5 ms·

Between this essay and the one I saw on HN over the weekend [1], I feel PG really got this essay wrong. Both response essays have really compelling points, and

Between this essay and the one I saw on HN over the weekend [1], I feel PG really got this essay wrong. Both response essays have really compelling points, and even as I read PG's original, I felt like he was catastrophizing. Something that none of the above mention is that, as "job eliminators," we need to start considering how to keep the people who have no chance at a job can continue to live reasonable lives. California, despite being the home of Silicon Valley, still has "truck driver" as the most common occupation as of 2014. [2] In ten years we'll probably be seeing the first self-driving trucks; in 25 the occupation will likely be gone for any runs that don't require humans to unload the truck at the other end (home or small commercial delivery drivers, movers, etc.; a lot of trucks just move goods from one manned loading dock to another). Before you say they'll work at some new job, what other jobs at that skill level won't also be automated by that time? We need a serious movement toward guaranteed income. Capitalism needs consumers; if most of the population can't get jobs, who will be the consumers? And what will happen to those people? Without guaranteed income, they'll be desperate; I don't exaggerate in suggesting that the poor will eventually get to the point of trying to overthrow or attack the rich. A brief look at the fall of various past civilizations will reveal many parallels, and even if the rich could sufficiently arm themselves to resist, living in cyberpunk-style walled enclaves, that's not a future I would want to live in. Making sure everyone has enough to live a decent life is the only path I can see to a humane future. [1] http://cryoshon.co/2016/01/02/a-response-to-paul-grahams-article-on-income-inequality/ http://cryoshon.co/2016/01/02/a-response-to-paul-grahams-art... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-t...

pc86 11y ago
On the surface I want to support BI, I really do. But how does it work other than as a replacement (not supplement) to existing social welfare programs? Give someone enough money that they can rent a room, buy food, and cover their healthcare (whatever cost that may incur). The numbers required to do this in the US when you eliminate all social programs seem doable. Most people pay less in taxes, money gets distributed directly to the people, and it seems fine. So what happens when someone uses their entire BI allowance on Fireball and lottery tickets? The two choices seem to be "they die" or "we don't actually eliminate social service in exchange for a guarantee BI."
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  The BI proponents typically forget that there's some average amount of money that would work for everyone, but there is clearly a power-law at the expensive end of social services. As an example, I have an extended family member who was born happy and healthy but contracted meningitis at 5 years old and was severely mentally handicapped afterwards. For the past 20 years, his parents have provided his extensive care buoyed by social security disability, but they won't be around forever, so then what? Giving him or some agent on his behalf $12k/year isn't going to come close to paying for the level of support that he needs. There are millions of people in similar situations that could not survive without significant amounts of money which is almost entirely funded by the government. Just assuming that this will be covered by any basic income is silly.
  - pc86 11y ago
    So at that point it basically becomes a "you only get BI unless you need more," which is really just what we have now but everyone gets a $12k/yr kicker on top, right (to use your figure).
    - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
      Throw in single-payer to cover health issues (and include mental health issues) and you'll cover 98% of the problem. People play PowerBall to extremes and similar because they're desperate. I doubt $12k/year would be sufficient, BTW. You want people to be able to live a decent, if spartan, life on BI, and at $12k I think they'd be forced to decide between starving or extremely poor living conditions. Probably $18k/year would be an absolute minimum, plus allowances for kids (how to handle kids is a HUGE question, well outside the scope of this post). The amount you earn could vary by chosen living area, in proportion to living expenses. Maybe not 100% proportionally; if an area has 150% of the cost of living, but only pays you 125% more than the nominal amount, there would still be a pressure to move to less expensive areas, but more expensive areas wouldn't de facto exclude people on BI. There needs to be extended discussion on the details. I don't know nearly enough to be able to have all of the answers. But it seems like the answer is out there, if enough people get together to work on it.
anonbanker 11y ago
BI is a great short-term idea. As jobs become replaced, we can keep the keep capitalism alive for at least two generations with this hack. Unfortunately, the system of Capitalism is starting to fail, and we're seeing the ludicrous hacks applied to industrial age economics in order to keep us afloat. The need for money, in the classical sense, is disappearing. All the institutions that are held afloat on such a model, are begining to die. blockchains, and trustless ledgers in general, will take down Governments (based on trust, after all), nevermind mere government-backed banking institutions or corporate-welfare-receivers. We should be mindful (aware) of what a world is going to look like without these institutions, and try to structure our lives around these new changes.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  >the system of Capitalism is starting to fail To paraphrase a famous quote, Capitalism is the worst system possible, except for all of the other systems that have been tried. There are a number of possible ways to hack/change capitalism that, while they don't change the fundamental principles, do make the process more sustainable.
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    People who say we shouldn't start over with something new because everything else sucked more than what we have now are defeatists. I like apache just as much as the next guy, but I moved to the apache2 codebase. the rewrite turned out to be better with time. Let's assume that whatever replaces capitalism will have similar characteristics.
- serge2k 11y ago
  > blockchains, and trustless ledgers in general, will take down Governments That sounds awful, fortunately it's not oging to happen.

pc86 11y ago

On the surface I want to support BI, I really do. But how does it work other than as a replacement (not supplement) to existing social welfare programs? Give someone enough money that they can rent a room, buy food, and cover their healthcare (whatever cost that may incur). The numbers required to do this in the US when you eliminate all social programs seem doable. Most people pay less in taxes, money gets distributed directly to the people, and it seems fine. So what happens when someone uses their entire BI allowance on Fireball and lottery tickets? The two choices seem to be "they die" or "we don't actually eliminate social service in exchange for a guarantee BI."

mikeyouse 11y ago
The BI proponents typically forget that there's some average amount of money that would work for everyone, but there is clearly a power-law at the expensive end of social services. As an example, I have an extended family member who was born happy and healthy but contracted meningitis at 5 years old and was severely mentally handicapped afterwards. For the past 20 years, his parents have provided his extensive care buoyed by social security disability, but they won't be around forever, so then what? Giving him or some agent on his behalf $12k/year isn't going to come close to paying for the level of support that he needs. There are millions of people in similar situations that could not survive without significant amounts of money which is almost entirely funded by the government. Just assuming that this will be covered by any basic income is silly.
- pc86 11y ago
  So at that point it basically becomes a "you only get BI unless you need more," which is really just what we have now but everyone gets a $12k/yr kicker on top, right (to use your figure).
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    Throw in single-payer to cover health issues (and include mental health issues) and you'll cover 98% of the problem. People play PowerBall to extremes and similar because they're desperate. I doubt $12k/year would be sufficient, BTW. You want people to be able to live a decent, if spartan, life on BI, and at $12k I think they'd be forced to decide between starving or extremely poor living conditions. Probably $18k/year would be an absolute minimum, plus allowances for kids (how to handle kids is a HUGE question, well outside the scope of this post). The amount you earn could vary by chosen living area, in proportion to living expenses. Maybe not 100% proportionally; if an area has 150% of the cost of living, but only pays you 125% more than the nominal amount, there would still be a pressure to move to less expensive areas, but more expensive areas wouldn't de facto exclude people on BI. There needs to be extended discussion on the details. I don't know nearly enough to be able to have all of the answers. But it seems like the answer is out there, if enough people get together to work on it.

anonbanker 11y ago

BI is a great short-term idea. As jobs become replaced, we can keep the keep capitalism alive for at least two generations with this hack. Unfortunately, the system of Capitalism is starting to fail, and we're seeing the ludicrous hacks applied to industrial age economics in order to keep us afloat. The need for money, in the classical sense, is disappearing. All the institutions that are held afloat on such a model, are begining to die. blockchains, and trustless ledgers in general, will take down Governments (based on trust, after all), nevermind mere government-backed banking institutions or corporate-welfare-receivers. We should be mindful (aware) of what a world is going to look like without these institutions, and try to structure our lives around these new changes.

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
>the system of Capitalism is starting to fail To paraphrase a famous quote, Capitalism is the worst system possible, except for all of the other systems that have been tried. There are a number of possible ways to hack/change capitalism that, while they don't change the fundamental principles, do make the process more sustainable.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  People who say we shouldn't start over with something new because everything else sucked more than what we have now are defeatists. I like apache just as much as the next guy, but I moved to the apache2 codebase. the rewrite turned out to be better with time. Let's assume that whatever replaces capitalism will have similar characteristics.
serge2k 11y ago
> blockchains, and trustless ledgers in general, will take down Governments That sounds awful, fortunately it's not oging to happen.