4 ms·

Even for people living of wealth, it is not clear what the outcomes are. If renters of your apartments can not afford to rent them, housing crashes because you

Even for people living of wealth, it is not clear what the outcomes are. If renters of your apartments can not afford to rent them, housing crashes because your city was a looser (Detroit style withdrawals). Even for stocks we don't know who the winners are. The market as a whole usually does not respond that well on serious turmoil. So yeah. We are likely seeing some very rough years.

Slartie 2mo ago
Yep, most wealth is ultimately dependent on some kind of ability to scrape off tiny bits of practical accomplishments of value achieved by large numbers of people. In some cases, such as your housing example, this is a very direct dependency. In other cases the dependency is indirect and less visible. The smarter ones among the rich have realized this and are open for something like a universal basic income precisely for that reason: to protect their wealth and the position in the food chain this wealth affords them.
- irishcoffee 2mo ago
  UBI will never happen. I don’t understand why it’s even brought up anymore. Social security isn’t even solvent, health care is a disaster, and people still trumpet UBI like all of the enormous glaring funding holes don’t exist. It’s embarrassing at this point. Give it up.
  - dekken_ 2mo ago
    we just need to break the second law of thermodynamics, no big deal
  - arcticfox 2mo ago
    And what's your solution to mass unemployment due to AI? If you play this out, UBI or some near variant is inevitable.
    - GPerson 2mo ago
      Why are you correct even though the early Marxists (who posited that capitalism would inevitably lead to socialism) were wrong? We have had mass production for a hundred years without any hint of socialism. And I would like you to be right, by the way. But why should I believe you?
      - qzw 2mo ago
        Doesn’t most of the developed world already have various forms of socialism? The U.S. is an outlier here, which is due a number of factors unique to this country.
        GPerson 2mo ago
        Fair, but as an American I’m still interested in this more limited question. Why were the early American Marxists wrong and why are the new Americans saying similar things right this time?
        nuancebydefault 2mo ago
        There will be a form of UBI, because of the need for it, eventually. It will probably never be a 'fair' system (there probly will still be 1000xUBI people) but it will be necessary to prevent a lot of problems. Think of it this way. The percentage of the population that will not have enough skills, 'smartness' and or knowledge to serve the community in a profitable way, increases over time. Today the group includes mostly the very young, the elderly (which in a way already have a 'kind of UBI', but not the complete lifespan) and people with a severe illness. Tomorrow new groups of people will be included, like people who stopped going to school at 17,18yo or so, and so on. Suppose society provides those people with only the very minimal money to survive and no entertainment, traveling, proper housing, life choices etc. In that case not only those people, but the society as a whole will suffer because of unrest, riots etc. At a certain point in time, UBI can easily paid for by the wealth that automation will bring. Today probably as well, but the pressure of unevenly spread wealth is still able to keep it from happening, rich people still need enough poor people to work for them directly (house/boat personnel) or indirectly (mine coffee, chocolate, soy, battery minerals, ...)
  - ulfw 2mo ago
    UBI money needs to come from somewhere. Hence it will and can never happen. Fake money helps nobody. There is no difference between getting 0, 1000 or 10000 fake dollars a month if they value of the dollar will go to zero
    - UltraSane 2mo ago
      It isn't fake it is the wealth created by AI. Think of it like a national dividend.
      - irishcoffee 2mo ago
        This frustrates me so much. Where is the money coming from? The middle class _is_ the economy, if they all decide to say “fuck it, UBI is enough” or can’t get a job, who the hell is funding UBI? This is an enormous hole in the UBI discussion that’s just completely ignored. Again, we can’t even keep social security solvent, which is basically UBI for old people. It won’t work, the math doesn’t math, and everyone who wants UBI to be a thing just completely ignores this fact. So frustrating.
        tossandthrow 2mo ago
        You don't appear to understand what money is. Money is a claim on productivity. In a world where both creation and consumption is by humans, the productivity needs to align with consumption. Arguably, that is a century since that was the case, so we tax extra productive human beings in order to make sure that everybody can consume. This trend need to be accelerated as productivity accelerates. Ubi, negative tax, etc. There are many good ideas on how to fix it. However,if this discussion annoys you, I would strongly recommend you to learn more about the subject as it is indicative that you have some holes in your knowledge.
        irishcoffee 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2mo ago
  - UltraSane 2mo ago
    If AI really generates so much wealth UBI becomes much easier to justify and downright irrational to not implement.
    - ethbr1 2mo ago
      Anyone who thinks wealthy people willing part with any amount of wealth en masse hasn't studied history. One of the reason democracy has tended to be a stable form of government is that it naturally finds a balance between the haves and the have nots -- the boundary where the haves are comfortable parting with that much to live in a stable society where they keep the remainder, and the have nots are afforded some amount of social services for their most accute needs. That's all predicated on a "or riots / internal military action" alternative though. We've lived through a pretty stable post-WWII economic bargain period, and historically there's not a ton of certainty that continues through distributive renegotiations, which tend to be bloody.
      - UltraSane 2mo ago
        If AI makes GDP per hour of labor 2 times higher than that makes it very easy to provide UBI.
        ethbr1 2mo ago
        UBI is an allocation question, not a total question. If GDP 2x's and labor becomes less scarce (and therefore less powerful), it's as possible that all those gains go to capital as anything else.
        UltraSane 2mo ago
        It is both, because people fight over allocation a LOT less if there is more to go around.
        ethbr1 2mo ago
        And yet current state ~5-13% of Americans are food insecure, despite GDP being large enough to support sufficient food for all. In aggregate, capital is not particularly humane, left to its own devices.
sam345 2mo ago
Loser. Loose means opposite of tight.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  Even as a native English speaker, this is one of my more common mistakes, along with weather/whether[/wether]. How did we end up with the word with the long-o having one o, and the word with the short-o having two?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago
    > How did we end up with the word with the long-o having one o, and the word with the short-o having two? Neither is pronounced with a long "O" sound or a short "O" sound, and they both have the same vowel sound. (A long "O" would be the vowel sound in "lone", for example. Short "O" is like "log".) The difference is that you use your vocal chords to pronounce the "S" in "lose", making it an English "Z" sound.
  - bananaflag 2mo ago
    I pronounce lose and loose exactly the same, and have no problem differentiating them in writing.
  - tonic_note 2mo ago
    I think English might be second only to Chinese in terms of how phonetically opaque it is. Unlike say Korean, where if you can speak it you can spell it and vice-versa, English is requires you to just know. English is kinda neat in that it's a fusion of all the different lingua franca's of the time throughout history.
- tossandthrow 2mo ago
  guaranteed: My comments are not written by an LLM ;)
bbor 2mo ago
Sadly, we have gone above and beyond the level of innovation where stock market disruption is a primary concern. Luckily, we're all in this together. As long as enough people realize the weight of what's happening soon enough, I'm confident the indominable human spirit and the relative momentum of post-enlightenment social & institutional progress will carry us the rest of the way on a wave of clearly-justified solidarity. To think otherwise --to truly face the spectre before us without hope-- is pathology, I think. Not necessarily incorrect of course, but definitely an unhealthy source of cognitive distress.
- idiotsecant 2mo ago
  When the very first prokaryotic life forms saw the very first cells with mitochondria were they cognitively distressed? We face a similar phase change. In our lifetimes, probably.
ulfw 2mo ago
It's even the 'smaller' stuff that will be horrible. Even if you're lucky to be wealthy you'd be living in a city with fewer restaurants, bakeries, shops, anything. Because once a lot of people don't have income they won't be able to go out and buy things and shops will go out of business. It will also lead to a lot lot LOT LOT LOT more crime. I don't see the semi-wealthy to have an enjoyable life.

Slartie 2mo ago

Yep, most wealth is ultimately dependent on some kind of ability to scrape off tiny bits of practical accomplishments of value achieved by large numbers of people. In some cases, such as your housing example, this is a very direct dependency. In other cases the dependency is indirect and less visible. The smarter ones among the rich have realized this and are open for something like a universal basic income precisely for that reason: to protect their wealth and the position in the food chain this wealth affords them.

irishcoffee 2mo ago
UBI will never happen. I don’t understand why it’s even brought up anymore. Social security isn’t even solvent, health care is a disaster, and people still trumpet UBI like all of the enormous glaring funding holes don’t exist. It’s embarrassing at this point. Give it up.
- dekken_ 2mo ago
  we just need to break the second law of thermodynamics, no big deal
- arcticfox 2mo ago
  And what's your solution to mass unemployment due to AI? If you play this out, UBI or some near variant is inevitable.
  - GPerson 2mo ago
    Why are you correct even though the early Marxists (who posited that capitalism would inevitably lead to socialism) were wrong? We have had mass production for a hundred years without any hint of socialism. And I would like you to be right, by the way. But why should I believe you?
    - qzw 2mo ago
      Doesn’t most of the developed world already have various forms of socialism? The U.S. is an outlier here, which is due a number of factors unique to this country.
      - GPerson 2mo ago
        Fair, but as an American I’m still interested in this more limited question. Why were the early American Marxists wrong and why are the new Americans saying similar things right this time?
        nuancebydefault 2mo ago
        There will be a form of UBI, because of the need for it, eventually. It will probably never be a 'fair' system (there probly will still be 1000xUBI people) but it will be necessary to prevent a lot of problems. Think of it this way. The percentage of the population that will not have enough skills, 'smartness' and or knowledge to serve the community in a profitable way, increases over time. Today the group includes mostly the very young, the elderly (which in a way already have a 'kind of UBI', but not the complete lifespan) and people with a severe illness. Tomorrow new groups of people will be included, like people who stopped going to school at 17,18yo or so, and so on. Suppose society provides those people with only the very minimal money to survive and no entertainment, traveling, proper housing, life choices etc. In that case not only those people, but the society as a whole will suffer because of unrest, riots etc. At a certain point in time, UBI can easily paid for by the wealth that automation will bring. Today probably as well, but the pressure of unevenly spread wealth is still able to keep it from happening, rich people still need enough poor people to work for them directly (house/boat personnel) or indirectly (mine coffee, chocolate, soy, battery minerals, ...)
- ulfw 2mo ago
  UBI money needs to come from somewhere. Hence it will and can never happen. Fake money helps nobody. There is no difference between getting 0, 1000 or 10000 fake dollars a month if they value of the dollar will go to zero
  - UltraSane 2mo ago
    It isn't fake it is the wealth created by AI. Think of it like a national dividend.
    - irishcoffee 2mo ago
      This frustrates me so much. Where is the money coming from? The middle class _is_ the economy, if they all decide to say “fuck it, UBI is enough” or can’t get a job, who the hell is funding UBI? This is an enormous hole in the UBI discussion that’s just completely ignored. Again, we can’t even keep social security solvent, which is basically UBI for old people. It won’t work, the math doesn’t math, and everyone who wants UBI to be a thing just completely ignores this fact. So frustrating.
      - tossandthrow 2mo ago
        You don't appear to understand what money is. Money is a claim on productivity. In a world where both creation and consumption is by humans, the productivity needs to align with consumption. Arguably, that is a century since that was the case, so we tax extra productive human beings in order to make sure that everybody can consume. This trend need to be accelerated as productivity accelerates. Ubi, negative tax, etc. There are many good ideas on how to fix it. However,if this discussion annoys you, I would strongly recommend you to learn more about the subject as it is indicative that you have some holes in your knowledge.
        irishcoffee 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2mo ago
- UltraSane 2mo ago
  If AI really generates so much wealth UBI becomes much easier to justify and downright irrational to not implement.
  - ethbr1 2mo ago
    Anyone who thinks wealthy people willing part with any amount of wealth en masse hasn't studied history. One of the reason democracy has tended to be a stable form of government is that it naturally finds a balance between the haves and the have nots -- the boundary where the haves are comfortable parting with that much to live in a stable society where they keep the remainder, and the have nots are afforded some amount of social services for their most accute needs. That's all predicated on a "or riots / internal military action" alternative though. We've lived through a pretty stable post-WWII economic bargain period, and historically there's not a ton of certainty that continues through distributive renegotiations, which tend to be bloody.
    - UltraSane 2mo ago
      If AI makes GDP per hour of labor 2 times higher than that makes it very easy to provide UBI.
      - ethbr1 2mo ago
        UBI is an allocation question, not a total question. If GDP 2x's and labor becomes less scarce (and therefore less powerful), it's as possible that all those gains go to capital as anything else.
        UltraSane 2mo ago
        It is both, because people fight over allocation a LOT less if there is more to go around.
        ethbr1 2mo ago
        And yet current state ~5-13% of Americans are food insecure, despite GDP being large enough to support sufficient food for all. In aggregate, capital is not particularly humane, left to its own devices.

sam345 2mo ago

Loser. Loose means opposite of tight.

ben_w 2mo ago
Even as a native English speaker, this is one of my more common mistakes, along with weather/whether[/wether]. How did we end up with the word with the long-o having one o, and the word with the short-o having two?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago
  > How did we end up with the word with the long-o having one o, and the word with the short-o having two? Neither is pronounced with a long "O" sound or a short "O" sound, and they both have the same vowel sound. (A long "O" would be the vowel sound in "lone", for example. Short "O" is like "log".) The difference is that you use your vocal chords to pronounce the "S" in "lose", making it an English "Z" sound.
- bananaflag 2mo ago
  I pronounce lose and loose exactly the same, and have no problem differentiating them in writing.
- tonic_note 2mo ago
  I think English might be second only to Chinese in terms of how phonetically opaque it is. Unlike say Korean, where if you can speak it you can spell it and vice-versa, English is requires you to just know. English is kinda neat in that it's a fusion of all the different lingua franca's of the time throughout history.
tossandthrow 2mo ago
guaranteed: My comments are not written by an LLM ;)

bbor 2mo ago

Sadly, we have gone above and beyond the level of innovation where stock market disruption is a primary concern. Luckily, we're all in this together. As long as enough people realize the weight of what's happening soon enough, I'm confident the indominable human spirit and the relative momentum of post-enlightenment social & institutional progress will carry us the rest of the way on a wave of clearly-justified solidarity. To think otherwise --to truly face the spectre before us without hope-- is pathology, I think. Not necessarily incorrect of course, but definitely an unhealthy source of cognitive distress.

idiotsecant 2mo ago
When the very first prokaryotic life forms saw the very first cells with mitochondria were they cognitively distressed? We face a similar phase change. In our lifetimes, probably.

ulfw 2mo ago

It's even the 'smaller' stuff that will be horrible. Even if you're lucky to be wealthy you'd be living in a city with fewer restaurants, bakeries, shops, anything. Because once a lot of people don't have income they won't be able to go out and buy things and shops will go out of business. It will also lead to a lot lot LOT LOT LOT more crime. I don't see the semi-wealthy to have an enjoyable life.