One day, I hope and imagine, we will live in a post-scarcity world, and then yes, that sounds like a great plan for organizing society.
> rather than a laser focus on the hand-to-mouth of Jobs Right Now.
Perhaps we should wait to relax that focus once we've actually solved the problem. If you look around, you'll notice employment, especially among people 18-29, is a real challenge, while government finances and pensions are grossly underfunded.
It's the old hierarchy of needs thing; self-actualization is at the top of the pyramid not only because it's the most important, but because it relies on all the others being fulfilled in order to be an acheivable goal.
The technology to bring about a post-scarcity world mostly exists, and we could get there very quickly (maybe 5-10 years). But, how do you convince the upper classes (who control the capital) to support it? How do you temper the common idea that 'the lazy people' will just do nothing all day? (like that's a bad thing)
The difference is that the owners of the capital aren't willing to lose on their investments, and it's cheaper to bulldoze and throw away than to give it away or provide work maintaining the communities that these properties exist in/on.
People can do whatever they want to their property, no?
Do you personally allow homeless people into your house?
Problems you mentioned are real and tough, but the objections are very simplistic. Its very easy to demand others to do something, and distance yourself away.
There is a long and historical precedent for demanding that people with excess amounts of capital owe a greater portion than those who own relatively little. There are material differences between the capitalists and all the rest of us, and those allow us to demand specific concessions from them.
Global economic output is $80 trillion. There are 100s of millions of scientists, engineers, programmers, technicians in the world. Aside from the ideological complexities, which are probably intractable, it seems like it would be pretty easy to me.
What would it really take to provide basic housing, food, water, clothing, energy, and medicines to 7 billion people? Robotic automation, free / cheap energy, and access to natural resources.
IMHO It's a bad thing considering the fact that a lot of people worked hard to get us to where we are today.
This is a red herring. It's easy to assuming that such an enormous undertaking can be solved by "tax the rich". It doesn't work that way. There isn't enough money in the top 1% of the United States to pay for such a program. Inevitably a UBI would be paid for by the middle class, the meaty part of the bell curve.
This means people who took on debt loads to become a doctor, lawyer, whatever, and have worked hard to pay it down (and probably still are paying it down). $250k/yr sounds like a lot, but when you're paying back $400k worth of loans, it's really not as exorbitant as it sounds to many people -- especially if these same people are trying to buy a house, save for their kids' college, etc.
We've had a system not a million miles different from the one described in Ireland since the 70's/80's. There are grants for school uniforms and books for those that cant afford them, the cost of a college degree is not exorbitant and is again covered by a grant for those that cant afford it (I went to college with several guys who were on the grant) There's always the focus on getting a job, for obvious reasons, but there are plenty of people who go back and re skill with a 2nd degree.
Here's mine. I roughly divide human activities into jobs and hobbies. One ultimately builds enough value to support existence, one is primarily done for enjoyment. Education for the former can and should pay for itself over the long haul, so we're discussing who pays for hobby education.
Personally, I don't want to pay for other people's hobbies. I've volunteered to teach people some of mine, spending hundreds of hours with educational groups. But, I can't imagine forcing taxpayers to pay for university education in these things.
Look at the achievements that have stood the test of time and become valuable to us as a species. It's a pretty beautiful blending of scientific achievement and artistic achievement. If this system can't encourage both, let's not go to war with the arts, let's make the system that we invented, support the things that are important to us.
Beyond that, from my perspective, more of my tax dollars will go towards issues and causes that I am personally conflicted with than ones that I agree with. The college loan issue will never compete with the size and scope of something like the military. So it's beautiful that you would be personally affronted by this use of tax dollars but: welcome to the club, est. 1776
Any argument made by starting with calling someone rude or accusing them of having a superiority complex, can only be made better by instead empathizing with rather than dismissing opposing viewpoints.
What's even worse is patronizing a mis-characterization of someone's statement.
> I roughly divide human activities into jobs and hobbies.
This indeed is a rough characterization of life. At no point does shaftoe insinuate humanities and arts are 'hobby educations'. Rather it seems to me a simply capitalistic view that anything humans do well can be done for money, at which point we call it a job. Certainly that also includes artists and philosophers. Or another way to think about it, to be truly great at something you must spend the majority of your life doing it, at which point it probably also needs to pay the bills.
People should only be investing 5-figure sums of taxpayer's dollars to learn what they expect will be lifelong skills that will significantly increase their lifetime earning potential. In almost all cases, this is not Art History class.
They're valuable if you don't want to live in the world depicted in Brazil (1985), or Neuromancer, or pretty much any cyberpunk dystopia.
For context, I give 8% of my humble income to charities that feed the hungry and care for the sick. Is my dollar better spent funding a play that few will ever wish to see?
As far as I'm aware, none of us are allowed to pick and choose what our taxes go to or else I probably would give more to the arts than, say, the military.
So, the crux of your argument is: because money is squandered in one area its fine to do so in another?
All I said was "hey maybe you're right there isn't a tangible value in terms of money in and money out but perhaps there are other, more-difficult-to-track reasons why the arts are important."
I make 40k a year due to not growing up wealthy enough to attend college, I should be subsidizing people like you?
Please stop saying 'free' tuition. It's not free, it is just not paid by the student. Keep in mind that many states already have just this setup for in state students to use lottery money.
1. At 12K/year, base education runs a cost of 156K 2. At 20K/year, college education for 4 years runs 80K 3. At 20K/year, college education for 40 years runs 800K
Then what we're saying is 80K represents 50% of the educational costs we're all comfortable with sinking into base education. But letting someone never work and just go to college for free for 40 years would cost over 400% of the base educational costs. That seems like a totally different scale of issue to me. We're also probably hitting diminishing returns over what 4 years would prepare someone for, and I don't think the audience is that large. Most people want to go to college to get skills to then contribute something to society, whether or not today's economy specifically values what they want to contribute.
You're making assumptions that we're all comfortable with paying for 12 years of education. I think the majority of that is a waste of time (and by extension money).
> Most people want to go to college to get skills to then contribute something to society, whether or not today's economy specifically values what they want to contribute.
Sure but I don't want to pay for that either. If people didn't get hand outs that hide the true price of college (i.e. government backed loans), the price of college would come down drastically. It's artificially inflated to match amount of money a student can expect to beg / borrow.
If there was going to be any type of "college for all", the only approach I'd advocate would be free education that was provided by the government itself (i.e. community colleges). At least that would have a downward pressure on tuitions at private institutions that would suddenly have to price compete against it. Anything else will just increase the problem further.
> Sure but I don't want to pay for that either
I left a comment in another thread, but the amount of shit that is in the budget leaves every American with a feeling of "I don't want to pay for that". The DoD budget alone clocks in at over 8x the projected cost of free college education, very few people talk with vitriol about the hand-outs we're creating for the myriad of people that make up that apparatus.
> It's artificially inflated to match amount of money a student can expect to beg / borrow
I'm not as well read here as I'd like to be, but I have a hard time understanding how this is going to be such a magic fix. Professors aren't going to be too keen to take a pay cut here, and state universities aren't exactly making out like gangbusters right now. Is the idea that we'd have less students and less professors? What's the economic impact of seeing those jobs, and the dependent jobs in school communities, eliminated?
The big difference is that childhood education costs are primarily borne locally. Most, if not all, comes from local real estate taxes. If I pay those taxes I can reap the results (via my children attended a school I pay fore) ir I can vote with my wallet and live somewhere else that has lower taxes (and by extension lower quality education). Either way it's up to me.
> I left a comment in another thread, but the amount of shit that is in the budget leaves every American with a feeling of "I don't want to pay for that". The DoD budget alone clocks in at over 8x the projected cost of free college education, very few people talk with vitriol about the hand-outs we're creating for the myriad of people that make up that apparatus.
Saying, "He gets his daisy cutter so I want my free college!" is a fools argument. Just because there's other crap in the budget doesn't mean we should increase it further with more crap. It's just a different pile.
> I'm not as well read here as I'd like to be, but I have a hard time understanding how this is going to be such a magic fix. Professors aren't going to be too keen to take a pay cut here, and state universities aren't exactly making out like gangbusters right now.
I'm sure you'll find plenty of professors willing to teach for less. I don't even think they're a significant part of most budgets anyway but I doubt it'd be a problem.
> Is the idea that we'd have less students and less professors?
No the idea is to remove the artificial upward pressure on prices by having people pay for the education they want to receive.
> What's the economic impact of seeing those jobs, and the dependent jobs in school communities, eliminated?
They're being artificially inflated and maintaining a college loan bubble to keep them employed is asinine. Nobody has a right to a government subsidized job.
Plus it'd be better than the economic impact of trillions of dollars of student loan guarantees or the weight of those loans on our youth. College graduates with $160-200K of debt are common nowadays, even for in-state schools. That's a mortgage payment and they don't even have a roof over their heads to show for it!
Much like with Obama, Trump and the Republicans are going to learn what is and isn't possible for the POTUS. And while there are many factors in the election, a significant chunk of the votes were poor whites who are traditionally opposed to social programs.
So on the off chance we build more factories, they are going to be modern (automated), dispelling that myth.
Which should set the stage for the Dems (or even the Republicans, but I doubt it) to pivot back toward being "the poor people's party" and finally get to push some of those social programs.
And the only one that really makes sense (at least, to me) is some form of basic income/guaranteed minimum income.
I am still sceptical that we'll see the real thing in our lifetimes, but I do think we can start down that path sooner than later.
This is a serious question. Most people are not intrinsically motivated; the hacker news echo-chamber is an anomaly.
Sure you might have met 20 of them. How many haven't you met because you're busy working instead of being where those folks hang out while they're not working?
Hobbies are basically non-job things to get good at that don't pressure you with an economic sword of Damocles.
In a Basic Income world, essentially, ALL jobs are hobbies. Those that suck too hard to be hobbies had better automate.
Scarcity is a thing in the real world. We are nowhere near a point where we can produce more than is necessary for everyone to have everything they want at every point in their lifetime. Assuming that's even possible as there are things that are naturally limited. I mean, under the everything is free to everyone model, how do you determine who gets to live in the house on the cliff overlooking the ocean and who gets to live inland surrounded by tract housing?
Incorrect. This will foster a culture of inferiority because not everyone is equal. No matter what you do, the lower class will be jealous of the upper class and will always demand for more.
Money and education is solved? What about universal access to entertainment? Universal food? Universal housing?