3 ms·

> "In 50 years, only a minority will be able to earn a living on a free labor market." what is the outcome of this? does that mean the majority will be provide

by exit 17y ago

> "In 50 years, only a minority will be able to earn a living on a free labor market." what is the outcome of this? does that mean the majority will be provided for free of cost?

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Most likely outcome: governments take the following eugenic approach. The smartest get government-provided education and an encouragement to reproduce. Available to all will be basic income and public services. It will be engineered in such a way that those whose children are not likely to succeed economically are somewhat discouraged (e.g. a basic income that declines as they have more kids), but it won't look that way. Essentially, it will look like this: basic income that brings everyone out of poverty (so those who currently reproduce whilst in poverty as they have nothing to lose lifestyle-wise, now have a relatively nice lifestyle and an incentive not to have kids that society can't afford) and social services directed at intelligent children-- educational grants and resources. Thus, having children is an economic negative if your kids are not smart and positive if they are. Eugenics by carrots, not sticks. Which is good IMO. I have no problem with eugenics so long as (1) no one is forcibly sterilized or killed, and (2) no racism is involved. Basic income is necessary. There will be a large set of people who won't be able to compete with automation on the free market-- the work they've traditionally done will be done by robots. What remains is the work that requires intelligence and creativity. Our demand for this kind of work is (as far as I can see) unbounded. However, our process for rewarding this type of work is extremely "noisy", because creative work has a lot of variance in terms both of its success and in its ability to capture the (often intangible and indirect) value it adds. So we'll need a basic/guaranteed income for smart people because the work we'll want them to be doing is work that doesn't always pay off immediately and the problems they'll be solving will not always be soluble.
- lukev 17y ago
  "a basic income that declines as they have more kids" ? The people who this hurts the most are the kids themselves - the ones who aren't at fault and who, given different circumstances, are perfectly likely to make it into the "productive" class. And since the incentive is applied after the kid is born, it hasn't really helped anything. Plus, there are already pretty strong economic disincentives for having lots of children, and it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone. People (particularly low income people) are not rational when it comes to children.

by exit 17y ago

> "In 50 years, only a minority will be able to earn a living on a free labor market." what is the outcome of this? does that mean the majority will be provided for free of cost?

pw0ncakes 17y ago

Most likely outcome: governments take the following eugenic approach. The smartest get government-provided education and an encouragement to reproduce. Available to all will be basic income and public services. It will be engineered in such a way that those whose children are not likely to succeed economically are somewhat discouraged (e.g. a basic income that declines as they have more kids), but it won't look that way. Essentially, it will look like this: basic income that brings everyone out of poverty (so those who currently reproduce whilst in poverty as they have nothing to lose lifestyle-wise, now have a relatively nice lifestyle and an incentive not to have kids that society can't afford) and social services directed at intelligent children-- educational grants and resources. Thus, having children is an economic negative if your kids are not smart and positive if they are. Eugenics by carrots, not sticks. Which is good IMO. I have no problem with eugenics so long as (1) no one is forcibly sterilized or killed, and (2) no racism is involved. Basic income is necessary. There will be a large set of people who won't be able to compete with automation on the free market-- the work they've traditionally done will be done by robots. What remains is the work that requires intelligence and creativity. Our demand for this kind of work is (as far as I can see) unbounded. However, our process for rewarding this type of work is extremely "noisy", because creative work has a lot of variance in terms both of its success and in its ability to capture the (often intangible and indirect) value it adds. So we'll need a basic/guaranteed income for smart people because the work we'll want them to be doing is work that doesn't always pay off immediately and the problems they'll be solving will not always be soluble.

lukev 17y ago
"a basic income that declines as they have more kids" ? The people who this hurts the most are the kids themselves - the ones who aren't at fault and who, given different circumstances, are perfectly likely to make it into the "productive" class. And since the incentive is applied after the kid is born, it hasn't really helped anything. Plus, there are already pretty strong economic disincentives for having lots of children, and it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone. People (particularly low income people) are not rational when it comes to children.