3 ms·

>Poverty in 2017 means (for the most part) you have a small or shared condo with running water, electricity, refrigerator, television, smartphone, access to lot

>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
- literallycancer 10y ago
  I meant to convey something like this: You start with "communism doesn't work" and you want to know whether UBI works (improves lives, etc). So you can do "does UBI lead to communism?", and then decide the "does UBI work?" accordingly. But you could also just ask "does UBI work?", without needing to assume that UBI leading to communism (I guess you could also test whether or not it leads there, but that's just as hard as testing whether it works).

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

literallycancer 10y ago
I meant to convey something like this: You start with "communism doesn't work" and you want to know whether UBI works (improves lives, etc). So you can do "does UBI lead to communism?", and then decide the "does UBI work?" accordingly. But you could also just ask "does UBI work?", without needing to assume that UBI leading to communism (I guess you could also test whether or not it leads there, but that's just as hard as testing whether it works).