My own private basic income
opendemocracy.net
My own private basic income
1–10 of 280 posts
Re: My own private basic income
#2So this is the part 2 to the "how to retire at 34" article from a few years back..
Re: My own private basic income
#3for the articles description: "how [the economy] rewards people who own stuff rather than people who do stuff"
i cant believe i never summarized my own feelings that succinctly. of course the reality is it does both, but i think its way out of balance towards ownership rather that doing.
Re: My own private basic income
#4On some level, this is basically "capitalism 101." If I don't need my resources now, I can put them to work so that I can later benefit from them. This leads to me having productive assets, which pay me some return.
If I could not acquire productive assets, there would be much less reason to save. And it's unclear how one would save, as banks would likely not exist either. You can solve this problem somewhat by having a centrally planned economy. But then you have the problems that hit those.
Re: My own private basic income
#5So this is the part 2 to the "how to retire at 34" article from a few years back..
Agree - seems to be a greatest hits of personal finance ideas with current buzzwords mixed in like "basic income" and "privilege" that aren't central to the post. Be a saver not a spender. Invest in things with strong cash flows relative to the purchase price. Use your personal connections, such as family members that can make good business partners. Take lucrative boring jobs if you can stomach them. Be lucky.
Re: My own private basic income
#6> I lucked into money.
The basic point is that he gets paid more whilst not doing more "work". For those whom "Work" is the only lever they use to convert into money, they see inequitable work:cash ratios as "unfair" (a morality statement).
Market economies do not function on work, but on value. He did the same work in a high value scenario. A glass of water provided in the middle of a developed city is worthless and thus free. A glass of water provided at the right time in a desert is invaluable and thus expensive.
My takeaway is this: Always meet the highest value need you can, and as well create additional value by helping others to meet higher values than they current do. Low placed people may not be able to "work" their way to upper echelons, but they can invent, intuit or otherwise create high value leverage of their's and others' work. I dont see it as unfair that a person making $1 a day is unlikely to become a deca-billionaire in their lifetime (total mobility); instead I want to ensure they have some mobility so that they can always better their situation, maybe by an arbitrarily selected 2x multiplier.
Re: My own private basic income
#7> I lucked into money. The basic point is that he gets paid more whilst not doing more "work". For those whom "Work" is the only lever they use to convert into money, they see inequitable work:cash ratios as "unfair" (a morality statement). Market economies do not function on work, but on value. He did the same work in a high value scenario. A glass of water provided in the middle of a developed city is worthless and…
> I dont see it as unfair that a person making $1 a day is unlikely to become a deca-billionaire in their lifetime (total mobility);
Do you see it as unfair that there are people stuck making $1 a day?
Re: My own private basic income
#8On some level, this is basically "capitalism 101." If I don't need my resources now, I can put them to work so that I can later benefit from them. This leads to me having productive assets, which pay me some return. If I could not acquire productive assets, there would be much less reason to save. And it's unclear how one would save, as banks would likely not exist either. You can solve this problem somewhat by havin…
The benefit of productive assets is that people who otherwise would not be able to produce high value outputs are stuck making lower value ones. By working with another's assets an individual can create more value than alone, and somehow split the difference with the asset owner. Workers maybe need to start to fight for a better split, but that is beyond the scope of this article.
Re: My own private basic income
#9> I lucked into money. The basic point is that he gets paid more whilst not doing more "work". For those whom "Work" is the only lever they use to convert into money, they see inequitable work:cash ratios as "unfair" (a morality statement). Market economies do not function on work, but on value. He did the same work in a high value scenario. A glass of water provided in the middle of a developed city is worthless and…
> I dont see it as unfair that a person making $1 a day is unlikely to become a deca-billionaire in their lifetime (total mobility); Do you see it as unfair that there are people stuck making $1 a day?
If they literally are "stuck" . Here we get into a nasty debate about spectrum of probability vs effort and the multipliers that should be reachable by end of life.
I definitely agree that a 0 probability despite maximum effort is unfair. In between is a grey area though.
Re: My own private basic income
#10> I lucked into money. The basic point is that he gets paid more whilst not doing more "work". For those whom "Work" is the only lever they use to convert into money, they see inequitable work:cash ratios as "unfair" (a morality statement). Market economies do not function on work, but on value. He did the same work in a high value scenario. A glass of water provided in the middle of a developed city is worthless and…
> I dont see it as unfair that a person making $1 a day is unlikely to become a deca-billionaire in their lifetime (total mobility); Do you see it as unfair that there are people stuck making $1 a day?
I think it depends. Is $1 enough to grant you housing, food, healthcare, and free time to see your family?