3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Florin_Andrei 13y ago
It will happen, eventually. It's either that, or some kind of Blade Runner dystopia. But the transition will not be easy. Massive upheavals might be lurking under horizon. The possibility of the transition is predicated, on the technical side, on massive advancements in AI and robotics.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
I would love to be able to hold my breath for that, but I somehow doubt that the direct result of the race for profit and monopoly will be gifts with no strings attached.
- swalsh 13y ago
  There's a few ways to view it. However I think between all the perspectives there's one central theme. A basic income is not a gift. It's kind of part of the unwritten deal no one has ever discussed. As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us. Humans have a knack though for really making use of our intelligence, and physical capabilities. We've engineered (hacked) the physical world to make our lives better. Doing that alone though is impossible, so we've engineered "society" to facilitate the process. When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started. What is more important, a persons right to work for stuff, or a persons right to more stuff? By allowing the mechanization of labor, we've implicitly chosen the later. Of course, it was easy to justify. There's always more work, so industrialization is ultimately a good thing. The worker would only be temporarily shifted anyways. There's a caveat to that though. When mechanization became intelligent mechanization (what I call having a Computer whether mechanical or digital control the process) the shifts started happening more frequently, and the replacement jobs became harder to obtain. I think ultimately this is the key point, as a society we LET mechanization happen, and ultimately it has taken us to a point where not everyone is CAPABLE of having a highly skilled job. There's ways to alleviate it, part of the problem is an outdated education system. Another part of the problem is probably cultural, there might be a lack of high skilled jobs too. None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
  - dfxm12 13y ago
    This assumes that everyone acts rationally and looks out for the best of society though. We're certainly not there now.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us I completely agree. What I need to be able to enjoy food more is not better food, but that nearly 1 billion people aren't undernourished [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation ]. However, I don't see that sentiment shared a lot. The world in large part seems to operate in slightly different principles. When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started. Very extreme exploitation started, and many people had to struggle and even risk their lives to change that from utter callousness to calculated and physically healthier exploitation. Now, corporate profits keep soaring, but they are accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, and today 40% of US workers earn less than 1968 minimum wage [ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-earn-less-1968-minimum-wage http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-e... ]. If capitalism became more humane because people applied pressure, why would it become even more humane when there is nobody left to apply any kind of pressure? Why is basic income a more likely outcome than, say, mass sterilization? Make me believe, I really want to. I could use some optimism but I'm all out.
  - eqdw 13y ago
    > None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago. I'm personally strongly in favour of basic income, but the two biggest arguments people give me are "How will we pay for it" and "why should we give money to people too lazy to work". Your final comment is how I defuse those, though I word it slightly differently. I say something along the following: "Computers and machines have obsoleted old jobs, and we as a society haven't found new ones for all these people yet. So, I don't know how much you know about history, but when you take a bunch of people, take away their money, and let them be bored all day... bad things happen. Don't think of it as a gift. Think of it as a tax that prevents revolution." I may have a little bit of a penchant for melodrama
protomyth 13y ago
Do you see a Guaranteed minimum income as a viable alternative? Do you consider basic income and guaranteed minimum income the same thing?
- unabridged 13y ago
  I think guaranteed minimum income creates worse incentives, everyone making under the limit would be persuaded to work less or work under the table. With basic income the incentive to make more still exists at all levels of income.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - protomyth 13y ago
    I can see that. I was thinking that some hybrid would be interesting since I am just not sure a basic income would actually be affordable. Something like everyone is guaranteed X and anyone working for Y subtracts Y/F from X where F is some factor (2 or 3 maybe). I get the feeling the "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."[1] might manifest. I do wonder[2] if something radical like takers of basic income cannot vote or serve jury duty might push people to work. 1) Benjamin Franklin 2) not advocating - this part violates some of my basic beliefs
- vegasje 13y ago
  As stated in the Wikipedia link, there is a very clear difference between basic income and guaranteed minimum income. Basic income is a supplement that is not reduced by any work income earned. A guaranteed minimum income promises a supplemental grant for only the difference between other income and the guarantee level.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Looks like I deleted the word "effectively" in front of "same thing". I wonder how much the difference matters.
redidas 13y ago
I don't know if I really like the idea of no-string-attached basic income. Wouldn't an alternative like a guaranteed public service job that then pays you with basic income be better? At least we'd be making society a better place while guaranteeing an income of some kind.
- xyzzyz 13y ago
  And how would you ensure that there are enough public service jobs? Machines will be better at most of them than men anyway, so why society should deal with subpar human results?

It will happen, eventually. It's either that, or some kind of Blade Runner dystopia. But the transition will not be easy. Massive upheavals might be lurking under horizon. The possibility of the transition is predicated, on the technical side, on massive advancements in AI and robotics.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

I would love to be able to hold my breath for that, but I somehow doubt that the direct result of the race for profit and monopoly will be gifts with no strings attached.

swalsh 13y ago
There's a few ways to view it. However I think between all the perspectives there's one central theme. A basic income is not a gift. It's kind of part of the unwritten deal no one has ever discussed. As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us. Humans have a knack though for really making use of our intelligence, and physical capabilities. We've engineered (hacked) the physical world to make our lives better. Doing that alone though is impossible, so we've engineered "society" to facilitate the process. When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started. What is more important, a persons right to work for stuff, or a persons right to more stuff? By allowing the mechanization of labor, we've implicitly chosen the later. Of course, it was easy to justify. There's always more work, so industrialization is ultimately a good thing. The worker would only be temporarily shifted anyways. There's a caveat to that though. When mechanization became intelligent mechanization (what I call having a Computer whether mechanical or digital control the process) the shifts started happening more frequently, and the replacement jobs became harder to obtain. I think ultimately this is the key point, as a society we LET mechanization happen, and ultimately it has taken us to a point where not everyone is CAPABLE of having a highly skilled job. There's ways to alleviate it, part of the problem is an outdated education system. Another part of the problem is probably cultural, there might be a lack of high skilled jobs too. None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
- dfxm12 13y ago
  This assumes that everyone acts rationally and looks out for the best of society though. We're certainly not there now.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us I completely agree. What I need to be able to enjoy food more is not better food, but that nearly 1 billion people aren't undernourished [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation ]. However, I don't see that sentiment shared a lot. The world in large part seems to operate in slightly different principles. When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started. Very extreme exploitation started, and many people had to struggle and even risk their lives to change that from utter callousness to calculated and physically healthier exploitation. Now, corporate profits keep soaring, but they are accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, and today 40% of US workers earn less than 1968 minimum wage [ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-earn-less-1968-minimum-wage http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-e... ]. If capitalism became more humane because people applied pressure, why would it become even more humane when there is nobody left to apply any kind of pressure? Why is basic income a more likely outcome than, say, mass sterilization? Make me believe, I really want to. I could use some optimism but I'm all out.
- eqdw 13y ago
  > None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago. I'm personally strongly in favour of basic income, but the two biggest arguments people give me are "How will we pay for it" and "why should we give money to people too lazy to work". Your final comment is how I defuse those, though I word it slightly differently. I say something along the following: "Computers and machines have obsoleted old jobs, and we as a society haven't found new ones for all these people yet. So, I don't know how much you know about history, but when you take a bunch of people, take away their money, and let them be bored all day... bad things happen. Don't think of it as a gift. Think of it as a tax that prevents revolution." I may have a little bit of a penchant for melodrama

protomyth 13y ago

Do you see a Guaranteed minimum income as a viable alternative? Do you consider basic income and guaranteed minimum income the same thing?

unabridged 13y ago
I think guaranteed minimum income creates worse incentives, everyone making under the limit would be persuaded to work less or work under the table. With basic income the incentive to make more still exists at all levels of income.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- protomyth 13y ago
  I can see that. I was thinking that some hybrid would be interesting since I am just not sure a basic income would actually be affordable. Something like everyone is guaranteed X and anyone working for Y subtracts Y/F from X where F is some factor (2 or 3 maybe). I get the feeling the "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."[1] might manifest. I do wonder[2] if something radical like takers of basic income cannot vote or serve jury duty might push people to work. 1) Benjamin Franklin 2) not advocating - this part violates some of my basic beliefs
vegasje 13y ago
As stated in the Wikipedia link, there is a very clear difference between basic income and guaranteed minimum income. Basic income is a supplement that is not reduced by any work income earned. A guaranteed minimum income promises a supplemental grant for only the difference between other income and the guarantee level.
- protomyth 13y ago
  Looks like I deleted the word "effectively" in front of "same thing". I wonder how much the difference matters.

redidas 13y ago

I don't know if I really like the idea of no-string-attached basic income. Wouldn't an alternative like a guaranteed public service job that then pays you with basic income be better? At least we'd be making society a better place while guaranteeing an income of some kind.

xyzzyz 13y ago
And how would you ensure that there are enough public service jobs? Machines will be better at most of them than men anyway, so why society should deal with subpar human results?