19 ms·

U.S. billionaires worry about the survival of the system that made them rich

53 points by weston 7y ago

HNKingpin 7y ago
As they should - it won't be able to keep up with the increasing automation for long. Didn't read the article due to the obnoxious adblock notice.
_bxg1 7y ago
My worry with UBI as a replacement for work is that it relies on the continued altruism of the elite, with no balancing force keeping the status-quo. Despite its problems, properly-functioning capitalism keeps the few accountable to the many. Billionaires can only throw their weight around up to a point, because at the end of the day they rely on regular people to keep their economic engine going. They need us for our economic value, which gives us power. If that became no longer the case, democracy itself could be abolished, with no consequence to those at the top. Capitalism has many problems, and doesn't work on its own, and certainly needs fixing in 2019, but I think it's also the lynchpin maintaining any status quo at all between elites and everyone else. Now, this also assumes that people become literally useless in the automated future, compared to systems. It's possible - if unlikely - that humans always move on to a higher frontier of uniquely human work once the previous one becomes automated. In that scenario, UBI could be a great way to ride that transition. Also, partial UBI, meant only to give people a platform for growth in a world that still has jobs for them, could be a good way to combat economic inequality.
- enitihas 7y ago
  I think this is the same point that Harari makes in "21 lessons for the 21st century" i.e democracy became important simultaneously with the work of people being important along with the industrial revolution. Nations needed a happy population as a happy population was the ultimate source of economic output as well as an army. If more and more economic output doesn't involve humans, humans can't use a lot of existing tactics to bring about a change. Also, if most people are getting by well on an UBI, would people even be anymore interested in politics, since jobs are currently an important issue in any election.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > Also, if most people are getting by well on an UBI, would people even be anymore interested in politics, since jobs are currently an important issue in any election. One possible counter is that people may have more free time to spend engaging in politics. Once one need is satisfied attention will inevitably shift. Mazlow's hierarchy and all that.
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    >>Also, if most people are getting by well on an UBI, would people even be anymore interested in politics, since jobs are currently an important issue in any election. One of the main reasons people give when I ask them why they don’t pay attention to politics is that they don’t have any time or energy or willpower left to do so after working 40+ hours a week doing largely meaningless, soul-crushing tasks.
- ummonk 7y ago
  Isn't the point of UBI to keep that engine going by propping up demand for consumer goods?
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    If that were all there was to it it would be totally unsustainable. There are two possible goals of UBI, depending on who you ask: 1) Automation is going to make the concept of jobs obsolete. Therefore most of the population will simply die of poverty if we don't artificially redistribute all of the wealth. 2) Many people today are stuck in poverty because they're too financially stretched to pay for healthcare, education, a car to get to work, childcare, etc., even while spending all extra time working multiple jobs. The hope is that by giving them a life raft, they'll have the leeway to spend time, money, and energy on self-betterment, and thereby enrich the economy. My argument is that #1 sounds good but doesn't seem robust against a few powerful bad actors. #2, though, could be quite effective.
- tsunamifury 7y ago
  I’d like to believe what you are saying, but it sounds a bit like the cows have control of the farm because the farmer needs the milk. All the farmer does is pain-optimize to the cheapest possible conditions that keep cows alive and milking. Which turns out is locking them in stalls and force feeding them hormones. People are just realizing now we’ve become the cows needed to legeitimize the capital that is milked back out of us. I agree though that UBI is just trying to juice that feedback loop in the most superficial way possible. Like cows deciding that more hay and hormones will somehow free them. (It won’t)
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    Yet if the cows stopped producing milk, the farmers would simply let them all die off. And to stretch the metaphor, while the cows produce milk they have the option of unionizing. Saying "we'll all quit if you don't treat us better" only works while they care if you quit.
    - jschwartzi 7y ago
      Sure you can unionize but we'll just contract out your jobs.
- itronitron 7y ago
  >> continued altruism of the elite there is a fundamental error in how you are thinking about this
- erentz 7y ago
  > My worry with UBI as a replacement for work is that it relies on the continued altruism of the elite Well it relies on a fair and properly functioning democracy. We have a very corrupt system at the moment, people don't get what they want because politicians are bought and paid for by their donors. We need adequate defenses against this in our system, then it stops being anything to do with the altruism of the elite, because the majority regular folks are going to continue voting for the UBI or other benefits. The other balance is the threat of revolution. Keep the population happy enough or they'll come for you. Removing the gated community effect would also help. If the rich have to use the same services as the rest of us, then they have an incentive to ensure those services are well run. If large inheritances are effectively taxed away, then they have to ensure society provides a good platform for their children. Etc.
  - HNKingpin 7y ago
    > Well it relies on a fair and properly functioning democracy. For that, there need to be consequences for politicians that screw up. There aren't. Actually, nowhere do we even have a real democracy. A regular person has no say in anything at all.
- HNKingpin 7y ago
  >Now, this also assumes that people become literally useless in the automated future, compared to systems. It's possible - if unlikely - that humans always move on to a higher frontier of uniquely human work once the previous one becomes automated. In that scenario, UBI could be a great way to ride that transition. Also, partial UBI, meant only to give people a platform for growth in a world that still has jobs for them, could be a good way to combat economic inequality. What you're missing is that not everyone will be qualified to do those tougher new jobs. Especially the people who are now working at McDonalds, as cashiers, etc.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    I don't buy the idea that people are fundamentally "smart" and "stupid", or "creative" and "uncreative". I think those things mostly depend on what kind of environment you grow up in, and what your self-perception is.
    - nercht12 7y ago
      To your credit, most people probably have an average brain (and roughly the same brain power) that is simply wired differently and focuses on different things. One person is more practical, another more aesthetic, another more mathematical, etc. However, the way you SPEND your brain power has an effect on the kinds of outcomes you get. If you spend all day thinking about cattle, you're not going to understand economics (much less why anyone would want to go to Mars). I'd like to say that's "obvious", but (sadly) to many people, it's not. Also to your credit, the environment (you grow up in) does have an effect on you significantly, and it shapes what about you is drawn out as well as what information you have to begin with. Someone growing up in the ghetto isn't going to understand the life of the gentry in France. Someone with poor education isn't going to see why they need math for life (until maybe too late). In short, we all start with a decent brain and a certain wiring. Environment draws out or suppresses who we are, but more importantly, gives us starting information to work with, and this shapes our views and ways of thinking.
- anovikov 7y ago
  Mass democracy was always a mistake and will just have to be abolished (although probably there is no way for it to be abolished democratically as it's a chicken and egg problem - so it will probably happen through societal collapse and what's called a regime change). It worked okay at the height of industrial era, but worse and worse ever since. Nothing good happens if you let people who bear no real responsibility for anything, to make decisions. Only property owners should vote.
  - nercht12 7y ago
    > Only property owners should vote. That's a good slogan for starting a war. One day, people like you will have their land taken from them. Will they still feel the same way? The fact is, if you take away a person's vote, they have no voice AT ALL in their government. The vote actually happens to be the last thing PREVENTING war because the fact is, everyone would like to do what they want and not have other people tell them how to live. We have government to prevent people from hurting each other and doing mean things to each other, and though it may not be all that effective, anarchy never works and always ends in some kind of oligarchy. People go to war whenever things are taken from them. Land, property, rights, etc. They are happy when things are given to them. Bread, circuses, etc. So if you want to start a war, take from people. If you want to prevent it, give to them.
    - anovikov 7y ago
      Yeah so this is why it can't be reformed. System must simply fail.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Social security doesn't seem at all vulnerable to lobbyists or what billionaires want. In a democracy, how would that work? Businesses depend on the legal system. Lobbyists matter more for issues where most people don't have a direct interest and/or aren't paying attention. UBI by its nature would have a very large constituency, once people are getting the checks. That said, I agree that partial UBI would be better to start, but more for reasons of affordability and not changing the economy too quickly.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    Social security is underfunded and also there is a lot of pressure to not raise the retirement age despite changing demographics. So from one side there was lobbying to give tax cuts instead of funding it and there is also a lot of lobbying to not raise retirement age. So billionaires and the AARP both get their way most likely at the cost of future generations.
    - skybrian 7y ago
      I don't see how that adds up to a vote to cut social security. If it comes down to it, raising taxes seems more likely.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > ...because at the end of the day they rely on regular people to keep their economic engine going. They need us for our economic value... Exactly the same thing could be said about slaves. > ..., which gives us power. Which didn't give them much power though.
angel_j 7y ago
Here's an idea for billionaires: "invest" in things that only break even at best and don't beset the economy with future rent-keeping. Get yr money back, or further tax breaks. For instance, affordable housing.
- ummonk 7y ago
  So you mean like Uber, Lyft etc. that rely on infusions of cash from investors because they aren't profitable?
  - angel_j 7y ago
    No, those are trying to be profitable, and the fact that they aren't makes them more menacing, more willing to screw over workers, game regulations, and buy political favor.
- anovikov 7y ago
  Affordable housing is an oxymoron. In the U.S. in general, housing is very, very affordable already. It's just that in the few spots where the money is, it is super expensive, exactly because everyone wants to get there. Build a lot of affordable housing, and you will pay with the time you spend standing in traffic, also an unaffordable amount.
  - angel_j 7y ago
    Sure, we'll just have school teachers live in Idaho and commute to S.F. FOH.
    - NotAnEconomist 7y ago
      It also doesn't make sense to have everyone in the country try to live in a dozen cities. Those cities themselves are unsustainable: SF, Portland, and Seattle are all literal shitholes, due to failed civic leadership and uneconomic policies. As a civilization, we need to figure out how to reduce the pressure to collect in a handful of places, and spread ourselves back over multiple locations and jurisdictions -- because it's clear that's a better plan. Our current system is optimized for a few major players, and it's collapsing. They're right to worry, and try to adjust it. Figuring out how to get people to live in already affordable places is the only way to reduce the pressure on those cities and create housing affordable and livable for average people.
tarr11 7y ago
When robots are sentient enough to do most human work, won’t they require the same rights and benefits that humans do?
moomin 7y ago
Perhaps they should stop trying to kill it, then. People often confuse the needs for working markets (capitalism) with preserving the elite’s position (rent-seeking).
lisper 7y ago
There is a super-simple solution to this problem: a progressive tax on income, wealth, and most importantly, inheritance (with an exemption for private businesses below a certain size that are both owned and administered by a single family). Another possibility: eliminate private ownership of land. This is actually not as radical as it sounds. It's a big shift in mindset, but not that big a change in how things actually work. The mindset shift is to go back to the native american idea that all land is collectively owned by the people. The government is the "management company" that administers it, and one of the things it can do is offer long-term leases. This would essentially be the same as the status quo except that instead of owning the land and paying property tax, you'd own a lease and pay rent. The reason I think this would have a beneficial effect is that the change in mindset would change the dynamics of political debates. For example, NIMBYism would be less tenable because it's not your back yard any more. You're just a tenant.
- kev009 7y ago
  There are plenty of examples of the later and none of them are pretty compared to status quo in the US. It seems unpopular to state but blindingly obvious that we live in the best time in the history of the world for humans, and if you live in a first world country you have it easier than anyone at any point in history to simply live or climb an economic ladder. Second system syndrome is en vogue right now in politics. Maybe there is some tectonic shift that will happen this century due to technological progress, but I'd counter moderate and incremental change would be much less risky (if you botch a software project maybe people lose jobs, if you botch a political sea change millions of people die) and there is plenty of small but meaningful improvements to be had for every class of person.
  - Frost1x 7y ago
    The problem is that the economic system as it stands today does not allow for moderate incremental change. In a country where we blindly worship capitalism from birth to our graves, any attacks against capitalism are framed as being un-American. Small iterative changes are fought tooth-and-nail by those emboldened through exploits encouraged by capitalism who, ironically, hold most the power to make such changes (not much unlike historical implementations of fuedelism). The system itself is very self-preserving in that nature. Those who have the most to lose in the system have the most power and resources to resist change because that's how the underlying system is structured. With socioeconomic mobility at an all time low due to earlier successes closing doors behind them (the "american dream"), it's no wonder people are growing more frustrated and seeking radical change over incremental changes. They've tried incremental change (and watched their parents and grandparents try it). It didn't work, so now they're pulling out the stops and who could blame them. Look at the 2016 and upcoming 2020 presidential elections, largely fueled products of this issue in various forms. People are growing very tired of being lied to and exploited. The very wealthy groups, as the article suggests, need to consider that maximizing long term profits may require them to reduce their short term profit margins a bit and keep working classes from turning this entire country upside down.
zcw100 7y ago
There’s too much to work with so I’ll just pick out this little gem, “Khanna said, but too many of them felt locked out of the country’s economic future and were looking for someone to blame.” Too many? How many is too many? So only 20% if the population feeling locked out would be a okay? Feel locked out? So it’s just in their heads? The unwashed masses are so emotional. Like animals they go on feelings not facts. Looking for someone to blame? Their baseless feelings need some outlet and if they’re blaming me it must be just because I happened to walk down the street that day, not because of anything I actually did. The truth is they don’t feel locked out, they are locked out and after giving people like this guy a pass for three decades are finally looking for the reason they’ve been getting screwed over and this guy is scared shitless they’re going to find it. The sad part is it’s not going to happen. More likely thing is they’ll have to part with 0.000001 of their wealth to make 5% of the population winners and just get them to oppress the other 95% thus ensuring a healthy return on that 0.00001 making them even richer. They’ll just have to get over the humiliation of having to share their success with a few extra people.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > and after giving people like this guy a pass for three decades are finally looking for the reason they’ve been getting screwed over and this guy is scared shitless they’re going to find it. Preach on brother zcw100!
jayalpha 7y ago
Related Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): Modeling inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies /Safa Motesharrei a,⁎, Jorge Rivas b, Eugenia Kalnay c Summary Collapses of even advanced civilizations have occurred many times in the past five thousand years, and they were frequently followed by centuries of population and cultural decline and economic regression. Although many different causes have been offered to explain individual collapses, it is still necessary to develop a more general explanation. In this paper we attempt to build a simplemathematicalmodel to explore the essential dynamics of interaction between population and natural resources. It allows for the two features that seemto appear across societies that have collapsed: the stretching of resources due to strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity, and the division of society into Elites (rich) and Commoners (poor). The Human And Nature DYnamical model (HANDY)was inspired by the predator and prey model, with the human population acting as the predator and nature being the prey. When small, Nature grows exponentially with a regeneration coefficient γ, but it saturates at a maximum value λ. As a result, the maximum regeneration of nature takes place at λ / 2, not at the saturation level λ. The Commoners produce wealth at a per capita depletion rate δ, and the depletion is also proportional to the amount of nature available. This production is saved as accumulated wealth, which is used by the Elites to pay the Commoners a subsistence salary, s, and pay themselves κs, where κ is the inequality coefficient. The populations of Elites and Commoners grow with a birth rate β and die with a death rate α which remains at a healthy low level when there is enough accumulated food (wealth). However, when the population increases and the wealth declines, the death rate increases up to a famine level, leading to population decline. We show how the carrying capacity – the population that can be indefinitely supported by a given environment (Catton, 1980) – can be defined within HANDY, as the population whose total consumption is at a level that equals what nature can regenerate. Since the regrowth of Nature is maximum when y = λ / 2, we can find the optimal level of depletion (production) per capita, δ* in an egalitarian society where xE ≡ 0, δ∗∗(≥δ∗) in an equitable society where κ ≡ 1, and δ* in an unequal society where xE ≥ 0 and κ N 1. In sum, the results of our experiments, discussed in Section 6, indicate that either one of the two features apparent in historical societal collapses – over-exploitation of natural resources and strong economic stratification – can independently result in a complete collapse. Given economic stratification, collapse is very difficult to avoid and requires major policy changes, includingmajor reductions in inequality and population growth rates. Even in the absence of economic stratification, collapse can still occur if depletion per capita is too high.However, collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.
hliyan 7y ago
I've been thinking about the following scheme, primarily in the context of a science fiction novella plot: 1. Income is not taxed. Wealth is. 2. Wealth tax brackets are determined based on a multiplier: no one person may own more than 1000 times the median per capita wealth. 3. Wealth is not actively monitored. But undeclared wealth is not protected by law. What would the implications of this scheme be?
- nercht12 7y ago
  Those are interesting ideas, which I've toyed with, but they don't solve the fundamental problems. In current systems, the wealthy figure out or create legal loopholes. They get tax breaks for hiring people, driving, spending, etc. - all of which help them grow more wealthy, but supposedly "costing" them something so they have an excuse for write-offs, which they find with the accountants who they can afford to write these things up for them. Wealth laws tend to benefit only the rich, not because people don't have good ideas, but because the people in power always implement the ideas in ways that benefit them. Nothing changes. The problem is a people problem - which causes the economic problem - not a systematic problem.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Poverty. Why take the risk of starting a business if you can't really benefit from it. Why invest money in another business if you can only own 1000 times the median per capita wealth? Why save money at all? Just spend it immediately! It would be the world's greatest party until it collapses, because no savings, investments, and risk-taking means that jobs disappear. Also, stealing would be very popular, so a job in law enforcement is about as good as it gets. It would allow you to seize the most.
  - nercht12 7y ago
    For your disaster scenario, I think it depends on how low the max is. If 1000 times the median per capita wealth still buys you a couple office buildings and a yacht to boot, the ceiling would still be high enough that the vast majority people wouldn't all resort to stealing (much less petty theft). However, it would still lead to shady business deals, high-dollar theft, and hidden assets (especially foreign). But that's a problem for the wealthy. In other words, the idea is that you can be rich, but not TOO rich.
cletus 7y ago
Up until probably WW2, war and revolution were the ultimate redistributor of wealth and arguably mitigated or even prevented too much concentration of wealth. Arguably in some cases that concentration is what precipitated wars and revolutions. I worry about this now, particularly in what's increasingly a post-nationalism era with almost frictionless global capital mobility. The ultra-rich do their damnedest to pay almost no taxes on their massive wealth and buy themselves even greater tax breaks. The Trump tax "cuts" (I say this because for many professionals living in blue states it was a tax increase) were such a nakedly self-serving (even corrupt) wealth grab at the expense of the country. It's depressing how easily manipulated the GOP base was and is in supporting this (or at least not holding their representatives to account). What difference does it make if you have $50B in assets vs $60B? I mean really? You gained that wealth because you lived in a country that was politically stable, had infrastructure like roads and bridges and wasn't being invaded or fighting wars (mostly). Someone needs to pay for that. This almost feels like an algal bloom of wealth. In an algal bloom, individual organisms are finding local optima. The net result however is that everything dies. So how about this: 1. We need stronger estate taxes. Inherited wealth is a recipe for a permanent ruling class and a pox on our house. 2. Owning land in the US subjects your worldwide income to US taxes. 3. We need to start property taxing income rather than taxing spending. This further lowers effective tax rates. The last one requires a little explanation. Let's say you earn $100m in a year. As ordinary income this may cost you $40m in taxes. Of course, no one pays that. It's typically structured so you only earn income for tax purposes when a gain is realized. So if you need "only" $20m to live this year instead you just realize a $20m gain and pay taxes on that, leaving the other $80m untaxed. It's worse than that because not all of that $20m will be a gain. This allows you to offset tax liabilities essentially indefinitely. But it gets even worse than that. At the height of the QE era, you could borrow money for essentially nothing. So instead you borrow $25m, putting $5m aside to service the debt for some number of years and don't realize any income and pay no taxes whatsoever. Companies were issuing corporate bonds like crazy in this era to avoid US corporate taxes.
didibus 7y ago
I'm going to say something most likely naive, but I always thought that democracy needed a ladder reset. If online games need to in order to keep the competition healthy and the game fair, why not real life? Now, how you'd go about doing it, I have no idea.
gpsx 7y ago
I'd agree income inequality is a problem, but I think what is specifically bothering people is that they feel they don't have the opportunity to make more. Once someone has money they can use it to help themselves and "hold down" others. (I put that in quotes because it might be a little exageration, but I think people feel that way.) There are many examples but a the most basic one in the US is that the outcome of a trial is highly correlated with the amount of money you spend on lawyers. A problem with Khanna and the article is that he is just continuing to give outsize influence to the rich. I hope he can learn something from Sanders and not worry too much about "alienate(ing) some of his wealthiest backers".
- Frost1x 7y ago
  "Once someone has money they can use it to help themselves and "hold down" others." They can and do, it's part of daily business strategy. Sometimes those efforts are shared if the company is publicly held, even then, the majority of the returns snowball to the large shareholders. A retired good friend of mine from the chemical industry worked at one of the leading chemical businesses. Part of their entire business strategy/model was collecting strategic patents in chemical processes to prevent others from competing and forcing them to pay royalties to that company. He worked there for several decades leading one of their core research divisions and they shut down most their research divisions because the patent game gave more ROI than actually producing innovative new processes. That specific business now primarily focuses on acquiring IP as blockades and tolls to innovators entering the industry. That's just one example but I see many businesses use as many anticompetitive strategies as they can get by with. In the tech industry, often potential competitors are simply bought out early before they become competitors either through offers or hiring their talented staff. Pick a business and they've probably engaged in similar activities. People are not delusional with this assessment, it's spot on.
jammygit 7y ago
Honest question: we have unlimited examples of corporations run amok. What examples of law abiding billionaires run amok have we lately? I'm sure they exist but all I can think of is funding ventures that harm the public good (eg, taking all the nice beach front property, lobbying for oil and gas subsidies, legal bribery, or in an extreme case funding extremist organizations). Most of the excesses seem to be a matter of not outlawing bad things. Is the wealth itself actually harming anybody? Edit: I guess there is the snowball effect where previous winners have competitive advantages in new competitions, or else outright rent seeking behaviours. I'm also curious about those aspects.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- c256 7y ago
  It’s not billionaires, but: search the internet for “college admissions scandal”. Note that the people involved already have better schools, more free time for extracurriculars, tutors, test prep, better environmental factors, etc.
RickJWagner 7y ago
At present, the US has near record low unemployment, rising wages, and a very high stock market. Yet we also have many thousands homeless. Truly, capitalism is the worst form of government. Except for everything else, which share the downsides and lack the upside. It's why there are tens of thousands pouring over the border monthly-- to get to America and to capitalism. They want to work for their chance.
- timbit42 7y ago
  Capitalism without limits is worse.
  - RickJWagner 7y ago
    Can you cite an example? Contemporary USA still has lots of people trying to get in, so I'd think it's not a good example. Is there someplace else you're thinking about?
    - thewileyone 7y ago
      If you look at the South American countries that most migrants to the USA are coming from, they do live in uncontrolled capitalistic economies, regardless of their political systems. The rich there use their money and power to control and grow their influence regardless of the impact to others.

53 points by weston 7y ago

As they should - it won't be able to keep up with the increasing automation for long. Didn't read the article due to the obnoxious adblock notice.

_bxg1 7y ago

My worry with UBI as a replacement for work is that it relies on the continued altruism of the elite, with no balancing force keeping the status-quo. Despite its problems, properly-functioning capitalism keeps the few accountable to the many. Billionaires can only throw their weight around up to a point, because at the end of the day they rely on regular people to keep their economic engine going. They need us for our economic value, which gives us power. If that became no longer the case, democracy itself could be abolished, with no consequence to those at the top. Capitalism has many problems, and doesn't work on its own, and certainly needs fixing in 2019, but I think it's also the lynchpin maintaining any status quo at all between elites and everyone else. Now, this also assumes that people become literally useless in the automated future, compared to systems. It's possible - if unlikely - that humans always move on to a higher frontier of uniquely human work once the previous one becomes automated. In that scenario, UBI could be a great way to ride that transition. Also, partial UBI, meant only to give people a platform for growth in a world that still has jobs for them, could be a good way to combat economic inequality.

enitihas 7y ago
I think this is the same point that Harari makes in "21 lessons for the 21st century" i.e democracy became important simultaneously with the work of people being important along with the industrial revolution. Nations needed a happy population as a happy population was the ultimate source of economic output as well as an army. If more and more economic output doesn't involve humans, humans can't use a lot of existing tactics to bring about a change. Also, if most people are getting by well on an UBI, would people even be anymore interested in politics, since jobs are currently an important issue in any election.
- vageli 7y ago
  > Also, if most people are getting by well on an UBI, would people even be anymore interested in politics, since jobs are currently an important issue in any election. One possible counter is that people may have more free time to spend engaging in politics. Once one need is satisfied attention will inevitably shift. Mazlow's hierarchy and all that.
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  >>Also, if most people are getting by well on an UBI, would people even be anymore interested in politics, since jobs are currently an important issue in any election. One of the main reasons people give when I ask them why they don’t pay attention to politics is that they don’t have any time or energy or willpower left to do so after working 40+ hours a week doing largely meaningless, soul-crushing tasks.
ummonk 7y ago
Isn't the point of UBI to keep that engine going by propping up demand for consumer goods?
- _bxg1 7y ago
  If that were all there was to it it would be totally unsustainable. There are two possible goals of UBI, depending on who you ask: 1) Automation is going to make the concept of jobs obsolete. Therefore most of the population will simply die of poverty if we don't artificially redistribute all of the wealth. 2) Many people today are stuck in poverty because they're too financially stretched to pay for healthcare, education, a car to get to work, childcare, etc., even while spending all extra time working multiple jobs. The hope is that by giving them a life raft, they'll have the leeway to spend time, money, and energy on self-betterment, and thereby enrich the economy. My argument is that #1 sounds good but doesn't seem robust against a few powerful bad actors. #2, though, could be quite effective.
tsunamifury 7y ago
I’d like to believe what you are saying, but it sounds a bit like the cows have control of the farm because the farmer needs the milk. All the farmer does is pain-optimize to the cheapest possible conditions that keep cows alive and milking. Which turns out is locking them in stalls and force feeding them hormones. People are just realizing now we’ve become the cows needed to legeitimize the capital that is milked back out of us. I agree though that UBI is just trying to juice that feedback loop in the most superficial way possible. Like cows deciding that more hay and hormones will somehow free them. (It won’t)
- _bxg1 7y ago
  Yet if the cows stopped producing milk, the farmers would simply let them all die off. And to stretch the metaphor, while the cows produce milk they have the option of unionizing. Saying "we'll all quit if you don't treat us better" only works while they care if you quit.
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    Sure you can unionize but we'll just contract out your jobs.
itronitron 7y ago
>> continued altruism of the elite there is a fundamental error in how you are thinking about this
erentz 7y ago
> My worry with UBI as a replacement for work is that it relies on the continued altruism of the elite Well it relies on a fair and properly functioning democracy. We have a very corrupt system at the moment, people don't get what they want because politicians are bought and paid for by their donors. We need adequate defenses against this in our system, then it stops being anything to do with the altruism of the elite, because the majority regular folks are going to continue voting for the UBI or other benefits. The other balance is the threat of revolution. Keep the population happy enough or they'll come for you. Removing the gated community effect would also help. If the rich have to use the same services as the rest of us, then they have an incentive to ensure those services are well run. If large inheritances are effectively taxed away, then they have to ensure society provides a good platform for their children. Etc.
- HNKingpin 7y ago
  > Well it relies on a fair and properly functioning democracy. For that, there need to be consequences for politicians that screw up. There aren't. Actually, nowhere do we even have a real democracy. A regular person has no say in anything at all.
HNKingpin 7y ago
>Now, this also assumes that people become literally useless in the automated future, compared to systems. It's possible - if unlikely - that humans always move on to a higher frontier of uniquely human work once the previous one becomes automated. In that scenario, UBI could be a great way to ride that transition. Also, partial UBI, meant only to give people a platform for growth in a world that still has jobs for them, could be a good way to combat economic inequality. What you're missing is that not everyone will be qualified to do those tougher new jobs. Especially the people who are now working at McDonalds, as cashiers, etc.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  I don't buy the idea that people are fundamentally "smart" and "stupid", or "creative" and "uncreative". I think those things mostly depend on what kind of environment you grow up in, and what your self-perception is.
  - nercht12 7y ago
    To your credit, most people probably have an average brain (and roughly the same brain power) that is simply wired differently and focuses on different things. One person is more practical, another more aesthetic, another more mathematical, etc. However, the way you SPEND your brain power has an effect on the kinds of outcomes you get. If you spend all day thinking about cattle, you're not going to understand economics (much less why anyone would want to go to Mars). I'd like to say that's "obvious", but (sadly) to many people, it's not. Also to your credit, the environment (you grow up in) does have an effect on you significantly, and it shapes what about you is drawn out as well as what information you have to begin with. Someone growing up in the ghetto isn't going to understand the life of the gentry in France. Someone with poor education isn't going to see why they need math for life (until maybe too late). In short, we all start with a decent brain and a certain wiring. Environment draws out or suppresses who we are, but more importantly, gives us starting information to work with, and this shapes our views and ways of thinking.
anovikov 7y ago
Mass democracy was always a mistake and will just have to be abolished (although probably there is no way for it to be abolished democratically as it's a chicken and egg problem - so it will probably happen through societal collapse and what's called a regime change). It worked okay at the height of industrial era, but worse and worse ever since. Nothing good happens if you let people who bear no real responsibility for anything, to make decisions. Only property owners should vote.
- nercht12 7y ago
  > Only property owners should vote. That's a good slogan for starting a war. One day, people like you will have their land taken from them. Will they still feel the same way? The fact is, if you take away a person's vote, they have no voice AT ALL in their government. The vote actually happens to be the last thing PREVENTING war because the fact is, everyone would like to do what they want and not have other people tell them how to live. We have government to prevent people from hurting each other and doing mean things to each other, and though it may not be all that effective, anarchy never works and always ends in some kind of oligarchy. People go to war whenever things are taken from them. Land, property, rights, etc. They are happy when things are given to them. Bread, circuses, etc. So if you want to start a war, take from people. If you want to prevent it, give to them.
  - anovikov 7y ago
    Yeah so this is why it can't be reformed. System must simply fail.
skybrian 7y ago
Social security doesn't seem at all vulnerable to lobbyists or what billionaires want. In a democracy, how would that work? Businesses depend on the legal system. Lobbyists matter more for issues where most people don't have a direct interest and/or aren't paying attention. UBI by its nature would have a very large constituency, once people are getting the checks. That said, I agree that partial UBI would be better to start, but more for reasons of affordability and not changing the economy too quickly.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  Social security is underfunded and also there is a lot of pressure to not raise the retirement age despite changing demographics. So from one side there was lobbying to give tax cuts instead of funding it and there is also a lot of lobbying to not raise retirement age. So billionaires and the AARP both get their way most likely at the cost of future generations.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    I don't see how that adds up to a vote to cut social security. If it comes down to it, raising taxes seems more likely.
perfunctory 7y ago
> ...because at the end of the day they rely on regular people to keep their economic engine going. They need us for our economic value... Exactly the same thing could be said about slaves. > ..., which gives us power. Which didn't give them much power though.

angel_j 7y ago

Here's an idea for billionaires: "invest" in things that only break even at best and don't beset the economy with future rent-keeping. Get yr money back, or further tax breaks. For instance, affordable housing.

ummonk 7y ago
So you mean like Uber, Lyft etc. that rely on infusions of cash from investors because they aren't profitable?
- angel_j 7y ago
  No, those are trying to be profitable, and the fact that they aren't makes them more menacing, more willing to screw over workers, game regulations, and buy political favor.
anovikov 7y ago
Affordable housing is an oxymoron. In the U.S. in general, housing is very, very affordable already. It's just that in the few spots where the money is, it is super expensive, exactly because everyone wants to get there. Build a lot of affordable housing, and you will pay with the time you spend standing in traffic, also an unaffordable amount.
- angel_j 7y ago
  Sure, we'll just have school teachers live in Idaho and commute to S.F. FOH.
  - NotAnEconomist 7y ago
    It also doesn't make sense to have everyone in the country try to live in a dozen cities. Those cities themselves are unsustainable: SF, Portland, and Seattle are all literal shitholes, due to failed civic leadership and uneconomic policies. As a civilization, we need to figure out how to reduce the pressure to collect in a handful of places, and spread ourselves back over multiple locations and jurisdictions -- because it's clear that's a better plan. Our current system is optimized for a few major players, and it's collapsing. They're right to worry, and try to adjust it. Figuring out how to get people to live in already affordable places is the only way to reduce the pressure on those cities and create housing affordable and livable for average people.

tarr11 7y ago

When robots are sentient enough to do most human work, won’t they require the same rights and benefits that humans do?

moomin 7y ago

Perhaps they should stop trying to kill it, then. People often confuse the needs for working markets (capitalism) with preserving the elite’s position (rent-seeking).

lisper 7y ago

There is a super-simple solution to this problem: a progressive tax on income, wealth, and most importantly, inheritance (with an exemption for private businesses below a certain size that are both owned and administered by a single family). Another possibility: eliminate private ownership of land. This is actually not as radical as it sounds. It's a big shift in mindset, but not that big a change in how things actually work. The mindset shift is to go back to the native american idea that all land is collectively owned by the people. The government is the "management company" that administers it, and one of the things it can do is offer long-term leases. This would essentially be the same as the status quo except that instead of owning the land and paying property tax, you'd own a lease and pay rent. The reason I think this would have a beneficial effect is that the change in mindset would change the dynamics of political debates. For example, NIMBYism would be less tenable because it's not your back yard any more. You're just a tenant.

kev009 7y ago
There are plenty of examples of the later and none of them are pretty compared to status quo in the US. It seems unpopular to state but blindingly obvious that we live in the best time in the history of the world for humans, and if you live in a first world country you have it easier than anyone at any point in history to simply live or climb an economic ladder. Second system syndrome is en vogue right now in politics. Maybe there is some tectonic shift that will happen this century due to technological progress, but I'd counter moderate and incremental change would be much less risky (if you botch a software project maybe people lose jobs, if you botch a political sea change millions of people die) and there is plenty of small but meaningful improvements to be had for every class of person.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  The problem is that the economic system as it stands today does not allow for moderate incremental change. In a country where we blindly worship capitalism from birth to our graves, any attacks against capitalism are framed as being un-American. Small iterative changes are fought tooth-and-nail by those emboldened through exploits encouraged by capitalism who, ironically, hold most the power to make such changes (not much unlike historical implementations of fuedelism). The system itself is very self-preserving in that nature. Those who have the most to lose in the system have the most power and resources to resist change because that's how the underlying system is structured. With socioeconomic mobility at an all time low due to earlier successes closing doors behind them (the "american dream"), it's no wonder people are growing more frustrated and seeking radical change over incremental changes. They've tried incremental change (and watched their parents and grandparents try it). It didn't work, so now they're pulling out the stops and who could blame them. Look at the 2016 and upcoming 2020 presidential elections, largely fueled products of this issue in various forms. People are growing very tired of being lied to and exploited. The very wealthy groups, as the article suggests, need to consider that maximizing long term profits may require them to reduce their short term profit margins a bit and keep working classes from turning this entire country upside down.

zcw100 7y ago

There’s too much to work with so I’ll just pick out this little gem, “Khanna said, but too many of them felt locked out of the country’s economic future and were looking for someone to blame.” Too many? How many is too many? So only 20% if the population feeling locked out would be a okay? Feel locked out? So it’s just in their heads? The unwashed masses are so emotional. Like animals they go on feelings not facts. Looking for someone to blame? Their baseless feelings need some outlet and if they’re blaming me it must be just because I happened to walk down the street that day, not because of anything I actually did. The truth is they don’t feel locked out, they are locked out and after giving people like this guy a pass for three decades are finally looking for the reason they’ve been getting screwed over and this guy is scared shitless they’re going to find it. The sad part is it’s not going to happen. More likely thing is they’ll have to part with 0.000001 of their wealth to make 5% of the population winners and just get them to oppress the other 95% thus ensuring a healthy return on that 0.00001 making them even richer. They’ll just have to get over the humiliation of having to share their success with a few extra people.

Gibbon1 7y ago
> and after giving people like this guy a pass for three decades are finally looking for the reason they’ve been getting screwed over and this guy is scared shitless they’re going to find it. Preach on brother zcw100!

jayalpha 7y ago

Related Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): Modeling inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies /Safa Motesharrei a,⁎, Jorge Rivas b, Eugenia Kalnay c Summary Collapses of even advanced civilizations have occurred many times in the past five thousand years, and they were frequently followed by centuries of population and cultural decline and economic regression. Although many different causes have been offered to explain individual collapses, it is still necessary to develop a more general explanation. In this paper we attempt to build a simplemathematicalmodel to explore the essential dynamics of interaction between population and natural resources. It allows for the two features that seemto appear across societies that have collapsed: the stretching of resources due to strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity, and the division of society into Elites (rich) and Commoners (poor). The Human And Nature DYnamical model (HANDY)was inspired by the predator and prey model, with the human population acting as the predator and nature being the prey. When small, Nature grows exponentially with a regeneration coefficient γ, but it saturates at a maximum value λ. As a result, the maximum regeneration of nature takes place at λ / 2, not at the saturation level λ. The Commoners produce wealth at a per capita depletion rate δ, and the depletion is also proportional to the amount of nature available. This production is saved as accumulated wealth, which is used by the Elites to pay the Commoners a subsistence salary, s, and pay themselves κs, where κ is the inequality coefficient. The populations of Elites and Commoners grow with a birth rate β and die with a death rate α which remains at a healthy low level when there is enough accumulated food (wealth). However, when the population increases and the wealth declines, the death rate increases up to a famine level, leading to population decline. We show how the carrying capacity – the population that can be indefinitely supported by a given environment (Catton, 1980) – can be defined within HANDY, as the population whose total consumption is at a level that equals what nature can regenerate. Since the regrowth of Nature is maximum when y = λ / 2, we can find the optimal level of depletion (production) per capita, δ* in an egalitarian society where xE ≡ 0, δ∗∗(≥δ∗) in an equitable society where κ ≡ 1, and δ* in an unequal society where xE ≥ 0 and κ N 1. In sum, the results of our experiments, discussed in Section 6, indicate that either one of the two features apparent in historical societal collapses – over-exploitation of natural resources and strong economic stratification – can independently result in a complete collapse. Given economic stratification, collapse is very difficult to avoid and requires major policy changes, includingmajor reductions in inequality and population growth rates. Even in the absence of economic stratification, collapse can still occur if depletion per capita is too high.However, collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.

hliyan 7y ago

I've been thinking about the following scheme, primarily in the context of a science fiction novella plot: 1. Income is not taxed. Wealth is. 2. Wealth tax brackets are determined based on a multiplier: no one person may own more than 1000 times the median per capita wealth. 3. Wealth is not actively monitored. But undeclared wealth is not protected by law. What would the implications of this scheme be?

nercht12 7y ago
Those are interesting ideas, which I've toyed with, but they don't solve the fundamental problems. In current systems, the wealthy figure out or create legal loopholes. They get tax breaks for hiring people, driving, spending, etc. - all of which help them grow more wealthy, but supposedly "costing" them something so they have an excuse for write-offs, which they find with the accountants who they can afford to write these things up for them. Wealth laws tend to benefit only the rich, not because people don't have good ideas, but because the people in power always implement the ideas in ways that benefit them. Nothing changes. The problem is a people problem - which causes the economic problem - not a systematic problem.
Mirioron 7y ago
Poverty. Why take the risk of starting a business if you can't really benefit from it. Why invest money in another business if you can only own 1000 times the median per capita wealth? Why save money at all? Just spend it immediately! It would be the world's greatest party until it collapses, because no savings, investments, and risk-taking means that jobs disappear. Also, stealing would be very popular, so a job in law enforcement is about as good as it gets. It would allow you to seize the most.
- nercht12 7y ago
  For your disaster scenario, I think it depends on how low the max is. If 1000 times the median per capita wealth still buys you a couple office buildings and a yacht to boot, the ceiling would still be high enough that the vast majority people wouldn't all resort to stealing (much less petty theft). However, it would still lead to shady business deals, high-dollar theft, and hidden assets (especially foreign). But that's a problem for the wealthy. In other words, the idea is that you can be rich, but not TOO rich.

cletus 7y ago

Up until probably WW2, war and revolution were the ultimate redistributor of wealth and arguably mitigated or even prevented too much concentration of wealth. Arguably in some cases that concentration is what precipitated wars and revolutions. I worry about this now, particularly in what's increasingly a post-nationalism era with almost frictionless global capital mobility. The ultra-rich do their damnedest to pay almost no taxes on their massive wealth and buy themselves even greater tax breaks. The Trump tax "cuts" (I say this because for many professionals living in blue states it was a tax increase) were such a nakedly self-serving (even corrupt) wealth grab at the expense of the country. It's depressing how easily manipulated the GOP base was and is in supporting this (or at least not holding their representatives to account). What difference does it make if you have $50B in assets vs $60B? I mean really? You gained that wealth because you lived in a country that was politically stable, had infrastructure like roads and bridges and wasn't being invaded or fighting wars (mostly). Someone needs to pay for that. This almost feels like an algal bloom of wealth. In an algal bloom, individual organisms are finding local optima. The net result however is that everything dies. So how about this: 1. We need stronger estate taxes. Inherited wealth is a recipe for a permanent ruling class and a pox on our house. 2. Owning land in the US subjects your worldwide income to US taxes. 3. We need to start property taxing income rather than taxing spending. This further lowers effective tax rates. The last one requires a little explanation. Let's say you earn $100m in a year. As ordinary income this may cost you $40m in taxes. Of course, no one pays that. It's typically structured so you only earn income for tax purposes when a gain is realized. So if you need "only" $20m to live this year instead you just realize a $20m gain and pay taxes on that, leaving the other $80m untaxed. It's worse than that because not all of that $20m will be a gain. This allows you to offset tax liabilities essentially indefinitely. But it gets even worse than that. At the height of the QE era, you could borrow money for essentially nothing. So instead you borrow $25m, putting $5m aside to service the debt for some number of years and don't realize any income and pay no taxes whatsoever. Companies were issuing corporate bonds like crazy in this era to avoid US corporate taxes.

didibus 7y ago

I'm going to say something most likely naive, but I always thought that democracy needed a ladder reset. If online games need to in order to keep the competition healthy and the game fair, why not real life? Now, how you'd go about doing it, I have no idea.

gpsx 7y ago

I'd agree income inequality is a problem, but I think what is specifically bothering people is that they feel they don't have the opportunity to make more. Once someone has money they can use it to help themselves and "hold down" others. (I put that in quotes because it might be a little exageration, but I think people feel that way.) There are many examples but a the most basic one in the US is that the outcome of a trial is highly correlated with the amount of money you spend on lawyers. A problem with Khanna and the article is that he is just continuing to give outsize influence to the rich. I hope he can learn something from Sanders and not worry too much about "alienate(ing) some of his wealthiest backers".

Frost1x 7y ago
"Once someone has money they can use it to help themselves and "hold down" others." They can and do, it's part of daily business strategy. Sometimes those efforts are shared if the company is publicly held, even then, the majority of the returns snowball to the large shareholders. A retired good friend of mine from the chemical industry worked at one of the leading chemical businesses. Part of their entire business strategy/model was collecting strategic patents in chemical processes to prevent others from competing and forcing them to pay royalties to that company. He worked there for several decades leading one of their core research divisions and they shut down most their research divisions because the patent game gave more ROI than actually producing innovative new processes. That specific business now primarily focuses on acquiring IP as blockades and tolls to innovators entering the industry. That's just one example but I see many businesses use as many anticompetitive strategies as they can get by with. In the tech industry, often potential competitors are simply bought out early before they become competitors either through offers or hiring their talented staff. Pick a business and they've probably engaged in similar activities. People are not delusional with this assessment, it's spot on.

jammygit 7y ago

Honest question: we have unlimited examples of corporations run amok. What examples of law abiding billionaires run amok have we lately? I'm sure they exist but all I can think of is funding ventures that harm the public good (eg, taking all the nice beach front property, lobbying for oil and gas subsidies, legal bribery, or in an extreme case funding extremist organizations). Most of the excesses seem to be a matter of not outlawing bad things. Is the wealth itself actually harming anybody? Edit: I guess there is the snowball effect where previous winners have competitive advantages in new competitions, or else outright rent seeking behaviours. I'm also curious about those aspects.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
c256 7y ago
It’s not billionaires, but: search the internet for “college admissions scandal”. Note that the people involved already have better schools, more free time for extracurriculars, tutors, test prep, better environmental factors, etc.

RickJWagner 7y ago

At present, the US has near record low unemployment, rising wages, and a very high stock market. Yet we also have many thousands homeless. Truly, capitalism is the worst form of government. Except for everything else, which share the downsides and lack the upside. It's why there are tens of thousands pouring over the border monthly-- to get to America and to capitalism. They want to work for their chance.

timbit42 7y ago
Capitalism without limits is worse.
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  Can you cite an example? Contemporary USA still has lots of people trying to get in, so I'd think it's not a good example. Is there someplace else you're thinking about?
  - thewileyone 7y ago
    If you look at the South American countries that most migrants to the USA are coming from, they do live in uncontrolled capitalistic economies, regardless of their political systems. The rich there use their money and power to control and grow their influence regardless of the impact to others.