3 ms·

Wikipedia and open source software are often used as examples.

by _rpd 11y ago

ci5er 11y ago
I realize that the thread of the conversation risks becoming a bit meander-ey through multiple authors, but if I follow the line of reasoning... So far, we seem to be positing that: with some sort of UBI, people can move to more remote or less costly locales and do things that aren't valuable enough to be paid for by evil capitalists, but are valuable enough for them to ... satisfy whatever psychological need they may have to tell themselves that they are useful or worthwhile human beings? Gosh, IDK, that's a thin stretch. I think that if society needs a UBI as a better (more effective and/or efficient) form of social safety net, we will need to convince people that it's OK if 25% or more of the entire adult population is really doing nothing more with their lives than consuming air/food/water and watching Jerry Springer. By which I mean - it might still be the best safety net scheme we can come up with to get us to/through an age of automation, but we'd best not try to sell it on the idea that it will lead to a flowering of the a new age of the human spirit or some such. Rather, it's just a social safety net that doesn't disincentivize any particular incremental unit of work at the margin. Policy-wise, that may be good enough to make it worthwhile.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  I'd actually typed out an elaborate reply, but HN told me not to post that fast. The thing about both poor and rural locations is... they don't have the public funding or private companies for a lot of stuff we take for granted in rich urban cores. Stuff like: * Medical clinics * Firefighting * Policing * Maintenance on buildings * Broadband internet infrastructure * Plumbing and sewage infrastructure * Electrical infrastructure * Roads and bridges It's not so much that UBI would end up paying the rural poor to satisfy their psychological need to feel useful, as it would send them money they can spend on pressing material needs that the rest of society have decided don't deserve to be filled if it doesn't benefit "evil capitalists". I mean, come on, do you really want to object that rural electrification or sewage should starve for lack of funding? Because that's what's already happening with the lack of infrastructure funding in many places. Hell, there's a lot of rich urban areas which have let their basic infrastructure go to crap (looking at you, MBTA!) due to immature political slap-fights. If UBI means that people have money to spend, which they can pump through their local economy, which generates a little bit more tax revenue to improve crumbling infrastructure and address basic needs, then it's a good idea. (Sure, we could spend the same state money on direct infrastructure spending, but that would be industrial policy, and thus horrific, evil Communism.)

Wikipedia and open source software are often used as examples.

by _rpd 11y ago

Wikipedia and open source software are often used as examples.

ci5er 11y ago

I realize that the thread of the conversation risks becoming a bit meander-ey through multiple authors, but if I follow the line of reasoning... So far, we seem to be positing that: with some sort of UBI, people can move to more remote or less costly locales and do things that aren't valuable enough to be paid for by evil capitalists, but are valuable enough for them to ... satisfy whatever psychological need they may have to tell themselves that they are useful or worthwhile human beings? Gosh, IDK, that's a thin stretch. I think that if society needs a UBI as a better (more effective and/or efficient) form of social safety net, we will need to convince people that it's OK if 25% or more of the entire adult population is really doing nothing more with their lives than consuming air/food/water and watching Jerry Springer. By which I mean - it might still be the best safety net scheme we can come up with to get us to/through an age of automation, but we'd best not try to sell it on the idea that it will lead to a flowering of the a new age of the human spirit or some such. Rather, it's just a social safety net that doesn't disincentivize any particular incremental unit of work at the margin. Policy-wise, that may be good enough to make it worthwhile.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
I'd actually typed out an elaborate reply, but HN told me not to post that fast. The thing about both poor and rural locations is... they don't have the public funding or private companies for a lot of stuff we take for granted in rich urban cores. Stuff like: * Medical clinics * Firefighting * Policing * Maintenance on buildings * Broadband internet infrastructure * Plumbing and sewage infrastructure * Electrical infrastructure * Roads and bridges It's not so much that UBI would end up paying the rural poor to satisfy their psychological need to feel useful, as it would send them money they can spend on pressing material needs that the rest of society have decided don't deserve to be filled if it doesn't benefit "evil capitalists". I mean, come on, do you really want to object that rural electrification or sewage should starve for lack of funding? Because that's what's already happening with the lack of infrastructure funding in many places. Hell, there's a lot of rich urban areas which have let their basic infrastructure go to crap (looking at you, MBTA!) due to immature political slap-fights. If UBI means that people have money to spend, which they can pump through their local economy, which generates a little bit more tax revenue to improve crumbling infrastructure and address basic needs, then it's a good idea. (Sure, we could spend the same state money on direct infrastructure spending, but that would be industrial policy, and thus horrific, evil Communism.)