10 ms·

A scheme that benefits all, such as guaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. I

A scheme that benefits all, such as guaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad. > Why aren’t we giving everyone a fair chance at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness by providing them the fundamentals they need to get there? Because for a lot of Americans, relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity: it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> A scheme that benefits all, such as uaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad. I've only heard objections within the context of people being worried that giving money will reduce productivity and raise prices. > Because relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity. It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. This is the "inequality" discussion. It's true that a lot of people are worried about relative order, and I agree that absolute prosperity is far more important, but I doubt those people are against UBI.
mcherm 2y ago
Yes, that does describe the current thinking (and behavior) of many US citizens. So the key question is this: how do we go about CHANGING those attitudes? The steps Jeff takes in this announcement seems like an excellent "lead by example" step toward doing that.
- sfifs 2y ago
  It takes 2 generations of concerted effort. Your great grand children will have a different attitude if you start now. Evidence : untouchability is virtually gone in India (at least the urban part). I remember my great grand parents still had those mindsets when I was very young. It is an alien concept to our children.
WillPostForFood 2y ago
Don't you think the people who are more zero sum, are the ones who are very focused on inequality (rich getting richer means poor getting poorer), who are also the ones who are most likely to support stuff like this? Direct payments, minimum wage, guaranteed income, welfare, etc?
- CrossVR 2y ago
  > rich getting richer means poor getting poorer If the rich getting richer drives up inflation then that does indeed mean that the poor get poorer.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If the rich getting richer drives up inflation Big if! (Inflation drives both price levels and wages.)
    - CrossVR 2y ago
      We're talking about the poor here, not the middle class. A lot of states haven't raised their minimum wage above the federal minimum wage, which hasn't been raised since 2009. Also even if wages go up inflation still reduces the wealth owned by the middle class. Especially given that interest rates on savings hasn't kept pace with inflation for decades. So unless you own a house or a stock portfolio even the middle class gets poorer due to inflation.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        We have zero evidence inequality drives inflation.
        CrossVR 2y ago
        Sure that's an if, but the effects of inflation certainly exacerbates that inequality. Thus the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's just a question of cause and effect.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
How does it benefit me if it's not what I want? The idea that a third party can decide for me what I should want, and because this thing or that thing is something I should want means that it benefits me... it's a little circular. "But it's good for you!" they scream, and the word good is, in their head, something they've decided meets a goal or end result that I should be pursuing. And so the circle spins round and round. This scheme does not benefit me. It is not a goal I want to pursue. There are costs associated with it. This isn't for free. >It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. Well, that's the least generous interpretation. What if I'd rather starve as a deer, than be well-fed cattle? What if, no matter how hard I try, it's nearly impossible to imagine myself being so stupid or passive that I would prefer otherwise?
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  You benefit substantially from living in a stable, high-trust society where customers have money and employees are educated.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    you dont get high trust society by increasing welfare state. The argument that by handing out money we will get stable high trust society does not hold at all. European countries that are unable to assimilate migrants are a living proof, for example Sweden Denmark, etc. Counterpoint to your argument is El Salvador: by enforcing laws they are able to achieve high trust society, so what we actually need is maximimum law enforcement and isolation of people who dont want to maintain the high trust society. China/Singapore is another example: they just execute drug dealers and solve the drug trafficking problem. It may be perceived as inhumane to drug traffickers, but it is very humane for the victims(current and possible) of drug addiction. USA has a giant surplus of people with net negative contribution to the society and is unable to solve it in order to propel society forward
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2y ago
moduspol 2y ago
Good news! It doesn't have to be implemented at the federal level. We could do it at the state or local level. Please: show us the way. I'll be the first to congratulate you on a long-term sustainable UBI implementation.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  It kind of does. States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. They don’t have expansionary options to fund it.
  - alex_young 2y ago
    How does Alaska do it then?
    - coldtea 2y ago
      Alaska has basically free money from oil.
    - dmoy 2y ago
      It's funded by the giant firehose of money from oil It's closer to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund than anything else
    - yieldcrv 2y ago
      by not being limited to taking debt in fiscal policy states can balance their budget, its not controversial, just ignore the person that suggests otherwise
  - ajsnigrutin 2y ago
    But if it doesn't work on a state level, why would it work on a national level or a global level?
    - echoangle 2y ago
      > States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. Because this doesn't apply to countries, only states.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers This is lazy dismissal. “Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” isn’t an argument. I believe in UBI. But writing off the arguments against it like this deserves inaction.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rectang 2y ago
  I don't see zero-sum thinkers as "idiots". Rather, the prevalence of such attitudes is a fundamental aspect of human nature that we have to reckon with.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the prevalence of such attitudes is a fundamental aspect of human nature that we have to reckon with If a proposal requires changing human nature, it’s safe to dismiss. I’m saying that your argument for why UBI is dismissed is itself an argument for dismissing it.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      If the robots really are coming to take every single job, then human nature is gonna change one way or the other.
  - antisthenes 2y ago
    There are plenty of areas of human interest where resources are zero-sum, especially in the short term. Using that term without nuance is about as helpful as shouting "SuPpLy and DeManD!!" in every economic discussion because you saw an Econ 101 book one time in a library.
    - rectang 2y ago
      Well, I agree that we can't have a productive discussion if that's how you see my commentary, but I happen to think that designing social programs which take into account baser human resentments is a worthwhile endeavor, e.g. "Social Security isn't a tax" and all that.
mikepurvis 2y ago
Modern automation has also taken a dark turn— we already got laundry and dishes sorted out decades ago, and the only real developments on the domestic front since the roomba have been lights that change color when you talk at them. Meanwhile, AI is increasingly threatening to upend creative, high value professions, stuff like law, medicine, communications, journalism, and even software. But at the low end, AI is never going to be the janitor or your garbage guy, or your barista (ordering kiosks aside) or your instacart dude. AI won't unclog your toilet or service your car or make your basement not smell funny. It won't tend the garden or cut the grass or install a new air conditioner or re-shingle a roof. I think the prospect of a world where everyone has their basic needs covered and has to choose to work is scary to people who are used to looking down on certain professions and assuming that no one would do <thing> if they didn't absolutely have to.
- peterhadlaw 2y ago
  There already are lawn mowing robots.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  >AI won't unclog your toilet or service your car or make your basement not smell funny. It won't tend the garden or cut the grass or install a new air conditioner or re-shingle a roof. There are labs training AI robots for these very tasks right now. There are robots that fold laundry and spread peanut butter, right now. We're maximum 1-2 years away from a general all-around robot the way chatgpt is an all around digital assistant.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikepurvis 2y ago
    Willow Garage envisioned in the early 2010s that a successor to the PR2 would be a mass-market bi-manual manipulator able to complete a wide range of household tasks. They folded in 2014. Ten years later, I don't think the state of the art in general purpose robotics is that much further along. Even top tier research robots would struggle to climb the stairs or navigate around my kids' messy bedrooms, much less complete the wide array of tasks that my amazing housekeeper cheerfully and proactively handles for a bit over minimum wage. I'm aware of the 1x Neo, but that has a lot of unknowns— the videos are full of cuts and have significant evidence of teleoperation and no indication of things like lift strength or battery life. What they're purporting to show is simply not aligned with what the state of the art is in perception and manipulation/grasping. They're a long ways from having even the hardware solved, much less the software.
richwater 2y ago
> it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. Pretty reductionist
coldtea 2y ago
>* Because for a lot of Americans, relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity: it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.* That's humanity 101. And it's not something to be shunned: it means that the wealth that matters more is social not material.
slt2021 2y ago
US already is a giant welfare state with too large entitlements for its budget
sam_lowry_ 2y ago
> It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. I think the distinction between those who belive it and those who don't is much more important than the distinction between the left and the right.
QuantumGood 2y ago
Any flow of money will be attacked and diverted over time, as much as it can be, by those with the power to pursue it. The first thing that generally happens is some source of rent-seeking. GMI needs a lot of protections from those kinds of systems.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> A scheme that benefits all, such as uaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad. I've only heard objections within the context of people being worried that giving money will reduce productivity and raise prices. > Because relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity. It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. This is the "inequality" discussion. It's true that a lot of people are worried about relative order, and I agree that absolute prosperity is far more important, but I doubt those people are against UBI.

mcherm 2y ago

Yes, that does describe the current thinking (and behavior) of many US citizens. So the key question is this: how do we go about CHANGING those attitudes? The steps Jeff takes in this announcement seems like an excellent "lead by example" step toward doing that.

sfifs 2y ago
It takes 2 generations of concerted effort. Your great grand children will have a different attitude if you start now. Evidence : untouchability is virtually gone in India (at least the urban part). I remember my great grand parents still had those mindsets when I was very young. It is an alien concept to our children.

WillPostForFood 2y ago

Don't you think the people who are more zero sum, are the ones who are very focused on inequality (rich getting richer means poor getting poorer), who are also the ones who are most likely to support stuff like this? Direct payments, minimum wage, guaranteed income, welfare, etc?

CrossVR 2y ago
> rich getting richer means poor getting poorer If the rich getting richer drives up inflation then that does indeed mean that the poor get poorer.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If the rich getting richer drives up inflation Big if! (Inflation drives both price levels and wages.)
  - CrossVR 2y ago
    We're talking about the poor here, not the middle class. A lot of states haven't raised their minimum wage above the federal minimum wage, which hasn't been raised since 2009. Also even if wages go up inflation still reduces the wealth owned by the middle class. Especially given that interest rates on savings hasn't kept pace with inflation for decades. So unless you own a house or a stock portfolio even the middle class gets poorer due to inflation.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      We have zero evidence inequality drives inflation.
      - CrossVR 2y ago
        Sure that's an if, but the effects of inflation certainly exacerbates that inequality. Thus the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's just a question of cause and effect.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

How does it benefit me if it's not what I want? The idea that a third party can decide for me what I should want, and because this thing or that thing is something I should want means that it benefits me... it's a little circular. "But it's good for you!" they scream, and the word good is, in their head, something they've decided meets a goal or end result that I should be pursuing. And so the circle spins round and round. This scheme does not benefit me. It is not a goal I want to pursue. There are costs associated with it. This isn't for free. >It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. Well, that's the least generous interpretation. What if I'd rather starve as a deer, than be well-fed cattle? What if, no matter how hard I try, it's nearly impossible to imagine myself being so stupid or passive that I would prefer otherwise?

bryanlarsen 2y ago
You benefit substantially from living in a stable, high-trust society where customers have money and employees are educated.
- slt2021 2y ago
  you dont get high trust society by increasing welfare state. The argument that by handing out money we will get stable high trust society does not hold at all. European countries that are unable to assimilate migrants are a living proof, for example Sweden Denmark, etc. Counterpoint to your argument is El Salvador: by enforcing laws they are able to achieve high trust society, so what we actually need is maximimum law enforcement and isolation of people who dont want to maintain the high trust society. China/Singapore is another example: they just execute drug dealers and solve the drug trafficking problem. It may be perceived as inhumane to drug traffickers, but it is very humane for the victims(current and possible) of drug addiction. USA has a giant surplus of people with net negative contribution to the society and is unable to solve it in order to propel society forward
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2y ago

moduspol 2y ago

Good news! It doesn't have to be implemented at the federal level. We could do it at the state or local level. Please: show us the way. I'll be the first to congratulate you on a long-term sustainable UBI implementation.

arrosenberg 2y ago
It kind of does. States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. They don’t have expansionary options to fund it.
- alex_young 2y ago
  How does Alaska do it then?
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Alaska has basically free money from oil.
  - dmoy 2y ago
    It's funded by the giant firehose of money from oil It's closer to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund than anything else
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    by not being limited to taking debt in fiscal policy states can balance their budget, its not controversial, just ignore the person that suggests otherwise
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  But if it doesn't work on a state level, why would it work on a national level or a global level?
  - echoangle 2y ago
    > States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. Because this doesn't apply to countries, only states.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers This is lazy dismissal. “Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” isn’t an argument. I believe in UBI. But writing off the arguments against it like this deserves inaction.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rectang 2y ago
I don't see zero-sum thinkers as "idiots". Rather, the prevalence of such attitudes is a fundamental aspect of human nature that we have to reckon with.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the prevalence of such attitudes is a fundamental aspect of human nature that we have to reckon with If a proposal requires changing human nature, it’s safe to dismiss. I’m saying that your argument for why UBI is dismissed is itself an argument for dismissing it.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    If the robots really are coming to take every single job, then human nature is gonna change one way or the other.
- antisthenes 2y ago
  There are plenty of areas of human interest where resources are zero-sum, especially in the short term. Using that term without nuance is about as helpful as shouting "SuPpLy and DeManD!!" in every economic discussion because you saw an Econ 101 book one time in a library.
  - rectang 2y ago
    Well, I agree that we can't have a productive discussion if that's how you see my commentary, but I happen to think that designing social programs which take into account baser human resentments is a worthwhile endeavor, e.g. "Social Security isn't a tax" and all that.

mikepurvis 2y ago

Modern automation has also taken a dark turn— we already got laundry and dishes sorted out decades ago, and the only real developments on the domestic front since the roomba have been lights that change color when you talk at them. Meanwhile, AI is increasingly threatening to upend creative, high value professions, stuff like law, medicine, communications, journalism, and even software. But at the low end, AI is never going to be the janitor or your garbage guy, or your barista (ordering kiosks aside) or your instacart dude. AI won't unclog your toilet or service your car or make your basement not smell funny. It won't tend the garden or cut the grass or install a new air conditioner or re-shingle a roof. I think the prospect of a world where everyone has their basic needs covered and has to choose to work is scary to people who are used to looking down on certain professions and assuming that no one would do <thing> if they didn't absolutely have to.

peterhadlaw 2y ago
There already are lawn mowing robots.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
>AI won't unclog your toilet or service your car or make your basement not smell funny. It won't tend the garden or cut the grass or install a new air conditioner or re-shingle a roof. There are labs training AI robots for these very tasks right now. There are robots that fold laundry and spread peanut butter, right now. We're maximum 1-2 years away from a general all-around robot the way chatgpt is an all around digital assistant.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mikepurvis 2y ago
  Willow Garage envisioned in the early 2010s that a successor to the PR2 would be a mass-market bi-manual manipulator able to complete a wide range of household tasks. They folded in 2014. Ten years later, I don't think the state of the art in general purpose robotics is that much further along. Even top tier research robots would struggle to climb the stairs or navigate around my kids' messy bedrooms, much less complete the wide array of tasks that my amazing housekeeper cheerfully and proactively handles for a bit over minimum wage. I'm aware of the 1x Neo, but that has a lot of unknowns— the videos are full of cuts and have significant evidence of teleoperation and no indication of things like lift strength or battery life. What they're purporting to show is simply not aligned with what the state of the art is in perception and manipulation/grasping. They're a long ways from having even the hardware solved, much less the software.

richwater 2y ago

> it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. Pretty reductionist

coldtea 2y ago

>* Because for a lot of Americans, relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity: it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.* That's humanity 101. And it's not something to be shunned: it means that the wealth that matters more is social not material.

slt2021 2y ago

US already is a giant welfare state with too large entitlements for its budget

sam_lowry_ 2y ago

> It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. I think the distinction between those who belive it and those who don't is much more important than the distinction between the left and the right.

QuantumGood 2y ago

Any flow of money will be attacked and diverted over time, as much as it can be, by those with the power to pursue it. The first thing that generally happens is some source of rent-seeking. GMI needs a lot of protections from those kinds of systems.