Comment by pw0ncakes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pw0ncakes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Is there some sort of digital welfare that we need to set up? Is the fact that non-agile workers can always fall back on retail jobs good enough?

First step, since we'll need to go there anyway: half of all economic growth goes into a basic income fund that everyone gets; no strings, no questions, given to rich and poor alike. Asymptotically, this means that no one will have less than a 1/2N share. Eventually, we'll be able to get rid of other entitlement programs once this basic income fund is sufficient to eliminate poverty.

We're destined for sub-20% employment* in 50-200 years. The best we'll be able to achieve is a state where most of those who are unemployed are studying up for their next career. This eliminates the "fall behind" problem. People fall behind today because they still have to work when they do, often in more taxing jobs than we work (retail sucks). So they have no energy to push forward.

Second, we'll need to improve human intelligence either through "transhuman" advancement or eugenics ^. Not to sound like a dick, but a lot of people are "falling behind" on technology because they aren't smart enough. It's not that they are lazy or disadvantaged, but that the skills required to master advanced technology weren't necessary throughout most of our evolutionary history and are therefore uncommon.

^ On "eugenics", please understand that I'm not excusing the horrors that have been given that name (a misapplication thereof) in the past. I'm not advocating harming anyone, but I think there should be strong incentives (e.g. free education) for smart people to reproduce.

> Eventually, we'll be able to get rid of other entitlement programs once this basic income fund is sufficient to eliminate poverty.

Not at all. Many entitlement programs are based on differences which an equal share simply doesn't address.

Also, as the "share" increases (in absolute terms), the number of people who say "hey, I can live on that - why work?" also goes up, which reduces the size of the pool.

I am curious - why do you think that "half of economic growth" is the right number? (And, don't you really mean "half of economic output", or rather "profit"?)

I mean half of (real) economic growth because no one gets poorer that way. If we redistributed 50% of all current income, a lot of people would get much poorer. Whereas here, if the current pool (GDP) is $100 and grows by $4 in a year, there will be $102 non-redistributed and $2 distributed evenly. If it grows by 4% ($4.16) the next year to $108.16, then $104.08 is non-redistributed and $4.08 is redistributed.

At 4%, you'll double every 18 years. So after 90 years, the pool is $3200 of which $1650 is not redistributed and $1550 is.

What this gives you is: 1. the nonredistributed pool is growing, so you don't have anyone complaining about income loss. 2. Asymptotically, you get to a society where everyone has at least a 1/2N share of the pie.

Also, as the "share" increases (in absolute terms), the number of people who say "hey, I can live on that - why work?" also goes up, which reduces the size of the pool.

If GDP declines, the basic income would decline and people would have to work again, but I don't think this style of economy would be any more recession-prone than the one we have now.

Honestly, I think the danger of this (people not working) is overstated. Most people would rather work than not work; the reason people hate retail jobs is not that they want to be unproductive, but because everyone treats them like shit at such jobs (because they can, and they can because the people in those jobs are stuck there). If we liberated humanity from the necessity of work, people still would work, but they'd be a lot more creative and self-directed in how they go about it. This would be good for everyone. As for those, who would laze about and not work, they're most likely people who are not very productive anyway.

> Most people would rather work than not work;

I was unclear. I might "work" but I wouldn't care about being paid so my work wouldn't result in anything redistributable. And, I'd be much less concerned about whether someone else valued what I was doing.

Yes, you can argue that the recipients of my work would be better off. And we might start exchanging favors. You'd probably call that tax avoidance.

And yes, I'd work a lot less and I'd dive a lot more.

Ok, but most people want more than a 1/2N share of the economic "pie".

> Ok, but most people want more than a 1/2N share of the economic "pie".

That depends on how much that share actually is. Remember - we have folks living on welfare now.

And, it might well cause people to retire earlier. Or to delay entering the work force.

Krugman's "Macroeconomics" says that it is well established that the higher the unemployment compensation, the more that people try to live on it or extend their stays. This is the same thing only moreso.

On "eugenics" - what if the most significant factor in differences in intelligence is social rather than genetic? What if intensive parenting practices like near-constant eye contact and talking to infants and toddlers, long hours of reading to preschoolers, and a steady stream of enriching extra-curricular activites for schoolage kids accounts for larger intelligence gains over the generations than could be explained by genetic variations alone?

Then we need to encourage people to be better parents.

Regardless of whether the effect is cultural or genetic, smart people have smart kids. Although I'd like it to be cultural, I tend to think the latter. In either case, we want to encourage smart people to reproduce.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com