5 ms·

I can't see how paying citizens from age zero could possibly be a good idea. Either the government will have control on how that money can be spent (through reg

by rndmize 13y ago

I can't see how paying citizens from age zero could possibly be a good idea. Either the government will have control on how that money can be spent (through regulation or otherwise) or the parents will, and I wouldn't consider either case good. Requiring accreditation for services that can be bought with the kids money won't prevent people from corrupting or exploiting the system, only delay them. I also think that while basic income should only covers essentials initially, there's no reason not to increase it as our technology/efficiency/automation improves. This idea that "life needs to be basic and unsatisfying" - unless you work, is IMO not only one of the things basic income should be correcting; it also simply isn't effective. There's an infinity of entertainment out there now, for free, with nothing more than a computer and internet connection. So long as you can afford food to eat, a place to live and medical, I could see people living on only a little more comfortably. The strength of basic income is, I think, that even if you have a chunk of the population that become solely consumers, a large number of people are freed from working on what they're forced to and can work on what they're interested in. There much more space for creativity and failure in all media, in business, in startups. You could potentially accelerate your economic growth by a pretty large degree because it takes so little to get things going today. And the people that do get something going and succeed at scale don't need tens of thousands of other people working for them to grow to a massive level anymore. How many people worked at IBM when they reached a billion dollar valuation in today's dollars? MS? Google? Facebook? I'm going to take a guess and say it was significantly less people with each succeeding company, and that trend is far from over. Plain and simple, we no longer need the whole population working when people can multiply their capabilities with robots, automation, frameworks, search functions, etc.

sjwright 13y ago
There needs to be some incentive for tedious work to be done at a modest wage. Otherwise the supply of labor will crash through the floor. As for accreditation of services, I agree to a limited extent. Personally I think government should -- where possible -- get out of the business of service delivery and focus on accreditation. The idea of a government selling pizza is absurd, but so is the idea of a government allowing a disgusting rat infested kitchen to sell pizza to the public. We effectively accredit vendors to sell food. The same model should work for education -- set minimum standards for everyone, then let the market decide.
- nzp 13y ago
  > There needs to be some incentive for tedious work to be done at a modest wage. Otherwise the supply of labor will crash through the floor. Of human labor, yes, but fortunately we have machines and computers... And that's exactly the point. Forcing people to do things machines can do is one of the most irrational and sadistic aspects of modern civilization. The principal reason we have such a situation is the absence of basic income, or some equivalent that would eliminate the need for wage slavery in exchange for bare survival. For all other kinds of work, if it really is something humans are necessary for, people will do it because it means it's interesting (or necessary, and I think jobs which are impossible, at the moment, to automate and necessary and completely uninteresting to anybody are so few that there will never be shortage of labor). EDIT: grammar.
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something? I love science and have never come to these kinds of views but its hard me to find that exact common reason where this view comes from. So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machine that could do the work? Torturing people is sadistic, paying people to work is not. On the one hand we have some strange indignation that seems to be rooted in the idea that we no longer have scarcity or something another. The other seems to be, ironically, a lack of realization of where technology is currently at; it is little more than a promissory note, Kurzweil notwithstanding.
    - nzp 13y ago
      > This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something?This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something? Probably because HN audience tends to be less bound by conventional wisdom and all kinds of irrationality. As far as politics go, I'm anarcho-communist (thus anti-capitalist), but on HN I often find comments (although this account is just a few days old, I've been reading HN for years) on economic and political issues from people who are very pro-capitalist with which I can agree (although we would probably disagree on motives and goals). For example in this discussion. It's very hard to find this in general population. > So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machine that could do the work? Torturing people is sadistic, paying people to work is not. This is a strawman. First, I did not say it's the most sadistic thing imaginable. But yes, it is sadistic because that kind of work typically brings significant distress and because it's unnecessary. It doesn't matter how good or bad the wage is. This kind of dreadful work ties a person's mental and physical potential which could be otherwise used to add great value to society and the individual. Having a base income would efficiently untie a lot of reasons for this deadlock which is overwhelmingly of political nature. Do I think it's likely to happen, even though it's stupid and harmful not to? No, but why would that stop me from contemplating it and doing whatever I can to help bring about some change? > On the one hand we have some strange indignation that seems to be rooted in the idea that we no longer have scarcity or something another. We don't have scarcity in a lot of areas. The problem lies in not having political will to rationally distribute unscarce resources. > The other seems to be, ironically, a lack of realization of where technology is currently at It is certainly at a sufficient level to eliminate a huge number of distressful jobs. That it can't, at this moment, eliminate all such jobs is no reason to dismiss possible solutions. From a slightly different technological domain: just because not all long haul travel is via space, doesn't mean we should dismiss all other forms of transport and just stay put until space planes become reality.

by rndmize 13y ago

sjwright 13y ago

There needs to be some incentive for tedious work to be done at a modest wage. Otherwise the supply of labor will crash through the floor. As for accreditation of services, I agree to a limited extent. Personally I think government should -- where possible -- get out of the business of service delivery and focus on accreditation. The idea of a government selling pizza is absurd, but so is the idea of a government allowing a disgusting rat infested kitchen to sell pizza to the public. We effectively accredit vendors to sell food. The same model should work for education -- set minimum standards for everyone, then let the market decide.

nzp 13y ago
> There needs to be some incentive for tedious work to be done at a modest wage. Otherwise the supply of labor will crash through the floor. Of human labor, yes, but fortunately we have machines and computers... And that's exactly the point. Forcing people to do things machines can do is one of the most irrational and sadistic aspects of modern civilization. The principal reason we have such a situation is the absence of basic income, or some equivalent that would eliminate the need for wage slavery in exchange for bare survival. For all other kinds of work, if it really is something humans are necessary for, people will do it because it means it's interesting (or necessary, and I think jobs which are impossible, at the moment, to automate and necessary and completely uninteresting to anybody are so few that there will never be shortage of labor). EDIT: grammar.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something? I love science and have never come to these kinds of views but its hard me to find that exact common reason where this view comes from. So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machine that could do the work? Torturing people is sadistic, paying people to work is not. On the one hand we have some strange indignation that seems to be rooted in the idea that we no longer have scarcity or something another. The other seems to be, ironically, a lack of realization of where technology is currently at; it is little more than a promissory note, Kurzweil notwithstanding.
  - nzp 13y ago
    > This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something?This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something? Probably because HN audience tends to be less bound by conventional wisdom and all kinds of irrationality. As far as politics go, I'm anarcho-communist (thus anti-capitalist), but on HN I often find comments (although this account is just a few days old, I've been reading HN for years) on economic and political issues from people who are very pro-capitalist with which I can agree (although we would probably disagree on motives and goals). For example in this discussion. It's very hard to find this in general population. > So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machine that could do the work? Torturing people is sadistic, paying people to work is not. This is a strawman. First, I did not say it's the most sadistic thing imaginable. But yes, it is sadistic because that kind of work typically brings significant distress and because it's unnecessary. It doesn't matter how good or bad the wage is. This kind of dreadful work ties a person's mental and physical potential which could be otherwise used to add great value to society and the individual. Having a base income would efficiently untie a lot of reasons for this deadlock which is overwhelmingly of political nature. Do I think it's likely to happen, even though it's stupid and harmful not to? No, but why would that stop me from contemplating it and doing whatever I can to help bring about some change? > On the one hand we have some strange indignation that seems to be rooted in the idea that we no longer have scarcity or something another. We don't have scarcity in a lot of areas. The problem lies in not having political will to rationally distribute unscarce resources. > The other seems to be, ironically, a lack of realization of where technology is currently at It is certainly at a sufficient level to eliminate a huge number of distressful jobs. That it can't, at this moment, eliminate all such jobs is no reason to dismiss possible solutions. From a slightly different technological domain: just because not all long haul travel is via space, doesn't mean we should dismiss all other forms of transport and just stay put until space planes become reality.