6 ms·

Is media the only thing worth consuming? We can participate in the economy by travelling, buying gadgets, cars, experiencing good food, etc. I do not believe th

by ntSean 6y ago

Is media the only thing worth consuming? We can participate in the economy by travelling, buying gadgets, cars, experiencing good food, etc. I do not believe that ones existence is fulfilled because they haven't finished their Netflix library. If someone wants money to engage with society in a more meaningful way, there are always jobs to allow them to do so- even if they're dirty.

luckylion 6y ago
Yeah, Netflix was just an example. You can replace it with "enjoying nature's beauty", "listening to music" or "thinking about the true nature of existence", it doesn't really matter for the point I was trying to make. You can participate by spending money you were gifted, but you're not contributing. If it was just about participation, let's remove all the clutter, just give everyone a million bucks a month - we can all participate in the economy by spending roughly $30k a day and it'll be an economic wonder. The question is: who will be there to sell us things, to cook food at the fancy restaurant etc, if they also get $30k a day? You'll have to pay them a lot more than today. And that'll just mean that your $30k are worth proportionally less. Money is just a placeholder for value. You need the value being produced to make the money meaningful.
- regularfry 6y ago
  This is where we run into a philosophical divide. Does a human life have intrinsic worth? That's what we're talking about here. Even without tangling with that question, there's the argument that moving money around is itself a contribution. It's a marginal one, and if that's all you're doing, that means your total contribution is marginal. But that's fine, there's always going to be a spectrum of contributions between those that are paper-thin and the earth-shattering works of great import. Some jobs that look like hard work are a net negative on society. If you get into the game of saying "contributions below this specific level don't count", you end up splitting hairs and, because everyone's values work differently, you can't avoid bringing moral arguments into the frame. Besides, we're not talking about giving everyone $30k a day. That's qualitatively different, not least because it's so far from the basic cost of living that it just doesn't make sense as a comparison. It is far, far better to just say "nobody will be in poverty" and leave it at that than try to attach strings to it.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > This is where we run into a philosophical divide. Does a human life have intrinsic worth? That's what we're talking about here. The more important question is: if so, do all human lives have that worth? That is: to satisfy A's personal hobbies, are we allowed to make B work more than B would personally like? If moving money around is a contribution, let's automate it. We have computers, we can do it at a very high frequency. Even if it's a marginal contribution, we can do it many times per second. If it's indeed a contribution, that should help, shouldn't it? If we need more contribution, we'll just add another node or increase bandwidth, and voila, we'll have even more, which we can use to add even more. Magic! > Besides, we're not talking about giving everyone $30k a day. Right. It will still have the same effect if everyone gets it: to convince them to continue working, you'll have to increase the wages. > It is far, far better to just say "nobody will be in poverty" and leave it at that than try to attach strings to it. That's just another way to say "work is optional, you don't have to contribute anything if you don't want to, but the others have to share with you". You can make that argument, but it's a very different one from the idea of UBI, which somehow magically creates wealth by moving money around and reducing the incentive to contribute to society.
    - regularfry 6y ago
      > The more important question is: if so, do all human lives have that worth? That is: to satisfy A's personal hobbies, are we allowed to make B work more than B would personally like? That's precisely the question, yes. Although there is the question of whether B would actually be affected. There's an underlying assumption to this statement that UBI would be an appreciable net cost, rather than being offset by savings in other parts of the economy. Bear in mind that there is already a rather dramatic range of income tax levels across the developed world; there's nothing inevitable about the current level of "paying for other people's hobbies" that we currently engage in. > If moving money around is a contribution, let's automate it. I'd hope it was transparent that the moving around of money that an individual engages in by buying food and services in their local economy (or online, it doesn't really matter) has qualities that aren't preserved by this system. > Right. It will still have the same effect if everyone gets it: to convince them to continue working, you'll have to increase the wages. So jobs that fall below a very basic income level cease to be relevant. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But also, the difference between your $30k example and the sorts of realistic proposals you see is proportion, and that matters. If I was being paid ${UBI} by my employer yesterday, and today I'm being paid ${UBI} by the state, my employer now has to add to that, not replace it. It might take another $30k a day for me to appreciate the difference from an employer if that's my current rate, but at the other end of the scale people are actually considering, if I can get an extra $10 a day on top of UBI, that might be enough. Think of it from the other side, too: today, I've got a salary cost of $X for my employee. Tomorrow, the state pays them $X. I can add $10 to that and their take-home goes up, while my costs drop by $X-$10. > That's just another way to say "work is optional, you don't have to contribute anything if you don't want to, but the others have to share with you". You can make that argument, but it's a very different one from the idea of UBI, which somehow magically creates wealth by moving money around and reducing the incentive to contribute to society. Only for an arbitrarily narrow definition of "contribute". There is nothing magical about removing the economy-level costs of individual poverty, and work would only be "optional" if you were content with a very basic level of existence.

by ntSean 6y ago

luckylion 6y ago

Yeah, Netflix was just an example. You can replace it with "enjoying nature's beauty", "listening to music" or "thinking about the true nature of existence", it doesn't really matter for the point I was trying to make. You can participate by spending money you were gifted, but you're not contributing. If it was just about participation, let's remove all the clutter, just give everyone a million bucks a month - we can all participate in the economy by spending roughly $30k a day and it'll be an economic wonder. The question is: who will be there to sell us things, to cook food at the fancy restaurant etc, if they also get $30k a day? You'll have to pay them a lot more than today. And that'll just mean that your $30k are worth proportionally less. Money is just a placeholder for value. You need the value being produced to make the money meaningful.

regularfry 6y ago
This is where we run into a philosophical divide. Does a human life have intrinsic worth? That's what we're talking about here. Even without tangling with that question, there's the argument that moving money around is itself a contribution. It's a marginal one, and if that's all you're doing, that means your total contribution is marginal. But that's fine, there's always going to be a spectrum of contributions between those that are paper-thin and the earth-shattering works of great import. Some jobs that look like hard work are a net negative on society. If you get into the game of saying "contributions below this specific level don't count", you end up splitting hairs and, because everyone's values work differently, you can't avoid bringing moral arguments into the frame. Besides, we're not talking about giving everyone $30k a day. That's qualitatively different, not least because it's so far from the basic cost of living that it just doesn't make sense as a comparison. It is far, far better to just say "nobody will be in poverty" and leave it at that than try to attach strings to it.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > This is where we run into a philosophical divide. Does a human life have intrinsic worth? That's what we're talking about here. The more important question is: if so, do all human lives have that worth? That is: to satisfy A's personal hobbies, are we allowed to make B work more than B would personally like? If moving money around is a contribution, let's automate it. We have computers, we can do it at a very high frequency. Even if it's a marginal contribution, we can do it many times per second. If it's indeed a contribution, that should help, shouldn't it? If we need more contribution, we'll just add another node or increase bandwidth, and voila, we'll have even more, which we can use to add even more. Magic! > Besides, we're not talking about giving everyone $30k a day. Right. It will still have the same effect if everyone gets it: to convince them to continue working, you'll have to increase the wages. > It is far, far better to just say "nobody will be in poverty" and leave it at that than try to attach strings to it. That's just another way to say "work is optional, you don't have to contribute anything if you don't want to, but the others have to share with you". You can make that argument, but it's a very different one from the idea of UBI, which somehow magically creates wealth by moving money around and reducing the incentive to contribute to society.
  - regularfry 6y ago
    > The more important question is: if so, do all human lives have that worth? That is: to satisfy A's personal hobbies, are we allowed to make B work more than B would personally like? That's precisely the question, yes. Although there is the question of whether B would actually be affected. There's an underlying assumption to this statement that UBI would be an appreciable net cost, rather than being offset by savings in other parts of the economy. Bear in mind that there is already a rather dramatic range of income tax levels across the developed world; there's nothing inevitable about the current level of "paying for other people's hobbies" that we currently engage in. > If moving money around is a contribution, let's automate it. I'd hope it was transparent that the moving around of money that an individual engages in by buying food and services in their local economy (or online, it doesn't really matter) has qualities that aren't preserved by this system. > Right. It will still have the same effect if everyone gets it: to convince them to continue working, you'll have to increase the wages. So jobs that fall below a very basic income level cease to be relevant. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But also, the difference between your $30k example and the sorts of realistic proposals you see is proportion, and that matters. If I was being paid ${UBI} by my employer yesterday, and today I'm being paid ${UBI} by the state, my employer now has to add to that, not replace it. It might take another $30k a day for me to appreciate the difference from an employer if that's my current rate, but at the other end of the scale people are actually considering, if I can get an extra $10 a day on top of UBI, that might be enough. Think of it from the other side, too: today, I've got a salary cost of $X for my employee. Tomorrow, the state pays them $X. I can add $10 to that and their take-home goes up, while my costs drop by $X-$10. > That's just another way to say "work is optional, you don't have to contribute anything if you don't want to, but the others have to share with you". You can make that argument, but it's a very different one from the idea of UBI, which somehow magically creates wealth by moving money around and reducing the incentive to contribute to society. Only for an arbitrarily narrow definition of "contribute". There is nothing magical about removing the economy-level costs of individual poverty, and work would only be "optional" if you were content with a very basic level of existence.