How am I in a bubble? You've got to be kidding me. I mean what you're suggesting is ludicrous idealism. You think everyone views work the same as you. I suppose you think everyone also shares the common HN view of a total lackl of interest in money for anything other than the most basic needs. If you believe this utter nonsense then you have not seen much of the world. I do not mindlessly ascribe my value system to t…
Show me where I said everyone! Now take your foot out of your mouth, learn to comprehend what you read and not put words in my mouth I didn't say, and act like an adult. Your rant has no connection to anything I actually said.
Obviously people proposing this aren't thinking it through or have no training in basic economics. Intuitively you can think of money as amount of labor that you owe from other human beings [1]. So let's say in some country you need minimum of $1000 /mo to satisfy your basic needs. What this means is that someone needs to grow your food, weave your cloths, run electricity plants etc and that amount of labor costs $10…
This argument assumes that the efficiency cannot be increased, and stays at X amount of "work" per human. Imagine if the basic income enabled large amount of people to try out different inventions, or perform research, such that it now takes only 1/2 X to produce food, where as before it was X. One way this could happen is that because labour costs increased, more automation is encouraged/deployed, and thus gain effi…
Sure, but we could also imagine a works with perpetual motion and infinite energy. Boy, this would be a great place to be. But I'm not sure what that has to do with reality. I don't want to rain on anyone's dreams ...
Obviously people proposing this aren't thinking it through or have no training in basic economics. Intuitively you can think of money as amount of labor that you owe from other human beings [1]. So let's say in some country you need minimum of $1000 /mo to satisfy your basic needs. What this means is that someone needs to grow your food, weave your cloths, run electricity plants etc and that amount of labor costs $10…
This argument assumes that the efficiency cannot be increased, and stays at X amount of "work" per human. Imagine if the basic income enabled large amount of people to try out different inventions, or perform research, such that it now takes only 1/2 X to produce food, where as before it was X. One way this could happen is that because labour costs increased, more automation is encouraged/deployed, and thus gain effi…
Sure, but we could also imagine a works with perpetual motion and infinite energy. Boy, this would be a great place to be. But I'm not sure what that has to do with reality. I don't want to rain on anyone's dreams ...
> One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income. I think that with basic income, this question would not make sense, and that's exactly the reason that I like the idea so much. The reason why people do boring, dirty and dangerous work for little money is that there are folks who have no skills that would enable them to get a more fulfill…
> the job market would probably flip: You would have to pay people very well for doing unpleasant work, and not so well for fulfilling jobs. Isn't that already the case? Boring jobs = accountant, lawyer, engineer (to most people), fun jobs = musician, actor, artist (again, to most people, or at least teenagers). I shudder to think what the median income is for those fun jobs.
The fun of law, engineering, and arts is a matter of taste. I am not sure if that applies to flipping burgers and delivering pizza. I know a lot of people developing software for free just for the fun of it. I doubt there would be that many people flipping burgers for free (or a very low salary) if there would be an unconditional basic income.
Economic question: won't this just eventually result in a rise in prices to reflect the fact that everyone has more money? I guess imported goods will remain about the same price, but things produced locally would almost definitely go up in price. If I knew all of my customers had $2500/month more, I'd raise prices.
yep. A pair of Levi's that are basically 250usd (200 chf) in Zurich are 25usd at Wall Mart in DC. I live in DC and used to work for Credit Suisse in Zurich. I take US any day. My wife's soccer mom car - Land Rover LR4 - is rich bankers car in Switzerland. It's a luxury to own any car in Switzerland. Of course they think that's progress for me that's regress.
You are mixing up what people can afford to what people think they need. It's a style your are criticizing. If anything Zurich has the highest frugality to wealth ratio on the planet, quite possibly.
> ou are mixing up what people can afford to what people think they need.
Last time I heard this in 1980s in Communistic Poland from Communistic Party Propaganda Minister Urban explaining to Polish people living under communistic rule why buses are better than cars. You just think you need a car, bus will do :-) Interestingly enough they (communist party) also used the argumentation of lack of private cars ownership as being beneficial to the natural environment.
I'm not confusing anything my friend. You are the one confused by marxist propaganda spread in Europe by people like its President ex-Maoist Barroso. This what I'm talking about is standard of living. I could care less about average income in Switzerland of 100k chf a year if it doesn't buy me a mortgage for a nice house and 2 new cars in the driveway. Enjoy your trains!
Obviously people proposing this aren't thinking it through or have no training in basic economics. Intuitively you can think of money as amount of labor that you owe from other human beings [1]. So let's say in some country you need minimum of $1000 /mo to satisfy your basic needs. What this means is that someone needs to grow your food, weave your cloths, run electricity plants etc and that amount of labor costs $10…
This point is also very important to understand for all those people whose primary life goal is to retire before 30s or gain "financial independence" so you never have to work again. When you are working, you are making your portion of human labor available in exchange for other people's labor who are working to get food on your table or build roads for you or design safety for your car and so on. When you get out of…
It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I agree. In order to work people are needed to drive the bus I take to work, make me coffee in Starbucks, make me lunch in McDonald's, clean and maintain the building I work in, etc. If I'm not working I don't need other people's human labour to do that, I can do those things myself. Ok you could argue that those people aren't needed for me to work, it is just the lifestyle I choose, but I think that is the point - most people who seek financial independence don't want to have the same lifestyle they currently have.
What problems does a $1 trillion military solve that a $200 billion military doesn't. I'd hazard a guess that a $200 billion military generates significant funding cuts above and beyond because it's a bit difficult to get into unilateral quagmires at that funding level.
The US military budget is probably not too high for the existing requirements of the US. The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world. The US military has additional moral obligations to minimize civilian casualties, as well as political obligations to minimize both time expenditure and friendly casualties. These requirements are historically unprecedented and contributes…
Not Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates have been to military service, this I think allowed them to develop their companies, what will happen in case of mandatory service?
You’re right on all points. Most people seem to get some enjoyment from what they do for work, or at least can find satisfaction in it at the end of the day. With a basic income, a person can worry less about making ends meet and more about doing what they want to do. In the short term, that might mean slacking off (and inflation)—but in the long term it seems like people would start being generally productive again,…
I think this is so disconnected from reality, though. It's posh and intellectual to think this way but its so not related to reality.
Maybe I understated the problems. Adding a basic income all at once would have extreme short-term effects on an economy, and that might continue for ten, twenty-odd years. But humans aren’t generally happy working as much as we do in agriculturalist societies. Long-term we have a chance to reduce the work level back to that of hunting and gathering, while preserving other benefits such as population stability in the face of natural disaster. Economy and ecology are inextricably linked. If a basic income stands to benefit us as a species, I’m willing to at least entertain the thought, despite the immediate drawbacks.
What problems does a $1 trillion military solve that a $200 billion military doesn't. I'd hazard a guess that a $200 billion military generates significant funding cuts above and beyond because it's a bit difficult to get into unilateral quagmires at that funding level.
The US military budget is probably not too high for the existing requirements of the US. The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world. The US military has additional moral obligations to minimize civilian casualties, as well as political obligations to minimize both time expenditure and friendly casualties. These requirements are historically unprecedented and contributes…
> The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world.
That in now way sounds like it requires the US to spend an extra 800 billion per year on its military.