3 ms·

I think there is a much easier answer to this and that is a basic income.

by kapnobatairza 12y ago

corv 12y ago
How so? If you give everyone money you'll only shift prices upwards.
- AndrewDucker 12y ago
  Not if you shift the taxes around so that, on average, the amount of money in the system remains similar.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Not necessarily. Prices might rise because minimum wage labor gets more expensive (competing with BI) but excess profits will get sucked out of the system fast by competition.
- _ak 12y ago
  You're not thinking in the grand scheme. The shift from full employment towards (idealistically) full automation requires drastic paradigm shifts in how we view economics. Just try to contemplate this question: what would a society, an economy look like if everyone was provided with everything for their basic needs, like a house or a flat, food and an "allowance" to participate in social activity, people could still be able to choose to work if they wanted to, but not working would not be frowned upon? How would this society develop, what would people do because they can do what they please all day, what would the influence on society's creativity and inventiveness be? "Basic income would negatively affect our current economic system" is not the right answer to that question. Automation will not become less, full employment will be less and less feasible, so answering these questions will be inevitable.
  - estebank 12y ago
    I mostly agree with you, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind: 1) With full automation, scarcity is pushed down, availability up, cost down, so price necessarily is pushed down. 2) Companies have a tendency of trying to avoid killing the golden eggs goose, and decreasing prices by higher availability is usually frowned upon by the people making the money, understandably so, I might add. It's perfectly rational, it just sucks for everyone else. Just look at the history of the music, books and movie/TV entertainment industries. 3) The road from "here" to "there" is going to be necessarily tumultuous, no matter what, precisely because of 2). I'm sure we'll get that omelette, but eggs on every side will be broken. 4) There is a sizable percent of the population (let's say 10%, pulling it from my backside) that have not found any artistic, professional or personal aspirations, regardless of social class. It might sound like I'm dissing "those" people, but I'm not. People are wired differently, and just in the same way a Linux user doesn't understand why somebody would be a VB.Net developer, or a programmer why anyone would be a lawyer, that doesn't mean those people are lesser in any way, they just have different interests and motivations. The increase in "leisure time" should be accompanied by an increase in availability and promotion of "entertainment" (I believe "pursuits" would be a better word) of many different kinds, to have a higher chance of people actually finding what does drive them.
  - saalweachter 12y ago
    I think there are at least three answers to the problem. 1. Basic income. Redistribute wealth, since enough wealth is produced, it just isn't available to everyone. 2. Force everyone to work less (for more money). If you lower the maximum number number of hours people are allowed to work, more people will need to be employed to do the same amount of work. You would probably need to accompany this by an increase in minimum wage. 3. We could all do more. Government could take a more active roll in back-filling demand. If we decided to employ a million more doctors, or revamp the entire power grid, or build a Moon base, or colonize Mars, or move Mars into orbit around Venus, or accelerate Venus's rotation to support colonization, we could easily achieve full employment.
- collyw 12y ago
  Whereas you give it to bankers, they pump up asset price bubbles and shift prices upwards.
RivieraKid 12y ago
Why? Basic income is a different way of redistributing, it doesn't imply more redistributing. How is basic income better than the current system? Note that unemployed people get money today, at least in (most of?) Europe.
- gabzuka 12y ago
  In a few countries they will give you a flat fee as long as you are unemployed (UK) but in others it's linked to your previous salary and only for a short time (Spain and Germany). Others I don't know much about.
  - rasur 12y ago
    Switzerland too. (~80% previous salary)
  - RivieraKid 12y ago
    > but in others it's linked to your previous salary and only for a short time (Spain and Germany) That's the unemployment benefit but if / after you're not entitled to that, you get different benefits. In Germany it's 382 EUR + housing and healthcare expenses according to wiki.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

I think there is a much easier answer to this and that is a basic income.

corv 12y ago

How so? If you give everyone money you'll only shift prices upwards.

AndrewDucker 12y ago
Not if you shift the taxes around so that, on average, the amount of money in the system remains similar.
jiggy2011 12y ago
Not necessarily. Prices might rise because minimum wage labor gets more expensive (competing with BI) but excess profits will get sucked out of the system fast by competition.
_ak 12y ago
You're not thinking in the grand scheme. The shift from full employment towards (idealistically) full automation requires drastic paradigm shifts in how we view economics. Just try to contemplate this question: what would a society, an economy look like if everyone was provided with everything for their basic needs, like a house or a flat, food and an "allowance" to participate in social activity, people could still be able to choose to work if they wanted to, but not working would not be frowned upon? How would this society develop, what would people do because they can do what they please all day, what would the influence on society's creativity and inventiveness be? "Basic income would negatively affect our current economic system" is not the right answer to that question. Automation will not become less, full employment will be less and less feasible, so answering these questions will be inevitable.
- estebank 12y ago
  I mostly agree with you, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind: 1) With full automation, scarcity is pushed down, availability up, cost down, so price necessarily is pushed down. 2) Companies have a tendency of trying to avoid killing the golden eggs goose, and decreasing prices by higher availability is usually frowned upon by the people making the money, understandably so, I might add. It's perfectly rational, it just sucks for everyone else. Just look at the history of the music, books and movie/TV entertainment industries. 3) The road from "here" to "there" is going to be necessarily tumultuous, no matter what, precisely because of 2). I'm sure we'll get that omelette, but eggs on every side will be broken. 4) There is a sizable percent of the population (let's say 10%, pulling it from my backside) that have not found any artistic, professional or personal aspirations, regardless of social class. It might sound like I'm dissing "those" people, but I'm not. People are wired differently, and just in the same way a Linux user doesn't understand why somebody would be a VB.Net developer, or a programmer why anyone would be a lawyer, that doesn't mean those people are lesser in any way, they just have different interests and motivations. The increase in "leisure time" should be accompanied by an increase in availability and promotion of "entertainment" (I believe "pursuits" would be a better word) of many different kinds, to have a higher chance of people actually finding what does drive them.
- saalweachter 12y ago
  I think there are at least three answers to the problem. 1. Basic income. Redistribute wealth, since enough wealth is produced, it just isn't available to everyone. 2. Force everyone to work less (for more money). If you lower the maximum number number of hours people are allowed to work, more people will need to be employed to do the same amount of work. You would probably need to accompany this by an increase in minimum wage. 3. We could all do more. Government could take a more active roll in back-filling demand. If we decided to employ a million more doctors, or revamp the entire power grid, or build a Moon base, or colonize Mars, or move Mars into orbit around Venus, or accelerate Venus's rotation to support colonization, we could easily achieve full employment.
collyw 12y ago
Whereas you give it to bankers, they pump up asset price bubbles and shift prices upwards.

RivieraKid 12y ago

Why? Basic income is a different way of redistributing, it doesn't imply more redistributing. How is basic income better than the current system? Note that unemployed people get money today, at least in (most of?) Europe.

gabzuka 12y ago
In a few countries they will give you a flat fee as long as you are unemployed (UK) but in others it's linked to your previous salary and only for a short time (Spain and Germany). Others I don't know much about.
- rasur 12y ago
  Switzerland too. (~80% previous salary)
- RivieraKid 12y ago
  > but in others it's linked to your previous salary and only for a short time (Spain and Germany) That's the unemployment benefit but if / after you're not entitled to that, you get different benefits. In Germany it's 382 EUR + housing and healthcare expenses according to wiki.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]