5 ms·

Now that AI is decimating a lot of bullshit jobs we need a basic income of some kind. A universal one. That would enable the authors, activists and hackers to

by pruppy 3mo ago

Now that AI is decimating a lot of bullshit jobs we need a basic income of some kind. A universal one. That would enable the authors, activists and hackers to pursue what's meaningful, instead of the profit of the multinational leeches that do not need to adhere to laws, borders or taxes. If a zillion dollar corporations (Meta and the likes) can torrent Annas Archive and decimate the copyrights I see it a moral imperative for the people to do the same and spare the pennies that would profit the publishing / media / ... industries to support the authors directly, instead of the trickle up method, where majority goes in to the hands of the dystopican narcissist zillionaire.

bruce511 3mo ago
I too think Basic Income is a necessity. I don't think it can happen in the US (for cultural reasons) but I think elsewhere it can work. (And indeed in many places it kinda, sorta, already does). >> That would enable the authors, activists and hackers to pursue what's meaningful I would counsel not using the word "meaningful" in the context of BI. We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money". If society gets to judge what is meaningful or not, well, that's the system we currently have. BI is about letting people do whatever they like especially if it is meaningless. BI implies an economy (you have to spend the Income on something) so meaningful will always be richly rewarded. Incidentally publishers exist to act as curators and filters. The value they add is real. There's no shortage of self-published stuff on say Amazon, but 99% of it is drivel. I go into a bookshop to find the 1% that at least someone thinks is worth reading.
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 3mo ago
  > I don't think it can happen in the US (for cultural reasons) Cultural reasons are just a matter of spindoctoring/propaganda. Nixon almost implemented a form of UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan In Alaska there's already a form of UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
  - bruce511 3mo ago
    The reason I think it is hard in the US is because there is a very strong "work or die" ethic in the US. Everything is driven by money. Even basic things like healthcare are driven by money. Your life after retirement is determined by how much money you accumulated. The word-association between "poor" and "lazy" is strong. Taxation should be light. Each man should keep what he accumulates. BI by contrast values people over money. It recognises not just the social responsibility of the rich to the poor, but also the dignity of being human. Some countries are further along that path than others. Health care, education, unemployment benefits, are all steps towards BI. The wealthy are taxed to pay for the poor. Ultimately the suppresses the excess, while raising the floor. From a cultural point of view, the US has many steps to take before society is really for (real) BI.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 3mo ago
      I have an Irish friend that got a Ph.D, while on the dole. That would never happen, in the US. We have a strong “Why do they get special treatment?” thing going on.
      - mikeocool 3mo ago
        I think I get your point, but few PhD candidates pay tuition in the US and most actually receive a living stipend. In exchange they act as teaching and/or research assistants.
        ChrisMarshallNY 3mo ago
        That would be perceived differently. I guess we know that Ph.D Research/Teaching Assistants tend to be worked to death, and paid peanuts. The whiners would be OK with that.
    - mlrtime 3mo ago
      Top 10% already pays 70.5% of all federal income taxes. US high income payers are already taxed to pay the poor. Almost half of US federal tax payers pay 0 income tax.
- jamiejquinn 3mo ago
  I disagree with your definition of meaningful here. Society's willingness to pay is certainly a signal for meaning in an output but it seems quite inaccurate. Think of the number of artists and thinkers that weren't recognised in their lifetimes, their work was still meaningful but society hadn't discovered it yet. Similarly, there are a number of things that would be incredibly meaningful to all of society (eradication of disease, nuclear fusion, etc) that we choose to deprioritise to instead eat fois gras and fight. Sorry to jump down your throat on this, we're on the same side, I think BI is inevitable and worthwhile. But it's worth pointing out that BI enables more than just the meaningless things.
  - bruce511 3mo ago
    BI does not stop people doing meaningful things. Society will (mostly) reward things which add value. We have a very efficient system for that, and it doesn't go away under BI. We are already spending massive amounts of money on disease, fusion and so on. There's no issue there, and BI doesn't move that needle. At the moment society (especially in the US) operates on a "add value or starve" basis. (That's an over simplification, but the underlying "morality" us strong in that direction.) BI moves the needle for those who are not "adding value" (in a materialistic sense.) Artists and Authors are free to spend their time creating works, of which a rounding error will have any value. Sure there's some unappreciated author out there cranking out literature, but there's also everyone else cranking out rubbish. BI doesn't make 'big things' easier to do. Arguably it makes them harder. Rather it allows individuals to gain satisfaction from little things. Budding poets can write all day long. But if (great) poetry is currently ignored, do not expect much on that front. I say this not to denigrate BI but rather because allowing the meaningless is precisely its goal. To miss that is to miss the point. It allows people to find worth and dignity without having to add value to society.
    - mathgeek 3mo ago
      > allowing the meaningless is precisely its goal I think you’re getting pushback because of this choice of language. It’s not the only goal, but it is a key feature. BI supports choices of how to spend your time and enables freedoms.
- rbanffy 3mo ago
  > We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money". This is a mechanism that’s very narrow and creates notable distortions between financial and artistic value, just to keep the example specific enough.
- phatskat 3mo ago
  > I would counsel not using the word "meaningful" in the context of BI. We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money". If society gets to judge what is meaningful or not, well, that's the system we currently have. I’m also going to take issue with this interpretation of “meaningful” - I’ve known several amazing crafters and artists who have had an incredibly hard time doing their craft simply because the demands of capitalism prevent them from putting the time and effort into honing those skills, finding a market, creating a portfolio, etc. If anything, I think BI is just as likely to add meaningfully to society as it is to give people the option to do meaningless things.
sucrosesucrose 3mo ago
Universal basic income is dystopic. It's a way of finally making everyone completely dependent on the government. It's a Brave New World kind of dystopy.
- orangesilk 3mo ago
  Are you independent of your government yet? I am dependend on government not giving subsidies to my competition. I am dependend on them not to raise taxes. I even depend on them for keeping the infrastrukture alive. If I cant trust the state I life in, it is time to move to a different state.
- pbhjpbhj 3mo ago
  Interesting perspective. To me it makes you more dependent on the other people in your society - only if you don't earn more than the BI of course. That is true under Western Capitalism too, you're already dependent on your society, unless you filter and pump your own water; grow your own food; generate your own power; make your own devices; school your own children; do your own healthcare, etc. For those reliant on BI, instead of greed being the moderator through which your income is determined, it is determined through the democratic processes of state. Now, if your have an oligarchic dictatorship like USA and Russia, sure you'd need to be particularly worried if you were relying on BI. If you've got a strong democracy (probably true of any country with state-run services that are competitively priced) then BI should work if there's enough total income that it can be redistributed. I think there are problems with BI though.

by pruppy 3mo ago

bruce511 3mo ago

I too think Basic Income is a necessity. I don't think it can happen in the US (for cultural reasons) but I think elsewhere it can work. (And indeed in many places it kinda, sorta, already does). >> That would enable the authors, activists and hackers to pursue what's meaningful I would counsel not using the word "meaningful" in the context of BI. We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money". If society gets to judge what is meaningful or not, well, that's the system we currently have. BI is about letting people do whatever they like especially if it is meaningless. BI implies an economy (you have to spend the Income on something) so meaningful will always be richly rewarded. Incidentally publishers exist to act as curators and filters. The value they add is real. There's no shortage of self-published stuff on say Amazon, but 99% of it is drivel. I go into a bookshop to find the 1% that at least someone thinks is worth reading.

Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 3mo ago
> I don't think it can happen in the US (for cultural reasons) Cultural reasons are just a matter of spindoctoring/propaganda. Nixon almost implemented a form of UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan In Alaska there's already a form of UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
- bruce511 3mo ago
  The reason I think it is hard in the US is because there is a very strong "work or die" ethic in the US. Everything is driven by money. Even basic things like healthcare are driven by money. Your life after retirement is determined by how much money you accumulated. The word-association between "poor" and "lazy" is strong. Taxation should be light. Each man should keep what he accumulates. BI by contrast values people over money. It recognises not just the social responsibility of the rich to the poor, but also the dignity of being human. Some countries are further along that path than others. Health care, education, unemployment benefits, are all steps towards BI. The wealthy are taxed to pay for the poor. Ultimately the suppresses the excess, while raising the floor. From a cultural point of view, the US has many steps to take before society is really for (real) BI.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3mo ago
    I have an Irish friend that got a Ph.D, while on the dole. That would never happen, in the US. We have a strong “Why do they get special treatment?” thing going on.
    - mikeocool 3mo ago
      I think I get your point, but few PhD candidates pay tuition in the US and most actually receive a living stipend. In exchange they act as teaching and/or research assistants.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 3mo ago
        That would be perceived differently. I guess we know that Ph.D Research/Teaching Assistants tend to be worked to death, and paid peanuts. The whiners would be OK with that.
  - mlrtime 3mo ago
    Top 10% already pays 70.5% of all federal income taxes. US high income payers are already taxed to pay the poor. Almost half of US federal tax payers pay 0 income tax.
jamiejquinn 3mo ago
I disagree with your definition of meaningful here. Society's willingness to pay is certainly a signal for meaning in an output but it seems quite inaccurate. Think of the number of artists and thinkers that weren't recognised in their lifetimes, their work was still meaningful but society hadn't discovered it yet. Similarly, there are a number of things that would be incredibly meaningful to all of society (eradication of disease, nuclear fusion, etc) that we choose to deprioritise to instead eat fois gras and fight. Sorry to jump down your throat on this, we're on the same side, I think BI is inevitable and worthwhile. But it's worth pointing out that BI enables more than just the meaningless things.
- bruce511 3mo ago
  BI does not stop people doing meaningful things. Society will (mostly) reward things which add value. We have a very efficient system for that, and it doesn't go away under BI. We are already spending massive amounts of money on disease, fusion and so on. There's no issue there, and BI doesn't move that needle. At the moment society (especially in the US) operates on a "add value or starve" basis. (That's an over simplification, but the underlying "morality" us strong in that direction.) BI moves the needle for those who are not "adding value" (in a materialistic sense.) Artists and Authors are free to spend their time creating works, of which a rounding error will have any value. Sure there's some unappreciated author out there cranking out literature, but there's also everyone else cranking out rubbish. BI doesn't make 'big things' easier to do. Arguably it makes them harder. Rather it allows individuals to gain satisfaction from little things. Budding poets can write all day long. But if (great) poetry is currently ignored, do not expect much on that front. I say this not to denigrate BI but rather because allowing the meaningless is precisely its goal. To miss that is to miss the point. It allows people to find worth and dignity without having to add value to society.
  - mathgeek 3mo ago
    > allowing the meaningless is precisely its goal I think you’re getting pushback because of this choice of language. It’s not the only goal, but it is a key feature. BI supports choices of how to spend your time and enables freedoms.
rbanffy 3mo ago
> We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money". This is a mechanism that’s very narrow and creates notable distortions between financial and artistic value, just to keep the example specific enough.
phatskat 3mo ago
> I would counsel not using the word "meaningful" in the context of BI. We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money". If society gets to judge what is meaningful or not, well, that's the system we currently have. I’m also going to take issue with this interpretation of “meaningful” - I’ve known several amazing crafters and artists who have had an incredibly hard time doing their craft simply because the demands of capitalism prevent them from putting the time and effort into honing those skills, finding a market, creating a portfolio, etc. If anything, I think BI is just as likely to add meaningfully to society as it is to give people the option to do meaningless things.

sucrosesucrose 3mo ago

Universal basic income is dystopic. It's a way of finally making everyone completely dependent on the government. It's a Brave New World kind of dystopy.

orangesilk 3mo ago
Are you independent of your government yet? I am dependend on government not giving subsidies to my competition. I am dependend on them not to raise taxes. I even depend on them for keeping the infrastrukture alive. If I cant trust the state I life in, it is time to move to a different state.
pbhjpbhj 3mo ago
Interesting perspective. To me it makes you more dependent on the other people in your society - only if you don't earn more than the BI of course. That is true under Western Capitalism too, you're already dependent on your society, unless you filter and pump your own water; grow your own food; generate your own power; make your own devices; school your own children; do your own healthcare, etc. For those reliant on BI, instead of greed being the moderator through which your income is determined, it is determined through the democratic processes of state. Now, if your have an oligarchic dictatorship like USA and Russia, sure you'd need to be particularly worried if you were relying on BI. If you've got a strong democracy (probably true of any country with state-run services that are competitively priced) then BI should work if there's enough total income that it can be redistributed. I think there are problems with BI though.