4 ms·

Paul Graham misses the mark here. I agree with him that it doesn't make sense to try to get rid of income inequality and that income inequality can actually be

by Suncho 13y ago

Paul Graham misses the mark here. I agree with him that it doesn't make sense to try to get rid of income inequality and that income inequality can actually be a positive driving force in the economy. However, it's possible to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, thereby making the poor richer, without preventing income inequality from continuing to increase. Just do it at a low enough rate. And it's not a good use of resources to "teach a man to fish" when "fishing" can be automated or there's not a specific demand for "fishermen." The jobs of tomorrow are becoming less and less definable in terms of the jobs and skills of today. We should be giving people incentive to stay out of the labor force and to spend their time how they want. Some people will stay home and play Xbox. Some will come up with awesome new jobs. Some will do amazing work that benefits humanity and which nobody would have ever thought to pay them for. But it's important to remember that keeping the lazy people out of the labor force decreases the level of incompetence in the labor force. Those Xbox people are staying out of the way of folks who actually want to get things done. Sometimes the best way to contribute to the economy is to stay out of it.

DanI-S 13y ago
He also attempts to justify the social implications of his position by saying that we can still have high levels of risk-taking and innovation but without suffering an oligarchy by severing the connection between wealth and power. This is a nice idea, but in reality the power that comes with wealth is an even greater motivator than the improved quality of life that comes with cash. He suggests that his motivation for becoming wealthy was increased security; well, what position is more secure than one of great power? There's no reason that removing the link between wealth and power would reduce motivation less than flattening top level income.
- Suncho 13y ago
  A guaranteed basic income can ensure that security is no longer a motivating factor for accumulating wealth. Wealth should be about power, and not about freedom. Everyone should have freedom. I doubt it's either possible or desirable to sever the connection between wealth and power.
marknutter 13y ago
But PG didn't write that essay in response to a basic income argument, he wrote specifically about the argument for eliminating income inequality. So yes, he missed the mark, but only because he wasn't trying to hit it in the first place. > The jobs of tomorrow are becoming less and less definable in terms of the jobs and skills of today. The jobs of tomorrow are no less definable than they were 50 or 100 years ago. It's always been anybody's guess what people will be doing for a living in the future. > We should be giving people incentive to stay out of the labor force and to spend their time how they want. Some people will stay home and play Xbox. Some will come up with awesome new jobs. Some will do amazing work that benefits humanity and which nobody would have ever thought to pay them for. This is very idealistic, but probably not realistic. Most people will stay home and consume entertainment. > But it's important to remember that keeping the lazy people out of the labor force decreases the level of incompetence in the labor force. Those Xbox people are staying out of the way of folks who actually want to get things done. Sometimes the best way to contribute to the economy is to stay out of it. Competence isn't always the main requirement for jobs. In fact, for most jobs, it ranks lower than punctuality, politeness, and consistency. If you effectively remove all the people who are not that competent but able to do jobs that don't require that much competence (manufacturing, food services, etc.) you decrease the available labor pool required to provide the goods and services people like spending their basic income on.
- Suncho 13y ago
  Most of the low-skilled jobs out there can be automated. And there are already more workers than there are jobs. A decrease in the size of the available labor pool sounds like just what the doctor ordered. The jobs of tomorrow are less definable than they were 50 or 100 years ago. And each tomorrow comes sooner than the last.
crassus 13y ago
What if competence is learned in the work force? Basic income decreases the competence of a civilization as a whole.
- Suncho 13y ago
  Competence at what though? How many Leonardo Da Vincis are being forced to try to be competent at flipping burgers? How many Albert Einsteins and Mozarts are pumping gas?

by Suncho 13y ago

DanI-S 13y ago

He also attempts to justify the social implications of his position by saying that we can still have high levels of risk-taking and innovation but without suffering an oligarchy by severing the connection between wealth and power. This is a nice idea, but in reality the power that comes with wealth is an even greater motivator than the improved quality of life that comes with cash. He suggests that his motivation for becoming wealthy was increased security; well, what position is more secure than one of great power? There's no reason that removing the link between wealth and power would reduce motivation less than flattening top level income.

Suncho 13y ago
A guaranteed basic income can ensure that security is no longer a motivating factor for accumulating wealth. Wealth should be about power, and not about freedom. Everyone should have freedom. I doubt it's either possible or desirable to sever the connection between wealth and power.

marknutter 13y ago

But PG didn't write that essay in response to a basic income argument, he wrote specifically about the argument for eliminating income inequality. So yes, he missed the mark, but only because he wasn't trying to hit it in the first place. > The jobs of tomorrow are becoming less and less definable in terms of the jobs and skills of today. The jobs of tomorrow are no less definable than they were 50 or 100 years ago. It's always been anybody's guess what people will be doing for a living in the future. > We should be giving people incentive to stay out of the labor force and to spend their time how they want. Some people will stay home and play Xbox. Some will come up with awesome new jobs. Some will do amazing work that benefits humanity and which nobody would have ever thought to pay them for. This is very idealistic, but probably not realistic. Most people will stay home and consume entertainment. > But it's important to remember that keeping the lazy people out of the labor force decreases the level of incompetence in the labor force. Those Xbox people are staying out of the way of folks who actually want to get things done. Sometimes the best way to contribute to the economy is to stay out of it. Competence isn't always the main requirement for jobs. In fact, for most jobs, it ranks lower than punctuality, politeness, and consistency. If you effectively remove all the people who are not that competent but able to do jobs that don't require that much competence (manufacturing, food services, etc.) you decrease the available labor pool required to provide the goods and services people like spending their basic income on.

Suncho 13y ago
Most of the low-skilled jobs out there can be automated. And there are already more workers than there are jobs. A decrease in the size of the available labor pool sounds like just what the doctor ordered. The jobs of tomorrow are less definable than they were 50 or 100 years ago. And each tomorrow comes sooner than the last.

crassus 13y ago

What if competence is learned in the work force? Basic income decreases the competence of a civilization as a whole.

Suncho 13y ago
Competence at what though? How many Leonardo Da Vincis are being forced to try to be competent at flipping burgers? How many Albert Einsteins and Mozarts are pumping gas?