6 ms·

The reasoning you're using is very flawed. Yes, we'll never get to a state where a small number end up with 100% of the wealth. Yes, there will be an equilibriu

by whack 10y ago

The reasoning you're using is very flawed. Yes, we'll never get to a state where a small number end up with 100% of the wealth. Yes, there will be an equilibrium reached between the wealthy and the middle class. But this equilibrium point can shift more and more towards the wealthy. In fact, this has already been happening in the past few decades, as illustrated in books such as Capital. And as this equilibrium shifts in favor of the wealthy, you'll see the effects of inequality get more and more exacerbated. You might even get to a point where the inequality is so extreme, that the "masses" have much more to gain through wealth appropriation, as opposed to wealth creation. And when that point comes, democracy will collapse and give way to a communist or fascist revolution. Basic income offers an escape valve to the corrosive effects of inequality. It distributes more fairly the fruits of globalisation and automation. It gives every citizen a share in the national prosperity. It gives us all a reason to cheer for the greater good, and not just our own advancement.

tluyben2 10y ago
>Basic income offers an escape valve to the corrosive effects of inequality. It distributes more fairly the fruits of globalisation and automation. It gives every citizen a share in the national prosperity. It gives us all a reason to cheer for the greater good, and not just our own advancement. I think this hits the nail on it's head; opponents of basic income (usually rich or might-become-rich people in my experience) do not see this clearly. We would be able to cheer for greater good as we do not have to struggle for money anymore in our own tiny world of our household. I think that UBI would be a good plan with or without robots taking over. But robots forces us into it as people will simply die; sure there might be some other jobs (although I think this revolution is so different than past ones that it will not happen like that, but we can only see as everyone of their generation says this) but for many people these jobs will come too late or are not achievable. In the factories we work with, most people were replaced by robots, there are only a few people in the very big buildings. Some of the assembly line people I did speak to because I was curious, but really, they have no up potential: they cannot do anything else but actual robot work. I would be highly surprised (and so would the owner of the factories who tried this) if anyone could retrain them for a non robot like task. These people will not die (I am told) in China as thr gov find something for them, like standing on a street corner to watch the traffic or sitting in front of a building to see who goes in and out (but nothing else: not like a porter), but in many other countries it means you cannot buy food or pay rent. And that is it without UBI. I am in no way for a distribution of wealth equally; we know that will not work as countries tried, but we are now at a complete opposite and that does not work for many either. When there are less (well paid) jobs it will not work for most suddenly.
jeffdavis 10y ago
I think you are ignoring some bad things that could come out of UBI. The greatest danger is that people may be comfortable near the BI level until they are about 30, and not really work or educate themselves much (lacking motivation). Then, they want to have a family, and all of a sudden their desires for consumption skyrocket. They can't just join the workforce then, because it will be 10 years before they advance enough to get what they want. Then you have a bunch of undereducated, inexperienced people who want a lot of stuff. I'm not saying it will happen, but we have to be careful.
- xedrac 10y ago
  I think you hit on one of the biggest risks in my opinion. Right now there is a strong motive to educate yourself, because it will likely result in a more comfortable future. Having a highly educated population is hugely beneficial. I suppose if UBI provided just enough to keep you alive, then it might not be so bad.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Mathematically, I can't imagine we could fund a UBI scheme that would even barely keep you housed and fed. At $1500/mo for everyone in the US, that comes to just shy of 6 trillion USD. For comparison, the total federal tax revenues for 2016 are going to be approximately 3.5 trillion USD, including payroll taxes. At $1500/mo/person, this one program would present 5/3rds of all federal tax revenues. A more realistic figure is probably much closer to $650/mo, assuming you take ALL of the current federal spending on healthcare, social security, veteran's benefits, pensions, and welfare and direct it into UBI. This says nothing of the legality of cancelling existing or contractually promised federal pensions, nor the morality/practicality of changing the existing social security and Medicare systems, of course. $650/mo/person still leaves us with a deficit (as today) and is a pretty meager existence for sure!
    - zanny 10y ago
      UBI isn't black hole spending like the military. A lot of money is moving through the fed in taxes but that money isn't going into a black hole or having a huge inefficiency quotient taken out of it, the vast majority of UBI checks will be immediately spent and recirculated without any overhead.
huh333i 10y ago
You want to thwart communism using UBI? That's like thwarting floodwater by calling your basement a swimming pool.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Well, we could bring about communism using UBI. Could be great!
- ouid 10y ago
  If the system is dynamic, then there's no reason to expect that it doesn't somehow oscillate between extremes. If income inequality and unemployment gets too great, maybe there's a phase transition. In that case, a little bit of communism could help alleviate the pressure. Regardless of whether you believe it could actually work, it certainly means that it's not absurd to consider, at least not for the reasons you've stated.
jondubois 10y ago
Well said. I also have a theory that as inequality increases, the economy starts to become increasingly 'luxury-oriented' - So everyone ends up working to cater the whims of the wealthy but no one is working for the greater good. It's already kind of happening with startups; to a significant extent, startups are essentially luxury goods for the super-rich. They've become a collectible/status symbol. Like a yacht or a private jet. Wealthy investors love to brag about all their big exits.

by whack 10y ago

tluyben2 10y ago

>Basic income offers an escape valve to the corrosive effects of inequality. It distributes more fairly the fruits of globalisation and automation. It gives every citizen a share in the national prosperity. It gives us all a reason to cheer for the greater good, and not just our own advancement. I think this hits the nail on it's head; opponents of basic income (usually rich or might-become-rich people in my experience) do not see this clearly. We would be able to cheer for greater good as we do not have to struggle for money anymore in our own tiny world of our household. I think that UBI would be a good plan with or without robots taking over. But robots forces us into it as people will simply die; sure there might be some other jobs (although I think this revolution is so different than past ones that it will not happen like that, but we can only see as everyone of their generation says this) but for many people these jobs will come too late or are not achievable. In the factories we work with, most people were replaced by robots, there are only a few people in the very big buildings. Some of the assembly line people I did speak to because I was curious, but really, they have no up potential: they cannot do anything else but actual robot work. I would be highly surprised (and so would the owner of the factories who tried this) if anyone could retrain them for a non robot like task. These people will not die (I am told) in China as thr gov find something for them, like standing on a street corner to watch the traffic or sitting in front of a building to see who goes in and out (but nothing else: not like a porter), but in many other countries it means you cannot buy food or pay rent. And that is it without UBI. I am in no way for a distribution of wealth equally; we know that will not work as countries tried, but we are now at a complete opposite and that does not work for many either. When there are less (well paid) jobs it will not work for most suddenly.

jeffdavis 10y ago

I think you are ignoring some bad things that could come out of UBI. The greatest danger is that people may be comfortable near the BI level until they are about 30, and not really work or educate themselves much (lacking motivation). Then, they want to have a family, and all of a sudden their desires for consumption skyrocket. They can't just join the workforce then, because it will be 10 years before they advance enough to get what they want. Then you have a bunch of undereducated, inexperienced people who want a lot of stuff. I'm not saying it will happen, but we have to be careful.

xedrac 10y ago
I think you hit on one of the biggest risks in my opinion. Right now there is a strong motive to educate yourself, because it will likely result in a more comfortable future. Having a highly educated population is hugely beneficial. I suppose if UBI provided just enough to keep you alive, then it might not be so bad.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Mathematically, I can't imagine we could fund a UBI scheme that would even barely keep you housed and fed. At $1500/mo for everyone in the US, that comes to just shy of 6 trillion USD. For comparison, the total federal tax revenues for 2016 are going to be approximately 3.5 trillion USD, including payroll taxes. At $1500/mo/person, this one program would present 5/3rds of all federal tax revenues. A more realistic figure is probably much closer to $650/mo, assuming you take ALL of the current federal spending on healthcare, social security, veteran's benefits, pensions, and welfare and direct it into UBI. This says nothing of the legality of cancelling existing or contractually promised federal pensions, nor the morality/practicality of changing the existing social security and Medicare systems, of course. $650/mo/person still leaves us with a deficit (as today) and is a pretty meager existence for sure!
  - zanny 10y ago
    UBI isn't black hole spending like the military. A lot of money is moving through the fed in taxes but that money isn't going into a black hole or having a huge inefficiency quotient taken out of it, the vast majority of UBI checks will be immediately spent and recirculated without any overhead.

huh333i 10y ago

You want to thwart communism using UBI? That's like thwarting floodwater by calling your basement a swimming pool.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Well, we could bring about communism using UBI. Could be great!
ouid 10y ago
If the system is dynamic, then there's no reason to expect that it doesn't somehow oscillate between extremes. If income inequality and unemployment gets too great, maybe there's a phase transition. In that case, a little bit of communism could help alleviate the pressure. Regardless of whether you believe it could actually work, it certainly means that it's not absurd to consider, at least not for the reasons you've stated.

jondubois 10y ago

Well said. I also have a theory that as inequality increases, the economy starts to become increasingly 'luxury-oriented' - So everyone ends up working to cater the whims of the wealthy but no one is working for the greater good. It's already kind of happening with startups; to a significant extent, startups are essentially luxury goods for the super-rich. They've become a collectible/status symbol. Like a yacht or a private jet. Wealthy investors love to brag about all their big exits.