4 ms·

Because they were promised it - fundamentally leaving the rich out of the social safety net doesn't even get us much and administrating the distinction costs mo

Because they were promised it - fundamentally leaving the rich out of the social safety net doesn't even get us much and administrating the distinction costs money, and I am no fan of the wealthiest get additional benefits. I think solving inequality will not be about reducing access to said safety nets but increasing them for all.

WalterBright 6mo ago
The problem with "solving inequality" is there is no incentive for one to do better. If one can live as well as everyone else, with no effort, why should one make the effort?
- Terr_ 6mo ago
  Kind of a strawman though, innit? If "civilization will stagnate and humans will be unmotivated blobs" is one extreme, then the other is something like "condoning economic genocide". In reality, few are concerned that Alice has a much nicer car than Bob, compared to concerns that Bob will die without insulin. Get Bob his insulin, and he will still be motivated to have a nicer car.
  - WalterBright 6mo ago
    > Kind of a strawman though, innit? Not at all. It's the primary reason why communes fail.
    - nixon_why69 6mo ago
      I think there's likely a steel man version of "solving inequality" that's a little less radical than "establish a commune". Something like "arrest the trend towards upward accumulation which also reduces incentives to excel", maybe.
      - WalterBright 6mo ago
        If we did that, we wouldn't have SpaceX, Nvidia, AI, etc.
        croon 6mo ago
        There are points in history where the productivity increases were more equitably spread, and we still got lasers, microwaves, MRI, mRNA, microchips, the internet, etc, etc, from national funding no less.
        WalterBright 6mo ago
        People are paid according to the value they produce - equity has nothing to do with it.
        tsunamifury 6mo ago
        This is painfully naive. People are paid by the value they produce minus the maximum extraction ownership can get.
        Terr_ 6mo ago
        A milder version would be: People are paid based on the marginal cost of replacing them. But still, either of those is a far cry from claiming it's "the value they create". It's not hard to show either. Imagine you're on an island and have been gored in the stomach by a wild animal, and a skilled surgeon can save your life. Most people would instantly agree that continued existence is of immense "value". However after making that decision, you discover that you're on an island where almost everyone is a surgeon and the going-rate is much lower than you expected. Are we supposed to believe that your new knowledge somehow reaches backwards in time and retroactively changes the "value" of Not Dying? No, that'd be crazy. Valuation is never the same as price-point.
        WalterBright 6mo ago
- hilariously 6mo ago
  True, but I dont think any UBI scheme says "everyone live at the same level" more like "everyone gets enough to not die" which is a very different framing. Work or die vs Work to gain additional benefits.
  - WalterBright 6mo ago
    We already have welfare programs. Nobody is starving to death in the US.
    - tekne 6mo ago
      Perhaps -- "the baseline is a decent life". Lots of people are willing to work really hard for perks and glory -- honestly, you can even take more risks if you're young and you know your life's not on the line
      - WalterBright 6mo ago
        > the baseline is a decent life The trouble with that is the same reason communism fails - too many people decide to just live off of the work of others, and play video games all day. Also, who is going to work as a janitor? Most jobs are not filled with glory. They're tedious - that's why they are called "work".
        tekne 5mo ago
        You know... janitorial work really is an excellent example: - Some labor is easy both to offshore and to automate -- e.g. factory work - Some labor can be offshored a lot more easily than it can be automated -- this causes at least a practical problem for the "nice UBI" countries. I'm struggling to think of particularly good examples... - Some labor can be automated more easily than it can be offshored, e.g. self-driving - Some labor is "rare enough" that it can potentially be well-paid -- my intuition says construction and repair, especially with the aid of machines But janitorial labor is low-status, is required constantly, needs to be done on-site, and is really hard for a robot. So a particularly good UBI test: how do you hire janitors? It's not necessarily impossible -- for example, if a few shifts of janitorial labor could double this "decent baseline," would people pick it up? Would this leave it affordable?
- rexpop 6mo ago
  [dead]
lenerdenator 6mo ago
> Because they were promised it No, they weren't. They were promised a monthly check that, should they become absolutely devoid of marketable skills and liquid assets in their old age, would prevent them from dying in a gutter. They're nowhere near dying in a gutter. If you want to solve inequality, stop giving checks to people who spend it on golf trips to retirement villages in Arizona, and give it to people who have 84-month car notes and whose student loans are in forbearance. You only have enough money for one of those two groups, not both, so use utilitarianism to decide who to give it to.

WalterBright 6mo ago

The problem with "solving inequality" is there is no incentive for one to do better. If one can live as well as everyone else, with no effort, why should one make the effort?

Terr_ 6mo ago
Kind of a strawman though, innit? If "civilization will stagnate and humans will be unmotivated blobs" is one extreme, then the other is something like "condoning economic genocide". In reality, few are concerned that Alice has a much nicer car than Bob, compared to concerns that Bob will die without insulin. Get Bob his insulin, and he will still be motivated to have a nicer car.
- WalterBright 6mo ago
  > Kind of a strawman though, innit? Not at all. It's the primary reason why communes fail.
  - nixon_why69 6mo ago
    I think there's likely a steel man version of "solving inequality" that's a little less radical than "establish a commune". Something like "arrest the trend towards upward accumulation which also reduces incentives to excel", maybe.
    - WalterBright 6mo ago
      If we did that, we wouldn't have SpaceX, Nvidia, AI, etc.
      - croon 6mo ago
        There are points in history where the productivity increases were more equitably spread, and we still got lasers, microwaves, MRI, mRNA, microchips, the internet, etc, etc, from national funding no less.
        WalterBright 6mo ago
        People are paid according to the value they produce - equity has nothing to do with it.
        tsunamifury 6mo ago
        This is painfully naive. People are paid by the value they produce minus the maximum extraction ownership can get.
        Terr_ 6mo ago
        A milder version would be: People are paid based on the marginal cost of replacing them. But still, either of those is a far cry from claiming it's "the value they create". It's not hard to show either. Imagine you're on an island and have been gored in the stomach by a wild animal, and a skilled surgeon can save your life. Most people would instantly agree that continued existence is of immense "value". However after making that decision, you discover that you're on an island where almost everyone is a surgeon and the going-rate is much lower than you expected. Are we supposed to believe that your new knowledge somehow reaches backwards in time and retroactively changes the "value" of Not Dying? No, that'd be crazy. Valuation is never the same as price-point.
        WalterBright 6mo ago
hilariously 6mo ago
True, but I dont think any UBI scheme says "everyone live at the same level" more like "everyone gets enough to not die" which is a very different framing. Work or die vs Work to gain additional benefits.
- WalterBright 6mo ago
  We already have welfare programs. Nobody is starving to death in the US.
  - tekne 6mo ago
    Perhaps -- "the baseline is a decent life". Lots of people are willing to work really hard for perks and glory -- honestly, you can even take more risks if you're young and you know your life's not on the line
    - WalterBright 6mo ago
      > the baseline is a decent life The trouble with that is the same reason communism fails - too many people decide to just live off of the work of others, and play video games all day. Also, who is going to work as a janitor? Most jobs are not filled with glory. They're tedious - that's why they are called "work".
      - tekne 5mo ago
        You know... janitorial work really is an excellent example: - Some labor is easy both to offshore and to automate -- e.g. factory work - Some labor can be offshored a lot more easily than it can be automated -- this causes at least a practical problem for the "nice UBI" countries. I'm struggling to think of particularly good examples... - Some labor can be automated more easily than it can be offshored, e.g. self-driving - Some labor is "rare enough" that it can potentially be well-paid -- my intuition says construction and repair, especially with the aid of machines But janitorial labor is low-status, is required constantly, needs to be done on-site, and is really hard for a robot. So a particularly good UBI test: how do you hire janitors? It's not necessarily impossible -- for example, if a few shifts of janitorial labor could double this "decent baseline," would people pick it up? Would this leave it affordable?
rexpop 6mo ago
[dead]

lenerdenator 6mo ago

> Because they were promised it No, they weren't. They were promised a monthly check that, should they become absolutely devoid of marketable skills and liquid assets in their old age, would prevent them from dying in a gutter. They're nowhere near dying in a gutter. If you want to solve inequality, stop giving checks to people who spend it on golf trips to retirement villages in Arizona, and give it to people who have 84-month car notes and whose student loans are in forbearance. You only have enough money for one of those two groups, not both, so use utilitarianism to decide who to give it to.