4 ms·

It is a foregone conclusion only because of assumptions that conspire to make the argument circular. I think you’re mischaracterizing some part of the oppositi

by jpttsn 5y ago

It is a foregone conclusion only because of assumptions that conspire to make the argument circular. I think you’re mischaracterizing some part of the opposition with “should have to work”. To my school of UBI skepticism, it’s not at all about Lutheran work ethic as a deontological good. To clarify: I don’t believe we take care of elderly/disabled/children solely because it’s “the right thing to do”. Instead I believe we do it due to other conditions e.g. “it could be me one day” and “it’s just a few people so we can afford it”. Based on that, I think the stance will change if the conditions change.

okareaman 5y ago
I'm curious as to what you propose as an alternate solution
- jpttsn 5y ago
  I don’t have one.
- mindslight 5y ago
  The actual problem is not that there is less work for humans to do, but that the remaining work is divided unevenly. Currently, personal overproduction just gets eaten up by the hedonic and financial treadmills, while the underemployed see little benefit from developing skills for jobs that are already taken. Significantly dropping what is considered "full time" employment would be a good start. A target of twenty hours per week is a good immediate target, as well as getting rid of that "exempt employee" loophole. Longer term, if we wish to continue having a distributed economy, then the gains of automation need to accrue to people directly, through something resembling ownership. Basic Income should only ever been seen as a social safety net. Collecting most of the wealth by a centralized entity ("government") to distribute back out to people is fraught with political hazard, if it is even possible to sustain.
nynx 5y ago
That doesn't change anything. You can rephrase why UBI is a good idea to: "it could be me who can't compete against automation someday."
- jpttsn 5y ago
  Well, it hasn’t worked yet for that, while taking care of elders has. Where I live, optometry and dental medicine are carved out of socialized healthcare. Hard to reconcile that with the purely utilitarian theory. I think the “few people” aspect is important in practice. If the prevalence is too great, it could stop feeling like an accidental curse of fate. Just theorizing.

by jpttsn 5y ago

okareaman 5y ago

I'm curious as to what you propose as an alternate solution

jpttsn 5y ago
I don’t have one.
mindslight 5y ago
The actual problem is not that there is less work for humans to do, but that the remaining work is divided unevenly. Currently, personal overproduction just gets eaten up by the hedonic and financial treadmills, while the underemployed see little benefit from developing skills for jobs that are already taken. Significantly dropping what is considered "full time" employment would be a good start. A target of twenty hours per week is a good immediate target, as well as getting rid of that "exempt employee" loophole. Longer term, if we wish to continue having a distributed economy, then the gains of automation need to accrue to people directly, through something resembling ownership. Basic Income should only ever been seen as a social safety net. Collecting most of the wealth by a centralized entity ("government") to distribute back out to people is fraught with political hazard, if it is even possible to sustain.

nynx 5y ago

That doesn't change anything. You can rephrase why UBI is a good idea to: "it could be me who can't compete against automation someday."

jpttsn 5y ago
Well, it hasn’t worked yet for that, while taking care of elders has. Where I live, optometry and dental medicine are carved out of socialized healthcare. Hard to reconcile that with the purely utilitarian theory. I think the “few people” aspect is important in practice. If the prevalence is too great, it could stop feeling like an accidental curse of fate. Just theorizing.