5 ms·

The grandparent comment does contain a definition: “A […] system that […] would make people welcome better AI because they could be confident it would make eve

by pavlov 4y ago

The 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 4y ago
One clarifying point: Even when nearly everyone gets wealthier, if inequality grows, most people don't feel like it's fair.
- Sakos 4y ago
  What 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 4y ago
Not 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 4y 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. 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 4y 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 4y ago
    No 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 4y ago
      In 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 4y ago
        Well, 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 4y ago
        I 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.
        renewiltord 4y ago
        You don't need to do an exhaustive search because optimality here did not account for different amounts for each. A thing is optimally fair in this world if everyone's wealth goes up. That doesn't need exhaustiveness. A thing that gives me 1 million and you 1 is as fair as one that gives us both 500k. And yes, we did actually search everything possible because if something did not get done it was, by definition, impossible. After all, the agent that could have made something possible could not have acted as such because we know they did not. If they could have they would have. If they could not conceive of a better thing then the thing was impossible because it was not conceivable by anyone.
- ResearchCode 4y ago
  Wealth in the sense buy your own home is not growing for the average person. It's decreasing.
- imtringued 4y ago
  The US had both higher growth and higher wealth redistribution after world war 2 (extremely progressive income taxation and steep wealth taxes). The 70s ended wealth redistribution and the US has lower growth. At least get your basic history right.
buu700 4y ago
Here'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 4y ago
  Here 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 4y ago
    If 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 4y ago
    Doing 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.

by pavlov 4y ago

neogodless 4y ago

One clarifying point: Even when nearly everyone gets wealthier, if inequality grows, most people don't feel like it's fair.

Sakos 4y ago
What 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 4y ago

Not 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 4y 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. 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 4y 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 4y ago
  No 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 4y ago
    In 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 4y ago
      Well, 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 4y ago
        I 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.
        renewiltord 4y ago
        You don't need to do an exhaustive search because optimality here did not account for different amounts for each. A thing is optimally fair in this world if everyone's wealth goes up. That doesn't need exhaustiveness. A thing that gives me 1 million and you 1 is as fair as one that gives us both 500k. And yes, we did actually search everything possible because if something did not get done it was, by definition, impossible. After all, the agent that could have made something possible could not have acted as such because we know they did not. If they could have they would have. If they could not conceive of a better thing then the thing was impossible because it was not conceivable by anyone.
ResearchCode 4y ago
Wealth in the sense buy your own home is not growing for the average person. It's decreasing.
imtringued 4y ago
The US had both higher growth and higher wealth redistribution after world war 2 (extremely progressive income taxation and steep wealth taxes). The 70s ended wealth redistribution and the US has lower growth. At least get your basic history right.

buu700 4y ago

Here'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 4y ago
Here 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 4y ago
  If 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 4y ago
  Doing 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.