5 ms·

UBI and full automation sounds nice but it leaves you with no leverage. You will end up relying completely on the compassion of your rulers.

ModernMech 5y ago
This is why UBI is the capitalist solution to a post-scarcity world; it still places capitalists at the top of the pyramid as the owners and beneficiaries of capital. The solution we should be striving for in a post-scarcity world is democratic ownership of capital like robots, so that we may all share in the fruits of their labor.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  And how does one argue for that future without immediately being labeled a communist/socialist seeking to nationalize the (robotic) means of production?
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Sidestep and don’t engage with any labels. In my experience 99% of people who throw that word around as a pejorative can’t articulate what socialism is and how it upsets them. If you avoid any overt labels and stick to substantive topics, it’s very possible to have deep conversations with such people where they reveal they agree with some socialist ideas without even knowing it.
- nbardy 5y ago
  Someone is going to build the robots. You have gall to suggest seizing them all. It would require lots of violence and force.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Yes, I agree the people who build the robots should share in the wealth of the things they create. I said nothing about seizing or violence. I said democratic ownership. That would be a process of everyone coming together and agreeing on how things work.
    - caskstrength 5y ago
      > Yes, I agree the people who build the robots should share in the wealth of the things they create. Good! I hope you also agree share people who actually produce the goods are entitled to bigger share? > I said nothing about seizing or violence. I said democratic ownership. That would be a process of everyone coming together and agreeing on how things work. I assume "people who create robots" will be tiny minority, so what you are describing is exactly what OP said: bunch of people who create nothing vote to seize the robots (from their creators) and redistribute it (to themselves). All through democratic means, of course!
    - nbardy 5y ago
      How do you get from an individual owning something to everyone owning it? You have to take it from the individual.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        You can do lots of things that aren’t violent. You can convince them, first of all. Why isn’t that an option? Or we can compensate them. We can use social pressure. We can use the justice system. We can pass laws. There are plenty of options aside from violence.
mvid 5y ago
Unlike now, where low income workers are notorious for their leverage
- FredPret 5y ago
  They can still strike, which throws a spanner in the works of production. So they have some leverage. But who cares if people on UBI strike? What, will they stop watching TV for a day?
wpietri 5y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It's a real risk. For example, Saudi Arabia, which practices UBI [1] and otherwise transfers a lot of oil wealth to citizens, also is pretty low down on ratings of citizen freedom. [2] Many observers see it as Saudi royalty buying political compliance. Given that the US is now on the list of backsliding democracies [3], and given the era in US politics where government money was used to cement political loyalty [4], any sort of serious UBI plan has to have a plausible story of how it won't end in anti-democratic corruption or worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Account_Program_(Saudi_Arabia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Account_Program_(S... [2] E.g.: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-co... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/22/united-states-backsliding-democracies-list-first-time/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/22/united-state... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
- ehnto 5y ago
  Through this lens I'm kind of surprised it's not a more popular policy, I'd never thought about it like this.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    There are certainly ways to do it that are less risky than others. I think the closest thing the US has now is the Child Tax Credit: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/Treasury-and-IRS-Announce-Families-of-Nearly-60-Million-Children-Receive-%2415-Billion-Dollars-in-First-Payments-of-Expanded-and-Newly-Advanceable-Child-Tax-Credit https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/Treasury-and-I... That's relatively hard to corrupt, in that it's a federal program with clear numeric criteria drawn from a system that is robust because it's a big slice of government revenue. Also, as far as popularity goes, at least in the US there's a strong allergic reaction to The Wrong People getting government money. So the mortgage tax credit is seen as fine and reasonable, but "strapping young bucks" getting food stamps is a deep outrage. So I think UBI won't become truly popular until politicians can find a way to get enough control over who gets it such that only the right people (wink, wink) get it.

ModernMech 5y ago

This is why UBI is the capitalist solution to a post-scarcity world; it still places capitalists at the top of the pyramid as the owners and beneficiaries of capital. The solution we should be striving for in a post-scarcity world is democratic ownership of capital like robots, so that we may all share in the fruits of their labor.

germinalphrase 5y ago
And how does one argue for that future without immediately being labeled a communist/socialist seeking to nationalize the (robotic) means of production?
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Sidestep and don’t engage with any labels. In my experience 99% of people who throw that word around as a pejorative can’t articulate what socialism is and how it upsets them. If you avoid any overt labels and stick to substantive topics, it’s very possible to have deep conversations with such people where they reveal they agree with some socialist ideas without even knowing it.
nbardy 5y ago
Someone is going to build the robots. You have gall to suggest seizing them all. It would require lots of violence and force.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Yes, I agree the people who build the robots should share in the wealth of the things they create. I said nothing about seizing or violence. I said democratic ownership. That would be a process of everyone coming together and agreeing on how things work.
  - caskstrength 5y ago
    > Yes, I agree the people who build the robots should share in the wealth of the things they create. Good! I hope you also agree share people who actually produce the goods are entitled to bigger share? > I said nothing about seizing or violence. I said democratic ownership. That would be a process of everyone coming together and agreeing on how things work. I assume "people who create robots" will be tiny minority, so what you are describing is exactly what OP said: bunch of people who create nothing vote to seize the robots (from their creators) and redistribute it (to themselves). All through democratic means, of course!
  - nbardy 5y ago
    How do you get from an individual owning something to everyone owning it? You have to take it from the individual.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      You can do lots of things that aren’t violent. You can convince them, first of all. Why isn’t that an option? Or we can compensate them. We can use social pressure. We can use the justice system. We can pass laws. There are plenty of options aside from violence.

mvid 5y ago

Unlike now, where low income workers are notorious for their leverage

FredPret 5y ago
They can still strike, which throws a spanner in the works of production. So they have some leverage. But who cares if people on UBI strike? What, will they stop watching TV for a day?

wpietri 5y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It's a real risk. For example, Saudi Arabia, which practices UBI [1] and otherwise transfers a lot of oil wealth to citizens, also is pretty low down on ratings of citizen freedom. [2] Many observers see it as Saudi royalty buying political compliance. Given that the US is now on the list of backsliding democracies [3], and given the era in US politics where government money was used to cement political loyalty [4], any sort of serious UBI plan has to have a plausible story of how it won't end in anti-democratic corruption or worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Account_Program_(Saudi_Arabia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Account_Program_(S... [2] E.g.: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-co... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/22/united-states-backsliding-democracies-list-first-time/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/22/united-state... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

ehnto 5y ago
Through this lens I'm kind of surprised it's not a more popular policy, I'd never thought about it like this.
- wpietri 5y ago
  There are certainly ways to do it that are less risky than others. I think the closest thing the US has now is the Child Tax Credit: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/Treasury-and-IRS-Announce-Families-of-Nearly-60-Million-Children-Receive-%2415-Billion-Dollars-in-First-Payments-of-Expanded-and-Newly-Advanceable-Child-Tax-Credit https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/Treasury-and-I... That's relatively hard to corrupt, in that it's a federal program with clear numeric criteria drawn from a system that is robust because it's a big slice of government revenue. Also, as far as popularity goes, at least in the US there's a strong allergic reaction to The Wrong People getting government money. So the mortgage tax credit is seen as fine and reasonable, but "strapping young bucks" getting food stamps is a deep outrage. So I think UBI won't become truly popular until politicians can find a way to get enough control over who gets it such that only the right people (wink, wink) get it.