10 ms·

I disagree with the author here on UBI. The root of the issue goes deeper than deciding to prop up job markets so that there is enough supply of jobs to meet th

by bsmith 10y ago

I disagree with the author here on UBI. The root of the issue goes deeper than deciding to prop up job markets so that there is enough supply of jobs to meet the demand. Based on the arguments in the article, this can only be a temporary fix; eventually automation will take over too many jobs for every person to have one—or at the very least, human labor is a commodity that eventually becomes so cheap that the laborers cannot survive. The author seems to be solidly in the 'work == virtue' camp and argues that UBI decreases the incentive to work. While partly true, the REAL work we want done is not menial, but innovative, and leads to the next big breakthroughs that increase productivity and eliminate even MORE jobs. This is capitalism, no? UBI is there so everyone still survives to have a crack at it, if they want to. This becomes an ethical question quite quickly: does being born make you worthy of survival?

UweSchmidt 10y ago
Um, yes? Being born makes you worthy of survival. Where is the ethical dilemma? Otherwise I agree with your post.
- bsmith 10y ago
  It's meant to be rhetorical; of course being born makes you worthy of survival! But what if working doesn't provide you enough sustenance? And what if you don't even have the opportunity in the first place, once the demand for human labor is low enough?
  - devoply 10y ago
    We have more than enough resources. If working does not provide enough sustenance then we need to replace the government. These are political issues not economic ones. We can solve the problem of production with automation, however the problem of distribution remains and if the government is not distributing resources to you then you need to take that government down and replace it with one that does. That ultimatum hopefully makes politicians understand that they are no longer serving their corporate overlords but the people. They have been ignoring the people so long that might get some getting used to. Most innovation done today I would say a good 99% of what constitutes the job market is trivial and can be automated away in the next 50 years. What remains is the 1% of scientists and engineers that actually make shit happen and strive to change the game. It's fine with me if these people live like kings and the rest of us have enough resources and all the free time in the world to do whatever we want and not be encumbered by trivial work. Maybe we can bring back hunting gathering civilizations or other microcosms of civilization and ways of life.
    - pharrlax 10y ago
      >It's fine with me if these people live like kings and the rest of us have enough resources and all the free time in the world to do whatever we want and not be encumbered by trivial work. One problem with this that springs to mind is that historically, relative numbers of young, bored, jobless men and crime rates are tightly correlated.
      - devoply 10y ago
        Gaming. Virtual reality. Virtual reality porn. They can be hooligans there. You want somewhere to prove yourself do it there. We should in fact create a de facto virtual reality simulation to take over lots of useless social things we do with material goods and services like expensive cars, clothing, and whatnot. All the conspicuous consumption can happen in virtual reality. That's much better for the environment too. Leave the actual real world alone and focus on implementing our imaginations in the virtual world. It's already happening: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-video-games-jobs-emploment-20160923-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-video-games-jobs-e... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/gamer-prefers-virtual-world_n_7789168.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/gamer-prefers-virtu...
        pc86 10y ago
        This argument ignores history, human psychology, and basic reality.
        devoply 10y ago
        Human beings don't live in reality they live in their imaginations work to bring that imagination into the real world through technology. History is just that history, we never had this sort of tech so looking to history and saying it won't work is irrelevant. Basic psychology is that humans don't live in the real world but in their imaginations. There is already a subsection of society that's already so involved in gaming that they don't care about the "real" world any more, links on the edit above.
      - 10y ago
  - crispyambulance 10y ago
    ... and that's when you reach for the pitchforks along with the others.
    - jbob2000 10y ago
      And get crushed by drone strikes. The old methods of overthrowing power don't work any more!
      - crispyambulance 10y ago
        mmm, don't be so sure about that, at least not yet. Drone strikes have failed to "crush" any insurgency thus far and there is a strong argument that they've inflammed the situation wherever they've been used as weapons. Moreover, "pitchforks" come in many forms.
        gremlinsinc 10y ago
        THere's also the fact that given enough timeline when 90% of the world's population is out on the street, All economies will suffer, because you cannot have capitalism IF you don't have consumers. No purchases = No income. -- UBI puts money in pockets, for people to keep consuming locally, and props up local economies.
        TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        Exactly. The reason the US has had a drawn-out War on Terror right now is because it has the potential to hurt us more than anything else. Asymmetric warfare strategies can be very, very effective while using almost no resources.
        kefka 10y ago
        Absolutely. And there are many a jobs that can allow a great amount of destruction on the sly, and cheaply. I'll refrain about mentioning exactly what - but many of us are engineers. It would not be difficult to get some ideas.
      - 10y ago
- ccallebs 10y ago
  > Um, yes? That's easy to say with no resource scarcity.
  - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
    There is no resource scarcity. 6 men own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the _planet_. This is a crisis of capitalism and wealth distribution.
    - skizm 10y ago
      You can't eat money though. If they (the 6 most wealthy people) cashed in all their stock and re-distributed their wealth as best they could, the value of money would plummet since so much more is in circulation. It would crash the global economy and cause even more poverty.
      - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        The money they have isn't in some vault somewhere. It's already in circulation through various investments and whatnot.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        No it wouldn't. The global economy is tens of trillions of dollars. Drop a couple trillion in there and it just gets consumed.
        skizm 10y ago
        Inflation occurs when the US government adds around $10 billion of money to the market every year though (they print money to replace existing / lost currency, but always over produce). The money gets "consumed" but the value of each dollar goes down. And that's just with $10 billion. That point aside, my original point was that just because the 6 richest people have paper value of more than half the planet doesn't mean there are enough resources to keep everyone alive just because they are born. (which is ideal in a theoretical world obviously)
daliwali 10y ago
>does being born make you worthy of survival? Does the world owe you a living? Most would answer "no". Civilization is often in direct opposition to nature, which is cruel and unforgiving. A civilization in collapse will revert to natural selection, in which the fittest survive and reproduce. I believe that we are witnessing the breakdown of the social contract as the atomic unit of society shifts from the family to the individual. Atomized individuals are much more vulnerable, and replacing the family with the state will further alienate people. Entire novels have expounded on this idea.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  The world does not owe me a living, but then again, it has no rules that I am bound to obey. Civilization does owe me a living, in exchange for my good conduct. If civilization cannot or will not provide me with my survival needs, I will instead break its laws and prey upon its people and systems to get not just what I need, but also what I want. If your system cannot reasonably accommodate everyone, you will have outlaws fighting it. You can build walls or commit genocides, but they are not going to play any game by the rules when the rules guarantee that they will lose it.
  - BatFastard 10y ago
    Well said, Civilization is indeed a contract. However there are various ways to enforce the contract. In the middle ages in Europe is was enforced via religion. Behave or go to hell. In communist countries it was contribute or go to work camps. In capitalist societies so far it has been behave and reap upward mobility or go to jail. When there is no upward mobility, I am not sure if jail is enough to enforce the contract.
  - loader 10y ago
    I reread this comment like 4 times. I really like the simplicity of it but how profound it is. I guess we can't be too upset when people don't obey our rules if we aren't providing for their basic survival.
  - marchenko 10y ago

by bsmith 10y ago

UweSchmidt 10y ago

Um, yes? Being born makes you worthy of survival. Where is the ethical dilemma? Otherwise I agree with your post.

bsmith 10y ago
It's meant to be rhetorical; of course being born makes you worthy of survival! But what if working doesn't provide you enough sustenance? And what if you don't even have the opportunity in the first place, once the demand for human labor is low enough?
- devoply 10y ago
  We have more than enough resources. If working does not provide enough sustenance then we need to replace the government. These are political issues not economic ones. We can solve the problem of production with automation, however the problem of distribution remains and if the government is not distributing resources to you then you need to take that government down and replace it with one that does. That ultimatum hopefully makes politicians understand that they are no longer serving their corporate overlords but the people. They have been ignoring the people so long that might get some getting used to. Most innovation done today I would say a good 99% of what constitutes the job market is trivial and can be automated away in the next 50 years. What remains is the 1% of scientists and engineers that actually make shit happen and strive to change the game. It's fine with me if these people live like kings and the rest of us have enough resources and all the free time in the world to do whatever we want and not be encumbered by trivial work. Maybe we can bring back hunting gathering civilizations or other microcosms of civilization and ways of life.
  - pharrlax 10y ago
    >It's fine with me if these people live like kings and the rest of us have enough resources and all the free time in the world to do whatever we want and not be encumbered by trivial work. One problem with this that springs to mind is that historically, relative numbers of young, bored, jobless men and crime rates are tightly correlated.
    - devoply 10y ago
      Gaming. Virtual reality. Virtual reality porn. They can be hooligans there. You want somewhere to prove yourself do it there. We should in fact create a de facto virtual reality simulation to take over lots of useless social things we do with material goods and services like expensive cars, clothing, and whatnot. All the conspicuous consumption can happen in virtual reality. That's much better for the environment too. Leave the actual real world alone and focus on implementing our imaginations in the virtual world. It's already happening: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-video-games-jobs-emploment-20160923-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-video-games-jobs-e... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/gamer-prefers-virtual-world_n_7789168.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/gamer-prefers-virtu...
      - pc86 10y ago
        This argument ignores history, human psychology, and basic reality.
        devoply 10y ago
        Human beings don't live in reality they live in their imaginations work to bring that imagination into the real world through technology. History is just that history, we never had this sort of tech so looking to history and saying it won't work is irrelevant. Basic psychology is that humans don't live in the real world but in their imaginations. There is already a subsection of society that's already so involved in gaming that they don't care about the "real" world any more, links on the edit above.
    - 10y ago
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  ... and that's when you reach for the pitchforks along with the others.
  - jbob2000 10y ago
    And get crushed by drone strikes. The old methods of overthrowing power don't work any more!
    - crispyambulance 10y ago
      mmm, don't be so sure about that, at least not yet. Drone strikes have failed to "crush" any insurgency thus far and there is a strong argument that they've inflammed the situation wherever they've been used as weapons. Moreover, "pitchforks" come in many forms.
      - gremlinsinc 10y ago
        THere's also the fact that given enough timeline when 90% of the world's population is out on the street, All economies will suffer, because you cannot have capitalism IF you don't have consumers. No purchases = No income. -- UBI puts money in pockets, for people to keep consuming locally, and props up local economies.
      - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        Exactly. The reason the US has had a drawn-out War on Terror right now is because it has the potential to hurt us more than anything else. Asymmetric warfare strategies can be very, very effective while using almost no resources.
        kefka 10y ago
        Absolutely. And there are many a jobs that can allow a great amount of destruction on the sly, and cheaply. I'll refrain about mentioning exactly what - but many of us are engineers. It would not be difficult to get some ideas.
    - 10y ago
ccallebs 10y ago
> Um, yes? That's easy to say with no resource scarcity.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
  There is no resource scarcity. 6 men own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the _planet_. This is a crisis of capitalism and wealth distribution.
  - skizm 10y ago
    You can't eat money though. If they (the 6 most wealthy people) cashed in all their stock and re-distributed their wealth as best they could, the value of money would plummet since so much more is in circulation. It would crash the global economy and cause even more poverty.
    - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
      The money they have isn't in some vault somewhere. It's already in circulation through various investments and whatnot.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      No it wouldn't. The global economy is tens of trillions of dollars. Drop a couple trillion in there and it just gets consumed.
      - skizm 10y ago
        Inflation occurs when the US government adds around $10 billion of money to the market every year though (they print money to replace existing / lost currency, but always over produce). The money gets "consumed" but the value of each dollar goes down. And that's just with $10 billion. That point aside, my original point was that just because the 6 richest people have paper value of more than half the planet doesn't mean there are enough resources to keep everyone alive just because they are born. (which is ideal in a theoretical world obviously)

daliwali 10y ago

>does being born make you worthy of survival? Does the world owe you a living? Most would answer "no". Civilization is often in direct opposition to nature, which is cruel and unforgiving. A civilization in collapse will revert to natural selection, in which the fittest survive and reproduce. I believe that we are witnessing the breakdown of the social contract as the atomic unit of society shifts from the family to the individual. Atomized individuals are much more vulnerable, and replacing the family with the state will further alienate people. Entire novels have expounded on this idea.

logfromblammo 10y ago
The world does not owe me a living, but then again, it has no rules that I am bound to obey. Civilization does owe me a living, in exchange for my good conduct. If civilization cannot or will not provide me with my survival needs, I will instead break its laws and prey upon its people and systems to get not just what I need, but also what I want. If your system cannot reasonably accommodate everyone, you will have outlaws fighting it. You can build walls or commit genocides, but they are not going to play any game by the rules when the rules guarantee that they will lose it.
- BatFastard 10y ago
  Well said, Civilization is indeed a contract. However there are various ways to enforce the contract. In the middle ages in Europe is was enforced via religion. Behave or go to hell. In communist countries it was contribute or go to work camps. In capitalist societies so far it has been behave and reap upward mobility or go to jail. When there is no upward mobility, I am not sure if jail is enough to enforce the contract.
- loader 10y ago
  I reread this comment like 4 times. I really like the simplicity of it but how profound it is. I guess we can't be too upset when people don't obey our rules if we aren't providing for their basic survival.
- marchenko 10y ago