3 ms·

> We're better off with something like UBI I strongly agree... but we don’t have UBI. So for me it’s still a moral dilemma. That person is still out of a job a

by untog 6y ago

> We're better off with something like UBI I strongly agree... but we don’t have UBI. So for me it’s still a moral dilemma. That person is still out of a job and might be out of a job for a very long time if the economy is weak. Yes, there are answers to this problem like UBI, but as someone living in the US I can’t honestly say I can see it being implemented here any time soon. So my work has the potential to devastate someone else’s life. (and yes, I know, I know, if I quit someone else will take my job and it’ll all happen anyway. Doesn’t mean it isn’t still a moral dilemma)

virgilp 6y ago
But UBI won't just happen by itself. It needs a few things: - Work actually getting done (through automation) - i.e. the "supply side" needs to be there - People that demand it/ see it as necessary solution to _some_ problems (it won't just appear if there's no problem to be solved) For me, it's simple: does it move society in the right direction? Yes, it creates some transient problems - but progress always does.
- untog 6y ago
  That’s a very easy thing to say when you’re not the one on the receiving end of these “transient problems”, though. Would you tell a homeless person to their face that their poverty is a shame but it’s the price we need to pay for progress? And that you don’t know with any certainty when positive change will happen?
  - virgilp 6y ago
    There's a difference between being needlessly cruel and believing something is necessary and good, despite it creating some problems for some people for a while.
  - virgilp 6y ago
    I have another argument that might be more convincing for you: automation makes things cheaper, so by definition it creates wealth for society. Now, you can argue that said wealth is unfairly distributed - and indeed wealth distribution itself is a thorny subject. But it is also a completely orthogonal one! I don't think we should stop from creating wealth until we find a "satisfactory" way to distribute it.... That feels like it would be a very bad idea to me.

by untog 6y ago

virgilp 6y ago

But UBI won't just happen by itself. It needs a few things: - Work actually getting done (through automation) - i.e. the "supply side" needs to be there - People that demand it/ see it as necessary solution to _some_ problems (it won't just appear if there's no problem to be solved) For me, it's simple: does it move society in the right direction? Yes, it creates some transient problems - but progress always does.

untog 6y ago
That’s a very easy thing to say when you’re not the one on the receiving end of these “transient problems”, though. Would you tell a homeless person to their face that their poverty is a shame but it’s the price we need to pay for progress? And that you don’t know with any certainty when positive change will happen?
- virgilp 6y ago
  There's a difference between being needlessly cruel and believing something is necessary and good, despite it creating some problems for some people for a while.
- virgilp 6y ago
  I have another argument that might be more convincing for you: automation makes things cheaper, so by definition it creates wealth for society. Now, you can argue that said wealth is unfairly distributed - and indeed wealth distribution itself is a thorny subject. But it is also a completely orthogonal one! I don't think we should stop from creating wealth until we find a "satisfactory" way to distribute it.... That feels like it would be a very bad idea to me.