Earlier quoted context omitted.
What those people will do that we can not create machines that do it cheaper, faster and better?
So these machines will spontaneously appear?
If we get there, machines will build them, obviously.
The indignity of no work
191–200 of 268 posts
Re: The indignity of no work
#192Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…
In this scenario, the government would need to use physical force to ensure transactions are conducted through the inflating currency rather than barter or gold or bitcoin or foreign currency, etc.
That's possible, sure, but I think it's very unlikely for purely structural reasons (the best kind IMO).
Because everyone will have this currency by default, natural market forces will causes businesses to want to sell things in that currency (people have it, and want to spend it).
The currency itself is stable (tied to GPD growth, not politician's whims).
Once some businesses decide to take it (and they will, see above), then those businesses getting that income will also spend it at other businesses who accept that income, making those businesses even more successful, causing other business to also accept the currency, and so on.
And remember: everyone has some of this currency. Who is going to have it, and not spend it? I'd venture to say the percent of people flushing their basic income down the toilet is in the low single digits at best.
It's a virtuous cycle, and no force should be needed to keep it going. Think about it: who in their right mind would move to another currency that wiped out their entire existing and future wealth? As another commenter pointed out, $11K a year is like having $500K in wealth paying out an annuity. Who would voluntarily give that up for some alternate currency that makes them poor?
Even today, look at how hard it is to modify a social welfare scheme. It's not because the government has guns and the desire to use them, it's because people really, really rely on social stability.
But yes, you're right of course: like all fiat money schemes, it only works because people want it to work. IMO people will want this to work, and furthermore: it's in each individual person's self-interest that it works.
Re: The indignity of no work
#193Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…
err.. your left wing viewpoints are showing..
have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems.
people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking.
but, the dynamics of pay may change to compensate for the amount of leverage we can get today in society
Re: The indignity of no work
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
So these machines will spontaneously appear?
If we get there, machines will build them, obviously.
I'm not sure if your comment is in jest. But in a world where machines are primary, the thinkers, the innovators, what use is this discussion at all?
Re: The indignity of no work
#195Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…
err.. your left wing viewpoints are showing.. have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems. people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking. but, the dynamics of pay may change to compensate for the amount of leverage we can get today in society
> people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking.
Completely agree. I think the dynamics of getting a basic income when everyone gets the basic income are different than when a subset of people are living off of the work of another subset of people, who don't benefit (in fact, are penalized).
In the scheme I proposed, no one is penalized for success, and no one is penalized for not wanting to participate in capitalism. Society is not penalized because capitalists are out there making additional wealth for themselves.
I really do think the non-initiation of force, the lack of penalties, and the universal equality changes the dynamics of social welfare programs for the better. It's very much like The Incredibles: when everyone is special, no one is.
I firmly believe that a universal basic income won't reduce the struggle in life, it just shifts it from the bottom of Maslow's chart up a level or two or three. I think we can all agree that's a good thing, no matter your political persuasion.
Re: The indignity of no work
#196Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…
Your idea is an interesting one. It's a radical change, and I don't have a clear sense of the unintended consequences.
This is entirely doable today, at a purely technical/administrative level.
Perhaps. But from a political standpoint, it's utopian and most unlikely in the near term.
Re: The indignity of no work
#197Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…
err.. your left wing viewpoints are showing.. have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems. people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking. but, the dynamics of pay may change to compensate for the amount of leverage we can get today in society
Forget causality, can you even show a meaningful positive correlation between welfare as % GDP and alcoholism or obesity? Are Moldova, the Czech Republic and Hungary hotbeds of welfare? How about Nauru, Barbados, or Belize?
If you can show the correlation, can you point me at meaningful evidence of causality?
Yeah... I didn't think so. But hey, have fun asserting those opinions as facts!
Re: The indignity of no work
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Means-testing is a wash on average, though: you keep the taxes of higher-income people lower, but then don't give them the cash payment. This works out better for very wealthy people (since tax rates are typically percentage-based, while the payout is a fixed number), but worse for lower-middle-class people, who get means-tested out of the payout but don't make enough to get much tax savings. There's some cross-over…
OK sure, but if you're going to that, and not eliminate (or reduce) any current gov't programs then you have to raise taxes. If you want't to give, say 10k to each american that's 3.1 Trillion dollars which is more than the US gov't raised in taxes last year. The math doesn't work.
Well, yeah, you'd raise taxes, to the point where it nets out on average. You raise everyone's taxes by $10k on average, and give everyone $10k. At the average income it's a wash. At the low end people were already getting welfare and not paying much in taxes, so it's a wash for them too. At the lower-middle-class to middle-class level it reduces the disincentive to work and makes people better off. The only people who really lose out are at the very top, people who make so much money that any percentage-based increase would swamp the fixed gains (which is why, I would guess, they oppose it).
Re: The indignity of no work
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, now I am 100% that you're just trolling indiscriminately. There have been at least a couple real-world experiments done, have you even had the decency to look it up on Google? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=basic+income+experiment
He's not trolling. Really it doesn't work and the math is simple. There are ~310M Americans. To give them even 10k each per year that's 3.1 Trillion which is more that the US gov't collected in taxes last year.
Warning: back of the envelope calculations ahead
You're forgetting the fact that a basic income would obviate all means-based welfare programs, unemployment insurance, social security, etc; this means 2.3 TRILLION dollars (1.03T from means-based welfare programs and 1.3T from SS) in savings. Also, it would be enormously strange if we gave a full basic income to every infant, toddler, child and teen in the United States. It seems pretty obvious that kids would count as an adjustment to your received basic income that's I'm not saying the math WILL definitely work out, because I don't know what the basic-income figure would actually be (especially given C-o-L differences), but there's enough extreme inaccuracies in the bound you're giving that it's not really useful.
Re: The indignity of no work
#200Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…
Your idea is an interesting one. It's a radical change, and I don't have a clear sense of the unintended consequences. This is entirely doable today, at a purely technical/administrative level. Perhaps. But from a political standpoint, it's utopian and most unlikely in the near term.
> Perhaps. But from a political standpoint, it's utopian and most unlikely in the near term.
What's stopping us?