I don't feel strongly (either approach would be an improvement over the status quo), but I suppose I mildly agree with you. I think human beings need to have some Work to feel like their lives have meaning. Even if we made GMI conditional on 10 hours a week of charity volunteering, that could have positive mental health outcomes.
It would allow people to participate in the economy and pursue productivity or creative pursuits without worrying about starving.
I doubt it's coming, but I don't see its downside in a world where per capita productivity is trivial.
Not working, or working on figuring out how to get paid in the new environment, when what worked last year is now automated...
Agreed.
Vaguely relevant story time for 1st world crowd: In my country (South Africa) it is illegal for the public to refuel their own cars. There is dedicated staff that does nothing else all day - essentially behave like restaurant waiters but for petrol stations.
Realistically the law is only in place for job creation purposes - it is by most measures unnecessary. And yet I've come to appreciate it: I don't need to leave my car. The people handling flammable liquids do this all day long & received training - much better than random McDonalds munching idiots. Credit card speedpoint gets brought to my car window, windscreen washed, tyre pressure checked etc. I end up (voluntarily) tipping 0.5 USD - a drop in the ocean. I have a million problems so a guy making my life easier there & smiling whilst doing so...I'm totally ok with carrying him on my tax/fuel bill.
You miss my point entirely. It is not useless work. Sure its not economically efficient, but on balance I'd rather have people streamline the refueling process than sit in front of a TV and collect a paycheque.
And no it is not one. There is a big difference between "economically efficient" and "wasting their times on a unnecessary job", especially in the context of GMI.
You make it look that these two are the only alternatives when they are not (e.g. people could also be studying or actively searching for a job). Pretty much the definition of false dichotomy isn't it?
Yes and no. You underestimate the experience imo. e.g. Today I had two people dressed in red shirts (for valentines day) focusing on me, my car & what I wanted. Yes you can automate the physical refueling, but can you automate the conversation about the Tshirts specifically bought for Valetines day?
For a minor cost I can:
> Create a job > Interact with a person in a different class > Ease my daily burden > Improve safety > Assist the local economy (micro scale) > Improve social balances
As I said...I tip 0.5USD at petrol stations and I could totally get away with zero.
Yes the mechanical act could be automated but that is entirely besides the point.
Thank you. That is certainly news to me.
I didn't know that part - presumably not lower enough to cover the wages, though, or we'd see it done voluntarily elsewhere.
You raise a valid point. At first I thought "don't be stupid...obviously its beneficial". Looking at that word "mandatory" in your question though I'm no longer confident in my initial instinct....
There would probably also need to be some kind of exemption for people with physical or mental disabilities.
However, the details of basic income-like schemes may be irrelevant. Basic income and its mutations are possible when most household products are basically done by robots. It is possible basic income will grow at 25-50% YoY rate and that growth indicator is only thing that matters.
You could have a volunteer work "requirement" that was only enforced by social convention. If it was seen as dishonest/lazy to take the income without giving back to your community in any way, that would probably spur some social good without the inefficiency of a heavy-handed enforcement mechanism.
Fair enough. I find it difficult to accept a system that doesn't grant a powerful advantage to a person with a significant physical/mental disability though. Equal basic income for all does not seem fair in that context.
Also...this is more me thinking out loud than attacking anyone.
I was thinking how equality movemen failed to produced social change in short time as world is extremely unbalanced. I think post-scarcity economy will bring new solutions and new social contracts.
Again, you make a valid point. Let me stop the debate right here though. We're venturing into philosophical territory here...the kind more suited to 5000 word essays than HN posts.
One thing we can debate however:
>post-scarcity economy
I find this notion decidedly problematic. We've been optimizing the sht out of production for decades and yet the average family is battling to make ends meet more than ever. "post-scarcity economy"...I don't buy it...not even close.
I get where you are coming from and I agree that the current track record doesn't allow for such predictions. However, I am linking the advent of post-scarcity to the widespread adoption of some transhumanism values. Maybe that'll work. Or we'll be consumed by grey goo. The future is too bright to see it clearly.
On the somewhat unrelated note my favorite flavor of transhumanism is abolitionism that aims to remove suffering as much as possible.
You speak of "remove suffering" whilst I speak of inequality increased a 100 fold. You are clearly a very reasonable person, but I don't see a "meeting of minds" happening here unless I misunderstood you dramatically - there is no overcoming that gap. A 100 fold increase in inequality destroys everything in its path.
But in any case, compulsory community service as an alternative to jail time has shown promising results: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10725163