5 ms·

The advocates of basic income are almost right on this issue. If it were the case that we have a large surplus of labor, and there was not enough work for peop

The advocates of basic income are almost right on this issue. If it were the case that we have a large surplus of labor, and there was not enough work for people to do, then it would make a lot of sense to have a basic income, which would be the most efficient way to deal with technological unemployment. However, right now, we really don't have a surplus of labor. If we did, then the average standard of living would be really high. In order to raise the standard of living of people around the world, people need to produce things, which requires work. That fact that we cannot provide a high enough average standard of living even when the incentive to work is very high, proves that drastically lowering the incentive to work would not provide a sufficient standard of living.

cookingrobot 13y ago
You seem to be arguing as if "surplus of labour" means that as a whole the world has enough good stuff, and having more people work won't add value. What it actually means is that there are people who want more good stuff, and are even willing to do work to get it - but that's not an option for them because there are no jobs available. It's the sad state of people not being organized to work to provide their own needs - and it's caused by wealth being so concentrated in the smallest group at the top that economic activity is frozen for everyone else. A basic income would take wealth away from the few who have more than enough, and thaw out economic activity for everyone else. Poor people would be able to spend, AND work because others are spending. All of this has nothing to do with robots. Except.. One of the fears of robotics is that they'll work so well that even more wealth will be concentrated to a few. Basic income is the antidote to that concern. In the long term it gets even better.. Eventually when robots are doing most of the work, a basic income will mean that work is optional for everyone, and people will do work they find meaningful instead of necessary, or will just spend time with their families.
- Uehreka 13y ago
  First off, you really need to add a disclaimer to this comment. As a cooking robot, your view is clearly biased. That said, I mostly agree with you. However I was mulling all this over last night, and I hit a snag: If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? Or is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services?
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    > Is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services? I believe the answer is a resounding "yes." However, that doesn't exclude the possibility of a tragedy of the commons, and we all know how good markets are at preventing those... > If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? It's still a problem if a sizable subset of people are unemployed and have no money or ability to get money. It's not terribly difficult to imagine a system with a underclass, a consumer class, and a "owner" class. Even if we automate manufacturing, the consumer class will include mercenaries of the literal or financial variety. In fact, I wonder if that's not precisely what Wall Street is.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  > A basic income would take wealth away from the few who have more than enough, and thaw out economic activity for everyone else. Poor people would be able to spend, AND work because others are spending. I feel like this is a crucial point that many people completely miss.
jjoonathan 13y ago
> right now, we really don't have a surplus of labor. If we did, then the average standard of living would be really high That doesn't follow. It's quite possible to simultaneously have 1. Capacity to produce plenty of available food, land, shelter, etc 2. Plenty of people willing to work for the food, land, and shelter 3. Lack of fed and sheltered people due to #2's labor having lower value than #1 There is no reason why the market determined value of labor (VOL) must exceed the market determined cost of living (COL). It happens. This is what people mean when they say that famine is a distribution problem, not a production problem. What they really mean is that it's an economic problem. Markets are entirely compatible with the notion of an underclass that cannot put food on the table, even amid abundance. Refer to the (e)book "Poverty and Famines" by Amartya Sen for examples and analysis. Exporting food while part of the populace starves isn't a stunt reserved for communist countries. Thought experiment: there's a village with 100 peasants and surrounding land capable of producing 100 units of food if tended to by 75 laborers. The landowner hires 75 laborers, providing them each with 1 unit of food in return (supply of labor exceeds demand, so he has all the bargaining power). He sells the remaining 23 units at market in the neighboring town. What do the 25 peasants that weren't needed do? Go to the neighboring town? What if nobody there is hiring either? > That fact that we cannot provide a high enough average standard of living even when the incentive to work is very high, proves that drastically lowering the incentive to work would not provide a sufficient standard of living. A high standard of living requires more than products of labor. Crucially, it requires control over resources. The market provides sufficient indirect control if VOL>COL. We can empirically and theoretically observe that that's not always the case.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  It is also possible that your local regulatory climate makes producing at COL impossible for nearly everyone. If you aren't allowed to do something profitable until you've done a great deal of unprofitable compliance work, you can't produce and so don't. In practice this simplifies to "men with guns won't let you earn enough to live" and it can sneak up on a society.
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
Suncho 13y ago
It's hard to believe that we have no surplus of labor when politicians are clamoring to create new jobs. What's wrong with wages as an incentive to work? Why should the government provide an additional incentive to work by depriving people of their basic needs?

cookingrobot 13y ago

You seem to be arguing as if "surplus of labour" means that as a whole the world has enough good stuff, and having more people work won't add value. What it actually means is that there are people who want more good stuff, and are even willing to do work to get it - but that's not an option for them because there are no jobs available. It's the sad state of people not being organized to work to provide their own needs - and it's caused by wealth being so concentrated in the smallest group at the top that economic activity is frozen for everyone else. A basic income would take wealth away from the few who have more than enough, and thaw out economic activity for everyone else. Poor people would be able to spend, AND work because others are spending. All of this has nothing to do with robots. Except.. One of the fears of robotics is that they'll work so well that even more wealth will be concentrated to a few. Basic income is the antidote to that concern. In the long term it gets even better.. Eventually when robots are doing most of the work, a basic income will mean that work is optional for everyone, and people will do work they find meaningful instead of necessary, or will just spend time with their families.

Uehreka 13y ago
First off, you really need to add a disclaimer to this comment. As a cooking robot, your view is clearly biased. That said, I mostly agree with you. However I was mulling all this over last night, and I hit a snag: If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? Or is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services?
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  > Is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services? I believe the answer is a resounding "yes." However, that doesn't exclude the possibility of a tragedy of the commons, and we all know how good markets are at preventing those... > If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? It's still a problem if a sizable subset of people are unemployed and have no money or ability to get money. It's not terribly difficult to imagine a system with a underclass, a consumer class, and a "owner" class. Even if we automate manufacturing, the consumer class will include mercenaries of the literal or financial variety. In fact, I wonder if that's not precisely what Wall Street is.
jjoonathan 13y ago
> A basic income would take wealth away from the few who have more than enough, and thaw out economic activity for everyone else. Poor people would be able to spend, AND work because others are spending. I feel like this is a crucial point that many people completely miss.

jjoonathan 13y ago

> right now, we really don't have a surplus of labor. If we did, then the average standard of living would be really high That doesn't follow. It's quite possible to simultaneously have 1. Capacity to produce plenty of available food, land, shelter, etc 2. Plenty of people willing to work for the food, land, and shelter 3. Lack of fed and sheltered people due to #2's labor having lower value than #1 There is no reason why the market determined value of labor (VOL) must exceed the market determined cost of living (COL). It happens. This is what people mean when they say that famine is a distribution problem, not a production problem. What they really mean is that it's an economic problem. Markets are entirely compatible with the notion of an underclass that cannot put food on the table, even amid abundance. Refer to the (e)book "Poverty and Famines" by Amartya Sen for examples and analysis. Exporting food while part of the populace starves isn't a stunt reserved for communist countries. Thought experiment: there's a village with 100 peasants and surrounding land capable of producing 100 units of food if tended to by 75 laborers. The landowner hires 75 laborers, providing them each with 1 unit of food in return (supply of labor exceeds demand, so he has all the bargaining power). He sells the remaining 23 units at market in the neighboring town. What do the 25 peasants that weren't needed do? Go to the neighboring town? What if nobody there is hiring either? > That fact that we cannot provide a high enough average standard of living even when the incentive to work is very high, proves that drastically lowering the incentive to work would not provide a sufficient standard of living. A high standard of living requires more than products of labor. Crucially, it requires control over resources. The market provides sufficient indirect control if VOL>COL. We can empirically and theoretically observe that that's not always the case.

noonespecial 13y ago
It is also possible that your local regulatory climate makes producing at COL impossible for nearly everyone. If you aren't allowed to do something profitable until you've done a great deal of unprofitable compliance work, you can't produce and so don't. In practice this simplifies to "men with guns won't let you earn enough to live" and it can sneak up on a society.
- jjoonathan 13y ago

Suncho 13y ago

It's hard to believe that we have no surplus of labor when politicians are clamoring to create new jobs. What's wrong with wages as an incentive to work? Why should the government provide an additional incentive to work by depriving people of their basic needs?