6 ms·

I find it difficult to understand exactly what type of a social contract you are suggesting as 'making sense'. You seem to be suggesting that people shouldn't

by gwright 11y ago

I find it difficult to understand exactly what type of a social contract you are suggesting as 'making sense'. You seem to be suggesting that people shouldn't have to be 'forced' to be employed (i.e. trade their personal skills for $$) but instead should receive an income from the government for simply existing. They could then do whatever they wanted in their free time. This clearly doesn't work for everyone unless you are working under the assumption that the 'government' can just print money and everything will just work out. So you seem to be suggesting that there should be two groups of people. Those who simply live on income given to them no strings attached by the government and another group of people who are doing something bad by being employed and are forced to give up some of their income/wealth to the government to be given to the group of people who opt out of that system. This seems to be what you are advocating but I must be missing something. BTW, I'm actually interested in a basic income mechanism as a more efficient way of delivering a social safety net to those who need some assistance but in my mind that presupposes that only a fraction of the people need assistance. I can't see how that works if the basic income is an attempt to provide a minimal viable income for everyone!

afterburner 11y ago
"and another group of people who are doing something bad by being employed" Did you overlook the group of people that has huge capital resources from accruing it from generation to generation and can simply sit on this wealth as the robots it purchases bring in even more wealth? Or do you consider that "being employed"? And do you think that if someone cannot find employment because there are not enough jobs in the world that they should therefore have a shitty life in their one and only finite existence?
- mycroft-holmes 11y ago
  Redistribute the group of people's wealth and then what?
  - afterburner 11y ago
    Why, what are you imagining?
- gwright 11y ago
  > And do you think that if someone cannot find employment because there are not enough jobs in the world that they should therefore have a shitty life in their one and only finite existence? I think it is pretty clear from what I wrote: "delivering a social safety net to those who need some assistance" that I don't think that.
stegosaurus 11y ago
I think the point being missed here is that those with high incomes or wealth essentially have their lifestyles subsidised by those who are forced to take the basic jobs in order to live. Their labour is cheaper than it would be if they were truly free. Essentially, they have little negotiating power. I'm advocating for flipping that position and seeing where it leads us. I don't think that people would suddenly stop working entirely. I think there would be a redistribution from rich to poor. I think that's reasonable. If you feel that the world would fall apart and people would stop doing anything useful if they weren't coerced, then I would ask the question - why do the wealthy work? They already have a basic income. What proportion of people who could retire permanently at say, age 40, actually do? I think the picture being painted of a bunch of feckless, consuming meatballs, is wildly off base.
- baddox 11y ago
  Isn't that a bit like saying that professional athletes or entertainers have their lifestyles subsidized by those who are forced to take basic jobs because they lack the athleticism or artistic skill of the professionals? Or would you say that athletes and entertainers are okay because their success is based more on their own merit?
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    Athletes and entertainers are mostly struggling people. There's tons of talented people who don't get rich at all. The smaller number who get rich are winners in a largely winner-take-all media system controlled by big corporations. Even most NFL players aren't rich, only the stars, the others just make a decent living but then have to quit at a young age and live with concussions. The best collegiate wrestlers are athletes of the highest order and have no living from it. And so on and so on. Regardless, these spectacles are barely productive or valuable really. They are mostly escapist distractions. The circus part of "bread and circuses". The idea that you can look at this completely unjust system and say "oh, the Gladiators deserve their fortunes though" is absurdly out of touch. > because they lack the athleticism or artistic skill of the professionals Your comment implies that we could have a functioning society if everyone were rock stars and athletes. That's absurd. The role of rock-star and athlete is a zero-sum game. We don't need a billion rock stars. If everyone were virtuoso musicians, then a few of them would still win the lottery as being the ones that make it over others, and nothing would be that different. We'd still be having the same discussions about economics etc.
quadrangle 11y ago
> receive an income from the government for simply existing well, what about "have access to food and basic resources". It's not like all value in the world only comes from labor. http://ninasadventures.com/inventionofwork http://ninasadventures.com/inventionofwork
- gwright 11y ago
  I'm having a hard time understanding the notion that some forms of effort ('labor') to sustain yourself are bad but other forms of effort (something other than labor) are good but apparently are insufficient for survival and that there is some obligation for the government (i.e. other people) to make up the difference. If you don't want to exchange your skills (physical or mental) for money, then you probably need to find a benefactor of some kind to sustain you and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing if it is a mutually consenting relationship. Note, there is a difference between not wanting to sustain yourself through your own effort and being incapable of doing so. There is plenty of room to talk about government assistance in latter case, not so much in the former case.
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    Did you not look at the comic in the post you're replying to? The broader argument is that the topic at hand is not actually about labor to sustain yourself. It's about a system designed to actually deprive you of access to naturally-existing wealth and resources so that you are then forced to labor for someone else in order to gain sustenance. In other words, there was at one point fresh water and land and berries and such just available in the world. People had to labor to get them, but they were there. We've made far more value for society overall such that we have resources to support far more people, and it's mostly from a long evolution of technology and science. There's tons of productive things to do to keep things going. But since we have an attitude of "you deserve your share of resources only if you labor" we have a ton of make-work bullshit that people do that can even be counter-productive. We're not all working on things that actually add value to society. People who skim off the system such as high-speed traders get a huge share of the resources while laboring in ways that create no value whatsoever. So, we need to get rid of the "work to eat" idea because it leads people to do whatever to eat when they are desperate. We'd do better if we focus on promoting things that provide the most value, and we get that better if we provide other motivations than "do whatever it takes not to starve".
Mikeb85 11y ago
Basic income only works if everyone receives it. If it's like welfare and you lose it if you're employed, then no one works. If it's truly universal basic income, it actually encourages work because any additional income increases your standard of living.
- baddox 11y ago
  While BI may not discourage work for most people, I don't see how it would encourage work for anyone, given the marginal utility of money.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Versus existing programs that are poorly structured (some existing programs are poorly structured, some aren't), an unconditional program would remove some disincentives to work where increased work income leads to cuts in benefits and a net lower standard of living. (Of course fixing poorly structure programs is going to be easier than implementing a basic income)
    - baddox 11y ago
      That's a valid point. My previous comment wasn't considering that BI would replace the current means-tested welfare programs, mostly because I do not believe that a BI would actually lead to elimination of the other programs. There will still be people who waste their BI for a variety of reasons, and I don't think society will be fine with them living destitute with no additional safety net.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        "There will still be people who waste their BI for a variety of reasons, and I don't think society will be fine with them living destitute with no additional safety net." I am not "fine with them living destitute", but if a person cannot get by with a reasonable income provided then clearly they need some sort of help beyond the financial. "Means tested free stuff" doesn't seem a very good fit.

by gwright 11y ago

afterburner 11y ago

"and another group of people who are doing something bad by being employed" Did you overlook the group of people that has huge capital resources from accruing it from generation to generation and can simply sit on this wealth as the robots it purchases bring in even more wealth? Or do you consider that "being employed"? And do you think that if someone cannot find employment because there are not enough jobs in the world that they should therefore have a shitty life in their one and only finite existence?

mycroft-holmes 11y ago
Redistribute the group of people's wealth and then what?
- afterburner 11y ago
  Why, what are you imagining?
gwright 11y ago
> And do you think that if someone cannot find employment because there are not enough jobs in the world that they should therefore have a shitty life in their one and only finite existence? I think it is pretty clear from what I wrote: "delivering a social safety net to those who need some assistance" that I don't think that.

stegosaurus 11y ago

I think the point being missed here is that those with high incomes or wealth essentially have their lifestyles subsidised by those who are forced to take the basic jobs in order to live. Their labour is cheaper than it would be if they were truly free. Essentially, they have little negotiating power. I'm advocating for flipping that position and seeing where it leads us. I don't think that people would suddenly stop working entirely. I think there would be a redistribution from rich to poor. I think that's reasonable. If you feel that the world would fall apart and people would stop doing anything useful if they weren't coerced, then I would ask the question - why do the wealthy work? They already have a basic income. What proportion of people who could retire permanently at say, age 40, actually do? I think the picture being painted of a bunch of feckless, consuming meatballs, is wildly off base.

baddox 11y ago
Isn't that a bit like saying that professional athletes or entertainers have their lifestyles subsidized by those who are forced to take basic jobs because they lack the athleticism or artistic skill of the professionals? Or would you say that athletes and entertainers are okay because their success is based more on their own merit?
- quadrangle 11y ago
  Athletes and entertainers are mostly struggling people. There's tons of talented people who don't get rich at all. The smaller number who get rich are winners in a largely winner-take-all media system controlled by big corporations. Even most NFL players aren't rich, only the stars, the others just make a decent living but then have to quit at a young age and live with concussions. The best collegiate wrestlers are athletes of the highest order and have no living from it. And so on and so on. Regardless, these spectacles are barely productive or valuable really. They are mostly escapist distractions. The circus part of "bread and circuses". The idea that you can look at this completely unjust system and say "oh, the Gladiators deserve their fortunes though" is absurdly out of touch. > because they lack the athleticism or artistic skill of the professionals Your comment implies that we could have a functioning society if everyone were rock stars and athletes. That's absurd. The role of rock-star and athlete is a zero-sum game. We don't need a billion rock stars. If everyone were virtuoso musicians, then a few of them would still win the lottery as being the ones that make it over others, and nothing would be that different. We'd still be having the same discussions about economics etc.

quadrangle 11y ago

> receive an income from the government for simply existing well, what about "have access to food and basic resources". It's not like all value in the world only comes from labor. http://ninasadventures.com/inventionofwork http://ninasadventures.com/inventionofwork

gwright 11y ago
I'm having a hard time understanding the notion that some forms of effort ('labor') to sustain yourself are bad but other forms of effort (something other than labor) are good but apparently are insufficient for survival and that there is some obligation for the government (i.e. other people) to make up the difference. If you don't want to exchange your skills (physical or mental) for money, then you probably need to find a benefactor of some kind to sustain you and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing if it is a mutually consenting relationship. Note, there is a difference between not wanting to sustain yourself through your own effort and being incapable of doing so. There is plenty of room to talk about government assistance in latter case, not so much in the former case.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  Did you not look at the comic in the post you're replying to? The broader argument is that the topic at hand is not actually about labor to sustain yourself. It's about a system designed to actually deprive you of access to naturally-existing wealth and resources so that you are then forced to labor for someone else in order to gain sustenance. In other words, there was at one point fresh water and land and berries and such just available in the world. People had to labor to get them, but they were there. We've made far more value for society overall such that we have resources to support far more people, and it's mostly from a long evolution of technology and science. There's tons of productive things to do to keep things going. But since we have an attitude of "you deserve your share of resources only if you labor" we have a ton of make-work bullshit that people do that can even be counter-productive. We're not all working on things that actually add value to society. People who skim off the system such as high-speed traders get a huge share of the resources while laboring in ways that create no value whatsoever. So, we need to get rid of the "work to eat" idea because it leads people to do whatever to eat when they are desperate. We'd do better if we focus on promoting things that provide the most value, and we get that better if we provide other motivations than "do whatever it takes not to starve".

Mikeb85 11y ago

Basic income only works if everyone receives it. If it's like welfare and you lose it if you're employed, then no one works. If it's truly universal basic income, it actually encourages work because any additional income increases your standard of living.

baddox 11y ago
While BI may not discourage work for most people, I don't see how it would encourage work for anyone, given the marginal utility of money.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Versus existing programs that are poorly structured (some existing programs are poorly structured, some aren't), an unconditional program would remove some disincentives to work where increased work income leads to cuts in benefits and a net lower standard of living. (Of course fixing poorly structure programs is going to be easier than implementing a basic income)
  - baddox 11y ago
    That's a valid point. My previous comment wasn't considering that BI would replace the current means-tested welfare programs, mostly because I do not believe that a BI would actually lead to elimination of the other programs. There will still be people who waste their BI for a variety of reasons, and I don't think society will be fine with them living destitute with no additional safety net.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      "There will still be people who waste their BI for a variety of reasons, and I don't think society will be fine with them living destitute with no additional safety net." I am not "fine with them living destitute", but if a person cannot get by with a reasonable income provided then clearly they need some sort of help beyond the financial. "Means tested free stuff" doesn't seem a very good fit.