5 ms·

> Let all citizens live to a basic level, but not too good a level that the incentive to innovate or do more is gone. The basic income will, in my opinion, lead

by ythn 10y ago

> Let all citizens live to a basic level, but not too good a level that the incentive to innovate or do more is gone. The basic income will, in my opinion, lead to a more entrepreneurial society where risk takers are supported - and also a more socially responsible and caring society, where people can donate their time to help others. You can never eliminate the poverty line. You can only shift it. Poverty in the 1400s meant you lived in squalor with no utilities and no sanitization and very few public services. Poverty in 2017 means (for the most part) you have a small or shared condo with running water, electricity, refrigerator, television, smartphone, access to lots of public services (libraries, parks, hospitals, etc) and more. The poor people of today have it better than kings of old, but very few people hold that perspective. Under UBI poverty will just get shifted to the new standard, but people will only be temporarily happier with their new standard of living. The next generation will be discontented with their standard of living. People will complain that UBI isn't enough to live on, etc. How is the end game not communism? Who gets to say: "stop complaining, UBI is enough for you." Won't it be more tempting for the politicians to say: "You're right, this is outrageous! The rich have oppressed you enough, we need to tax them more to raise your UBI."

woofyman 10y ago
I'm pretty sure the kings of old didn't go hungry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States
- ythn 10y ago
  Obviously there are going to be pros and cons. Sure, a percentage of the poor today are sometimes hungry. But very few are starving. Maybe I'm alone, but I would rather be a poor person in 2017 than a rich person in the 1400s. The internet itself is enough of a benefit for me.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    > I would rather be a poor person in 2017 than a rich person in the 1400s. For myself - that would a be a tough choice. There were still things that wealthy people back then (especially the ruling class) could command that ordinary people - even wealthy ones - of today can't touch. The amount of land and property owned, and in the case of the ruling class the ability to raise and have "armies", as well as how laws and such applied...all skew toward them. Granted, there are many, many things of today that people of the 1400s could only dream about, if even that. Our technology, our medicine, our easy access to food...all of that and more would have been impossible for even the ruling class of the 1400s to access. But again - there were things they could access that only governments of today, or the extremely wealthy (billionaires - but even there are limits) can access today. Not only what I've mentioned, but also political and other circles (people, money, laws, etc) - that the ordinary person of today have no access to - they didn't then, nor now.
- valuearb 10y ago
  Pretty sure the kings of old would have been dumbstruck at what we consider "hunger" when they see how obese our poor typically are. Edit: I don't want to make this sound like I don't care about hunger, clearly kids should not have to go hungry in our present day society. Its on us to provide the poor with avenues and incentives to work and earn living wages. Adults who refuse to work help themselves, well hunger can be a needed incentive.
  - cuecue 10y ago
    I don't see how that's a relevant argument. People who are hungry and people who are obese both lack mean to attain proper nutrition. Stress, obesity and debt is the new hurt, hungry and poor. unfounded opinions are the new not knowing something. Everything is different, yet the same. Downvoting is just regular stupid, if you can't make an argument for your opinions but instead try an hide others arguments you're just plain old stupid.
adwn 10y ago
> The poor people of today have it better than kings of old, but very few people hold that perspective. I agree. 600 years ago, the only things kings had more of than today's welfare recipients are power, servants, and estate. Just go to the supermarket in the winter and you'll find a bigger selection of fresh fruits and vegetables than they ever had. Go back to 1917 and the idea that every welfare recipient deserves not just food, clean water and shelter, but also warm water, electricity, a fridge, central heating, and his/her own room (not to mention a phone, a TV, and Internet access), would sound ridiculous. And yet, today all these are considered basic needs that a state has to satisfy for everyone – and rightly so, in my opinion. However, I don't think it's a given that the socially agreed-upon minimal standard of living will rise faster than the average standard of living will rise due to increased automation. But even if it only rises by the same factor, it would mean that there will always by a layer of society which is considered to be "poor".
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I agree. 600 years ago, the only things kings had more of than today's welfare recipients are power, servants, and estate. So the main thing that matters to humans as human beings? As opposed to mere animals who need shelter and food?
  - adwn 10y ago
    > So the main thing that matters to humans as human beings? Speak for yourself. I'd rather have convenience, good medical care, and the Internet than the power to let 100 peasants bow down before me.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      If you're one of "today's welfare recipientss" (as is the question in this sub-thread) you'll have neither convenience and good medical care. And usually not much time or use for the internet either. And "power" is not about having "peasants bow", it's about having an impact, and being able to influence things.
literallycancer 10y ago
>Poverty in 2017 means (for the most part) you have a small or shared condo with running water, electricity, refrigerator, television, smartphone, access to lots of public services (libraries, parks, hospitals, etc) and more. The poor people of today have it better than kings of old, but very few people hold that perspective. Anyone would agree that this is a desirable thing, right? I wouldn't mind if poverty meant not having a personal yacht and living in an apartment instead of a suburban house in 2040. If you allowed people to choose, be poor in 2017 or be poor in 1400, most would still prefer 2017. Which means it's an improvement, regardless of how happy people say they are. >How is the end game not communism? The main issue with communism/socialism is that it doesn't work, that the working class is not better off than the working class in a capitalist society. It doesn't make sense to worry about something being technically communism or not, when the tangible result is that people are better off on average. UBI doesn't seem very different from subsidies for failing industries, only it's broader so there isn't any incentive for one single group to push it through. >Who gets to say: "stop complaining, UBI is enough for you." You could make this argument about any wealth redistribution scheme ever.
- ythn 10y ago
  > Anyone would agree that this is a desirable thing, right? I absolutely think this is a great thing. I just think a lot of people don't realize how great it truly is to be living in the USA in 2017. I think we as a society have a hard time keeping things in perspective[1][2]. > I wouldn't mind if poverty meant not having a personal yacht and living in an apartment instead of a suburban house in 2040. Yeah, but you'll be able to keep things in perspective having lived in 2017. The rising generation in 2040 will have no perspective, and to them a yacht will be a "basic necessity needed to function" in society and anything less is poverty (or whatever, that was a contrived example). > If you allowed people to choose, be poor in 2017 or be poor in 1400, most would still prefer 2017. Not only that, if you allowed people to choose to be poor in 2017 or be rich in 1400, most people would either choose poor 2017 or they would choose rich 1400 and then regret it once they realize how much they've lost (smooth roads, suspension systems on modern transportation, climate control, etc.). > Which means it's an improvement, regardless of how happy people say they are. I agree. But if improvements don't result in a net increase in happiness, what's the point of making the improvements? I agree we should continue to make improvements, but clearly there is some other special sauce required to increase happiness that we are missing here. The poor of 2017 have it 1000x better than the poor in the 1400s, yet are the current poor 1000x happier? Or are they still sad? > The main issue with communism/socialism is that it doesn't work Ok, I'm following you > It doesn't make sense to worry about something being technically communism or not, when the tangible result is that people are better off on average. But wait, if communism doesn't work, shouldn't you be worried about a scheme whose end-game turns your government into communism? I'm still trying to understand how UBI doesn't eventually end up as communism. Who draws the line and says we've redistributed enough? How to we prevent the line from moving to the point where all wealth is redistributed (aka communism)? > You could make this argument about any wealth redistribution scheme ever. Which is why I'm generally against them. There are exceptions, but in general, wealth redistribution schemes are not wise long-term decisions. [1] https://youtu.be/k4juimeO9iQ https://youtu.be/k4juimeO9iQ [2] https://youtu.be/q8LaT5Iiwo4 https://youtu.be/q8LaT5Iiwo4

by ythn 10y ago

woofyman 10y ago

I'm pretty sure the kings of old didn't go hungry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States

ythn 10y ago
Obviously there are going to be pros and cons. Sure, a percentage of the poor today are sometimes hungry. But very few are starving. Maybe I'm alone, but I would rather be a poor person in 2017 than a rich person in the 1400s. The internet itself is enough of a benefit for me.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  > I would rather be a poor person in 2017 than a rich person in the 1400s. For myself - that would a be a tough choice. There were still things that wealthy people back then (especially the ruling class) could command that ordinary people - even wealthy ones - of today can't touch. The amount of land and property owned, and in the case of the ruling class the ability to raise and have "armies", as well as how laws and such applied...all skew toward them. Granted, there are many, many things of today that people of the 1400s could only dream about, if even that. Our technology, our medicine, our easy access to food...all of that and more would have been impossible for even the ruling class of the 1400s to access. But again - there were things they could access that only governments of today, or the extremely wealthy (billionaires - but even there are limits) can access today. Not only what I've mentioned, but also political and other circles (people, money, laws, etc) - that the ordinary person of today have no access to - they didn't then, nor now.
valuearb 10y ago
Pretty sure the kings of old would have been dumbstruck at what we consider "hunger" when they see how obese our poor typically are. Edit: I don't want to make this sound like I don't care about hunger, clearly kids should not have to go hungry in our present day society. Its on us to provide the poor with avenues and incentives to work and earn living wages. Adults who refuse to work help themselves, well hunger can be a needed incentive.
- cuecue 10y ago
  I don't see how that's a relevant argument. People who are hungry and people who are obese both lack mean to attain proper nutrition. Stress, obesity and debt is the new hurt, hungry and poor. unfounded opinions are the new not knowing something. Everything is different, yet the same. Downvoting is just regular stupid, if you can't make an argument for your opinions but instead try an hide others arguments you're just plain old stupid.

adwn 10y ago

> The poor people of today have it better than kings of old, but very few people hold that perspective. I agree. 600 years ago, the only things kings had more of than today's welfare recipients are power, servants, and estate. Just go to the supermarket in the winter and you'll find a bigger selection of fresh fruits and vegetables than they ever had. Go back to 1917 and the idea that every welfare recipient deserves not just food, clean water and shelter, but also warm water, electricity, a fridge, central heating, and his/her own room (not to mention a phone, a TV, and Internet access), would sound ridiculous. And yet, today all these are considered basic needs that a state has to satisfy for everyone – and rightly so, in my opinion. However, I don't think it's a given that the socially agreed-upon minimal standard of living will rise faster than the average standard of living will rise due to increased automation. But even if it only rises by the same factor, it would mean that there will always by a layer of society which is considered to be "poor".

coldtea 10y ago
>I agree. 600 years ago, the only things kings had more of than today's welfare recipients are power, servants, and estate. So the main thing that matters to humans as human beings? As opposed to mere animals who need shelter and food?
- adwn 10y ago
  > So the main thing that matters to humans as human beings? Speak for yourself. I'd rather have convenience, good medical care, and the Internet than the power to let 100 peasants bow down before me.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    If you're one of "today's welfare recipientss" (as is the question in this sub-thread) you'll have neither convenience and good medical care. And usually not much time or use for the internet either. And "power" is not about having "peasants bow", it's about having an impact, and being able to influence things.

literallycancer 10y ago

>Poverty in 2017 means (for the most part) you have a small or shared condo with running water, electricity, refrigerator, television, smartphone, access to lots of public services (libraries, parks, hospitals, etc) and more. The poor people of today have it better than kings of old, but very few people hold that perspective. Anyone would agree that this is a desirable thing, right? I wouldn't mind if poverty meant not having a personal yacht and living in an apartment instead of a suburban house in 2040. If you allowed people to choose, be poor in 2017 or be poor in 1400, most would still prefer 2017. Which means it's an improvement, regardless of how happy people say they are. >How is the end game not communism? The main issue with communism/socialism is that it doesn't work, that the working class is not better off than the working class in a capitalist society. It doesn't make sense to worry about something being technically communism or not, when the tangible result is that people are better off on average. UBI doesn't seem very different from subsidies for failing industries, only it's broader so there isn't any incentive for one single group to push it through. >Who gets to say: "stop complaining, UBI is enough for you." You could make this argument about any wealth redistribution scheme ever.

ythn 10y ago
> Anyone would agree that this is a desirable thing, right? I absolutely think this is a great thing. I just think a lot of people don't realize how great it truly is to be living in the USA in 2017. I think we as a society have a hard time keeping things in perspective[1][2]. > I wouldn't mind if poverty meant not having a personal yacht and living in an apartment instead of a suburban house in 2040. Yeah, but you'll be able to keep things in perspective having lived in 2017. The rising generation in 2040 will have no perspective, and to them a yacht will be a "basic necessity needed to function" in society and anything less is poverty (or whatever, that was a contrived example). > If you allowed people to choose, be poor in 2017 or be poor in 1400, most would still prefer 2017. Not only that, if you allowed people to choose to be poor in 2017 or be rich in 1400, most people would either choose poor 2017 or they would choose rich 1400 and then regret it once they realize how much they've lost (smooth roads, suspension systems on modern transportation, climate control, etc.). > Which means it's an improvement, regardless of how happy people say they are. I agree. But if improvements don't result in a net increase in happiness, what's the point of making the improvements? I agree we should continue to make improvements, but clearly there is some other special sauce required to increase happiness that we are missing here. The poor of 2017 have it 1000x better than the poor in the 1400s, yet are the current poor 1000x happier? Or are they still sad? > The main issue with communism/socialism is that it doesn't work Ok, I'm following you > It doesn't make sense to worry about something being technically communism or not, when the tangible result is that people are better off on average. But wait, if communism doesn't work, shouldn't you be worried about a scheme whose end-game turns your government into communism? I'm still trying to understand how UBI doesn't eventually end up as communism. Who draws the line and says we've redistributed enough? How to we prevent the line from moving to the point where all wealth is redistributed (aka communism)? > You could make this argument about any wealth redistribution scheme ever. Which is why I'm generally against them. There are exceptions, but in general, wealth redistribution schemes are not wise long-term decisions. [1] https://youtu.be/k4juimeO9iQ https://youtu.be/k4juimeO9iQ [2] https://youtu.be/q8LaT5Iiwo4 https://youtu.be/q8LaT5Iiwo4