11 ms·
Define “fairly”
by kofejnik 3y ago
Define “fairly”
- pavlov 3y agoThe grandparent comment does contain a definition: “A […] system that […] would make people welcome better AI because they could be confident it would make everyone wealthier” That would be a fair system regardless of the specifics of how it’s achieved.
- neogodless 3y agoOne clarifying point: Even when nearly everyone gets wealthier, if inequality grows, most people don't feel like it's fair.
- Sakos 3y agoWhat matters is the real effects of being wealthier. If it means you and everybody else can afford a place to live, then "feeling" it's unfair just doesn't matter.
- nomel 3y agoNot that person, but I don’t believe that sentence approaches a definition of “fairly”. “Make everyone richer” is all fine, until you realize that you’re only a penny richer. But maybe it’s justified. That justification is what the “fairly” definition would require, and is extremely important.
- renewiltord 3y agoWell, then we have been living in a system that's as close to fair as possible since global individual wealth has been growing for a long time. The few times we had it shrink significantly over some period of time is when local populations attempted forced wealth distribution. Our present system, by this definition, is amazing!
- bandyaboot 3y ago> Well, then we have been living in a system that's as close to fair as possible since global individual wealth has been growing for a long time. That’s a non-sequitur.
- renewiltord 3y agoNo it's not. If the property of fairness is that everyone grows wealthier then a system that makes everyone wealthier is a fair system. That's as close to a tautology as possible. The resulting absurdity is why OP was right to ask what fairness was: everyone has their own belief in it, oriented towards equality or proportionality or some notion of deserving.
- bandyaboot 3y agoIn order to claim that the system is “as close to fair as possible”, you would have to demonstrate that the system has optimized everyone’s wealth growth as much as possible. Something going up for a long time isn’t proof of optimization.
- renewiltord 3y agoWell, no you don't have to optimize each person's wealth growth. It could be incredibly uneven so long as you optimize the number of people whose wealth grows. And clearly, since it is better than every other method, it is the best by definition. If other things were not done it is because they were not possible: since possibility requires an agent to execute and since no agent succeeded in executing a better plan it is, by definition, impossible.
- bandyaboot 3y agoI was using “everyone” in the same way that I assume you were using it—everyone in aggregate. You seem to be basing this on a rather dubious position—that we’ve thought of, tried, and optimized every conceivable system for growing wealth and that the result of this exhaustive history is our current system.
- buu700 3y agoHere's an idea: a UBI that's pegged to GDP and population. Make it comically small to start, like say 0.25% of GDP split evenly between all citizens. Based on 2021 US stats, that's $176 per person per year. That seems relatively unobjectionable regardless of your politics, even assuming that the % is likely to drift higher over time. With increasingly advanced AI and cheap energy, GDP would rise over the long run independently of population, ultimately increasing the UBI to a livable salary.
- ilyt 3y agoHere is even simpler idea to make that feasible: Start actually taxing the corporations in a way that can't be trivially avoided. And don't tax them less than your own citizens. Maybe tax a bit of income on top of revenue. Maybe tax a bit more if income per employee is on high side.
- buu700 3y agoIf you're talking about a five-figure UBI, I don't think that would be simpler to pass through Congress. In terms of legislative complexity, I can't see how closing all major corporate tax loopholes would be simpler than implementing whatever minor tax revenue increase is necessary to offset a $176 UBI.
- satvikpendem 3y agoDoing that is actually more complicated. There are a variety of questions regarding taxing them, and there are many more ways they could get around it. In contrast, an income tax actually collects revenue because people can't really get around having to pay it.
- newaccount74 3y agoEveryone gets as much as they need, everyone contributes as much as they can.
- d0mine 3y ago^ communisme
- fabianhjr 3y agoto each according to their need, from each according to their ability
- visarga 3y agoonly works for media and language model data
- atomicUpdate 3y agoWhy would anyone contribute more than is required to get what they need, if they’ll never see any benefit beyond that? I prefer a system where people that work harder get more so they can have what they want, rather than just the bare minimum to survive (which is presumably what is meant by “what they need”).
- frozenfoxx 3y agoAsk anyone that contributes to open source. Some of us like to make the world a better place.
- jtms 3y agoyeah but plenty of people contribute to open source because it leads to being able to make a good, solid living.
- yoyohello13 3y ago> I prefer a system where people that work harder get more so they can have what they want That’s fine and good, but I think many people imply that this is how our current system works. Which is just not the case.
- bmn__ 3y agoThe video "Wealth Inequality in America" <https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM?t=35 https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM?t=35> at timestamp 0:35 shows a definition most respondents to the question agree on.
- HyperSane 3y agoIncreases in GDP are evenly distributed across ALL income brackets.