4 ms·

The default state is 'all the land is being used to make food already'. That is the normal steady state in Europe throughout history. UBI is equivalent to the f

by Sevii 4y ago

The default state is 'all the land is being used to make food already'. That is the normal steady state in Europe throughout history. UBI is equivalent to the feudal aristocracy in getting paid based on land without doing any work. Except the aristocracy was expected to risk their lives on occasion.

Dylan16807 4y ago
Are you describing "everyone is a very minor aristocrat" as an inherently bad thing?
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  I notice none of these worthies are proposing to force the idle rich into some form of national service.
  - kodyo 4y ago
    Most generational wealth dissolves pretty quickly unless the heirs are industrious. It's a problem that solves itself naturally.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      That's not the point though, is it? The complaint above was that some people are getting paid without doing any work. Justifying this on the basis that 'they'll probably gamble it away' doesn't address the complaint at all. In any case, it's a lot easier to seem industrious if you start out with a huge pile of cash than without. If you park it all in t-bills and live within the coupon income you won't earn any prizes but you won't suffer any real economic anxiety or accusations of impropriety either.
    - qqqwerty 4y ago
      This may have been true in the past, when people tended to have lots of children. But with families having fewer children, it is probably less likely to be true in the future. Just as a personal example, I have 2 siblings and over 10 cousins. My daughter has 0 siblings and 1 cousin. Those numbers are going to go up by one or two but not much more than that as the window for kids is quickly closing. My family is solidly middle class, but it is entirely possible that that my daughters generation of the family ends up as "trust fund kids" simply due to the lack of dilution between siblings and cousins. Also, it helps that estate planning is significantly more accessible than it used to be. Regardless, the OP was not necessarily talking about the generational wealthy, they quite literally said the "idle rich". And there will always be a fair number of those folks, regardless of whether it was multi-generational or not.
      - kodyo 4y ago
        [flagged]
        qqqwerty 4y ago
        > Your explanation is even dumber You are the one that took the thread off topic because you couldn't be bothered with basic reading comprehension. > made enough money early in life that they could retire. The OP was suggesting that previous aristocracy were occasionally asked to risk their lives, as if that was some sort of justification for their idleness. Nowhere do they make a distinction between aristocrats who "earned" their position vs aristocrats who inherited their position. So technically, proposing to "force the idle rich into some form of national service" (regardless of whether it was earned or inherited) is directly comparable to the OPs point about aristocrats.

by Sevii 4y ago

Dylan16807 4y ago

Are you describing "everyone is a very minor aristocrat" as an inherently bad thing?

anigbrowl 4y ago
I notice none of these worthies are proposing to force the idle rich into some form of national service.
- kodyo 4y ago
  Most generational wealth dissolves pretty quickly unless the heirs are industrious. It's a problem that solves itself naturally.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    That's not the point though, is it? The complaint above was that some people are getting paid without doing any work. Justifying this on the basis that 'they'll probably gamble it away' doesn't address the complaint at all. In any case, it's a lot easier to seem industrious if you start out with a huge pile of cash than without. If you park it all in t-bills and live within the coupon income you won't earn any prizes but you won't suffer any real economic anxiety or accusations of impropriety either.
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    This may have been true in the past, when people tended to have lots of children. But with families having fewer children, it is probably less likely to be true in the future. Just as a personal example, I have 2 siblings and over 10 cousins. My daughter has 0 siblings and 1 cousin. Those numbers are going to go up by one or two but not much more than that as the window for kids is quickly closing. My family is solidly middle class, but it is entirely possible that that my daughters generation of the family ends up as "trust fund kids" simply due to the lack of dilution between siblings and cousins. Also, it helps that estate planning is significantly more accessible than it used to be. Regardless, the OP was not necessarily talking about the generational wealthy, they quite literally said the "idle rich". And there will always be a fair number of those folks, regardless of whether it was multi-generational or not.
    - kodyo 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - qqqwerty 4y ago
        > Your explanation is even dumber You are the one that took the thread off topic because you couldn't be bothered with basic reading comprehension. > made enough money early in life that they could retire. The OP was suggesting that previous aristocracy were occasionally asked to risk their lives, as if that was some sort of justification for their idleness. Nowhere do they make a distinction between aristocrats who "earned" their position vs aristocrats who inherited their position. So technically, proposing to "force the idle rich into some form of national service" (regardless of whether it was earned or inherited) is directly comparable to the OPs point about aristocrats.