3 ms·

I am not so sure about basic income, there is already a massive section of society which receives it. I am talking about children, of course. And there is a rea

I am not so sure about basic income, there is already a massive section of society which receives it. I am talking about children, of course. And there is a reason they are provided with that basic income - they are not yet ready to be "net producers". If someone proposes a scheme for basic income, they should also add some checks and balances to make sure people don't turn into net consumers. Just as you wouldn't want your society run by kids who are 16 years or less, you don't want the majority of voters/adult participants to be indistinguishable from children. If being "treated like children" is actually a desirable state, why do most people feel chafed by the thought? But I am also curious about the contributions of factors other than automation which prevents people from being net producers. For e.g. what is the role of inflation (a moderate pace of deflation will allow people to make do with less, get off the treadmill faster, and also make part-time work much more feasible)?

cousin_it 9y ago
The market doesn't reward "net producers". For example, try giving bread to people who are too poor to buy it. You're producing tons of net happiness, but where's your reward? Instead, the market rewards those who are "net producers" to other "net producers". It's recursive, with all the resulting inequality and feedback loops. I don't think those who get shafted by a complex dynamic system should be viewed as children. Change the system instead.
PeterisP 9y ago
Your argument would be valid in 1950 (or 1650) but it does not apply for 2050. This whole discussion is initiated by the fact that due to changing circumstances, many adults MUST be "net consumers" in your terms, that's unavoidable, and the only question is how do we handle it ? In the coming decades, we're facing millions and millions of people for whom the market price of their labor will be lower than the market price of their bare sustenance. We're not there yet, and especially not worldwide, but that's where the trends are pointing so we're discussing it to have a perspective of what needs to be done in the future. There's no "checks and balances" possible - they will be net consumers if they are alive. Already there are massive industries (e.g. garment and footwear manufacturing) which are not automated only because for now e.g. offshore sweatshop labor for handful of rice a day is cheaper than doing it with robots - but it's changing as automation is becoming cheaper over time. So that is the big question, what will we do with the growing number people for whom the society has no economical need, who must be net consumers - and there really are only two options, either the society transfers resources so that they can live a reasonable life, or it does not, and they do not live a reasonable life.

cousin_it 9y ago

The market doesn't reward "net producers". For example, try giving bread to people who are too poor to buy it. You're producing tons of net happiness, but where's your reward? Instead, the market rewards those who are "net producers" to other "net producers". It's recursive, with all the resulting inequality and feedback loops. I don't think those who get shafted by a complex dynamic system should be viewed as children. Change the system instead.

PeterisP 9y ago

Your argument would be valid in 1950 (or 1650) but it does not apply for 2050. This whole discussion is initiated by the fact that due to changing circumstances, many adults MUST be "net consumers" in your terms, that's unavoidable, and the only question is how do we handle it ? In the coming decades, we're facing millions and millions of people for whom the market price of their labor will be lower than the market price of their bare sustenance. We're not there yet, and especially not worldwide, but that's where the trends are pointing so we're discussing it to have a perspective of what needs to be done in the future. There's no "checks and balances" possible - they will be net consumers if they are alive. Already there are massive industries (e.g. garment and footwear manufacturing) which are not automated only because for now e.g. offshore sweatshop labor for handful of rice a day is cheaper than doing it with robots - but it's changing as automation is becoming cheaper over time. So that is the big question, what will we do with the growing number people for whom the society has no economical need, who must be net consumers - and there really are only two options, either the society transfers resources so that they can live a reasonable life, or it does not, and they do not live a reasonable life.