Hacker News Reader

Comment by CobrastanJorji | Hacker News Reader

The best outcome is the "Culture" endpoint: a post-need society. 10% of people are called upon to work, and the rest thrive on basic income and become artists and inventors, philosophers and musicians and actors.

The worst outcome, on the other hand, is rather more dystopian. A society with a very large percentage of young, unemployed people with no particular path to success is not a stable society.

I suppose it matters how comfortable the 90% is when they become unemployed. Is basic income enough to fulfill individual passions and interests? What happens to a large body of humans whose needs are taken care of but who aren't strictly needed for anything?

View on HN

Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the "working class" - or is this a competitive and fluid group in which the children of the 90% may move into/out of as their skills/ability apply? Which is to ask - is it worth maintaining a 90% at all or should we 'solve that problem'?

When even a small percentage of the rich oppose an extermination program for the bottom 90%, it turns a plan for tidy mass murder into chaotic war with dangerous risks to even the richest. That's why I don't put much weight on the "rich exterminate the unneeded poor" scenario, as outlined in Peter Frase's "B" scenario from Four Futures.

The more likely outcome of a true post-scarcity society is the 90% will be house servants for the 10%.

This has always proved to be unstable.

It will always result in revolution. The 90% will demand an equal share.

The sad bit is that the revolutions seem to destroy the robots, not share the wealth. The 90% elect a different 10%, who then build more robots. See Animal Farm for details.

The 10% have to share the pie, at least enough to prevent revolution.

The revolution aspect will still be relevant when we consider autonomous war machines?

What power the 90% have when its opposed to drones, or some other hi-tech weapon?

It worked for Gandhi fighting (or rather, not fighting) the British. Superior weaponry doesn't necessarily lead to victory in this kind of conflict.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend playing the Paperclips game that was posted recently. When your enemies are merely numbers on a screen, what does it matter who or what they are? Your machines are tasked to eliminate them, and if your machines are better than their machines--or, in this case, if the enemy don't have any machines--you win, and they disappear. Then you task your machines to clean up the mess, and in a short time, it's as if your enemies never existed.

We hope that there would be enough good people among the wealthy and powerful to avoid such a scenario--but would there? Do we know that for certain? I don't think we do. Look at how the wealthy and powerful already exploit people on both small and large scales, from Hollywood execs satisfying their sexual desires one victim at a time, to corporate execs exploiting cheap overseas labor that, to them, are merely numbers on a screen, helping them increase margins.

It all boils down to the same problem in the end, that of evil, and it's not going away, merely taking different forms throughout the ages.

that Paperclips game cost me half a day of my life... I don't know whether to thank you or curse you ;)

Ditto, my friend. :) But I will never think about some things the same way again. It was a memorable experience, indeed.

Gandhi fighting worked because the Indians outnumbered the british by more than 10:1, and if they did fight, they easily could have won.

What's changed since then is that an extreme minority can kill far more people. For instance, automated drones.

I think you are assuming equal opportunity for the children of the wealthy vs the children of the poor. It doesn't take any particular smarts to live off of family money though. Investment income doesn't require work to support oneself, properly diversified it will continue to grow. Income from jobs however, does require work.

Study after study indicates that wealth provides opportunities, and that most people don't move up to become wealthy but are born that way. So basically society systematically advantages people who have wealthy parents, over people who work hard.

Bill Gates father was relatively wealthy. Imagine how many bill gates there are who are poor.

If Elon Musk hadn't had his father's money for his first company, there might not be a paypal or tesla.

So the question is how many potential bill gates and elon musks are there who's parents couldn't risk supporting them, who settle for doing something less innovative and interesting because they need to pay the bills or support family members?

But where did the wealthy parents come from?

You're setting up a chicken and egg problem for yourself. Wealth had to start somewhere, as I doubt you'd argue that it was handed down to certain families by a deity.

Heritage is important. A person does not just have more opportunity because of the wealth of an ancestor - they exist because of that ancestor. Does everyone not deserve to have whatever their ancestors chose to give them?

The only argument that can be made is if you can show that someone's ancestors only had wealth because they unjustly stole it from others. But that's a tall order.

If you go down the history, most wealth was stolen from people violently and from then on anybody born into these aristocratic families would continue benefiting from the wealth.

A lot of new wealth has been created by people born into poor / middle class families in last 1-2 centuries for sure, especially 20th century.

But there are still families today that are wealthy and their wealth have been with them for 400-500 or more years. And in those cases it's very likely the original wealth was stolen.

It could be that original wealth was gathered during robber baron times by exploiting workers or it could be even older, being passed from generation to generation since medieval times. Which means the original aristocracy probably gained this wealth in a violent conquest.

Right. "Probably", "maybe".

I don't think it's society's responsibility to look back further than the formation of that society. For the US, I think you can safely use 1776 as a starting point. The US formed itself with the express purpose of creating equality for the original settlers.

If someone is violating those principles, society should punish accordingly. If not, society is not "rewarding wealth". They are allowing for the fact that everyone is someone else's child, and that comes with it certain rights.

Prior to industrialization, "pull your own bootstraps" fortunes were extremely rare, and largely a matter of accidentally being in the right place at the right time. Most wealthy folks got there from skimming off their human herd by force or threat of force and by bribing the most docile and cooperative by giving them some of their own production back.

After industrialization, a lot of people were able to leverage first-mover advantages and unrealized frontier opportunities into vast fortunes. But even then, having one extra dollar from daddy in 1790 meant having many, many more to give your own kids by 1820, even if you had 12 of them. That extra dollar might have meant you carried a full feedbag and got there a day before the guy who had to stop to let his horse forage, and getting there first was worth thousands.

Now, daddy's dollars might allow you to start from second place, and grow faster than the first-mover, who might be trying to bootstrap. Or you could do the same with investor money, but with corresponding loss of equity. If mommy or daddy fund you, you probably get to keep more of your own company.

What exactly is the problem with this?

No problem, per se, just facts too often ignored by those trying to work out a formula for how to succeed in business or get rich quick or plan a comfortable retirement.

Those simply trying to avoid getting crushed by the system already know: "Them that's got shall get; them that's not shall lose. God bless the child that's got it all." If you want to get rich, you usually have to be rich. Making your first fortune is always the hardest.

If you aren't already in a position to invest anything--if you are living paycheck-to-paycheck or worse--the only way to own a robot is to build one, because you can't buy one. You can be outbid by anyone with a dollar that isn't already spent. You're already screwed. But you knew that, because you're pinching pennies so hard that Lincoln cries out, then the Lincoln in the monument on the reverse side squeaks out a protest. And if you do manage to build a robot, you'll probably have to sell it at some point for less than it its true worth, due to a crisis.

It even says it in the article. All you need to do to buy enough Amazon stock to retire is to already own a chain of grocery stores in New Jersey! Meanwhile, the employees of those grocery stores have to cut each other's throats to get an Amazon warehouse job, because that game of musical chairs took so many seats away all at once.

"Just own the damn robots" is a surrender to the zero-intervention inevitability of an ownership class that owns everything, and a dispossessed class enslaved to them economically, yet also almost entirely useless to them. Owning things is a solution that only works for problems that rich people have. It's advice maybe good enough for the top 10%, worried that they will backslide. It doesn't do anything for the bottom 90%, who either can't get ownership of a robot, or can't keep it long enough for it to solve their financial problems.

Well personally, I'd like to incentivize those who put work and value into the system over those whose individual contribution is negligible.

As well the marginal utility of another dollar to someone who is already wealthy is low and they are less likely to use that money, whereas someone who is poor or middle class not only benefits more from another dollar, but is much more likely to spend that money in a way that stimulates the economy.

"Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the 'working class'"

yes. i seriously question the need for the "top" 10%. whatever spread of percentile that maps to the right sort of people would do.

Very few people would "thrive" on a basic income. Look at communities today where a large percentage of people live on government aid. People need a reason to exist and meaningful work to do. Very few have the drive and discipline to become artists/inventors/philosophers/musicians/actors. Plus the majority of those who do become artists are unlikely to create anything that the rest of society would value. Have you been to an Arts & Crafts fair lately? Most of the stuff there has negative value, in that you'd have to pay me to take it.

We need a better solution than basic income.

> Look at communities today where a large percentage of people live on government aid.

You mean like retirement communities?

Communities today where a large percentage of people live on government aid are not the equivalent to the country as a whole on basic income, and government aid now imposes multiple work and reporting requirements that help prevent people on government aid from pursuing creative endeavors.

No, if you want to look at basic income, look at the children of the wealthy, who never have to work. Most still pursue education, get degrees, and work in a variety of fields including art.

Also it's important not to conflate your interests in art with the universe of art appreciators. Because there is plenty of artistic work that I don't personally enjoy, but which there is a demand for. Jewelry comes to mind... I've bought cuff links but that's about it for the past year, but necklaces, earrings, bracelets and rings still get sold despite my lack of interest.

The difference between basic income and the children of the wealthy is the spectre of the money disappearing.

Only the most short-sighted of the wealthy do not realize that there are many ways in which their wealth could dry up. This provides an impetus to use the money constructively while you have it, because it might not be around forever.

Basic income does not give the same drive. You can watch TV all day, doing nothing to better yourself, doing nothing to manage your money, and you know that there will always be more where that came from.

The rich could easily survive forever off the modest guaranteed interest of their fortunes.

But if you want more from life than sitting at home and watching TV all day, you have to take some initiative.

1. Only certain types of rich can do that.

2. Someone in the family history had to be a diligent/industrious/successful. And that person probably tried to pass those values down to their children and so on and so on.

If you give people wealth, no such ideals will be passed down to their children.

>Only the most short-sighted of the wealthy do not realize that there are many ways in which their wealth could dry up. This provides an impetus to use the money constructively while you have it, because it might not be around forever.

Money doesn't dry up, it increases thanks to investment and hedge funds. You just need to ensure you never dip it below net-positive+base inflation rate.

Suppose you have a billion dollars invested, and you're only receiving 0.1%/year on top of the base inflation rate. 0.1% of $1 billion is $1million, so you have a perfectly sustainable stable $1 million per year. That's more than enough to spend forever dicking around.

Actually, drop that down to $100 million. At 0.1% above, you get sustainable $100k/year.

Now, perhaps that doesn't seem too lavish, but consider that you could afford to take way more than 0.1% off your interest every year, and you'll find that that money isn't going anywhere.

I didn't realize we were only talking about 100+ millionaires.

That makes a number of assumptions.

1. That wealthy people's money can dry up.

2. That wealthy people know this and it provides an impetus to spend.

3. that that impetus to spend is constructive.

4. That poor people, promised basic income, will differ markedly from wealthy people in this respect.

I can't speak to all of these but I can speak to some of them.

1. Certainly wealthy people may lose their wealth. But most don't.

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/05/19/the-wealthy-in-fl...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/18/poor-...

Also see this swedish study which indicates that wealthy kids save less then their parents but still tend to be wealthy, and that this is true for both adopted as well as natural born children, indicating that it's not some sort of genetic advantage http://www.nber.org/papers/w21409

as for 4, I think you have this idea that poor people are poor because of intrinsic characteristics. This is a more common belief among conservatives (http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/1-23-14%20Pover...).

Here's some evidence that it's not an intrinsic quality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/upshot/an-atlas-of-upward...

There's also evidence from things like free meals and early childhood education. Links are probably easy to search for if you google free lunch benefit and HeadStart benefit. Basically giving kids proper nutrition and free preschool make a big difference.

There aren't a lot of studies on giving adults help to get out of poverty though. People like helping kids and young adults, but once you are grown up you are kinda out of luck. I think there is some micro loan data out there though. That said there was canadian basic income, which showed only modest decreases in hours worked, and better health outcomes overall.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

But even if basic income only effects children of poor people and not the poor people themselves, it seems like it could provide a marked difference in a generation.

"Look at communities today where a large percentage of people live on government aid."

pretty sure i live in one of them, so tell me what i see.

"People need a reason to exist and meaningful work to do."

how are they managing now? most people have a lot of meaningless work and i don't know anyone that can tell me the reason they exist beyond empty platitudes.

"Very few have the drive and discipline to become artists/inventors/philosophers/musicians/actors."

you only need some special drive for that stuff, (collectively called playing), to push forward with it while working a day-job.

"Plus the majority of those who do become artists are unlikely to create anything that the rest of society would value."

roughly all of them, really. at least that's how it is right now and i don't see why it would change.

"We need a better solution than basic income."

k, let's do basic income, then see what needs improving ;)

It's a simple choice:

Judge Dredd or the Culture.

you know as far back as i can remember we've treated people, as a society, in the way you'd treat anything there was quite a bit too much of lying around.

See WSHH fight comp videos for the answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com