complain the rent is too damn high. Of course, they can't even imagine moving acr

This is the correct answer that people don't want to hear. People in Manhattan complain the rent is too damn high. Of course, they can't even imagine moving across the river to NJ though. That'd be beneath them. A good leader can't just tell people what they want to hear. Gentrification is OK. We don't have a right to live in an area we are priced out of and that is OK. However, I have a little gnawing voice in my head that a basic income might not be able to keep up with housing cost increases... We will still be throwing some vulnerable people under the bus. I can't see how ubi can fully eliminate need for social workers or programs with administrative oversight (high costs). I personally think a universal basic income should not be universal. It should only apply to people who have the right and opportunity to spend their money as they see fit. Exclude the children, the prisoners, and the infirm, for example. If the goal is automation, we don't need as many people. If the economy can survive a contraction in labor supply, we could nudge people to not have children. That would be awesome.

eru 11y ago
What's wrong with children?
- newjersey 11y ago
  If society doesn't need more babies, we should not encourage people to have more babies. Of course, this is not true today. I am talking about a situation where economic activity (and growth) does not depend on ever increasing human consumption. My assumptions are likely flawed (please don't take my words at face value). As your sibling comment suggests, I am about to watch a ted talk https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen/ https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... My unverified, unscientific thoughts: My ideal is we move beyond this ideal of 2.4 children per couple. I want us to go even beyond one child policy. I want it to be socially acceptable for couples to choose to not have children. More than that, I want it to be sustainable for people to have -- on average -- fewer than one child. Now, it seems we are already moving in that direction. It seems as of 2012, we are already at 1.88 in the US, 1.66 in China PR, and 1.41 in Japan. https://www.google.com/search?q=total+fertility+rate+usa https://www.google.com/search?q=total+fertility+rate+usa I'd say we can do better and drive it further down all over the world but we cannot promote this until we have some kind of assurance that doing so will not cause the global economy to stagnate, or worse, contract. If people live longer and are productive for longer, we can safely transition into a more automated future with fewer humans than we have today.
  - eru 11y ago
    What do you mean by `society needing (or not needing) babies'? Society _is_ babies plus time. What goals would be served by having babies (or not having them)? And whose goals are these? For any finite human life span, you need two babies on average per woman to keep population stable. Transitioning into a lower population number via below replacement fertility works great for a while (children are expensive), but causes problems once you have more pensioners than working people. Japan and various European are about to experience that soon, China a bit later. > I'd say we can do better and drive it further down all over the world but we cannot promote this until we have some kind of assurance that doing so will not cause the global economy to stagnate, or worse, contract. Per capita, or absolute? And why care about the global economy so much? (If you do, there are some easy policies to drive up global GDP like crazy: full free trade, free movement of people, simplify urban real estate development (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-i...), and transition to a less distorting tax system (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val... and perhaps carbon tax).
vlehto 11y ago
Check out Hans Rosling. Number of children in the world has stopped growing. Do you advocate for eugenics so that smarter genes get further? For that you might first want an equal beginning for every semen-sack and ovary. Currently nobody has good idea who has the "smart genes" and who has just good upbringing. I think that if we actually get to the situation of relative equality and there is some coherent "smart genes" at play, then human specie would naturally split into homo engineers and homo welfares. Anyhow, genuine UBI would be what you should want too.
- newjersey 11y ago
  > Do you advocate for eugenics so that smarter genes get further? For that you might first want an equal beginning for every semen-sack and ovary. Currently nobody has good idea who has the "smart genes" and who has just good upbringing. No, I cannot earnestly support eugenics. I just think society doesn't need any given couple to have more than x number of children and if people want x + n children, they should be able to fully fund for the rearing of the n children themselves. Personally, I believe that the ceiling for x should be no greater than 2.
ant6n 11y ago
Of course UBI doesn't remove the need for certain social programs. In most of the developed world except the US, homelessness is almost exclusively a health (psychiatry) issue. UBI helps reducing the number of people in precarious situations due to economic reasons, which in the States are a lot. But you still have to help the people that are in precarious situations due to health issues.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Right, exactly. A basic income makes it much easier to tell who needs other kinds of help.

eru 11y ago

What's wrong with children?

newjersey 11y ago
If society doesn't need more babies, we should not encourage people to have more babies. Of course, this is not true today. I am talking about a situation where economic activity (and growth) does not depend on ever increasing human consumption. My assumptions are likely flawed (please don't take my words at face value). As your sibling comment suggests, I am about to watch a ted talk https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen/ https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... My unverified, unscientific thoughts: My ideal is we move beyond this ideal of 2.4 children per couple. I want us to go even beyond one child policy. I want it to be socially acceptable for couples to choose to not have children. More than that, I want it to be sustainable for people to have -- on average -- fewer than one child. Now, it seems we are already moving in that direction. It seems as of 2012, we are already at 1.88 in the US, 1.66 in China PR, and 1.41 in Japan. https://www.google.com/search?q=total+fertility+rate+usa https://www.google.com/search?q=total+fertility+rate+usa I'd say we can do better and drive it further down all over the world but we cannot promote this until we have some kind of assurance that doing so will not cause the global economy to stagnate, or worse, contract. If people live longer and are productive for longer, we can safely transition into a more automated future with fewer humans than we have today.
- eru 11y ago
  What do you mean by `society needing (or not needing) babies'? Society _is_ babies plus time. What goals would be served by having babies (or not having them)? And whose goals are these? For any finite human life span, you need two babies on average per woman to keep population stable. Transitioning into a lower population number via below replacement fertility works great for a while (children are expensive), but causes problems once you have more pensioners than working people. Japan and various European are about to experience that soon, China a bit later. > I'd say we can do better and drive it further down all over the world but we cannot promote this until we have some kind of assurance that doing so will not cause the global economy to stagnate, or worse, contract. Per capita, or absolute? And why care about the global economy so much? (If you do, there are some easy policies to drive up global GDP like crazy: full free trade, free movement of people, simplify urban real estate development (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-i...), and transition to a less distorting tax system (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val... and perhaps carbon tax).

vlehto 11y ago

Check out Hans Rosling. Number of children in the world has stopped growing. Do you advocate for eugenics so that smarter genes get further? For that you might first want an equal beginning for every semen-sack and ovary. Currently nobody has good idea who has the "smart genes" and who has just good upbringing. I think that if we actually get to the situation of relative equality and there is some coherent "smart genes" at play, then human specie would naturally split into homo engineers and homo welfares. Anyhow, genuine UBI would be what you should want too.

newjersey 11y ago
> Do you advocate for eugenics so that smarter genes get further? For that you might first want an equal beginning for every semen-sack and ovary. Currently nobody has good idea who has the "smart genes" and who has just good upbringing. No, I cannot earnestly support eugenics. I just think society doesn't need any given couple to have more than x number of children and if people want x + n children, they should be able to fully fund for the rearing of the n children themselves. Personally, I believe that the ceiling for x should be no greater than 2.

ant6n 11y ago

Of course UBI doesn't remove the need for certain social programs. In most of the developed world except the US, homelessness is almost exclusively a health (psychiatry) issue. UBI helps reducing the number of people in precarious situations due to economic reasons, which in the States are a lot. But you still have to help the people that are in precarious situations due to health issues.

dllthomas 11y ago
Right, exactly. A basic income makes it much easier to tell who needs other kinds of help.