33 ms·

This is an excellent read, and the only thing that I really want to add is at this bit: > Each of these factors is critical: a universal basic income alone off

This is an excellent read, and the only thing that I really want to add is at this bit: > Each of these factors is critical: a universal basic income alone offers some degree of financial security, but it does not offer dignity to the recipient, or any return for society beyond a reduction in guilt. It's time we re-thought the idea that you need to work for your fill. Speaking as a strong capitalist, it's simply not the reality anymore. To put it in the context of the tribe working to survive that most people think is a good metaphor, this is akin to having 3 incredibly good hunters in the tribe who catch enough food to feed the tribe 4 times over yet still requiring the other men to go hunting and not letting them eat if they don't catch anything on a given day. Why? We have the resources to feed everyone, and all the lower ends of the economic classes doing all the busy-work they could possibly do in a day cannot generate the kind of wealth that workers at the upper end create with a regular work day on a bad day. The notion that you MUST do SOMETHING to earn your money is quickly becoming a barrier to efficiency, and with automation on the rise, it's only going to get worse. Simply "getting a better job" is not a sufficient answer for the vast groups in the population that we're set to unemploy.

xg15 10y ago
To stay with the metaphors, what if the hunters at some point decide to break off and make their own tribe? The other members of the tribe will be forced to join the new tribe, because they wouldn't be able to survive on their own. Similarly, my fear is that a world in which a few elites provide everything for a large "idle class", people of that idle class would have no practical rights against that elite. I agree with you that the current "work ideology" won't be usable in the future and in fact seems contradictory. However, I think seeing centralisation as the solution could lead to an even worse society.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  Our basic human rights already protect us against that sort of thing though. Basic income implemented well (as just literally giving people money to survive) has no control-ability attached to it. Compare that to our current system where food stamps can only be used for certain kinds of food, or where rent subsidies are only available in certain kinds of housing. I would argue a basic income would increase personal freedom, not decrease it.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > The other members of the tribe will be forced to join the new tribe, because they wouldn't be able to survive on their own. The analogy breaks down here, because the hunters can't realistically leave. They aren't really hunting as much as gathering the scraps of all the villagers and combining them into a tasty new meal, along with a little hunting on the side. Leaving the village means they might not have as easy access to the scraps, and game is much more scarce and hard to hunt than gathering scraps. > Similarly, my fear is that a world in which a few elites provide everything for a large "idle class", people of that idle class would have no practical rights against that elite. I'm not sure it's a large idle class compared to a small elite. The idea, if it works, is not that nobody works, but that they can focus work where they want. Some people are fine doing menial (or unfulfilling) work and using the extra money on the side, others want to devote all the time to what they love. Or maybe, people will naturally flow between these states over their life. None of us really know how it would work, since we haven't had a system like that before (and I would argue that getting from here to there might actually be harder than making there work).
apalmer 10y ago
once again this is ideology over reality. Yes, at one level there definitely is factual that the top hunters can supply the rest of the tribe with all necessary resources. The problem is one of motivation... Why should they? It is the most basic of driving forces behind trade at the conceptual level, and society itself at its most fundamental and basic. IF your world view cannot handle this most basic of questions, it is just ideology and not even a sensible one at that.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  You're assuming I mean everyone gets the same amount of food, in other words forced equality of the results of a minority, and that's nothing but slavery under a different guise. No, the idea is that everyone gets a livable wage as a base. You're guaranteed enough money to have a place to live, food to eat, and whatever else the given society thinks is required to "live." To get more than that, you're expected to contribute. The upper economic workers I mentioned would have the same lifestyle they have now, we'd still have the rich as well because they have earned it, even if all they did to earn it was being born in the right family, it's still theirs. What I'm arguing for is not tearing down high earners, it's simply using our resources to uplift those who aren't high earners to a degree where they aren't starving in the street. People starving in the street are very expensive as it is, keeping them in a basic home with running water and food is far cheaper than having them continuously in and out of the ER's which they can't pay for, all for the weird and hand wavy idea of "motivating" people to not end up like them (which is surprisingly easy to do, by the way.)
  - apalmer 10y ago
    No, your missing my fundamental argument. Lets break it down to fundamentals. Definition 1) Society at its most fundamental is a group of individuals who enter into some kind of social contract in order to increase their own personal benefit. Definition 2) Trade at its most fundamental is exchange of goods or services in order to increase personal benefit of each party. Scenario) Population is split into two Groups. Group A is small and is responsible for production of all Goods and Services. Group B is large and does not produce or control any Goods and Services but destructively consumes Goods and Services. QUESTION: Why would Group A partake in a social contract with Group B when by Definition 1 this decreases personal benefit for individuals in Group A?
brotox 10y ago
I won't argue whether we must work, but I will instead argue that the author should think long and hard about his view on 'dignity'. I doubt the author would claim that a wealthy rentier who spends their days creating art and debating philosophy was lacking in dignity. So why is dignity suddenly a problem if the person is very poor? That sentence let us know a lot about the author and his view on the very poor; but it didn't actually tell us anything at all about the poor, or their "dignity". In the meantime, I'll make a note that if the author believed his writings, he'd move to Britain. He is not going to do that. Because he is just taking a silly stance to get attention. It's a dumb hot-take, written by a shallow, bigoted jag-off. It sucks that this thing is on HN. This is, by a wide margin, the worst thing I've read on stratechery. And thanks to the bigotry of that dignity comment, it will be the last.
- monkbent 10y ago
  Tell that to my family and friends who live in the rust belt and absolutely feel this way. I wrote that from personal experience.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

xg15 10y ago

To stay with the metaphors, what if the hunters at some point decide to break off and make their own tribe? The other members of the tribe will be forced to join the new tribe, because they wouldn't be able to survive on their own. Similarly, my fear is that a world in which a few elites provide everything for a large "idle class", people of that idle class would have no practical rights against that elite. I agree with you that the current "work ideology" won't be usable in the future and in fact seems contradictory. However, I think seeing centralisation as the solution could lead to an even worse society.

FussyZeus 10y ago
Our basic human rights already protect us against that sort of thing though. Basic income implemented well (as just literally giving people money to survive) has no control-ability attached to it. Compare that to our current system where food stamps can only be used for certain kinds of food, or where rent subsidies are only available in certain kinds of housing. I would argue a basic income would increase personal freedom, not decrease it.
kbenson 10y ago
> The other members of the tribe will be forced to join the new tribe, because they wouldn't be able to survive on their own. The analogy breaks down here, because the hunters can't realistically leave. They aren't really hunting as much as gathering the scraps of all the villagers and combining them into a tasty new meal, along with a little hunting on the side. Leaving the village means they might not have as easy access to the scraps, and game is much more scarce and hard to hunt than gathering scraps. > Similarly, my fear is that a world in which a few elites provide everything for a large "idle class", people of that idle class would have no practical rights against that elite. I'm not sure it's a large idle class compared to a small elite. The idea, if it works, is not that nobody works, but that they can focus work where they want. Some people are fine doing menial (or unfulfilling) work and using the extra money on the side, others want to devote all the time to what they love. Or maybe, people will naturally flow between these states over their life. None of us really know how it would work, since we haven't had a system like that before (and I would argue that getting from here to there might actually be harder than making there work).

apalmer 10y ago

once again this is ideology over reality. Yes, at one level there definitely is factual that the top hunters can supply the rest of the tribe with all necessary resources. The problem is one of motivation... Why should they? It is the most basic of driving forces behind trade at the conceptual level, and society itself at its most fundamental and basic. IF your world view cannot handle this most basic of questions, it is just ideology and not even a sensible one at that.

FussyZeus 10y ago
You're assuming I mean everyone gets the same amount of food, in other words forced equality of the results of a minority, and that's nothing but slavery under a different guise. No, the idea is that everyone gets a livable wage as a base. You're guaranteed enough money to have a place to live, food to eat, and whatever else the given society thinks is required to "live." To get more than that, you're expected to contribute. The upper economic workers I mentioned would have the same lifestyle they have now, we'd still have the rich as well because they have earned it, even if all they did to earn it was being born in the right family, it's still theirs. What I'm arguing for is not tearing down high earners, it's simply using our resources to uplift those who aren't high earners to a degree where they aren't starving in the street. People starving in the street are very expensive as it is, keeping them in a basic home with running water and food is far cheaper than having them continuously in and out of the ER's which they can't pay for, all for the weird and hand wavy idea of "motivating" people to not end up like them (which is surprisingly easy to do, by the way.)
- apalmer 10y ago
  No, your missing my fundamental argument. Lets break it down to fundamentals. Definition 1) Society at its most fundamental is a group of individuals who enter into some kind of social contract in order to increase their own personal benefit. Definition 2) Trade at its most fundamental is exchange of goods or services in order to increase personal benefit of each party. Scenario) Population is split into two Groups. Group A is small and is responsible for production of all Goods and Services. Group B is large and does not produce or control any Goods and Services but destructively consumes Goods and Services. QUESTION: Why would Group A partake in a social contract with Group B when by Definition 1 this decreases personal benefit for individuals in Group A?

brotox 10y ago

I won't argue whether we must work, but I will instead argue that the author should think long and hard about his view on 'dignity'. I doubt the author would claim that a wealthy rentier who spends their days creating art and debating philosophy was lacking in dignity. So why is dignity suddenly a problem if the person is very poor? That sentence let us know a lot about the author and his view on the very poor; but it didn't actually tell us anything at all about the poor, or their "dignity". In the meantime, I'll make a note that if the author believed his writings, he'd move to Britain. He is not going to do that. Because he is just taking a silly stance to get attention. It's a dumb hot-take, written by a shallow, bigoted jag-off. It sucks that this thing is on HN. This is, by a wide margin, the worst thing I've read on stratechery. And thanks to the bigotry of that dignity comment, it will be the last.

monkbent 10y ago
Tell that to my family and friends who live in the rust belt and absolutely feel this way. I wrote that from personal experience.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]