5 ms·

This article argues that with a fraction of total GDP you could cycle back that productivity into BI. That means, even indirectly, most of us enable poverty by

by zanny 13y ago

This article argues that with a fraction of total GDP you could cycle back that productivity into BI. That means, even indirectly, most of us enable poverty by the way we spend our money and the way we engage with charity. If you buy a lot of stuff at wal-mart, you promote sub-living wage income in most places for the clerks, because wal-mart (and the market at large) doesn't value their labor at what it would cost to survive, they just go with the state mandated minimum they can't violate. It isn't something one person can change. Hence why it seems futile to try to moitivate individual behavior to cause a universal change that is inherently counter to the benefit of those with the resources to fix the problem - even if you don't forcibly take the money, if enough charity was going on to uplift the impoverished from poverty, there would be much lower than 15% poverty. Therefor, the market as is doesn't provide an uplifting effect, espeecially if poverty is getting worse (post recession).

pdonis 13y ago
wal-mart (and the market at large) doesn't value their labor at what it would cost to survive You're assuming that wal-mart (and the market at large) values their labor incorrectly. What if that assumption is wrong? I.e., what if the actual value of their labor is lower than what it would cost to survive? I know that sounds harsh, but that doesn't mean it has to be wrong. I don't see any reason why every job must automatically be worth enough, in actual value added, to support the person doing it. (For one thing, many jobs at the low end of the wage scale are not intended for people who have to support themselves. When I worked jobs in high school and college, I was being supported by my parents and financial aid; the money I earned went towards luxuries and savings, not my support.) if enough charity was going on to uplift the impoverished from poverty, there would be much lower than 15% poverty Maybe for a short time. But here's what I expect would happen if widespread "charity" in the form of BI or something like it were instituted: within a year or two, there would be a significant percentage of people who were squandering their BI ($10K a year or whatever) on anything from junk food to lottery tickets to drugs, and who were therefore still in poverty, despite receiving BI. Then the news stories start on how you can't fix fundamental problems in society by just handing people money: you have to teach them how to handle it, what to do with it, etc., etc. Then the government gets pressured to offer "life coaching" and other services along with BI. Then we end up with all the same bloated government bureaucracy we have now, plus the extra expenditure of BI.
- zanny 13y ago
  For the former, that is what I meant. There is no protection to uplift you from poverty if the value of flesh bodies performing unskilled tasks isn't worth what it costs to keep you alive. That is why wal-mart employees are given food stamps applications when they are hired, it is also why upward mobility at the bottom is nearly impossible - if you make 10% more, you get 30% less resources because of tiered or biased welfare programs that cut you off at fixed intervals. It demonstrates that situational targeted welfare seems to trend towards exploitation by either side of the aisle when possible. On the second - that is an education problem. It wouldn't solve itself in the short term, but I imagine culturally wasting that money and remaining homeless will be less prominent over time. Right now, there is a hyper-consumerist culture of spending everything you have and then some on immediate pleasure, which isn't sustainable regardless of what fiscal organizing of society you have. You can't fix fundamental problems with aid - which is just short term gifts. BI would be a raw wealth redistribution with no addons or exceptions, you just implment, say, a 10% exchange tax on all monetary transactions, and divide the proceeds amongst everyone. The poor pay less, the rich pay more, but it isn't a situational game of "for 3 years, we will provide X resource to impoverished people Y". It is bigger than that. I'd argue it is probably the best way to simultaneously have socialism and capitalism - if everyones basic needs are taken care of, you eliminate the worst part of capitalism - needs based wage exploitation - but you also eliminate the worst part of socialism, because the means of production are still in the hands of those who play the game (or their descendents, but I won't go on a bender about the absurdity of inheritance here). It enables massive deregulation because you don't have to fear exploitation of the workforce if people are employed to meet their wants and not their needs.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    There is no protection to uplift you from poverty if the value of flesh bodies performing unskilled tasks isn't worth what it costs to keep you alive. And how does BI fix this? Now instead of paying people for doing less work than it costs to keep them alive, you're paying people for doing no work. That makes the problem worse, not better. The only way to fix this problem is to have the people do more valuable tasks, so that what they are doing actually is worth more, and therefore merits higher pay. BI does nothing towards achieving that, and in fact probably does the opposite, on net. you don't have to fear exploitation of the workforce if people are employed to meet their wants and not their needs This is a serious misstatement, because if there are people who are creating less value than they are receiving in BI (which is what your statements imply), there must also be people who are creating more value than they are receiving through BI. That must be true because, for BI to work at all, the total value being created must be at least as much as the value of BI for one person times the number of people in the society. Otherwise the whole system doesn't work, because there isn't enough value being created to fund it. So consider the position of a person who is creating more value than the value of BI per person, and then sees a significant portion of that value taken away from him and given to people who are creating less value than the value of BI per person. Why, exactly, would that person not have a strong incentive to either (a) create less value, since it's not going to him anyway; or (b) figure out a way to game the system so it seems like he's creating less value than he actually is, and pocketing the difference--i.e., exploiting the people who are creating less value than he is? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would not choose (a) or (b) in this situation; but I think there are also plenty who would. And it wouldn't take too many of them to destroy the system.

by zanny 13y ago

pdonis 13y ago

wal-mart (and the market at large) doesn't value their labor at what it would cost to survive You're assuming that wal-mart (and the market at large) values their labor incorrectly. What if that assumption is wrong? I.e., what if the actual value of their labor is lower than what it would cost to survive? I know that sounds harsh, but that doesn't mean it has to be wrong. I don't see any reason why every job must automatically be worth enough, in actual value added, to support the person doing it. (For one thing, many jobs at the low end of the wage scale are not intended for people who have to support themselves. When I worked jobs in high school and college, I was being supported by my parents and financial aid; the money I earned went towards luxuries and savings, not my support.) if enough charity was going on to uplift the impoverished from poverty, there would be much lower than 15% poverty Maybe for a short time. But here's what I expect would happen if widespread "charity" in the form of BI or something like it were instituted: within a year or two, there would be a significant percentage of people who were squandering their BI ($10K a year or whatever) on anything from junk food to lottery tickets to drugs, and who were therefore still in poverty, despite receiving BI. Then the news stories start on how you can't fix fundamental problems in society by just handing people money: you have to teach them how to handle it, what to do with it, etc., etc. Then the government gets pressured to offer "life coaching" and other services along with BI. Then we end up with all the same bloated government bureaucracy we have now, plus the extra expenditure of BI.

zanny 13y ago
For the former, that is what I meant. There is no protection to uplift you from poverty if the value of flesh bodies performing unskilled tasks isn't worth what it costs to keep you alive. That is why wal-mart employees are given food stamps applications when they are hired, it is also why upward mobility at the bottom is nearly impossible - if you make 10% more, you get 30% less resources because of tiered or biased welfare programs that cut you off at fixed intervals. It demonstrates that situational targeted welfare seems to trend towards exploitation by either side of the aisle when possible. On the second - that is an education problem. It wouldn't solve itself in the short term, but I imagine culturally wasting that money and remaining homeless will be less prominent over time. Right now, there is a hyper-consumerist culture of spending everything you have and then some on immediate pleasure, which isn't sustainable regardless of what fiscal organizing of society you have. You can't fix fundamental problems with aid - which is just short term gifts. BI would be a raw wealth redistribution with no addons or exceptions, you just implment, say, a 10% exchange tax on all monetary transactions, and divide the proceeds amongst everyone. The poor pay less, the rich pay more, but it isn't a situational game of "for 3 years, we will provide X resource to impoverished people Y". It is bigger than that. I'd argue it is probably the best way to simultaneously have socialism and capitalism - if everyones basic needs are taken care of, you eliminate the worst part of capitalism - needs based wage exploitation - but you also eliminate the worst part of socialism, because the means of production are still in the hands of those who play the game (or their descendents, but I won't go on a bender about the absurdity of inheritance here). It enables massive deregulation because you don't have to fear exploitation of the workforce if people are employed to meet their wants and not their needs.
- pdonis 13y ago
  There is no protection to uplift you from poverty if the value of flesh bodies performing unskilled tasks isn't worth what it costs to keep you alive. And how does BI fix this? Now instead of paying people for doing less work than it costs to keep them alive, you're paying people for doing no work. That makes the problem worse, not better. The only way to fix this problem is to have the people do more valuable tasks, so that what they are doing actually is worth more, and therefore merits higher pay. BI does nothing towards achieving that, and in fact probably does the opposite, on net. you don't have to fear exploitation of the workforce if people are employed to meet their wants and not their needs This is a serious misstatement, because if there are people who are creating less value than they are receiving in BI (which is what your statements imply), there must also be people who are creating more value than they are receiving through BI. That must be true because, for BI to work at all, the total value being created must be at least as much as the value of BI for one person times the number of people in the society. Otherwise the whole system doesn't work, because there isn't enough value being created to fund it. So consider the position of a person who is creating more value than the value of BI per person, and then sees a significant portion of that value taken away from him and given to people who are creating less value than the value of BI per person. Why, exactly, would that person not have a strong incentive to either (a) create less value, since it's not going to him anyway; or (b) figure out a way to game the system so it seems like he's creating less value than he actually is, and pocketing the difference--i.e., exploiting the people who are creating less value than he is? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would not choose (a) or (b) in this situation; but I think there are also plenty who would. And it wouldn't take too many of them to destroy the system.