3 ms·

UBI is a well intentioned but misdirected goal. Ask for minimum social infrastructure. Not money. Minimum social infrastructure that involves food, education an

by negamax 10y ago

UBI is a well intentioned but misdirected goal. Ask for minimum social infrastructure. Not money. Minimum social infrastructure that involves food, education and medicine safety to a good degree (without any hint of lavishness). We achieve that, we will solve arising problem meaningfully in my opinion.

powmonk 10y ago
I agree there should be a minimum social infrastructure but shouldn't there also be more? In a near future where automation has made most jobs obsolete people shouldn't have any form of luxury at all? No capital to speculate? No hobbies? Seems like a very dull future.
- negamax 10y ago
  I am being pragmatic. Having lived (currently living) in a pseudo socialist state, I do not think UBI/welfare state is going to last. May be I am wrong in sense of not knowing how people will change given the choice. Minimum social infrastructure elevates the bottom for everyone. If people can rise from that bottom further, maybe we can work towards elevating the bottom further and further as time passes.
rjbwork 10y ago
The following is a non-value judgement. We see generally better outcomes when we just hand people cash than when we make them jump through hoops, and partake in non standard services to acquire resources. It also generates more administrative overhead than if we just hand them cash. I don't know if this would hold for a universal social services infrastructure. My personal analysis is that I would tend towards decentralization via cash payments, so as to enable choice, and not have the state takeover the potential economic activities enabled by such cash payments. Nobody wants to be given food from a government kitchen or government food box, but most people, I would think, would not mind getting $X per week/month/year to supplement their other income from the government.
- negamax 10y ago
  I think your statement is spot on in context of giving cash to people in resource stripped geographies. As charities handling social programs are detached from ground realities. But in context of democratic, developed states and cities; UBI/welfare is not a good solution. Minimum social infrastructure is what we should strive towards. So, when people fall from safety nets; that fall can be contained. With passage of time; we can work towards elevating that net further.

by negamax 10y ago

powmonk 10y ago

I agree there should be a minimum social infrastructure but shouldn't there also be more? In a near future where automation has made most jobs obsolete people shouldn't have any form of luxury at all? No capital to speculate? No hobbies? Seems like a very dull future.

negamax 10y ago
I am being pragmatic. Having lived (currently living) in a pseudo socialist state, I do not think UBI/welfare state is going to last. May be I am wrong in sense of not knowing how people will change given the choice. Minimum social infrastructure elevates the bottom for everyone. If people can rise from that bottom further, maybe we can work towards elevating the bottom further and further as time passes.

rjbwork 10y ago

The following is a non-value judgement. We see generally better outcomes when we just hand people cash than when we make them jump through hoops, and partake in non standard services to acquire resources. It also generates more administrative overhead than if we just hand them cash. I don't know if this would hold for a universal social services infrastructure. My personal analysis is that I would tend towards decentralization via cash payments, so as to enable choice, and not have the state takeover the potential economic activities enabled by such cash payments. Nobody wants to be given food from a government kitchen or government food box, but most people, I would think, would not mind getting $X per week/month/year to supplement their other income from the government.

negamax 10y ago
I think your statement is spot on in context of giving cash to people in resource stripped geographies. As charities handling social programs are detached from ground realities. But in context of democratic, developed states and cities; UBI/welfare is not a good solution. Minimum social infrastructure is what we should strive towards. So, when people fall from safety nets; that fall can be contained. With passage of time; we can work towards elevating that net further.