5 ms·

Post scarcity doesn't exist. Someone has to make the T-shirts. If you think people would be better off if everyone had the same tshirt instead of a variety of c

Post scarcity doesn't exist. Someone has to make the T-shirts. If you think people would be better off if everyone had the same tshirt instead of a variety of choices that is the system we already have. The government making T-shirts at cost and distributing them is communism and it has not worked in the past.

Jemaclus 10y ago
Sure, the someone who makes the T-shirts is the someone who wants to earn money, as opposed to sitting "on basic." I'm not sure how you missed that part. It's in the 7th paragraph. The point being that it doesn't take 7 billion people to provide for 7 billion people. It might take only 1 billion people, or 500 million people, or even 100 million people, to provide enough resources to cover everyone else. Part of the reason we're not in a true post-scarcity society is that we as a society have decided that in order to get stuff, you have to have money, and in order to get money, you have to earn it, and in order to earn it, you have to have a job. So we have all of these unnecessary jobs out there that exist solely so people can make money without necessarily contributing to society. And so the dream, such as it is, is two-fold: The first part is that we provide a basic floor of services to everyone. That 100, 500, or 800 million people that are needed to provide resources will do so in return for money and will therefore have more stuff. The rest can work if they want, or subsist on the basic floor. That's not communism. The second is that by providing that basic floor, we can eliminate the notion that you have to work and contribute to survive, That's true today, but it doesn't have to be. We could eliminate the busy-work that almost all of us are doing. We can get rid of paper-pushers and ditch diggers. We don't need them all. The laws of supply and demand would push people into more productive roles, rather than simply working for the sake of a paycheck. Like I said, I'm not an economist, nor am I an expert on any of these things. I read a sci-fi book, and it made me think about it. That's it. :)
- draugadrotten 10y ago
  > The point being that it doesn't take 7 billion people to provide for 7 billion people. It might take only 1 billion people, or 500 million people, or even 100 million people, to provide enough resources to cover everyone else. There's plenty of empiric evidence from wellfare states like Norway, Denmark and Sweden that "enough" is not enough for the receivers. The people who receive always wants to receive more. We are not talking about giving people food and shelter anymore -- the level of welfare includes TV and internet subscriptions, smartphones, brand name sneakers and junk food. Just to name a few of the "Basics". Due to human nature, the level of welfare demanded by the receivers will always be higher than the available welfore.
  - zanny 10y ago
    Of course there is evidence that people on welfare want more of it. You are already socially ostracized for being on it in the first place. Everyone around you spends tremendous effort to remind you if you are on welfare you have "failed" in society. And while I may not be privy to the extent of criticism in Scandinavia, I know stateside the requirements to even get on most of these programs are brutal and invasive, and state agents will take every opportunity to try to tell you how you don't need food stamps because you must have enough to live off with $200-300 a week income. UBI is about discarding that - that system, broken fundamentally, that makes the poor the enemy of the helpless, and works to exclude you rather than include you in society. Instead of being a leech, you are just another person. Whether or not you make more than the minimum is up to you, but if you cannot house and feed yourself with the means to do so provided you, you are no longer the pitiful homeless guy on the street corner, you had the opportunity and you refused it. But nobody can target you for having a UBI - because they get the exact same money too, enabling them to take more risks and follow their passions more than they otherwise would. Workers benefit tremendously from it through the increased bargaining power it gives them with their employers, possibly enough to justify the increased tax burden alone from their perspective. And it is in its name - welfare or unemployment insurance is broad and has its definition changed to fit the narrative. Of course you can end up with luxury goods attached to welfare when dealing with people who had such things but now do not, but its supposed to be insurance, right? None of those contradictions need enter a dialog about UBI because UBI is not complex. It is intentionally simple, to avoid the corruption from both the state and the citizen level. There can be no mistaking the intention behind it, and thus anyone can obviously see when anyone is trying to mislead on what that intention is. Unlike with draconian and bloated welfare systems where you can have dozens of programs all overlapping all under or over funded and all ripe for abuse and exploitation, UBI is dead simple, and the UBI recipient can want more all they... want, but part of the reason you live in a republic and not a democracy is to avoid the rampant runaway will of the people. Because if we had that now, wouldn't we be taking the fortunes of every millionaire and billionaire yesterday?
    - brbsix 10y ago
      > Instead of being a leech, you are just another person. There are still "leeches", they may just be harder to discern. For example, imagine a small community of 5 people. Each receives $30k/yr in UBI. 2 of them are homemakers, 1 is an artist, and 1 plays video games. None earn any additional income. The fifth person owns and operates a small factory, earning $300/yr (of which he pockets half). Obviously this is overly simplistic but it's clear the leeches are the individuals who do not contribute funds (whether it's via excise taxes, income taxes, or inflation) in excess of the sum they received as BI. Obviously somebody is subsidizing them (ultimately under threat of violence if they refuse).

Jemaclus 10y ago

Sure, the someone who makes the T-shirts is the someone who wants to earn money, as opposed to sitting "on basic." I'm not sure how you missed that part. It's in the 7th paragraph. The point being that it doesn't take 7 billion people to provide for 7 billion people. It might take only 1 billion people, or 500 million people, or even 100 million people, to provide enough resources to cover everyone else. Part of the reason we're not in a true post-scarcity society is that we as a society have decided that in order to get stuff, you have to have money, and in order to get money, you have to earn it, and in order to earn it, you have to have a job. So we have all of these unnecessary jobs out there that exist solely so people can make money without necessarily contributing to society. And so the dream, such as it is, is two-fold: The first part is that we provide a basic floor of services to everyone. That 100, 500, or 800 million people that are needed to provide resources will do so in return for money and will therefore have more stuff. The rest can work if they want, or subsist on the basic floor. That's not communism. The second is that by providing that basic floor, we can eliminate the notion that you have to work and contribute to survive, That's true today, but it doesn't have to be. We could eliminate the busy-work that almost all of us are doing. We can get rid of paper-pushers and ditch diggers. We don't need them all. The laws of supply and demand would push people into more productive roles, rather than simply working for the sake of a paycheck. Like I said, I'm not an economist, nor am I an expert on any of these things. I read a sci-fi book, and it made me think about it. That's it. :)

draugadrotten 10y ago
> The point being that it doesn't take 7 billion people to provide for 7 billion people. It might take only 1 billion people, or 500 million people, or even 100 million people, to provide enough resources to cover everyone else. There's plenty of empiric evidence from wellfare states like Norway, Denmark and Sweden that "enough" is not enough for the receivers. The people who receive always wants to receive more. We are not talking about giving people food and shelter anymore -- the level of welfare includes TV and internet subscriptions, smartphones, brand name sneakers and junk food. Just to name a few of the "Basics". Due to human nature, the level of welfare demanded by the receivers will always be higher than the available welfore.
- zanny 10y ago
  Of course there is evidence that people on welfare want more of it. You are already socially ostracized for being on it in the first place. Everyone around you spends tremendous effort to remind you if you are on welfare you have "failed" in society. And while I may not be privy to the extent of criticism in Scandinavia, I know stateside the requirements to even get on most of these programs are brutal and invasive, and state agents will take every opportunity to try to tell you how you don't need food stamps because you must have enough to live off with $200-300 a week income. UBI is about discarding that - that system, broken fundamentally, that makes the poor the enemy of the helpless, and works to exclude you rather than include you in society. Instead of being a leech, you are just another person. Whether or not you make more than the minimum is up to you, but if you cannot house and feed yourself with the means to do so provided you, you are no longer the pitiful homeless guy on the street corner, you had the opportunity and you refused it. But nobody can target you for having a UBI - because they get the exact same money too, enabling them to take more risks and follow their passions more than they otherwise would. Workers benefit tremendously from it through the increased bargaining power it gives them with their employers, possibly enough to justify the increased tax burden alone from their perspective. And it is in its name - welfare or unemployment insurance is broad and has its definition changed to fit the narrative. Of course you can end up with luxury goods attached to welfare when dealing with people who had such things but now do not, but its supposed to be insurance, right? None of those contradictions need enter a dialog about UBI because UBI is not complex. It is intentionally simple, to avoid the corruption from both the state and the citizen level. There can be no mistaking the intention behind it, and thus anyone can obviously see when anyone is trying to mislead on what that intention is. Unlike with draconian and bloated welfare systems where you can have dozens of programs all overlapping all under or over funded and all ripe for abuse and exploitation, UBI is dead simple, and the UBI recipient can want more all they... want, but part of the reason you live in a republic and not a democracy is to avoid the rampant runaway will of the people. Because if we had that now, wouldn't we be taking the fortunes of every millionaire and billionaire yesterday?
  - brbsix 10y ago
    > Instead of being a leech, you are just another person. There are still "leeches", they may just be harder to discern. For example, imagine a small community of 5 people. Each receives $30k/yr in UBI. 2 of them are homemakers, 1 is an artist, and 1 plays video games. None earn any additional income. The fifth person owns and operates a small factory, earning $300/yr (of which he pockets half). Obviously this is overly simplistic but it's clear the leeches are the individuals who do not contribute funds (whether it's via excise taxes, income taxes, or inflation) in excess of the sum they received as BI. Obviously somebody is subsidizing them (ultimately under threat of violence if they refuse).