I die inside.
But any suggestion of "mincome" or the like is met with such a harsh reaction... What, effectively, is the difference between goon-bloom and mincome? Is it just that one is too obviously a subsidy?
But any suggestion of "mincome" or the like is met with such a harsh reaction... What, effectively, is the difference between goon-bloom and mincome? Is it just that one is too obviously a subsidy?
I believe this is doable from a technical perspective and it’s the problem I’m trying to devote my life to. We ultimately need to build optional societies where people who choose to join can opt out of consumerism, a major driver of our need for endless work.
My vision is for systems of robotics that are totally open source (modifiable and royalty free) that can create the basic goods for survival. Then groups of people fund corporations with bylaws like a constitution that guarantee rights to shareholders. The machines provide for the people and excess goods are sold to a market to support growth of the community.
I think something like that in the future is one very useful aspect of a society where unnecessary work is over and regular people get to enjoy the benefits of modern productivity (instead of a small percentage of the population enjoying that while most people miss out).
But in general when I talk to people I find that the hardest idea for them to grasp is the idea that we could all work less and things wouldn’t collapse. We just need to alter the distribution of wealth so that everyone benefits.
i realize that the rest of your post details technological advancements that could create this condition (on an indefinite timeline), but you also seem to be saying that it is already possible today. i often see this sort of claim these days, and i always wonder why this is treated as self evident fact.
in 2015, the PPP adjusted GDP per capita over the entire planet was just under $16k [1]. this is only 125% of the US poverty line for a single person in the same year [2]. even if we could deliver this sum to every person in the world without losing production capacity and with no administrative cost, it hardly seems enough to provide what you mean by a "modest living" to everyone. much closer to mere subsistence in a developed nation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
[2] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
I recognize that in many places in the world, the development isn’t there. However the US can also play a part by ending the imperialism that helps keep these countries down.
The reason this doesnt happen is that those who sell the food, or build the housing are better off getting paying customers. This makes sense as a market, sellers are self-interested. It also leads to a certain kind of optimum. But certainly, as a matter of production, it is feasible to give everyone a modest life without needing to change productivity. As a matter of social stability, it isn't feasible, but in some sense, that should be a denouncement of society.
If you blow up a tank, and then build a new one, this is considered a net gain in GDP even though in reality there was a relative net loss of human labor.
I don't think this is true, because I think too large a fraction of the world's current productivity is supplied by people who would not produce if they didn't have to to earn a living.
> My vision is for systems of robotics that are totally open source (modifiable and royalty free) that can create the basic goods for survival.
This would fix the productivity problem, yes. But...
> Then groups of people fund corporations with bylaws like a constitution that guarantee rights to shareholders. The machines provide for the people and excess goods are sold to a market to support growth of the community.
This would throw away the whole thing. If there are open source machines that can create the basic goods for survival, the obvious thing to do is for every individual to just own one. There is no need for corporate ownership; in fact, corporate ownership undermines the whole thing, by giving some people an incentive to game the corporate system. If there is no such system, there's nothing to be gamed.
Not according to the article.
I don't see the article making any claim one way or the other about what I was saying.
Yes, there are other ways to differentiate yourself in a social hierarchy, but finding a new and novel way to live is a lot harder than continuing to live the same way humans have lived for centuries.
Lawyers may similarly be accused of evil, but rarely laziness. There’s a general perception that they’ve passed through a crucible we wouldn’t survive (law school) and do work we couldn’t hack. Other bureaucrats, not so much.
"let's just wait for a reaction, if we are lucky, nothings gonna come."
"Let's just threaten with outrageous claims instead of making an effort."
"We know the law is wrong but it's easier to roll with it than to fix it or find a way around it."
We're all engineers here. Can you honestly say you'd prefer a job that paid the same, but where you wouldn't have to use your mind?
Of course, it's been used to justify some serious horrors.
I think I've even seen this dynamic at play in international negotiations, with poorer countries being swamped by the experienced legal teams of larger countries, or being forced to effectively delegate their authority to an NGO that maintains a competitive legal team.
The problem with mincome is the hedonic treadmill.
the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary.
Close. What it does is reduces supply (fewer people working) while raising demand (people with more money in their pockets). This winds up causing inflation that erodes away the value of the minimum income. It's not even a hedonic treadmill, just an inflationary one.
A basic income guarantee can only ever work as temporary assistance or as a residualist stopgap for people on the fringes of society. If it's too widespread it ends up working against itself. A job guarantee increases supply (assuming you use the labor power productively) while keeping demand high, so that works against the inflation problem.
It's a tough balancing act though. You have to make sure the make-work is actually producing useful stuff or you'll have all the same problems as the basic income plus a bunch of random ditches dug. During Cultural Revolution in China cadres kind of engendered ecological catastrophes by creating bureaucratic agencies that would pointlessly clearcut forests for no reason. It's basically the paper-clip maximizing AI problem, only the intelligence isn't artificial.