5 ms·

I superficially like the idea of a meritocracy, where hard work and success move you up the in the order of things. Then I remember cheating, the difficulty of

I superficially like the idea of a meritocracy, where hard work and success move you up the in the order of things. Then I remember cheating, the difficulty of quantifying success, the shifting nature of what kind of success we want to reward, yada yada. Now I am more in the egalitarian camp, where I want everyone to have enough to be comfortable, but I still want there to be rewards for being successful. Some sort of egalitarian free for all, where everyone is a winner, but some win more than others. I have this thought that keeps popping into my head. N people are on an island. On the island is a tree that makes enough X units of food, where X is greater than N, and each unit of food is enough to sustain one person. The N people work together to make sure that everyone gets at least 1 unit of food, and X - N units left over are split up by some fair enough competition.

ergothus 7y ago
One argument in favor of UBI I found particularly thought-provoking (paraphrasing): "UBI isn't anti-capitalist, UBI enables capitalism. By providing the basic requirements for living, it allows everyone to actually participate in the competition instead of keeping the poor too busy and too at-risk to attempt business ventures." I'm still undecided on UBI, but that argument definitely made me think of things from some different angles.
- xwdv 7y ago
  “Basic requirements for living” though isn’t a pile of cash; it’s food, water, shelter, clothing and some form of transportation. I’ve yet to see a UBI scheme proposed that provides those things to people so they can spend their time pursuing other ventures.
  - harryh 7y ago
    Homer Simpson's brain would like to have a word with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgct3Jn8pFA&t=8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgct3Jn8pFA&t=8s
  - horsawlarway 7y ago
    I understand where you're coming from, but the idea that every person has the same basic requirements falls flat immediately. Take just a small sample of different folks Person A: Single 35yo female with high blood pressure Person B: Married 62yo with dementia Person C: 14yo with Type 1 diabetes Person D: Married 36yo with a knee replacement Person E: Single 21yo attending college That's 5 people. Not a one of them is all that rare. They each require some form of the goods you've described, but the actual needs of each person vary A LOT. The 21yo in college probably doesn't need a car. The guy with dementia probably can't have a car. The 36yo will need a form of transportation that accommodates the knee. The food requirements of the person with diabetes and the person with high blood pressure are specific and different. The meds those two people need are specific and different. And that's just 5 people with relatively common situations. Once you actually start trying to get those "basic requirements for living" to work for the entire populace you quickly realize that "basic" is not actually basic, and usually the person best able to decide what they need is... drumroll... that person. So instead of a condescending, authoritarian approach where the government strictly provides goods, UBI tries to give each person the ability to choose for themselves what they need, and how they'd like to prioritize it. ----- Now, I still have a lot of problems with UBI, and I'm fairly convinced it won't work. But I do strongly believe that the "pile of cash" approach is the most egalitarian and efficient solution to meet the specific needs of the incredibly varied population if UBI is something we're going to try.
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      The government absolutely has to be on the supply side of that exchange. If the state gives person C $X for diabetes meds, and then does not also produce enough diabetes meds for one person exactly like person C and place it on the market for $X, then the person or firm that does produce the meds that person C uses can capture all the $X checks from all the diabetics by supplying one unit less than is required for all of them and making them play a game of musical chairs where the highest bidders sit first, and the one left without a seat at the end dies. It works for every need--housing, meds, transport, etc. If the government does not add to the market supply, the incumbent suppliers can capture all the benefit. So if the people need more housing, the government can't just give people money and tell them to rent. They can't just build houses and assign people to them. They have to build houses that are competitive on the open market, and also give people enough money to buy or rent them. Even if some rich landlord snaps up all the state-built houses to rent out, the potential of capturing the benefit by raising rents is still mitigated by the increase in housing supply. Helicopter-dropped piles of cash go hand in hand with ensuring a supply exists to spend that cash on.
  - chipsa 7y ago
    It's basic income, not basic job or basic requirements for living. If it was basic requirements for living, then you couldn't supplement what was given to make it better. You'd get a rack in a barracks and be fed crap because most people wouldn't be using the benefit. It wouldn't be universal. I couldn't choose to use the money to get a place out in the country where the cost of living was low, and grow stuff in a garden. And I couldn't choose to get a place with a roommate that I trusted. I couldn't decide that I wanted to splurge and get something good for dinner, instead of red beans and rice. No a pile of cash isn't food, water, clothing, or transportation. But it can buy all of them. Money doesn't buy happiness, but lack of money sure causes alot of misery. It's kinda like how donating food and clothing is the worst form of charity you can supply. You pay retail rates to give stuff to a charity that they may not need, when if they had cash they could get what they need, possibly at wholesale rates.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      Money doesn't buy happiness; money buys what is needed in order to allow happiness.
- Viliam1234 7y ago
  I agree. If you have an idea that realistically has a 10% chance of huge success, with UBI you just go ahead and try it. 10% chance that you succeed, and 90% chance that you will spend a few years doing something interesting, learn a lot, but ultimately won't achieve the imagined success. Which is not a bad outcome. Without UBI... well, for people from rich families it is the same. But for everyone else, it means 90% chance that your kids will starve. Not fun.
- mikeash 7y ago
  This is especially clear when you look at the special case of health care. So many people would like to start a business but can’t leave their job because they need the health insurance that comes with it. This was especially bad before the ACA, when someone with a pre-existing condition would be completely screwed without being part of a group plan. Now they’re just mostly screwed because the plans are too expensive in general.
daveFNbuck 7y ago
If there's enough food to sustain everyone, why is competition necessary? Is everyone just fighting over the chance to get fat, or would the winners have better nutrition and gain a permanent advantage, even if they won initially due to luck? What makes the competition fair? The guy who's good at chess wants a chess competition. The ex-basketball player wants a jumping competition. Would a fair competition be one that plays to existing strengths, or one that everyone is equally likely to win? If it's the first, how do you decide whose merits are most worthy of being rewarded? If it's the second, where does merit come in?
- PopeDotNinja 7y ago
  Haven't you ever played a game, won, and felt good about winning? If not, try it sometime. You may find that winning is fun. It's even more fun when the other players like you enough to play with you again. What sucks is winning when the losers starve to death.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    I like winning. It's fun without the loser eating less because I won.
  - eridius 7y ago
    You can play a game without adding an external reward to it.
- downrightmike 7y ago
  There is a psychological part where doing things makes you happy, eventually you exhaust that and the amount of money is the only measure you have. That is what makes people greedy even if they have billions, they still want more. Just how we evolved.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    If the goal is to keep score, you can do that directly. A score tally sounds a lot more satisfying than a hoard of rotting food.

ergothus 7y ago

One argument in favor of UBI I found particularly thought-provoking (paraphrasing): "UBI isn't anti-capitalist, UBI enables capitalism. By providing the basic requirements for living, it allows everyone to actually participate in the competition instead of keeping the poor too busy and too at-risk to attempt business ventures." I'm still undecided on UBI, but that argument definitely made me think of things from some different angles.

xwdv 7y ago
“Basic requirements for living” though isn’t a pile of cash; it’s food, water, shelter, clothing and some form of transportation. I’ve yet to see a UBI scheme proposed that provides those things to people so they can spend their time pursuing other ventures.
- harryh 7y ago
  Homer Simpson's brain would like to have a word with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgct3Jn8pFA&t=8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgct3Jn8pFA&t=8s
- horsawlarway 7y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, but the idea that every person has the same basic requirements falls flat immediately. Take just a small sample of different folks Person A: Single 35yo female with high blood pressure Person B: Married 62yo with dementia Person C: 14yo with Type 1 diabetes Person D: Married 36yo with a knee replacement Person E: Single 21yo attending college That's 5 people. Not a one of them is all that rare. They each require some form of the goods you've described, but the actual needs of each person vary A LOT. The 21yo in college probably doesn't need a car. The guy with dementia probably can't have a car. The 36yo will need a form of transportation that accommodates the knee. The food requirements of the person with diabetes and the person with high blood pressure are specific and different. The meds those two people need are specific and different. And that's just 5 people with relatively common situations. Once you actually start trying to get those "basic requirements for living" to work for the entire populace you quickly realize that "basic" is not actually basic, and usually the person best able to decide what they need is... drumroll... that person. So instead of a condescending, authoritarian approach where the government strictly provides goods, UBI tries to give each person the ability to choose for themselves what they need, and how they'd like to prioritize it. ----- Now, I still have a lot of problems with UBI, and I'm fairly convinced it won't work. But I do strongly believe that the "pile of cash" approach is the most egalitarian and efficient solution to meet the specific needs of the incredibly varied population if UBI is something we're going to try.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    The government absolutely has to be on the supply side of that exchange. If the state gives person C $X for diabetes meds, and then does not also produce enough diabetes meds for one person exactly like person C and place it on the market for $X, then the person or firm that does produce the meds that person C uses can capture all the $X checks from all the diabetics by supplying one unit less than is required for all of them and making them play a game of musical chairs where the highest bidders sit first, and the one left without a seat at the end dies. It works for every need--housing, meds, transport, etc. If the government does not add to the market supply, the incumbent suppliers can capture all the benefit. So if the people need more housing, the government can't just give people money and tell them to rent. They can't just build houses and assign people to them. They have to build houses that are competitive on the open market, and also give people enough money to buy or rent them. Even if some rich landlord snaps up all the state-built houses to rent out, the potential of capturing the benefit by raising rents is still mitigated by the increase in housing supply. Helicopter-dropped piles of cash go hand in hand with ensuring a supply exists to spend that cash on.
- chipsa 7y ago
  It's basic income, not basic job or basic requirements for living. If it was basic requirements for living, then you couldn't supplement what was given to make it better. You'd get a rack in a barracks and be fed crap because most people wouldn't be using the benefit. It wouldn't be universal. I couldn't choose to use the money to get a place out in the country where the cost of living was low, and grow stuff in a garden. And I couldn't choose to get a place with a roommate that I trusted. I couldn't decide that I wanted to splurge and get something good for dinner, instead of red beans and rice. No a pile of cash isn't food, water, clothing, or transportation. But it can buy all of them. Money doesn't buy happiness, but lack of money sure causes alot of misery. It's kinda like how donating food and clothing is the worst form of charity you can supply. You pay retail rates to give stuff to a charity that they may not need, when if they had cash they could get what they need, possibly at wholesale rates.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    Money doesn't buy happiness; money buys what is needed in order to allow happiness.
Viliam1234 7y ago
I agree. If you have an idea that realistically has a 10% chance of huge success, with UBI you just go ahead and try it. 10% chance that you succeed, and 90% chance that you will spend a few years doing something interesting, learn a lot, but ultimately won't achieve the imagined success. Which is not a bad outcome. Without UBI... well, for people from rich families it is the same. But for everyone else, it means 90% chance that your kids will starve. Not fun.
mikeash 7y ago
This is especially clear when you look at the special case of health care. So many people would like to start a business but can’t leave their job because they need the health insurance that comes with it. This was especially bad before the ACA, when someone with a pre-existing condition would be completely screwed without being part of a group plan. Now they’re just mostly screwed because the plans are too expensive in general.

daveFNbuck 7y ago

If there's enough food to sustain everyone, why is competition necessary? Is everyone just fighting over the chance to get fat, or would the winners have better nutrition and gain a permanent advantage, even if they won initially due to luck? What makes the competition fair? The guy who's good at chess wants a chess competition. The ex-basketball player wants a jumping competition. Would a fair competition be one that plays to existing strengths, or one that everyone is equally likely to win? If it's the first, how do you decide whose merits are most worthy of being rewarded? If it's the second, where does merit come in?

PopeDotNinja 7y ago
Haven't you ever played a game, won, and felt good about winning? If not, try it sometime. You may find that winning is fun. It's even more fun when the other players like you enough to play with you again. What sucks is winning when the losers starve to death.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  I like winning. It's fun without the loser eating less because I won.
- eridius 7y ago
  You can play a game without adding an external reward to it.
downrightmike 7y ago
There is a psychological part where doing things makes you happy, eventually you exhaust that and the amount of money is the only measure you have. That is what makes people greedy even if they have billions, they still want more. Just how we evolved.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  If the goal is to keep score, you can do that directly. A score tally sounds a lot more satisfying than a hoard of rotting food.