3 ms·

To be honest, I would support some form of UBI, but I think there are many more modest reforms we can talk about before we get there. > But you are still imply

To be honest, I would support some form of UBI, but I think there are many more modest reforms we can talk about before we get there. > But you are still implying some cost to the rest of society to support creatives in their cups. And I am saying that many people who are working don’t like that. You’re inferring this, but I’m not implying it. Let me try to be a little clearer: Public services do not necessarily cost taxpayers more than the alternatives. Again, with healthcare we have a concrete example of privatized systems costing more and delivering worse outcomes than universal public ones. Many people who are working might prefer the former so they don’t have to subsidize others, but ultimately they themselves receive worse care (on average) as a result of this; they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Relatedly, a significant amount of US taxpayer money subsidizes the business ventures of billionaires like Elon Musk. There are plenty of other examples, like the almost eight trillion USD we give to the military every decade. This doesn’t directly address your point, but I do wonder why we only start talking about these tradeoffs when it’s the poorest receiving subsidies from the government, rather than the most powerful.

robocat 4y ago
I feel like I am repeating myself, both those situations are irrelevant to your original point. I agree we can try to make things more efficient, and society can improve how it redistributes wealth. You seem to be saying we should distribute any gains to artists. I am saying that we distribute those gains to working people, and let the artists do their thing in their free time. If we start getting to the point where there is not enough “work” to go around, then we can follow the scandi practice of reducing everyone’s working hours. Although admittedly that doesn’t address the problem that there is an unlimited need for highly skilled people (the drive behind the power law of income distribution and why the more highly paid professionals have no spare time). UBI is a lovely concept, but unfortunately in the very major examples I have already seen of UBI (retirement being the biggest example), I don’t see much return in scientific or creative output. PS: this is a fantastic read about the US health system: https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-on-health-care-is-wrong-a-primer/ https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-o...

robocat 4y ago

I feel like I am repeating myself, both those situations are irrelevant to your original point. I agree we can try to make things more efficient, and society can improve how it redistributes wealth. You seem to be saying we should distribute any gains to artists. I am saying that we distribute those gains to working people, and let the artists do their thing in their free time. If we start getting to the point where there is not enough “work” to go around, then we can follow the scandi practice of reducing everyone’s working hours. Although admittedly that doesn’t address the problem that there is an unlimited need for highly skilled people (the drive behind the power law of income distribution and why the more highly paid professionals have no spare time). UBI is a lovely concept, but unfortunately in the very major examples I have already seen of UBI (retirement being the biggest example), I don’t see much return in scientific or creative output. PS: this is a fantastic read about the US health system: https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-on-health-care-is-wrong-a-primer/ https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-o...