6 ms·

> I think a better question is if society can adapt quick enough to fill the void left by the absence of work. i think that question has been answered to some

by dingbat 10y ago

> I think a better question is if society can adapt quick enough to fill the void left by the absence of work. i think that question has been answered to some degree by research (cant pinpoint off top of my head) which seems to indicate that generally humans fill that void by watching more TV and sleeping. i think its idealistic to think that people will suddenly become creative and culturally inclined.

jstanley 10y ago
> generally humans fill that void by watching more TV and sleeping The good news is they're only wasting their life for themselves. Those of us that enjoy other pursuits are still free to enjoy them, regardless of how many people are watching TV and sleeping.
- malandrew 10y ago
  We've reached the point where more people are arguing that access to X is a fundamental human right, where X is something that requires resources and labor to provide. As the breadth of what is socially argued to be a human right increases, you'll find that those working to provide the labor and capital will be increasingly deprived of the fruits of their labor to provide for those who are sitting around watching TV. There are many leisure activities I would like to partake in and would be able to partake in if so much of my income didn't go to taxes. I'm not saying all taxes are bad, but the scope of what taxes are increased to support only increases under a democracy. A democracy will always result in the election of those individuals that promise to give benefits for free, when thevtruth is that the benefits will increasingly come from those in the minority. I currently still think a democracy or republic are the best form of government compared to others that have been tried because it prevents abuses by a few against many, but it fails to prevent abuses of the many against a few. I'm not sure how we can achieve a governmental form that generay prevents abuses in both directions.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    In this automated world, that traditional viewpoint is rapidly becoming incorrect. That is, it doesn't require any person's resources or labor to provide much of what we consume. Its automated pretty much bottom to top. As for the money, in transforming an agrarian barter economy to a modern one the USA had good use for a cash system for 200 years. But what about when the only obstacle to gaining essentially free goods is, a capitalist holding them hostage? Its all starting to break down. Anyway, even a cursory examination of the foundations of the UBI initiative show that it pretty much pays for itself. The knee-jerk "I don't want to pay for other people to sit around" complaint is uninformed and obsolete.
    - malandrew 10y ago
      But what about when the only obstacle to gaining essentially free goods is, a capitalist holding them hostage? Are you serious? Capitalist holding them hostage? A capitalist can only charge what the market will bear. If they charge too much, no one buys what they have and they lose their return on investment and they are forced to lower their prices until those in the market can afford to buy what they are selling. If the capitalist invested too much and can't get the price they originally wanted, they will at least try to minimize their losses. If you believe a "capitalist can hold goods hostage", the only conclusion I can come to is that you don't actually understand capitalism and how it works. UBI is unproven. I could see a negative income tax making some sense, but at absolute best the maximum amount any individual receives needs to be uncomfortable, so there is an imperative to contribute to the productivity that supports a society. Wealth is created. It doesn't just magically appear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Ok I meant a meta-meaning with that. Of course its what Capitalism does. But we don't use Capitalism because its sacred or written on a scroll - we use it because it works (worked). When it quits working, we're gonna have to switch. Has it quit working? That's the fundamental issue before us.
  - glangdale 10y ago
    "the scope of what taxes are increased to support only increases under a democracy" In addition to all those leisure activities you have been deprived of by "those people sitting around watching TV", you apparently have been too busy to acquire basic historical facts or exercise basic common sense (I vaguely recall various people being elected with promises to reduce taxes, and occasionally even doing so). Since about the 1940s, there has been no clear trend upward in the fashion that you describe; certainly nothing that would substantially move the needle in how many leisure activities you can partake in. So I suggest you go take that pottery class now.
    - malandrew 10y ago
      You're focusing only on income tax in the US. The US is not the only democracy, and even if it were, income tax isn't the only tax used to extract value from those creating it. In several democracies the tax rate has increased since the 1940s. For example, in Germany taxes as a percent of national income has increased from 29% in 1950 to 45% in 2011. In the US, the tax rate has remained largely unchanged since 1945 when you take into account all taxes, not just income taxes. My point was that the scope of what taxes support increases under a democracy. All savings from improvements in productivity are just used for new activities. Instead of returning those savings from increased productivity to taxpayers, they just find new activities to spend it on. I want from the government today, exactly what we got from the government in the 1950s, but delivered with 2017 efficiency/productivity. The government needs to stop finding new things to waste our money on.
      - glangdale 10y ago
        Welp. As you observe, most people in a democracy don't agree with you. So your fetishization of "exactly what we got from the government in the 1950s" will be a lonely dream; likely most of the rest of us would like something in excess of 1950s investments in education, health care, and so on. The rest of us here on Planet Earth might also be aware that many of the goods the government might have to pay for competed for by other sectors, so if the government decides that it would like to pay 1950s level prices for such goods, it will be shit out of luck. I suspect you can probably find a country or two out there with a tax burden and government services akin to the USA in 1950; perhaps you should move there?

by dingbat 10y ago

jstanley 10y ago

> generally humans fill that void by watching more TV and sleeping The good news is they're only wasting their life for themselves. Those of us that enjoy other pursuits are still free to enjoy them, regardless of how many people are watching TV and sleeping.

malandrew 10y ago
We've reached the point where more people are arguing that access to X is a fundamental human right, where X is something that requires resources and labor to provide. As the breadth of what is socially argued to be a human right increases, you'll find that those working to provide the labor and capital will be increasingly deprived of the fruits of their labor to provide for those who are sitting around watching TV. There are many leisure activities I would like to partake in and would be able to partake in if so much of my income didn't go to taxes. I'm not saying all taxes are bad, but the scope of what taxes are increased to support only increases under a democracy. A democracy will always result in the election of those individuals that promise to give benefits for free, when thevtruth is that the benefits will increasingly come from those in the minority. I currently still think a democracy or republic are the best form of government compared to others that have been tried because it prevents abuses by a few against many, but it fails to prevent abuses of the many against a few. I'm not sure how we can achieve a governmental form that generay prevents abuses in both directions.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  In this automated world, that traditional viewpoint is rapidly becoming incorrect. That is, it doesn't require any person's resources or labor to provide much of what we consume. Its automated pretty much bottom to top. As for the money, in transforming an agrarian barter economy to a modern one the USA had good use for a cash system for 200 years. But what about when the only obstacle to gaining essentially free goods is, a capitalist holding them hostage? Its all starting to break down. Anyway, even a cursory examination of the foundations of the UBI initiative show that it pretty much pays for itself. The knee-jerk "I don't want to pay for other people to sit around" complaint is uninformed and obsolete.
  - malandrew 10y ago
    But what about when the only obstacle to gaining essentially free goods is, a capitalist holding them hostage? Are you serious? Capitalist holding them hostage? A capitalist can only charge what the market will bear. If they charge too much, no one buys what they have and they lose their return on investment and they are forced to lower their prices until those in the market can afford to buy what they are selling. If the capitalist invested too much and can't get the price they originally wanted, they will at least try to minimize their losses. If you believe a "capitalist can hold goods hostage", the only conclusion I can come to is that you don't actually understand capitalism and how it works. UBI is unproven. I could see a negative income tax making some sense, but at absolute best the maximum amount any individual receives needs to be uncomfortable, so there is an imperative to contribute to the productivity that supports a society. Wealth is created. It doesn't just magically appear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Ok I meant a meta-meaning with that. Of course its what Capitalism does. But we don't use Capitalism because its sacred or written on a scroll - we use it because it works (worked). When it quits working, we're gonna have to switch. Has it quit working? That's the fundamental issue before us.
- glangdale 10y ago
  "the scope of what taxes are increased to support only increases under a democracy" In addition to all those leisure activities you have been deprived of by "those people sitting around watching TV", you apparently have been too busy to acquire basic historical facts or exercise basic common sense (I vaguely recall various people being elected with promises to reduce taxes, and occasionally even doing so). Since about the 1940s, there has been no clear trend upward in the fashion that you describe; certainly nothing that would substantially move the needle in how many leisure activities you can partake in. So I suggest you go take that pottery class now.
  - malandrew 10y ago
    You're focusing only on income tax in the US. The US is not the only democracy, and even if it were, income tax isn't the only tax used to extract value from those creating it. In several democracies the tax rate has increased since the 1940s. For example, in Germany taxes as a percent of national income has increased from 29% in 1950 to 45% in 2011. In the US, the tax rate has remained largely unchanged since 1945 when you take into account all taxes, not just income taxes. My point was that the scope of what taxes support increases under a democracy. All savings from improvements in productivity are just used for new activities. Instead of returning those savings from increased productivity to taxpayers, they just find new activities to spend it on. I want from the government today, exactly what we got from the government in the 1950s, but delivered with 2017 efficiency/productivity. The government needs to stop finding new things to waste our money on.
    - glangdale 10y ago
      Welp. As you observe, most people in a democracy don't agree with you. So your fetishization of "exactly what we got from the government in the 1950s" will be a lonely dream; likely most of the rest of us would like something in excess of 1950s investments in education, health care, and so on. The rest of us here on Planet Earth might also be aware that many of the goods the government might have to pay for competed for by other sectors, so if the government decides that it would like to pay 1950s level prices for such goods, it will be shit out of luck. I suspect you can probably find a country or two out there with a tax burden and government services akin to the USA in 1950; perhaps you should move there?