we do not use money because it makes sense. money exists in the form it takes today because of human nature. we think someone has to earn their food. we think a homeless person deserves a handout because they look like they are at least trying to get on their feet (or not when they dont). machine intelligence is not the only problem that our wealth distribution system is facing. we have faced massive inequality before, and are facing it right now, and no solutions have been implemented. and like all the trials of equality before it, the automation of jobs will result in the smartest and fasted humans owning the vast majority of wealth and influence while the rest of us sit in mud.
The Future of Not Working
91–100 of 279 posts
Re: The Future of Not Working
#92It's interesting how this runs counter to the two dominant political ideologies in the US. Liberals believe that the poor are too dumb and helpless to figure out what they want, so the government should do it, both domestically and in foreign aid. Conservatives believe that the poor are poor because they are unintelligent and lack good values (or they are acting rationally in response to liberal welfare programs), an…
This program doesn't have an ideology I don't think nor does it make assumptions about people. Give people money and some will work on top of it to live higher, some will write a novel, some will devote themselves to building software. And yes some will sit around taking bong hits and eating Cheetos.
It does not matter to me as none of these is likely to hurt others. Where someone is using this money to hurt others we have laws as imperfect as they are. Humans will always be imperfect and society will always be imperfect as an understatement.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that is ultimately the idea but I guess I figured that the first stage of rolling something like this out would be to those near the edge and there's no shortage of those. My assumption is the money would be calibrated to subsistence level so it doesn't concern me that a hipster wants to do art instead of work for money. They'll have to live simply but god bless them if they want to paint in a shared house with…
So the first stage of testing a BI is to build a means tested program? Huh? The moral hazard of this doesn't concern me but maybe I'm misguided. vs That's a pretty cynical attitude...I doubt you're now gasping for air as you sink below the waves. I'm confused.
No i didn't say that was the first stage, I was assuming that they were going to test this with very poor people near the edge before they tested it with people higher up the income ladder. It's an assumption, possibly completely wrong.
The second statement about sinking beneath the waves was there are people who are starving right as we speak even here in the U.S.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#94The African people would me much better off if we would stop selling them weapons and would pay a fair price for their work and natural resources. But hey, that wouldn't be a great PR action making headlines!
Acting as you suggest and programs like this aren't mutually exclusive propositions. I doubt that the people backing this program are the same people selling arms to Africa.
So nobody should do anything unless they can also solve all problems? I actually upvoted your comment because I agree that those things should stop but I don't have the slightest bit of power to stop it and those who are conducting these sort of studies have more power than me but when put up against giant problems, it's at the margins. That is, they can't stop the arms trade either.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody can predict the future, I was just pontificating, BUT the US government (both parties) don't really work for the American people. I'm talking Congress and the House, the ones that have the real power. The US government was setup by elites for elites. Why do you think white, male landowners were the only ones who could vote? It's in our foundation and has only changed in brief periods. I think a living wage wil…
Why would they fight it if it was in their interest? The elites have an interest in stability. There would have to be some good marketing and some good direct sales to said elites but to me, it seems obvious that something will have to be done on this to preserve stability. Even an ice cold sociopath would want that, I would think unless these elites are a different species altogether. I doubt it.
For the same reason they fight it now, they don't like writing checks.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#96Here's how I think the only possible way this will ever be realized: A non-profit organization will have one of the highest (top 10 to pick an arbitrary number) net-worths of any company on earth.
like a government but with a single mission to administer this program. It could be a good idea. I don't know.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#97The article's title is misleading - it is not about not working, it's about giving money directly to poor villages for 12 years to provide what is similar to basic income but meeting fundamentally different needs in a very different part of the world. That said, I think it is a fascinating anthropological read. We often do not realize how many layers of wealth we had to stand on to possess our current wealth.
What's most fascinating to me is the dollar amount: $22/month ==> $264/year. It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. You don't have to be rich to cover one (or more) people's basic living expenses at this rate. Edit: Here's the link to donate: https://www.givedirectly.org/give-…
>It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year.
While the lifestyles of people in those countries probably are unfathomable to wealthy westerners, don't forget the cost of living is way lower too. Comparing the converted to dollars incomes is not enough to give one the right perspective on how much they can buy. On 264/year in the US one might literally starve to death; clearly the millions of citizens of those countries are not all starving to death. The cost of food, shelter, etc. are all lower in dollar terms in those countries. They are still impoverished in terms of material quality of life though, of course.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#98It's interesting how this runs counter to the two dominant political ideologies in the US. Liberals believe that the poor are too dumb and helpless to figure out what they want, so the government should do it, both domestically and in foreign aid. Conservatives believe that the poor are poor because they are unintelligent and lack good values (or they are acting rationally in response to liberal welfare programs), an…
I think it's important to realize that there are many causes of poverty, ranging from political to cultural to infrastructure to capital. What programs like GiveDirectly and the Grameen Bank's operations in Bangladesh are finding is that when the limiting factor is lack of money, giving people money helps, a lot.
There are other places in the world where the limiting factor is that if you give people money, some warlord will come in with guns and take it away. There are other places where if you give money, the local villagers will drink it away. There are still other places where you can give money and people will use it productively to grow more crops, and then the crops will rot in the fields because the transportation infrastructure to transport them to where they're needed doesn't exist.
In places like Kenya or Bangladesh where there is relatively peace, a relatively industrious culture, and the know-how to profitably invest capital, giving money helps. In other places - DRC for example, or rural Peru - the money just gets redistributed to people who will use it to keep the locals down.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#99> "The research wing of Sam Altman’s start-up incubator, Y Combinator, is planning to pass out money to 1,000 families in California and another yet-to-be-determined state." Oh, really? Where do we sign up? I'd love to be able to build my business(es) without taking investor funds.
[deleted]
Re: The Future of Not Working
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they fight it if it was in their interest? The elites have an interest in stability. There would have to be some good marketing and some good direct sales to said elites but to me, it seems obvious that something will have to be done on this to preserve stability. Even an ice cold sociopath would want that, I would think unless these elites are a different species altogether. I doubt it.
For the same reason they fight it now, they don't like writing checks.
Who fights what exactly? I'm not disagreeing I'm trying to understand.
And are elites just one monolith? I don't think that's how it is. I think every group in society has its cool people and its narrow-minded, greedy cretins. I doubt that there's a single entity called the elite that acts in concert after the annual meeting.