3 ms·

The point isn't to eliminate income equality. That's next to impossible in a capitalist society with a relatively free market and wealth ownership. The point i

The point isn't to eliminate income equality. That's next to impossible in a capitalist society with a relatively free market and wealth ownership. The point is to raise the level of the bottom to something people can live on safely and with some level of dignity. And with UBI in particular, it's to shift the impetus of your efforts from basic survival to improving your lifestyle from the lowest common denominator. People make shitty decisions with a gun to their head--with some room to experiment they'll usually be more successful. Further, they might find other ways to individually create societal value (art, science, invention, philosophy) than just simply making their employer money. The only way you can do that right now is if you're already well-off or if some committee somewhere agrees what you're doing is valuable and subsidizes it. That's not a great way to innovate. And they might not create value. Some people will sit at the bottom. But that needs to be OK--they do that now anyway while being a distinct drain on a society that wasn't built to accommodate that basic human nature. Nothing is perfect. Most people work for their own self-validation if you give them a chance, though. Think we've all had that experience during time off where you're eventually compelled to do something productive just so you can know you did something.

shostack 10y ago
I think the parent's point is that if you assume a UBI at just above the poverty line, many people will be automated out of jobs that pay more than that right now. So they'll be forced to a lower standard of living, and because there won't be jobs available for them, they will be stuck there. So while some people might have their standard of living brought up, many (possible many more than would be brought up) will be forced down with the inability to pull themselves back up because of lack of jobs.
- geoelectric 10y ago
  The UBI doesn't cause that, though. Progress causes that. I don't think a strategy of "let's not automate so we have busy work for everyone" really cuts it. The best people, at least in industries where it fits, will move on to consult on the proper operation of the automation and others will become artisans doing highly crafted versions of what otherwise is mass-automated. And some might move to other localities where the automation is too expensive to create or support. Automation has a cost relative to the market in which it's created and requires highly skilled people to create and maintain, whereas labor can be paid on a sliding scale based on their local cost of living and usually cost less than automation maintenance. That scales to low budgets better, especially if you don't produce quite so much of something as to hit the break-even point for automation. UBI, in this context, is a mitigating strategy to keep the rest from becoming welfare recipients while they retrain or retire early. That would be a hell of a lot worse stigma than simply having a lower standing of living.

shostack 10y ago

I think the parent's point is that if you assume a UBI at just above the poverty line, many people will be automated out of jobs that pay more than that right now. So they'll be forced to a lower standard of living, and because there won't be jobs available for them, they will be stuck there. So while some people might have their standard of living brought up, many (possible many more than would be brought up) will be forced down with the inability to pull themselves back up because of lack of jobs.

geoelectric 10y ago
The UBI doesn't cause that, though. Progress causes that. I don't think a strategy of "let's not automate so we have busy work for everyone" really cuts it. The best people, at least in industries where it fits, will move on to consult on the proper operation of the automation and others will become artisans doing highly crafted versions of what otherwise is mass-automated. And some might move to other localities where the automation is too expensive to create or support. Automation has a cost relative to the market in which it's created and requires highly skilled people to create and maintain, whereas labor can be paid on a sliding scale based on their local cost of living and usually cost less than automation maintenance. That scales to low budgets better, especially if you don't produce quite so much of something as to hit the break-even point for automation. UBI, in this context, is a mitigating strategy to keep the rest from becoming welfare recipients while they retrain or retire early. That would be a hell of a lot worse stigma than simply having a lower standing of living.