4 ms·

"Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free?" How did you make that connection?

"Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free?" How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc. Its not like agriculture was invented and suddenly anyone who wasnt farming was philosophizing, there is always something productive for you to do. Having a UBI without replacing the people who actually do the productive work is just rewarding those who don't work, you didn't suddenly remove the need for work, someone still has to do all that work that needs to get done, but now there is less incentive for them to do so when they can just kick back and worry about someone else doing it. A UBI is a socialist fantasy that will only ever work if you have a slave force (read: AI) that does work for free.

thisisbrians 6y ago
"How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc." This is exactly my point.
- michannne 6y ago
  No, your point from what I understand is that even given a UBI, people will find new productive work to do. My point is 1) that with a UBI in place, there is no incentive for people to do any of these new productive jobs, and 2) a UBI by itself doesn't suddenly eliminate the need for the old productive jobs. If all of the old productive work is automated, then yes, I agree that people will find new productive work to do. But a UBI will take away any incentive for anyone to look for new productive endeavors.
  - thisisbrians 6y ago
    I actually wasn't talking about UBI; I was talking more generally about automation eliminating jobs being a shaky premise. However, I still disagree with you; UBI (as currently proposed) would provide so little income that most would still have to do at least some work to maintain their standards of living. Paying me $1,200 a month would not cause me to suddenly sit on my ass, for example. And, capitalism can still exist alongside UBI: if you want more money, compete in the market to get it.

thisisbrians 6y ago

"How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc." This is exactly my point.

michannne 6y ago
No, your point from what I understand is that even given a UBI, people will find new productive work to do. My point is 1) that with a UBI in place, there is no incentive for people to do any of these new productive jobs, and 2) a UBI by itself doesn't suddenly eliminate the need for the old productive jobs. If all of the old productive work is automated, then yes, I agree that people will find new productive work to do. But a UBI will take away any incentive for anyone to look for new productive endeavors.
- thisisbrians 6y ago
  I actually wasn't talking about UBI; I was talking more generally about automation eliminating jobs being a shaky premise. However, I still disagree with you; UBI (as currently proposed) would provide so little income that most would still have to do at least some work to maintain their standards of living. Paying me $1,200 a month would not cause me to suddenly sit on my ass, for example. And, capitalism can still exist alongside UBI: if you want more money, compete in the market to get it.