111–120 of 252 posts
Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them. All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122 million people owning smartphones in 2007 to 2.5 billion people owning them at the beginning of 2017 for example.
You'd prefer people being thrown in prison for refusing to surrender their private property rights, or for engaging in a voluntary economic interaction that some other party created a prohibition against?
Please help me understand your preference for authoritarian violence against peaceful people.
I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn't mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires…
Human desire may be infinite, but that doesn't mean there is an infinite source of jobs if we just try hard enough. Problem 1: the economic notion of value is weighted by wealth, but the notion of "human desire" you discuss is not. Entertaining a king is valuable, in the economic sense, but feeding and housing a poor is not. It doesn't matter if there are plenty of things that people want to be done, it matters if th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reasoning you're using is very flawed. Yes, we'll never get to a state where a small number end up with 100% of the wealth. Yes, there will be an equilibrium reached between the wealthy and the middle class. But this equilibrium point can shift more and more towards the wealthy. In fact, this has already been happening in the past few decades, as illustrated in books such as Capital. And as this equilibrium shift…
You want to thwart communism using UBI? That's like thwarting floodwater by calling your basement a swimming pool.
If income inequality and unemployment gets too great, maybe there's a phase transition. In that case, a little bit of communism could help alleviate the pressure.
Regardless of whether you believe it could actually work, it certainly means that it's not absurd to consider, at least not for the reasons you've stated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are ignoring some bad things that could come out of UBI. The greatest danger is that people may be comfortable near the BI level until they are about 30, and not really work or educate themselves much (lacking motivation). Then, they want to have a family, and all of a sudden their desires for consumption skyrocket. They can't just join the workforce then, because it will be 10 years before they advance e…
Ubi should never be about owning anything. It should be about providing housing, food, healthcare, clothes, and nothing more. It should be for all citizens, including children. This way you can have a family. But if you want a tv, phone, car, you're going to have to work. Since people are living to their 70s plus, lounging around isn't a big deal. I think you'll find people become very creative too, or focus on high…
A person receiving UBI who lived in San Francisco proper and got free housing would essentially get 5x - 10x effective benefit than someone living where rent is $500 / month. Cue the inevitable conflicts over who gets to live where, and caps on what level of UBI will be provided.
But conversely, if the UBI benefit were a fixed monetary amount, then you'd be consigning UBI beneficiaries to never live in an expensive area where urban professionals work, so you would create a geographical and social divide where UBI recipients are consigned to live in low-income slums.
I don't see any way to resolve these dilemmas that would make all people happy, unfortunately.
In other developed countries, I think universal basic income makes sense, but not in the case of India. India has several systemic problems and a significant portion of the population has little to no education. Any income that can sustain a household without any pressure to grow as people will probably hinder their progress more so than help them. For a country with no lack of problems to solve, they are much better…
Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them. All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122 million people owning smartphones in 2007 to 2.5 billion people owning them at the beginning of 2017 for example.
could you elaborate on how this is meant to be a response to my comment?
Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them. All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122 million people owning smartphones in 2007 to 2.5 billion people owning them at the beginning of 2017 for example.
I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn't mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires…
It is possible for a software engineer/lawyer/MBAs today to reduce the work week and live reasonable life, but as human desires are infinite we see them working a 90 hour week. So the smartest will keep working longer and harder to be richer, rest will start going out of work bottom to top
I love what I do and don't intend to stop anytime soon, but when the time comes that I do want to stop, I want to make sure there's more than ample money in the retirement and investment accounts to fund our lives post-career.
Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them. All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122 million people owning smartphones in 2007 to 2.5 billion people owning them at the beginning of 2017 for example.
The first neathenderals to figure out how to use tools didn't have property rights, but the tools still augmented them. We are not so different from them, and faced with an overwhelming opposing power, (tech + extreme wealth) we don't have much of a chance, either.
Moreover, it's not clear that your premise is accurate. Neanderthals constitute 3 percent of Eurasian human genes, meaning that their genes were evolutionarily successful (3% * 6 billion > 100% * 100,000), and this is ignoring the success of their close kin, with whom they already shared >99% genes.