5 ms·

I die inside. But any suggestion of "mincome" or the like is met with such a harsh reaction... What, effectively, is the difference between goon-bloom and minc

by mfoy_ 8y ago

I die inside. But any suggestion of "mincome" or the like is met with such a harsh reaction... What, effectively, is the difference between goon-bloom and mincome? Is it just that one is too obviously a subsidy?

lmm 8y ago
The protestant work ethic is still there - the notion that a difficult job is better for the person doing it than an easier job with the same pay.
- Filligree 8y ago
  Depending on the definition of "difficulty", and the type of person, I'm not sure they're wrong. We're all engineers here. Can you honestly say you'd prefer a job that paid the same, but where you wouldn't have to use your mind? Of course, it's been used to justify some serious horrors.
_rpd 8y ago
I honestly don't think it would be a bad thing if there were ten times as many lawyers, so that the cost of using the legal system became affordable to the vast majority of the people living under it.
- some_account 8y ago
  Talking about America? Look at other countries for a better solution. :)
  - mac01021 8y ago
    Which ones?
    - adrian_mrd 8y ago
      Antarctica ;)
  - _rpd 8y ago
    I think it generalizes. Having a personal advocate will almost always yield a better personal solution than even a well intentioned bureaucrat. The law is complex, and the ability to afford a personal advocate is a very sharp privilege. I think I've even seen this dynamic at play in international negotiations, with poorer countries being swamped by the experienced legal teams of larger countries, or being forced to effectively delegate their authority to an NGO that maintains a competitive legal team.
mac01021 8y ago
Goons are often highly skilled and highly compensated. So that's one difference.
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
I talk to people about changing the world so work is optional, and people are really attached to the idea that everyone should work all the time. Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. Or more conservatively, we could build a world where everyone has 8 weeks of vacation a year or could take 6 months off every few years. I believe this is doable from a technical perspective and it’s the problem I’m trying to devote my life to. We ultimately need to build optional societies where people who choose to join can opt out of consumerism, a major driver of our need for endless work. My vision is for systems of robotics that are totally open source (modifiable and royalty free) that can create the basic goods for survival. Then groups of people fund corporations with bylaws like a constitution that guarantee rights to shareholders. The machines provide for the people and excess goods are sold to a market to support growth of the community. I think something like that in the future is one very useful aspect of a society where unnecessary work is over and regular people get to enjoy the benefits of modern productivity (instead of a small percentage of the population enjoying that while most people miss out). But in general when I talk to people I find that the hardest idea for them to grasp is the idea that we could all work less and things wouldn’t collapse. We just need to alter the distribution of wealth so that everyone benefits.
- _rpd 8y ago
  You might be interested in Marcin Jakubowski's work ... https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/ https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. i realize that the rest of your post details technological advancements that could create this condition (on an indefinite timeline), but you also seem to be saying that it is already possible today. i often see this sort of claim these days, and i always wonder why this is treated as self evident fact. in 2015, the PPP adjusted GDP per capita over the entire planet was just under $16k [1]. this is only 125% of the US poverty line for a single person in the same year [2]. even if we could deliver this sum to every person in the world without losing production capacity and with no administrative cost, it hardly seems enough to provide what you mean by a "modest living" to everyone. much closer to mere subsistence in a developed nation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... [2] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
closeparen 8y ago
Hazing, austerity, and rigor. The military certainly cannot be accused of making soldiers more comfortable than taxpayers, and that’s what they really care about. Whether they’re deployed to economicically productive ends is more of an academic concern. On a gut level, the public needs to feel that they are not paid to be lazy, and the military delivers with overwhelming gusto. Lawyers may similarly be accused of evil, but rarely laziness. There’s a general perception that they’ve passed through a crucible we wouldn’t survive (law school) and do work we couldn’t hack. Other bureaucrats, not so much.
- posterboy 8y ago
  Lawyers can be horribly lazy. "let's just wait for a reaction, if we are lucky, nothings gonna come." "Let's just threaten with outrageous claims instead of making an effort." "We know the law is wrong but it's easier to roll with it than to fix it or find a way around it."
ngvrnd 8y ago
well... one way, you have goons, the other way, you have livers. The problem with mincome is the hedonic treadmill. the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary.
- naravara 8y ago
  >the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary. Close. What it does is reduces supply (fewer people working) while raising demand (people with more money in their pockets). This winds up causing inflation that erodes away the value of the minimum income. It's not even a hedonic treadmill, just an inflationary one. A basic income guarantee can only ever work as temporary assistance or as a residualist stopgap for people on the fringes of society. If it's too widespread it ends up working against itself. A job guarantee increases supply (assuming you use the labor power productively) while keeping demand high, so that works against the inflation problem. It's a tough balancing act though. You have to make sure the make-work is actually producing useful stuff or you'll have all the same problems as the basic income plus a bunch of random ditches dug. During Cultural Revolution in China cadres kind of engendered ecological catastrophes by creating bureaucratic agencies that would pointlessly clearcut forests for no reason. It's basically the paper-clip maximizing AI problem, only the intelligence isn't artificial.
colonelpopcorn 8y ago
Because at least in the goon economy you can compete in a hierarchy and be differentiated by status. "I have made X number of lawsuits/wars/security details successful which is more than Billy who only has Y number of successful lawsuits/wars/security details and that's why I should get a bonus and he shouldn't." sounds better than "I have exactly the same amount of income as Billy, but I should have more than he does because I think I'm better than Billy." Yes, there are other ways to differentiate yourself in a social hierarchy, but finding a new and novel way to live is a lot harder than continuing to live the same way humans have lived for centuries.

by mfoy_ 8y ago

lmm 8y ago

The protestant work ethic is still there - the notion that a difficult job is better for the person doing it than an easier job with the same pay.

Filligree 8y ago
Depending on the definition of "difficulty", and the type of person, I'm not sure they're wrong. We're all engineers here. Can you honestly say you'd prefer a job that paid the same, but where you wouldn't have to use your mind? Of course, it's been used to justify some serious horrors.

_rpd 8y ago

I honestly don't think it would be a bad thing if there were ten times as many lawyers, so that the cost of using the legal system became affordable to the vast majority of the people living under it.

some_account 8y ago
Talking about America? Look at other countries for a better solution. :)
- mac01021 8y ago
  Which ones?
  - adrian_mrd 8y ago
    Antarctica ;)
- _rpd 8y ago
  I think it generalizes. Having a personal advocate will almost always yield a better personal solution than even a well intentioned bureaucrat. The law is complex, and the ability to afford a personal advocate is a very sharp privilege. I think I've even seen this dynamic at play in international negotiations, with poorer countries being swamped by the experienced legal teams of larger countries, or being forced to effectively delegate their authority to an NGO that maintains a competitive legal team.

mac01021 8y ago

Goons are often highly skilled and highly compensated. So that's one difference.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

I talk to people about changing the world so work is optional, and people are really attached to the idea that everyone should work all the time. Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. Or more conservatively, we could build a world where everyone has 8 weeks of vacation a year or could take 6 months off every few years. I believe this is doable from a technical perspective and it’s the problem I’m trying to devote my life to. We ultimately need to build optional societies where people who choose to join can opt out of consumerism, a major driver of our need for endless work. My vision is for systems of robotics that are totally open source (modifiable and royalty free) that can create the basic goods for survival. Then groups of people fund corporations with bylaws like a constitution that guarantee rights to shareholders. The machines provide for the people and excess goods are sold to a market to support growth of the community. I think something like that in the future is one very useful aspect of a society where unnecessary work is over and regular people get to enjoy the benefits of modern productivity (instead of a small percentage of the population enjoying that while most people miss out). But in general when I talk to people I find that the hardest idea for them to grasp is the idea that we could all work less and things wouldn’t collapse. We just need to alter the distribution of wealth so that everyone benefits.

_rpd 8y ago
You might be interested in Marcin Jakubowski's work ... https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/ https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/
leetcrew 8y ago
> Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. i realize that the rest of your post details technological advancements that could create this condition (on an indefinite timeline), but you also seem to be saying that it is already possible today. i often see this sort of claim these days, and i always wonder why this is treated as self evident fact. in 2015, the PPP adjusted GDP per capita over the entire planet was just under $16k [1]. this is only 125% of the US poverty line for a single person in the same year [2]. even if we could deliver this sum to every person in the world without losing production capacity and with no administrative cost, it hardly seems enough to provide what you mean by a "modest living" to everyone. much closer to mere subsistence in a developed nation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... [2] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...

closeparen 8y ago

Hazing, austerity, and rigor. The military certainly cannot be accused of making soldiers more comfortable than taxpayers, and that’s what they really care about. Whether they’re deployed to economicically productive ends is more of an academic concern. On a gut level, the public needs to feel that they are not paid to be lazy, and the military delivers with overwhelming gusto. Lawyers may similarly be accused of evil, but rarely laziness. There’s a general perception that they’ve passed through a crucible we wouldn’t survive (law school) and do work we couldn’t hack. Other bureaucrats, not so much.

posterboy 8y ago
Lawyers can be horribly lazy. "let's just wait for a reaction, if we are lucky, nothings gonna come." "Let's just threaten with outrageous claims instead of making an effort." "We know the law is wrong but it's easier to roll with it than to fix it or find a way around it."

ngvrnd 8y ago

well... one way, you have goons, the other way, you have livers. The problem with mincome is the hedonic treadmill. the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary.

naravara 8y ago
>the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary. Close. What it does is reduces supply (fewer people working) while raising demand (people with more money in their pockets). This winds up causing inflation that erodes away the value of the minimum income. It's not even a hedonic treadmill, just an inflationary one. A basic income guarantee can only ever work as temporary assistance or as a residualist stopgap for people on the fringes of society. If it's too widespread it ends up working against itself. A job guarantee increases supply (assuming you use the labor power productively) while keeping demand high, so that works against the inflation problem. It's a tough balancing act though. You have to make sure the make-work is actually producing useful stuff or you'll have all the same problems as the basic income plus a bunch of random ditches dug. During Cultural Revolution in China cadres kind of engendered ecological catastrophes by creating bureaucratic agencies that would pointlessly clearcut forests for no reason. It's basically the paper-clip maximizing AI problem, only the intelligence isn't artificial.

colonelpopcorn 8y ago

Because at least in the goon economy you can compete in a hierarchy and be differentiated by status. "I have made X number of lawsuits/wars/security details successful which is more than Billy who only has Y number of successful lawsuits/wars/security details and that's why I should get a bonus and he shouldn't." sounds better than "I have exactly the same amount of income as Billy, but I should have more than he does because I think I'm better than Billy." Yes, there are other ways to differentiate yourself in a social hierarchy, but finding a new and novel way to live is a lot harder than continuing to live the same way humans have lived for centuries.