4 ms·

I agree, although this makes me think of the great number of people who have the potential to create value but cannot, because their ability to "do" is blocked.

by zoba 13y ago

I agree, although this makes me think of the great number of people who have the potential to create value but cannot, because their ability to "do" is blocked. Most people I know who cannot create value have an issue of time. Most everyone is locked into their job with rent payments, student loans, and other debts. Its frustrating to see that those with wealth can also purchase time for themselves to use to get more wealth, while the majority of people are strapped in for the ride. Of course non-wealthy people can build things in the evenings and weekends, but, then they begin dealing with issues of stress and burnout. I'm glad YC helps to give folks a chance. I do think one of the less talked about benefits of a strong middle class and even wealth distribution is people have time/ability to innovate on their own.

natural219 13y ago
This is an incredibly important point. I think when people talk about "universal basic income", the traditional narrative concerns the social injustice of poverty, hunger, etc. For me, all I really want is the space to work on the projects I care about and learn the skills to let me accomplish my goals. For now, it looks like I'm going to be working for a while to pay off my student debt and save money before I can even dip my toes into working on something interesting.
- chii 13y ago
  I think the aristocratic wealthy (i.e., wealthy people who are wealthy because they use their wealth to make more wealth, not create value themselves) have created a societal structure where it's difficult to create a basic income scheme, both politically and logistically. The idea that people should be allowed to work on their own projects but is funded by "others" (say, via taxes) is made to look like leeching off the group. The benefits are, while still theoretical, never talked about. The value i see in a BI scheme is that the natural geniuses of the world gets to do what they are a genius at doing (e.g., somebody might be a really genius teacher), instead of doing the thing that earns maximal amount of money. I know somebody who is a great teacher, and he, at a great financial sacrifice, quit his job to be a teacher instead. He raised so many good students, which go on to bring priceless value to society, and yet the money he recieves is a pittance. He would've made at least a 6 figure income easily, working less hours had he remained in industry. some people might call me a communist, but i really do believe they had some good ideas about equality (just that i don't see a way of governing such that corruption and inequality doesn't proliferate...). Imagine a world where necessities of life is produced enmass by the government, in such a way that the cost is so low as to allow it to be provided to each citizen for free. Then BI would become possible. But i don't see it comeing any time soon.
  - mlvljr 13y ago
    +1 from the communists (if you don't mind that) :)

by zoba 13y ago

natural219 13y ago

This is an incredibly important point. I think when people talk about "universal basic income", the traditional narrative concerns the social injustice of poverty, hunger, etc. For me, all I really want is the space to work on the projects I care about and learn the skills to let me accomplish my goals. For now, it looks like I'm going to be working for a while to pay off my student debt and save money before I can even dip my toes into working on something interesting.

chii 13y ago
I think the aristocratic wealthy (i.e., wealthy people who are wealthy because they use their wealth to make more wealth, not create value themselves) have created a societal structure where it's difficult to create a basic income scheme, both politically and logistically. The idea that people should be allowed to work on their own projects but is funded by "others" (say, via taxes) is made to look like leeching off the group. The benefits are, while still theoretical, never talked about. The value i see in a BI scheme is that the natural geniuses of the world gets to do what they are a genius at doing (e.g., somebody might be a really genius teacher), instead of doing the thing that earns maximal amount of money. I know somebody who is a great teacher, and he, at a great financial sacrifice, quit his job to be a teacher instead. He raised so many good students, which go on to bring priceless value to society, and yet the money he recieves is a pittance. He would've made at least a 6 figure income easily, working less hours had he remained in industry. some people might call me a communist, but i really do believe they had some good ideas about equality (just that i don't see a way of governing such that corruption and inequality doesn't proliferate...). Imagine a world where necessities of life is produced enmass by the government, in such a way that the cost is so low as to allow it to be provided to each citizen for free. Then BI would become possible. But i don't see it comeing any time soon.
- mlvljr 13y ago
  +1 from the communists (if you don't mind that) :)