3 ms·
My opinion on this is that a better goal (though not an exclusive alternative to) UBI is what I call "basic needs automation". Instead of distributing arbitrary
by danielvaughn 5y ago
My opinion on this is that a better goal (though not an exclusive alternative to) UBI is what I call "basic needs automation". Instead of distributing arbitrary amounts of money to pay for basic needs, it seems like it would be better if we can automate the maintenance of those needs to a point where the costs are negligible.
Easier said than done, of course, but imagine reaching a technological point where instead of having self-driving cars, we have self-sustaining food/clothing/shelter.
- marcosdumay 5y agoIf you don't distribute the money, automation can make people poorer just as easily as it can make people richer.
- aspenmayer 5y agoI can see how automation would make poor and middle income people poorer, but I don’t see why automation would depress the wealth of the already wealthy.
- marcosdumay 5y agoWell, "people" here means 99% or 99.9% or maybe a couple extra nines. I really didn't mean the next 0.01%. Anyway, it can, by a complex process that makes an entire society poorer once people gets thrown out of the economy. That includes the absurdly rich too. It's just that if this is the only point where it bothers you, honestly I don't even care about your opinion.
- aspenmayer 5y agoAutomation can put everyone out of a job, for all I care about jobs and the economy. They are potentially mutually beneficial, but usually extremely unfavorable to labor in terms of sharing profits. No jobs means no unemployment.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y agoThis stuff always seems like appealing to magic. If magic could meet our basic needs, it would be great too. But unlike magic, people appeal to this all the time, despite it being equally impossible today. The reason I bring that up is that it distracts from solutions that we can actually implement.
- danielvaughn 5y agoThe problem is that any alternative or additional solution could also be interpreted to be a distraction, so that doesn't convince me much. I don't see it as an exclusive alternative, as in we should do this instead of UBI. My point is about the long term trajectory of innovation. In the US at least, our roads are a public service. You don't have to pay to be on a road (outside of a few exceptions). I think a good long term vision for scientists is to reduce the cost of our basic needs to the point that all our essential needs could be a public service. I don't see why that's a distraction.