The Future of Not Working(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Future of Not Working
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/magazine/universal-income-global-inequality.html
277 comments
> Mandate reversible sterilization at birth.
This sounds like an absolutely atrocious idea ripe for corruption. It would be only a matter of time before those programs target the poor, those who whose political views, religious views, or ethnic origins are unwanted or inconvenient.
This sounds like an absolutely atrocious idea ripe for corruption. It would be only a matter of time before those programs target the poor, those who whose political views, religious views, or ethnic origins are unwanted or inconvenient.
People used to do this during the original "Progressive era" im American history. The people who ended up targeted were poor and black. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
If you look at current incarceration statistics I'd say it's still happening.
I don't know if it's the same, because I don't know if that's happening with the same sort of pre-meditated malice. Like, I don't think the people behind the incarceration soad "Let's jail all the poor black people" up front, whereas that was the explicit goal of some of these Progressive-era sterilization programs.
Then again, the intentions ultimately don't matter if you're on the receiving end of it.
Then again, the intentions ultimately don't matter if you're on the receiving end of it.
If you are willing to go that far, why not "mandate" no robots?
Because this is the nogo alternative of a false dichotomy designed to support the other presented route.
In theory we could use food stamps to force people to do things on pain of starvation, but in practice we just do a little bit of drug testing sometimes. Meanwhile, the problems caused by unwanted babies are huge. If we could enact mass sterilization to reverse mass incarceration, the poor and ethnic would be better off even if they did face some discrimination in restoring reproductive access. Not to mention how much better everyone's sex life would be without worrying about kids.
How about instead of creating this dystopian hellscape where we make foodstamp recipients be sterilized, we simply reform the current welfare system so it stops trapping them in poverty and paying them to have more children?
Jesus. It's like some of you sit there and say "the status quo is horrific; let's just add a pinch more horror and everything will be swell."
Jesus. It's like some of you sit there and say "the status quo is horrific; let's just add a pinch more horror and everything will be swell."
> Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth.
No. Forced sterilization is eugenics, and we've seen what happens with that [1]. Eugenics is unconscionable for moral, ethical, legal and humanitarian reasons. When you give government or the private sector or any human being the ability to control other humans' reproduction, that power is ripe for horrific abuse. We know this because that's exactly what happened last time [2].
Not to go full Godwin on you, but eugenics is literally the philosophy behind the Nazis (see [1]).
Overpopulation will be an issue eventually. Better to solve it through more creative means, like becoming a 2+-planet species.
[1]: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
No. Forced sterilization is eugenics, and we've seen what happens with that [1]. Eugenics is unconscionable for moral, ethical, legal and humanitarian reasons. When you give government or the private sector or any human being the ability to control other humans' reproduction, that power is ripe for horrific abuse. We know this because that's exactly what happened last time [2].
Not to go full Godwin on you, but eugenics is literally the philosophy behind the Nazis (see [1]).
Overpopulation will be an issue eventually. Better to solve it through more creative means, like becoming a 2+-planet species.
[1]: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
There is a range between eugenics and no population control. I.e. free birth control, no tax breaks past 2 children, etc. Even a small change in birth rate makes a big change in 200 years.
[deleted]
being a 2+ planet species wont help local overpopulation. it is too much more effective to ship a highly diverse sampling of frozen sperm and ova manufacture most of your people onsite. Moving that many people just does not make sense when you have more cost effective alternatives.
plus adding planets inside the solar system only gives you 2 real targets (mars and venus) mining asteroids to build spinning habitats is a much more viable colonization target.
plus adding planets inside the solar system only gives you 2 real targets (mars and venus) mining asteroids to build spinning habitats is a much more viable colonization target.
Overpopulation will not be an issue. IIRC we are already past "peak child".
> Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth.
Jesus fucking Christ, let's just round up all that don't have jobs and kill them all it'll go faster.
Jesus fucking Christ, let's just round up all that don't have jobs and kill them all it'll go faster.
Money has worked really well to share limited resources in a fairly peaceful way.
Making decisions about how to share limited resources in a post-work world is one of the most difficult problem we are going to face, and yet it isn't discussed. Instead, we'd rather claim that Basic Income pixie dust is going to solve all problems.
Making decisions about how to share limited resources in a post-work world is one of the most difficult problem we are going to face, and yet it isn't discussed. Instead, we'd rather claim that Basic Income pixie dust is going to solve all problems.
You know why people in rich countries don't have a lot of kids? It's because when you give people everything they to have a decent life they start to think about other things than just having tons of kids, kids are the retirement fund for poor people, give them enough to have a decent retirement fund and suddenly they will stop having ton of kids.
Overpopulation is not the problem in itself, the problem is that people do not have enough to survive, all when we as humans are producing more wealth per capita than any other time in history.
Overpopulation is not the problem in itself, the problem is that people do not have enough to survive, all when we as humans are producing more wealth per capita than any other time in history.
>You know why people in rich countries don't have a lot of kids?
Because we can't afford a spare bedroom to put them in.
Because we can't afford a spare bedroom to put them in.
And here I thought it was because people with better socioeconomic outcomes want the same/better for their children, and therefore have to accumulate far more significant financial resources before procreating than someone who doesn't really plan on devoting much resources towards their offspring.
Turns out kids are just a pain in the ass not worth having if you don't need 'em to fund your retirement. I'll tell my wife; thanks.
Turns out kids are just a pain in the ass not worth having if you don't need 'em to fund your retirement. I'll tell my wife; thanks.
It's amazing how nobody has understood that your comment was out of exasperation and you were disgusted with the parent post.
Feed the homeless to the starving. Solves two problems at once.
How does the left wing reconcile its push for UBI, more redistribution to compensate for automation job loss, etc., with an unquestioned belief in immigration or even open borders?
You cannot have UBI due to lack of jobs but then also have the US' current family-based immigration system. It would be a different situation if we were specifically targeting skilled robotics engineers and AI coders from around the world, but we put those people through the ringer to favor an unskilled third world immigrant because his brother is a US citizen.
You cannot have UBI due to lack of jobs but then also have the US' current family-based immigration system. It would be a different situation if we were specifically targeting skilled robotics engineers and AI coders from around the world, but we put those people through the ringer to favor an unskilled third world immigrant because his brother is a US citizen.
I do wonder about the "not everyone can contribute" perhaps they can't contribute in building cars, but with a cultural shift and education, well there are a lot of avenues of research and mathematics that only require thought and basic tools like chalk. I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources.
This ofcourse assumes we haven't figured out strong AÍ or we don't want to, cause that's an entirely different chat.
Yes. We are made to be active (non-passive), so most people will choose to do _anything_ anyway. Might as well something that furthers our objectives.
I have been building houses in Indonesia and other parts of South East Asia and there is ample need for people who can build stuff and teach things.
> I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources.
If we extend the metaphor, there are 4004s and there are i7s. You need a lot of 4004s to equal the output of one i7. That many 4004s use a lot more watts than the one i7, and at some point the value isn't there.
If we extend the metaphor, there are 4004s and there are i7s. You need a lot of 4004s to equal the output of one i7. That many 4004s use a lot more watts than the one i7, and at some point the value isn't there.
I see your point, however these humans are alive, thinking, using power you might say anyway. There is a nearly infinite task in improving our society and science, and we have strong evidence that humans become self destructive or just destructive when not actively engaged in something they enjoy doing.
What do you propose that we do with the 4004s?
If you have an IQ of 89 or below in a first world country, you might be able to barely complete high school, but are not going to become a math professor.
IQ (g) is normally distributed.
The only hope here is that there is some extrinsic element, similar to nutrition, but as yet undiscovered, that will improve human IQ for those on the left-hand side of the curve in a real way. Otherwise, no, not everyone can contribute in the same way.
IQ (g) is normally distributed.
The only hope here is that there is some extrinsic element, similar to nutrition, but as yet undiscovered, that will improve human IQ for those on the left-hand side of the curve in a real way. Otherwise, no, not everyone can contribute in the same way.
>I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources.
Is this a joke? It sounds like something so detached from the reality of humanity that it's something only an engineer or computer scientist would say. An unemployed human isn't a 'waste' of anything; the fact that the human does not need to be employed but is still suffering at the hands of capitalism is horrible.
Is this a joke? It sounds like something so detached from the reality of humanity that it's something only an engineer or computer scientist would say. An unemployed human isn't a 'waste' of anything; the fact that the human does not need to be employed but is still suffering at the hands of capitalism is horrible.
are you honestly suggesting that a large part of the population can be trained to become research mathematicians?
I took the point as in "everyone can still do something", be it mathematics, art, politics etc.
That was mostly the point, though there are dozens of offshoots I'd love to argue to death on. I feel quite strongly that the path we take on labour and automation will strongly pivot us towards very different futures.
Do we want to live in a future filled with thinkers, or with consumers ?
Are you honestly suggesting there is anything other than education preventing them from it ?
That asides, research mathematics is only a small subset of mental tasks available to humans. There are a lot of areas that could benefit from "computation" Laws, philosophy, literature, sociology, psychology. We seem to have forgotten how much of our society is based on how our thought is applied to knowledge. Thought rather than Praxis has been relatively neglected in our age.
intelligence and mathematial ability can't be taught very well
> Are you honestly suggesting there is anything other than education preventing them from it?
Yes. The aptitude of higher abstract thinking varies greatly among different people and groups.
If you are really curious, check out the IQ test about pulling info from a sports column.
After that, your question becomes similar to asking why every short person can't be taught/trained to do well on a professional basketball team.
Yes. The aptitude of higher abstract thinking varies greatly among different people and groups.
If you are really curious, check out the IQ test about pulling info from a sports column.
After that, your question becomes similar to asking why every short person can't be taught/trained to do well on a professional basketball team.
Elevating educational standards of society as a whole, especially the poor, has nothing to do with whether all disenfranchised groups have the native intelligence to become academics or well paid knowledge workers.
The number of active NBA players is in the hundreds and their careers are short. Education is a very effective weapon against multi generational poverty and the focus of international aid organizations for a reason. Someone from an impoverished background is much more likely to live a better life with more education than someone without.
The number of active NBA players is in the hundreds and their careers are short. Education is a very effective weapon against multi generational poverty and the focus of international aid organizations for a reason. Someone from an impoverished background is much more likely to live a better life with more education than someone without.
I don't really want to divert this thread into a full discussion on the validity and value of IQ tests, but I do find the view you are espousing to be very depressing and I had hoped that they had died along with Ellis island and phrenology.
> not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation
I don't know if this statement is true, but a lot more jobs could be created in the area of teaching, caring for elderly and ill people, etc.
I don't know if this statement is true, but a lot more jobs could be created in the area of teaching, caring for elderly and ill people, etc.
Still it's reasonable to expect the transition to a post scarcity society within the next two generations, at least not globally in the first phase but the growth boom will cause a new wave of hyperexpansionism to secure the growing lands and resource depots.
Jobs as care worker won't be enough and not everyone is good/motivated in them and I don't think you don't realize how bad it is for the cared to have a spiteful worker
There's a huge issue looming as the current mainstream libertarian model is ill suited for a post scarcity society plus there's gonna be a huge problem with migrations ready to compound with internal strifes.
Nothing impossible to solve with preparation but seems we gonna reach that point fastly and badly.
Jobs as care worker won't be enough and not everyone is good/motivated in them and I don't think you don't realize how bad it is for the cared to have a spiteful worker
There's a huge issue looming as the current mainstream libertarian model is ill suited for a post scarcity society plus there's gonna be a huge problem with migrations ready to compound with internal strifes.
Nothing impossible to solve with preparation but seems we gonna reach that point fastly and badly.
I wonder if compulsory national service in these areas for individuals who don't contribute over x% or $yy.. in personal income tax a year would work?
The last person I want teaching or caring for my old body is someone being forced to do so. Rather, we should increase the incentive for people to train in those areas by increasing their wages.
My idea is more an incentive to get the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes so we can find initiatives like you suggest.
That's a very classist attitude founded on a view of economic activity that pertained to human history only over a short period of tube and otherwise is a completely unrealistic view of the human condition.
Humans are amazing creatures. Moreover there is no limit to the work that can be done, there is always something else that can or should be done should the labor become available. I can assure you, people will not run out of valuable, substantive work to do.
People got much more efficient at farming (by orders of magnitude), that didn't lead to people stopping working it led to people finding other things to do such as crafts, art, and later manufacturing. Now that the save thing has happened with manufacturing people are again finding other things to do.
Humans are amazing creatures. Moreover there is no limit to the work that can be done, there is always something else that can or should be done should the labor become available. I can assure you, people will not run out of valuable, substantive work to do.
People got much more efficient at farming (by orders of magnitude), that didn't lead to people stopping working it led to people finding other things to do such as crafts, art, and later manufacturing. Now that the save thing has happened with manufacturing people are again finding other things to do.
While I dont agree with everything this comment or said, I definitely see that most people in the US (because that's where I live) are typically either tellers, paper pushers, execs... Hardly anyone does anything actually meaningful it seems. There is like 3% that seems to be in endeavor fields like science, exploration, invention... But most of what I see is completely meaningless drone work.
"Meaningless drone work" needs to get done just as much as "science, exploration and invention." Just because it's work that seems tedious and boring to you doesn't mean it's not valuable to either the person paying for it or the person doing it.
Does it though? Look at the health insurance industry, Aetna pulls in $15B and has $3B in overhead. Couldn't automation cut out (nearly) all the people involved in that overhead. They spent $20 million pulling levers to get a better deal for themselves in Washington alone. This is worse than drone work, it's drone work that kills people.
Well, if we're going to drill down a layer and talk about specific companies and the specific work that is done for them, rather than paint entire classes of people as worthless, then sure, we can find all sorts of "meaningless" work.
Health insurance is actually a very good example if you want to find meaningless drone work, because of the rent seeking you describe and because of other perverse things that come about due to government intervention in that market. That's work that nobody would do if there wasn't a government regulating that industry. You could make an argument that all of that work is meaningless and human beings should be freed from doing it.
Of course, you could also argue that work is no less necessary simply because the government exists and intervenes in healthcare, because the government exists and is going to intervene in healthcare whether we like it or not. Thus, having drones at the office to lobby governments is valuable to Aetna. And I'm sure someone from Aetna would claim that they have to spend that $20 million or else they'd be unable to provide health insurance at all. Which is also a ludicrous claim, but a lot of companies seem to be getting out of health insurance lately...
Health insurance is actually a very good example if you want to find meaningless drone work, because of the rent seeking you describe and because of other perverse things that come about due to government intervention in that market. That's work that nobody would do if there wasn't a government regulating that industry. You could make an argument that all of that work is meaningless and human beings should be freed from doing it.
Of course, you could also argue that work is no less necessary simply because the government exists and intervenes in healthcare, because the government exists and is going to intervene in healthcare whether we like it or not. Thus, having drones at the office to lobby governments is valuable to Aetna. And I'm sure someone from Aetna would claim that they have to spend that $20 million or else they'd be unable to provide health insurance at all. Which is also a ludicrous claim, but a lot of companies seem to be getting out of health insurance lately...
Exactly. People are talking that there is no jobs like if everyone in the world have a roof on their heads, have enough food to eat, have good education and so on and so forth. Just those basic things are a huge amount of human activities.
The problem is not no jobs, the problem is political will and priorities. Right now most of the wealth created by all humans goes to a tiny minority that has different priorities than the rest of humanity.
The problem is not no jobs, the problem is political will and priorities. Right now most of the wealth created by all humans goes to a tiny minority that has different priorities than the rest of humanity.
> Moreover there is no limit to the work that can be done, there is always something else that can or should be done should the labor become available. I can assure you, people will not run out of valuable, substantive work to do.
Maybe. The existence of so many businesses with vast stores of cash in the bank makes me wonder, though. This is capacity to pay for valuable, substantive work, but it sits.
Even if people look back on this era in 100 years and note that everyone had something else to do by 2060, the sudden change seems likely to cause more traumatic social upheaval, so a peaceful transition to a post-whatever-this-is economy seems unlikely without trying something very different.
I'm quite libertarian, and I think a basic income is not fundamentally incompatible with that, if implemented correctly. It seems to me that GiveDirectly's voluntary approach is a step in the right direction.
Maybe. The existence of so many businesses with vast stores of cash in the bank makes me wonder, though. This is capacity to pay for valuable, substantive work, but it sits.
Even if people look back on this era in 100 years and note that everyone had something else to do by 2060, the sudden change seems likely to cause more traumatic social upheaval, so a peaceful transition to a post-whatever-this-is economy seems unlikely without trying something very different.
I'm quite libertarian, and I think a basic income is not fundamentally incompatible with that, if implemented correctly. It seems to me that GiveDirectly's voluntary approach is a step in the right direction.
Parent poster here. Just to make it clear, I am not advocating eugenics or anything, just saying that some form of basic income seems to be the only option if we want the human race to flourish and science/technology to advance.
You don't need mandatory sterilizatiion. Men are scared enough of unwanted pregnancy. Just offer free VASALGEL procedure on and off for anybody and the problem will solve itself. Now we just need the procedure to become legal in the us, but i'm very eager to use it myself and have high hopes for it.
Birth rate in western countries is hardly the problem.
I disagree. I think our quality of life would improve if we could half our population, once passed the painful periode where society adjusts.
The TFR of non-immigrant populations in most postindustrial countries is already below replacement rate. You don't have to do anything.
Why? What's magical about halving the population in the typical Western industrialised country? That's not an order of magnitude change. I don't see any reason why this would have some kind of magical effect.
We'd still need pretty much the same kind of society. We'd need pretty much the same kind of infrastructure. Given that wealth in the typical industrialised, Western country isn't generated by natural resources, it wouldn't be the case that suddenly there's simply more stuff to go around. Why would halving the population of the place improve quality of life?
We'd still need pretty much the same kind of society. We'd need pretty much the same kind of infrastructure. Given that wealth in the typical industrialised, Western country isn't generated by natural resources, it wouldn't be the case that suddenly there's simply more stuff to go around. Why would halving the population of the place improve quality of life?
Traffic jams, pollution, loads of wastes, material consumption, needs to administrate all that, size of the cities, ability for justice to be served, hospital facilities, availability of pre-schools, number of children in class rooms...
People think overpopulation is a problem when you reach a certain cap, but I don't think there is a cap. I think it's progressive.
Plus with our current population size, we are bound to certain kind of systems and can't try alternatives. We have to normalize, we have to batch, we have to have pyramids, a chain of command to manage things.
This is great to produce and consume a great quantity of goods, but not so much for education, progress as a society, as a specie and even for something simpler such as producing goods of great quality.
But even if you disagree with any of that, and my whole population size theory, great birth control would solve one current major problem: unwanted pregnancy by men.
I'd say about half of my male friends became parents unwillingly for a lot of different reasons and scenarios. It does not make them great fathers because they didn't want to be one at this time of their life in the first place.
I think a global solution for a safe, non invasive and permanent procedure to keep one sterile at will would improve immensely the quality of life, eduction, and growth of children. Because the ones being here would be the ones wanted.
Which means basically shaping a better future.
People think overpopulation is a problem when you reach a certain cap, but I don't think there is a cap. I think it's progressive.
Plus with our current population size, we are bound to certain kind of systems and can't try alternatives. We have to normalize, we have to batch, we have to have pyramids, a chain of command to manage things.
This is great to produce and consume a great quantity of goods, but not so much for education, progress as a society, as a specie and even for something simpler such as producing goods of great quality.
But even if you disagree with any of that, and my whole population size theory, great birth control would solve one current major problem: unwanted pregnancy by men.
I'd say about half of my male friends became parents unwillingly for a lot of different reasons and scenarios. It does not make them great fathers because they didn't want to be one at this time of their life in the first place.
I think a global solution for a safe, non invasive and permanent procedure to keep one sterile at will would improve immensely the quality of life, eduction, and growth of children. Because the ones being here would be the ones wanted.
Which means basically shaping a better future.
People (in our hypothesised Western industrialised nations) WANT density of population. People can already freely move to less densely populated areas, where they avoid traffic jams, pollution, etc etc etc. They choose not to. Density of population creates opportunities that people decide are worth the extra problems to be part of.
Halving the population wouldn't stop this happening. There would be a rush to the cities, a rush to create density of population and all the opportunity people want from it. What you're complaining about would happen again; particularly since people know what's possible with density of population, and they choose it over the alternative.
I suppose you might be able to get the effect you want if you really, REALLY reduced the population. By an order of magnitude or more.
We have to normalize, we have to batch, we have to have pyramids, a chain of command to manage things.
Which allows us to have a society in which people are hundreds and hundreds of times richer than they were even a couple of centuries ago. The wealth of humanity under this is astonishing. We are all so much better off. And again, to reach the point where this efficiency became uneconomic and your alternative options would become optimal would require a population drop of far more than half.
Halving the population wouldn't stop this happening. There would be a rush to the cities, a rush to create density of population and all the opportunity people want from it. What you're complaining about would happen again; particularly since people know what's possible with density of population, and they choose it over the alternative.
I suppose you might be able to get the effect you want if you really, REALLY reduced the population. By an order of magnitude or more.
We have to normalize, we have to batch, we have to have pyramids, a chain of command to manage things.
Which allows us to have a society in which people are hundreds and hundreds of times richer than they were even a couple of centuries ago. The wealth of humanity under this is astonishing. We are all so much better off. And again, to reach the point where this efficiency became uneconomic and your alternative options would become optimal would require a population drop of far more than half.
Yes but:
- I believe lowering the population density will not annihilate those benefits. Paris was still Paris with the half of its population, but you could find a pre-school much more easily 50 years ago.
- the benefits of the current density can be achieved with a lower one given our current knowledge and technology
- accumulating wealth is probably not as much as linked to population density (in our modern countries) as that we have added science (machines and software) to our optimized slavery and theft.
- With a smaller population, we may be able on concentrate on quality of life. And education, which could lead to limit our current huge amount of wastes and appetite for superficial things. This could balance what we loose for a higher density population.
- I believe lowering the population density will not annihilate those benefits. Paris was still Paris with the half of its population, but you could find a pre-school much more easily 50 years ago.
- the benefits of the current density can be achieved with a lower one given our current knowledge and technology
- accumulating wealth is probably not as much as linked to population density (in our modern countries) as that we have added science (machines and software) to our optimized slavery and theft.
- With a smaller population, we may be able on concentrate on quality of life. And education, which could lead to limit our current huge amount of wastes and appetite for superficial things. This could balance what we loose for a higher density population.
>Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth.
So... they tried a little something like that back in the 30s and a lot of people didn't like it.
So... they tried a little something like that back in the 30s and a lot of people didn't like it.
There was 2 billion people on Earth then. It's 7 now and will be 8 by 2024 if nothing changes.
Turns out, if you raise people's standards of living, make it possible to invest in their kids, they stop having so many kids. In fact, in Japan and about 48% of the world they're not having enough kids to replace the existing population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
Seems a lot more humane than sterile-by-default until magical government bot decides it's ok for you to continue your genetic lineage.
But we're technologists right? We don't care about that fluffy duffy humanity thing. Politics is not worth our time.
Sign here to add yourself to the baby waitlist. Party members get priority, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
Seems a lot more humane than sterile-by-default until magical government bot decides it's ok for you to continue your genetic lineage.
But we're technologists right? We don't care about that fluffy duffy humanity thing. Politics is not worth our time.
Sign here to add yourself to the baby waitlist. Party members get priority, of course.
As long as important problems remained unsolved and human desires remain unfulfilled there will be opportunities to contribute.
> With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute
People keep saying this, but why is it true? Why can't you just have 4 billion people making boutique food for the other 4 billion who are making boutique clothing in return?
Why can't you have 8 billion people making TV shows for each other while robot housekeepers keep them alive?
Mental health care alone would seem to me to be an almost infinite market in need of labor.
Is there some economic law that defines an upper limit on how much work there is to be done? I see seemingly infinite undone tasks around me.
People keep saying this, but why is it true? Why can't you just have 4 billion people making boutique food for the other 4 billion who are making boutique clothing in return?
Why can't you have 8 billion people making TV shows for each other while robot housekeepers keep them alive?
Mental health care alone would seem to me to be an almost infinite market in need of labor.
Is there some economic law that defines an upper limit on how much work there is to be done? I see seemingly infinite undone tasks around me.
Is this serious?
The solution to fewer people needing to work is reversible sterilization at birth? Not bringing down the system that puts people in destitution, poverty and at risk of death beacuse they cannot find a job?
Capitalism is the cause of the inequality, not overpopulation. There are more than enough resources.
The solution to fewer people needing to work is reversible sterilization at birth? Not bringing down the system that puts people in destitution, poverty and at risk of death beacuse they cannot find a job?
Capitalism is the cause of the inequality, not overpopulation. There are more than enough resources.
They can fight each other for control of the robots.
What reverses sterilization? Money? The possession of a certain ideology? Do you trust government in creating ideal criteria for which germ lines should live on - when the human genome project was such a failure?
It could just involve the signing of a simple document that says you and your partner are ready to raise a child together, and preemptively agreeing on who will get custody and who will pay how much should you divorce in the near future.
The only criteria a government needs to check is whether the couple has lived together for a certain amount of time (say 1 year) without an incident of domestic abuse etc. or a past criminal record involving child abuse.
The only criteria a government needs to check is whether the couple has lived together for a certain amount of time (say 1 year) without an incident of domestic abuse etc. or a past criminal record involving child abuse.
And you trust the government to keep it simple and not push any other legislation into it besides the simple "just live together for a year without incident"? What's the punishment for having a kid before you've lived together for a year?
The article's title is misleading - it is not about not working, it's about giving money directly to poor villages for 12 years to provide what is similar to basic income but meeting fundamentally different needs in a very different part of the world. That said, I think it is a fascinating anthropological read.
We often do not realize how many layers of wealth we had to stand on to possess our current wealth.
We often do not realize how many layers of wealth we had to stand on to possess our current wealth.
What's most fascinating to me is the dollar amount: $22/month ==> $264/year. It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year.
I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. You don't have to be rich to cover one (or more) people's basic living expenses at this rate.
Edit: Here's the link to donate: https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now
You can even send money via Venmo to avoid the credit card processing fee.
I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. You don't have to be rich to cover one (or more) people's basic living expenses at this rate.
Edit: Here's the link to donate: https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now
You can even send money via Venmo to avoid the credit card processing fee.
Yes. Recently I've been realizing that humans can live off of very little but we pay for a lot of things that aren't so obvious.
For instance, the people in the village were paying to get iron sheets for roof covers, and if you expense the cost over it's lifetime, it comes out to maybe an extra $1 a month. In the US, you pay $400-2000 a month in rent per person but you get a building that has central air, a solid roof, comes with a kitchen & bathroom with modern plumbing, fulfills building safety codes, and probably a lot more.
The people in the village were also buying access to wealth generation. One person went to invest in a fishing net and hired labor. He went from receiving $20 a month to potentially making $20 dollars a day. It underlines to me that investment is needed to unlock more productivity and better growth. It is sustained periods (decades) of this kind of continual investment that allows leap frogging from one income level to the next that turns a village into a modern city.
For instance, the people in the village were paying to get iron sheets for roof covers, and if you expense the cost over it's lifetime, it comes out to maybe an extra $1 a month. In the US, you pay $400-2000 a month in rent per person but you get a building that has central air, a solid roof, comes with a kitchen & bathroom with modern plumbing, fulfills building safety codes, and probably a lot more.
The people in the village were also buying access to wealth generation. One person went to invest in a fishing net and hired labor. He went from receiving $20 a month to potentially making $20 dollars a day. It underlines to me that investment is needed to unlock more productivity and better growth. It is sustained periods (decades) of this kind of continual investment that allows leap frogging from one income level to the next that turns a village into a modern city.
It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year.
That is, at least partially, because it can't cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. According to the World Bank, the global poverty line was US$1.90/day in 2015, after adjusting for purchasing power.[0] This amounts to $694/year or roughly $57/month. Of course, while it is possible that, after adjusting for purchasing power, those 2280 shillings amount to $60 or more of purchasing power.
I think most Western grocery bills amount to more than $60/person/month; never mind shelter and clothing. And yet, for all of our society's wealth, I wouldn't be surprised if the average Kenyan had a greater net worth than the average American. Without much wealth to speak of, access to debt is likely to be greatly limited.
[0] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...
That is, at least partially, because it can't cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. According to the World Bank, the global poverty line was US$1.90/day in 2015, after adjusting for purchasing power.[0] This amounts to $694/year or roughly $57/month. Of course, while it is possible that, after adjusting for purchasing power, those 2280 shillings amount to $60 or more of purchasing power.
I think most Western grocery bills amount to more than $60/person/month; never mind shelter and clothing. And yet, for all of our society's wealth, I wouldn't be surprised if the average Kenyan had a greater net worth than the average American. Without much wealth to speak of, access to debt is likely to be greatly limited.
[0] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...
Are you suggesting that the article is mistaken for calling this amount a basic income?
> The nonprofit is in the process of registering roughly 40 more villages with a total of 6,000 adult residents, giving those people a guaranteed, 12-year-long, poverty-ending income. An additional 80 villages, with 11,500 residents all together, will receive a two-year basic income. With this initiative, GiveDirectly — with an office in New York and funded in no small part by Silicon Valley — is starting the world’s first true test of a universal basic income.
> The nonprofit is in the process of registering roughly 40 more villages with a total of 6,000 adult residents, giving those people a guaranteed, 12-year-long, poverty-ending income. An additional 80 villages, with 11,500 residents all together, will receive a two-year basic income. With this initiative, GiveDirectly — with an office in New York and funded in no small part by Silicon Valley — is starting the world’s first true test of a universal basic income.
In any case, the basic income is big enough to give people a lot more freedom and security than they had before. It's empowering.
Young people and whole villages can use it to bootstrap: things like proper cell service, internet, and healthy food become affordable where before they were not.
--
GiveDirectly is my charity of choice right now. I have a $1000 monthly recurring with them.
The difference in cost of living between San Francisco and rural Kenya is vast. The upshot is that an amount that many of us here on HN can handle is life changing for a lot of people on the other end.
I live in a co-op, so I save more than that every month compared to many of my friends in rent alone, and still we all have ridiculously comfortable lives.
--
Poverty exists here too, but a lot of it's entrenched and intractable. It has complex causes like bad urban design, bad schools, and political gridlock. It's hard to create improvement with a donation. It requires creative activism.
Rural Kenya and Uganda, on the other hand, have lots of communities full of bright young people where the main thing holding them back really is just an abject lack of resources.
That means there's an opportunity, and I think GiveDirectly is the best organization right now to take it.
- They are effective. They don't do virtue signaling. They don't helicopter in, build a cinderblock schoolhouse, and then pose for photos with smiling kids. They measure outcomes.
- They are efficient. They stick to cash transfers, the most direct way of giving. They track and advertise the fraction of their income that they lose to corruption and overhead. Most charities are worse on those metrics and don't talk about them.
- They are rational. They don't do sob stories. They don't spam. They are run like a startup, by economists.
--
Be an activist locally. Be a donor globally. Many of us are extremely lucky and, by global standards, powerful. Wield it well :)
Young people and whole villages can use it to bootstrap: things like proper cell service, internet, and healthy food become affordable where before they were not.
--
GiveDirectly is my charity of choice right now. I have a $1000 monthly recurring with them.
The difference in cost of living between San Francisco and rural Kenya is vast. The upshot is that an amount that many of us here on HN can handle is life changing for a lot of people on the other end.
I live in a co-op, so I save more than that every month compared to many of my friends in rent alone, and still we all have ridiculously comfortable lives.
--
Poverty exists here too, but a lot of it's entrenched and intractable. It has complex causes like bad urban design, bad schools, and political gridlock. It's hard to create improvement with a donation. It requires creative activism.
Rural Kenya and Uganda, on the other hand, have lots of communities full of bright young people where the main thing holding them back really is just an abject lack of resources.
That means there's an opportunity, and I think GiveDirectly is the best organization right now to take it.
- They are effective. They don't do virtue signaling. They don't helicopter in, build a cinderblock schoolhouse, and then pose for photos with smiling kids. They measure outcomes.
- They are efficient. They stick to cash transfers, the most direct way of giving. They track and advertise the fraction of their income that they lose to corruption and overhead. Most charities are worse on those metrics and don't talk about them.
- They are rational. They don't do sob stories. They don't spam. They are run like a startup, by economists.
--
Be an activist locally. Be a donor globally. Many of us are extremely lucky and, by global standards, powerful. Wield it well :)
Yes. The region of Kenya described in the article is the Western part of the country near Lake Victoria. The national average monthly consumption per person in Kenya is 9,237 shillings.[0] 42% of the population of Kenya lives below the poverty line.[1] It is not a stretch to say that the poverty line in Kenya is going to be at least 6000 shillings a month, most likely closer to 7-8000 shillings per month. The 2280 shillings per month is great but it isn't a life-changing amount for a region where average monthly consumption is in the 6-8k shillings a month range. [0] It will most likely bring the poorest in this region up to the median level of wealth enjoyed by their neighbours.
[0] http://www.nation.co.ke/newsplex/counties-purchasing-power/2...
[1] https://www.unicef.org/kenya/overview_4616.html
[0] http://www.nation.co.ke/newsplex/counties-purchasing-power/2...
[1] https://www.unicef.org/kenya/overview_4616.html
Am I interpreting the data correctly to say this?: The 2280 shillings may provide (or very nearly provide) a poverty-ending income level in one of the poorest regions of Kenya relative to the local standard for poverty, however, this amount would be below the national standard poverty line. Or is that this amount eliminates extreme poverty but not all poverty?
I didn't see the specific region named in the NYT article.
I didn't see the specific region named in the NYT article.
The poorest regions of Kenya are the arid northern regions (per the Daily Nation article I linked above). Admittedly, I want to take that article with a grain of salt, but it does make sense to me that the most difficult regions to farm would be the poorest. This region near Lake Victoria probably around the middle of the pack when it comes to ranking regions of Kenya from rich to poor.
2280 shillings is about 28-38% of the amount needed to get above the (absolute) poverty line, with the true number likely being closer to the middle or lower end of that range. It likely brings the people whom they chose out of poverty and around on-par with their just-above-poverty neighbours but not much more. I'm inclined to believe that they chose a region of Kenya where there was a good mix of people living just below the poverty line and people living just above the poverty line for exactly this reason.
I'm not sure about the distinction between extreme poverty, regular poverty and a national standard poverty line (in Kenya). When so much of your population is in absolute poverty, I don't think that a national standard line makes much sense. It does, of course, make more sense in the developed world where shelter alone will cost more money than the median Kenyan spends in a year; the median Kenyan is not below the global poverty line.
From the NYT article:
Kogelo, where Obama’s father was born, is just 20 miles from the village, which lies close to the banks of Lake Victoria. (This is the first village mentioned)
We took off at dawn from Kisumu, a bustling industrial city on the banks of Lake Victoria, and followed a two-lane highway to Bondo, a small trading city filled with cattle, bicycles and roadside food stands. From there, we turned inland from the lake and drove into a lush agricultural region. (This is the second village mentioned)
All across the villages of western Kenya, it was clear to me just how much aid money was wasted on unnecessary stuff.
2280 shillings is about 28-38% of the amount needed to get above the (absolute) poverty line, with the true number likely being closer to the middle or lower end of that range. It likely brings the people whom they chose out of poverty and around on-par with their just-above-poverty neighbours but not much more. I'm inclined to believe that they chose a region of Kenya where there was a good mix of people living just below the poverty line and people living just above the poverty line for exactly this reason.
I'm not sure about the distinction between extreme poverty, regular poverty and a national standard poverty line (in Kenya). When so much of your population is in absolute poverty, I don't think that a national standard line makes much sense. It does, of course, make more sense in the developed world where shelter alone will cost more money than the median Kenyan spends in a year; the median Kenyan is not below the global poverty line.
From the NYT article:
Kogelo, where Obama’s father was born, is just 20 miles from the village, which lies close to the banks of Lake Victoria. (This is the first village mentioned)
We took off at dawn from Kisumu, a bustling industrial city on the banks of Lake Victoria, and followed a two-lane highway to Bondo, a small trading city filled with cattle, bicycles and roadside food stands. From there, we turned inland from the lake and drove into a lush agricultural region. (This is the second village mentioned)
All across the villages of western Kenya, it was clear to me just how much aid money was wasted on unnecessary stuff.
> I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual.
There is? You give money to GiveDirectly. They even take Bitcoin (I've done it).
There is? You give money to GiveDirectly. They even take Bitcoin (I've done it).
>It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year.
While the lifestyles of people in those countries probably are unfathomable to wealthy westerners, don't forget the cost of living is way lower too. Comparing the converted to dollars incomes is not enough to give one the right perspective on how much they can buy. On 264/year in the US one might literally starve to death; clearly the millions of citizens of those countries are not all starving to death. The cost of food, shelter, etc. are all lower in dollar terms in those countries. They are still impoverished in terms of material quality of life though, of course.
While the lifestyles of people in those countries probably are unfathomable to wealthy westerners, don't forget the cost of living is way lower too. Comparing the converted to dollars incomes is not enough to give one the right perspective on how much they can buy. On 264/year in the US one might literally starve to death; clearly the millions of citizens of those countries are not all starving to death. The cost of food, shelter, etc. are all lower in dollar terms in those countries. They are still impoverished in terms of material quality of life though, of course.
I remember that back in 1990 or so, here in Estonia, which was becoming independent from Soviet Union, my parents (a doctor and a historian) made about $20 per month in Western currency. That bought yo plenty of food and local produce, or anything locally made. Something imported was still just as much as it was in Western countries. Today the average monthly salary is about $1200.
As someone who occasionally publishes in minor publications, I know editors pick headlines and don't always do the best job of reflecting the content. I think editor's goal is to get as many people to read it as possible so they might take some liberties.
Def do not blame the writer(s).
Editors don't just change headlines. In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine.
Editors will do anything they think makes a piece more ready for contemporary mass consumption.
Editors don't just change headlines. In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine.
Editors will do anything they think makes a piece more ready for contemporary mass consumption.
> In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine.
Speaking as someone who has had to write headlines, there can be very strict guidelines we have to adhere to. Masculine is still the default neutral in professional English, in a number of places I've worked at.
Speaking as someone who has had to write headlines, there can be very strict guidelines we have to adhere to. Masculine is still the default neutral in professional English, in a number of places I've worked at.
Depending on the publication, editors may also make changes to accommodate house style; for example, AP, or Chicago, or their own.
I agree, and I think the misleading headline is aligned with traditional resistance to consider BI as a serious economic policy.
In fact, what seems to be a common story in the article is that giving money directly in a way that is sustained over time allows people to plan long-term, stand on their feet and find better work or start businesses, making better long-term financial decisions to reverberate to the whole of the community.
The easy resistance to BI is to say that it will remove incentives to work, and that is what the headline seems to imply. The content of the article seems to suggest the opposite.
In fact, what seems to be a common story in the article is that giving money directly in a way that is sustained over time allows people to plan long-term, stand on their feet and find better work or start businesses, making better long-term financial decisions to reverberate to the whole of the community.
The easy resistance to BI is to say that it will remove incentives to work, and that is what the headline seems to imply. The content of the article seems to suggest the opposite.
I came to the comments before reading precisely to find a post like this. So often these articles have a lofty title that is unrelated to the content, and I'm increasingly clicking on the comments first to verify the headline against the article.
As Milton Friedman would say we are standing on the shoulders of the giants. People who came to these shores with almost nothing and built this amazing economy.
You're standing on the shoulders of giants but not in the way that you think.
The modern anomalous rise in wealth is directly correlated to an increase in the use of fossil fuels since the beginning of the 20th century. So if you want to talk about giants, you should mean to say you're standing on the shoulders of trillions of carbon lifeforms condensed into coal, oil and natural gas over hundreds of hundreds of millions of years.
What people have accumulated in wealth between when life arose and 1850 is entirely insignificant than what was built in the last 167 years (roughly).
The modern anomalous rise in wealth is directly correlated to an increase in the use of fossil fuels since the beginning of the 20th century. So if you want to talk about giants, you should mean to say you're standing on the shoulders of trillions of carbon lifeforms condensed into coal, oil and natural gas over hundreds of hundreds of millions of years.
What people have accumulated in wealth between when life arose and 1850 is entirely insignificant than what was built in the last 167 years (roughly).
It doesn't really matter, but I just hate when some old cliche is attributed incorrectly to someone modern as if it was clever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
I am aware the original phrase belongs to someone else but mentioned milton here because he said in the exact specific context of economic situation in USA.
the subtlety is 'of', not 'is', which changes the meaning. Agree it's kinda a poorly written headline
It's not just the headline.
This is essentially describing charity to poor communities. That's not new. The article's connection between it and "basic income" is tenuous. To be fair, that's not the fault of the article as much as the program itself.
How is charity to poor rural communities with collectivist leanings a test of the vague notion of basic income? Or what will this program tell us about basic income in the US with 300 million people and a much higher standard of living?
Admirable social program, yes. A test of the viability of basic income worldwide? Not so much.
This is essentially describing charity to poor communities. That's not new. The article's connection between it and "basic income" is tenuous. To be fair, that's not the fault of the article as much as the program itself.
How is charity to poor rural communities with collectivist leanings a test of the vague notion of basic income? Or what will this program tell us about basic income in the US with 300 million people and a much higher standard of living?
Admirable social program, yes. A test of the viability of basic income worldwide? Not so much.
With each step, we shall come closer to a test which is applicable to the USA's poor. For now, we are establishing whether the concept works at all. The article described several previous tests, each of smaller scale and with flaws which this new test aims to eliminate.
This program will tell us what the next test should look like.
This program will tell us what the next test should look like.
Do you mind pointing out where? I went back through the article and found:
With this initiative, GiveDirectly — with an office in New York and funded in no small part by Silicon Valley — is starting the world’s first true test of a universal basic income.
As you stated, there have been other attempts, so I don't know what the definition of "first true test" is.
A universal basic income has thus far lacked what tech folks might call a proof of concept. There have been a handful of experiments, including ones in Canada, India and Namibia. Finland is sending money to unemployed people, and the Dutch city Utrecht is doing a trial run, too. But no experiment has been truly complete, studying what happens when you give a whole community money for an extended period of time — when nobody has to worry where his or her next meal is coming from or fear the loss of a job or the birth of a child.
The Mincome experiment was 5-years. Why was it not "truly complete"?
http://www.marketplace.org/2016/12/20/world/dauphin
Back to the article:
That, surprisingly, worked well enough to give them the confidence to start a threadbare randomized control trial the year they graduated. It found that the recipients, who received an average of $500, saw excellent outcomes: Their children were 42 percent less likely to go a whole day without eating. Domestic-violence rates dropped, and mental health improved.
Not trying to be argumentative, just not sure what this is testing. What is it controlling for? What is it doing different from previous experiments? What does giving money to every person in a poor community tell you that giving money to poor people in a wealthy community doesn't?
These are very rural and impoverished communities by developed standards. Giving money to the poorest of the poor seems like an obvious improvement for them. What it doesn't say is how you can do it anywhere else.
With this initiative, GiveDirectly — with an office in New York and funded in no small part by Silicon Valley — is starting the world’s first true test of a universal basic income.
As you stated, there have been other attempts, so I don't know what the definition of "first true test" is.
A universal basic income has thus far lacked what tech folks might call a proof of concept. There have been a handful of experiments, including ones in Canada, India and Namibia. Finland is sending money to unemployed people, and the Dutch city Utrecht is doing a trial run, too. But no experiment has been truly complete, studying what happens when you give a whole community money for an extended period of time — when nobody has to worry where his or her next meal is coming from or fear the loss of a job or the birth of a child.
The Mincome experiment was 5-years. Why was it not "truly complete"?
http://www.marketplace.org/2016/12/20/world/dauphin
Back to the article:
That, surprisingly, worked well enough to give them the confidence to start a threadbare randomized control trial the year they graduated. It found that the recipients, who received an average of $500, saw excellent outcomes: Their children were 42 percent less likely to go a whole day without eating. Domestic-violence rates dropped, and mental health improved.
Not trying to be argumentative, just not sure what this is testing. What is it controlling for? What is it doing different from previous experiments? What does giving money to every person in a poor community tell you that giving money to poor people in a wealthy community doesn't?
These are very rural and impoverished communities by developed standards. Giving money to the poorest of the poor seems like an obvious improvement for them. What it doesn't say is how you can do it anywhere else.
Mincome guaranteed an income floor but it was not UBI. It was a means-tested income supplement to ensure that someone's income didn't fall below $16K year. If they already made $16K they didn't get any Mincome. If they made $8K, they got $8K Mincome.
GiveDirectly gives everyone in the community who registers $22 month. The amount doesn't go down if the person starts to independently generate income. It will be universal, not means-tested.
This isn't necessarily a better experiment, but it is a different one.
What does giving money to every person in a poor community tell you that giving money to poor people in a wealthy community doesn't?
Well, we don't know. Hence this experiment. Mincome, however successful, was basically a deluxe "welfare" program with all the negative baggage that comes with it. If we're giving a supplement to the poor, and taking away that supplement if they become wealthy, some argue it functions as a 100% tax on work, hence functioning as a disincentive. (That's in addition to the "disincentive" of not forcing poor people to work to meet their basic needs.) If you're in Mincome, why take an $8,000 yr. side job? It would be like working for free. But a person on GiveDirectly, if they get a $10/month side job, their total income will be $32. Side work will continue to be a financially productive investment. It's a different type of experiment.
GiveDirectly gives everyone in the community who registers $22 month. The amount doesn't go down if the person starts to independently generate income. It will be universal, not means-tested.
This isn't necessarily a better experiment, but it is a different one.
What does giving money to every person in a poor community tell you that giving money to poor people in a wealthy community doesn't?
Well, we don't know. Hence this experiment. Mincome, however successful, was basically a deluxe "welfare" program with all the negative baggage that comes with it. If we're giving a supplement to the poor, and taking away that supplement if they become wealthy, some argue it functions as a 100% tax on work, hence functioning as a disincentive. (That's in addition to the "disincentive" of not forcing poor people to work to meet their basic needs.) If you're in Mincome, why take an $8,000 yr. side job? It would be like working for free. But a person on GiveDirectly, if they get a $10/month side job, their total income will be $32. Side work will continue to be a financially productive investment. It's a different type of experiment.
It looks to me like you are correct the Canadian thing looks like a universal income. So it could be just a garden variety error on the part of the NYT journalist to say it was the first. I'm happy there are other tests going on. Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist but I've always been optimistic about the future but that optimism has been pushed to the wall lately. This was the first thing I've read I while that made me think maybe the future isn't going to be a total dystopian nightmare. Maybe there's hope.
No, it's not just "describing charity to poor communities". It's about efficiently jump-starting them. Sure, ~$1 per day is very little. But in Kenya, it's enough to start small businesses. And with no need assessment or repayment management, the overhead is very low. Also, I suspect that at least some successful recipients would willingly become donors, making the system somewhat self-supporting.
Average incomes in the US are much greater, for sure. But there are places in the US where average income is just as small, relative to the national average. And what will happen when trucking is fully automated? What would prevent parts of the US from becoming as impoverished as this area in Kenya?
Edit: typo
Average incomes in the US are much greater, for sure. But there are places in the US where average income is just as small, relative to the national average. And what will happen when trucking is fully automated? What would prevent parts of the US from becoming as impoverished as this area in Kenya?
Edit: typo
A lovely asymmetry: econ research on people living in the west is assumed to be generalizable and applicable to populations worldwide, while research on non-westerners is assumed not to be general in scope...
Are they assuming it's generalizable or are they going to find out with testing?
I may be repeating myself but I think aid programs and welfare programs usually aren't as efficient as cash transfers and usually include a means test. The vision, at least, of this program is cash and no means test.
There's the classic problem of the leaky bucket, meaning that overhead drains some resources before they reach the problem itself. Cash is about as efficient as it gets.
There's the classic problem of the leaky bucket, meaning that overhead drains some resources before they reach the problem itself. Cash is about as efficient as it gets.
Because it's cash on the barrelhead. Most aid of all sorts and most social safety net programs are not that straight forward. Also, universal basic income presumably won't penalize people for working or starting a business.
Also, universal basic income presumably won't penalize people for working or starting a business.
There's no universal definition of basic income and it certainly won't be so straightforward once it goes through the meat-grinder of legislation.
It's cash on the barrelhead to the poorest of the poor from outside organizations. That's charity.
There's no universal definition of basic income and it certainly won't be so straightforward once it goes through the meat-grinder of legislation.
It's cash on the barrelhead to the poorest of the poor from outside organizations. That's charity.
I don't understand your point with regard to charity. What's your objection if this is charity?
I understand your concern about messy legislation but is that an argument against it? I see your point, though. I'm guessing, possibly wrong, that the people involved in this have considered or at least will consider how this will be implemented and will fund lobbying to try to get this done as cleanly as possible. I realize I'm making some assumptions here but people aren't going to invest boatloads of money in testing a concept than just let it fail during deployment.
I understand your concern about messy legislation but is that an argument against it? I see your point, though. I'm guessing, possibly wrong, that the people involved in this have considered or at least will consider how this will be implemented and will fund lobbying to try to get this done as cleanly as possible. I realize I'm making some assumptions here but people aren't going to invest boatloads of money in testing a concept than just let it fail during deployment.
"One estimate, generated by Laurence Chandy and Brina Seidel of the Brookings Institution, recently calculated that the global poverty gap — meaning how much it would take to get everyone above the poverty line — was just $66 billion. That is roughly what Americans spend on lottery tickets every year, and it is about half of what the world spends on foreign aid."
Love this.
Love this.
I also liked this:
A vast majority of aid — 94 percent — is noncash. Donor resistance is one reason for this; it is not easy to persuade American oligarchs, British inheritors and Japanese industrialists to fork over their money to the extremely poor to use as they see fit. “There’s the usual worries about welfare dependency, the whole ‘Give a man a fish’ thing,” said Amanda Glassman, a public health and development expert at the Center for Global Development. “It’s so powerful. It’s really a basic psychological feature of the landscape. You’ll start drinking. You’ll start lying around at home because you’re getting paid.”
...
If cash transfers flourished, “the whole aid industry would have to fire itself.”
A vast majority of aid — 94 percent — is noncash. Donor resistance is one reason for this; it is not easy to persuade American oligarchs, British inheritors and Japanese industrialists to fork over their money to the extremely poor to use as they see fit. “There’s the usual worries about welfare dependency, the whole ‘Give a man a fish’ thing,” said Amanda Glassman, a public health and development expert at the Center for Global Development. “It’s so powerful. It’s really a basic psychological feature of the landscape. You’ll start drinking. You’ll start lying around at home because you’re getting paid.”
...
If cash transfers flourished, “the whole aid industry would have to fire itself.”
I'm not against cash transfers, but I feel like they can't solve everything, having a bit more money won't necessarily cause hospitals or schools to appear, so I think that some non-cash support will continue to be necessary to provide expertise that they couldn't obtain on the free market.
If direct cash transfers work the economy of the recipient country will grow. They can then afford to build their own schools and hospitals - and employ teachers and doctors to work in them.
If honest and moral people will rise to the leadership positions - which is not what always happens.
Part of the arrogance of the current providers of non-cash support is their foreign, detached judgement that hospitals or schools are the best ways to help people. As if we can just transport shiny buildings to the third world and magically solve all the problems there because those buildings work great in the first world.
Key words to remember there... "Aid industry".
I'm really curious about the math on that $66 billion number. According to the world bank there are about 750 million people living in extreme poverty. We only need to give them $88/year to get them out of it? And that's just the people in "extreme poverty." It'll be even less if we move up the income scale a bit.
The number seems low to me.
The number seems low to me.
The doc [1] below agrees that there are about 700m in extreme poverty now, which it defines as living below $2/day. If we gave each of those people $2/day, we'd need $550billion/year. So yes, $66b seems low for the $2/day threshold.
I wonder if this $66b is for those who are below $1/day. Looking at the plot in [1], we can guess that the number at $1/day is much lower; $66b would give 181 million people a dollar a day.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/
I wonder if this $66b is for those who are below $1/day. Looking at the plot in [1], we can guess that the number at $1/day is much lower; $66b would give 181 million people a dollar a day.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/
You need to take into account that these people are not living on absolute nil - they have some level of income, be it $1 or $.50 - so you don't need to give each of them $2/day.
The OP article noted the amount needed in the village in the beginning was $22/month, so $.75 a day, give or take 10c.
The OP article noted the amount needed in the village in the beginning was $22/month, so $.75 a day, give or take 10c.
And the system for means-testing at that level would be expensive enough to run, with opportunities for graft, false-positives, and false-natives, that means-testing would be a losing proposition. Just pick a level and make sure no one is double-dipping.
You still have the problem of regional thugs that will come round every "pay day" for their taste. Or beat you up. A pretty simple variation a protection racket, but I'm not sure how to protect against it.
You still have the problem of regional thugs that will come round every "pay day" for their taste. Or beat you up. A pretty simple variation a protection racket, but I'm not sure how to protect against it.
I think that $2 is purchasing-power-parity adjusted (they talk about "international-$"), which is even less in real dollars.
For an anecote on PPP vs real dollars, I remember that in the eighties in soviet-ruled Poland, an average monthly salary amounted to about $20. At the same time, the average standard of living was not that bad: most families had flats with central heating (no air-con though), education up to university level and healthcare were free, most families didn't have cars but public transport was cheap.
For an anecote on PPP vs real dollars, I remember that in the eighties in soviet-ruled Poland, an average monthly salary amounted to about $20. At the same time, the average standard of living was not that bad: most families had flats with central heating (no air-con though), education up to university level and healthcare were free, most families didn't have cars but public transport was cheap.
You don't really need aircon in Europe. It's still extremely uncommon to have in private quarters.
there are about 700m in extreme poverty now, which it defines as living below $2/day. If we gave each of those people $2/day, we'd need $550billion/year
700m × $2 = $1.4b. What am I missing?
700m × $2 = $1.4b. What am I missing?
The multiplication by 365 to get the annual number.
I suppose the idea is that they'll spend the money in th local economy and prosper as a result. The starving man can't do much, but the guy who has more than he needs to survive can participate in the economy not just as a consumer.
Can't say that explains it all but presumably there are other things like that.
Can't say that explains it all but presumably there are other things like that.
Let's say the number if 5 times higher that's still not out of reach, right? I doubt it's 100x higher.
That puts the problem in perspective. This is a solvable problem. I'm a fan of solvable problems and people who solve them.
It is solvable in simplistic terms. It is not solvable by throwing money at it. It just an dumb attempt to guilt people and further this constant bemoaning there are some super rich people in our world.
Most people are poor because of their government. Either through corruption, lack of property rights, or wars both internal and external. We cannot fix poverty in this world until people are guaranteed freedom and safety of person and their property.
Most people are poor because of their government. Either through corruption, lack of property rights, or wars both internal and external. We cannot fix poverty in this world until people are guaranteed freedom and safety of person and their property.
How do you define simplistic terms? If you were hungry and someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government.
I don't know where you live but I'm in the U.S. where it's obvious the number of jobs is going to decline relative to the number of people who need them. Resources won't necessarily decline along with the jobs so I see this as not just applicable to the developing world and not just to solve poverty but to act as a stabilizing force.
On what do you base your claim this is a dumb attempt to guilt people? You're suggestion that's the motivation of those who are backing and implementing this test?
I don't really understand the idea that no action should be taken unless these conditions are met and these conditions are always outside the reach of those who want to act so they shouldn't act because conditions aren't perfect?
I don't think anyone's claiming that testing UI's objective is to see if it will lead to a utopia, otherwise it's a no-go. No, we can't fix poverty if you define fix as a perfect solution that works always and everywhere but if perfect conditions had to be met before anyone acted nobody would do anything productive or useful.
I guess I find your line of argument strange because it does not appear to be founded on anything at all that's coherent, though I'm hoping you can alleviate that problem by explaining it coherently.
I don't know where you live but I'm in the U.S. where it's obvious the number of jobs is going to decline relative to the number of people who need them. Resources won't necessarily decline along with the jobs so I see this as not just applicable to the developing world and not just to solve poverty but to act as a stabilizing force.
On what do you base your claim this is a dumb attempt to guilt people? You're suggestion that's the motivation of those who are backing and implementing this test?
I don't really understand the idea that no action should be taken unless these conditions are met and these conditions are always outside the reach of those who want to act so they shouldn't act because conditions aren't perfect?
I don't think anyone's claiming that testing UI's objective is to see if it will lead to a utopia, otherwise it's a no-go. No, we can't fix poverty if you define fix as a perfect solution that works always and everywhere but if perfect conditions had to be met before anyone acted nobody would do anything productive or useful.
I guess I find your line of argument strange because it does not appear to be founded on anything at all that's coherent, though I'm hoping you can alleviate that problem by explaining it coherently.
> How do you define simplistic terms? If you were hungry and someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government.
Let's work through an example.
North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world, and many people starve there every year. It's also a ruthlessly oppressive totalitarian state; the government decides who can enter and leave the country. The government also runs the entire economy, and directs most of it toward military spending. This is all because the country is essentially under the total control of a single person whose father and grand father decided they like things this way, and the geopolitical situation happened to work out in their favor from 1950 to the present.
Suppose you've got an infinite pile of money to give to North Koreans to solve their problems with not having enough food to eat. It's illegal for you to enter that country without permission and illegal for the North Koreans to accept money from foreigners. So how do you give them the money?
Let's assume you can give them the money; that you have a big cargo plane you can fly over North Korea and can throw money out the back of and be certain that a deserving poor starving person will receive it. Where is the deserving poor starving person going to go to buy food? There's no private farm to shop at. The government run stores aren't going to take this foreign money. They're stuck with whatever the government dictates will be produced, which is obviously not enough food.
Ignore that problem and assume the shopkeeper or the farmer would take the money. What are they going to do with it? Private property is basically illegal in North Korea, so it's not like the farmer is going to save his money to make a better farm that can feed more people. He can only spend money in state run enterprises, which all feed directly into the government, and the government spends it all on Kalishnakov rifles, nuclear weapons programs, and weird foreign assassinations. These things are not great for solving the problems of starvation and poverty.
North Korea is the most extreme example, but lots of poor countries have problems like this that cannot be solved by simply throwing money out the back of a cargo plane. Poor societies often need to change to become not-poor.
Let's work through an example.
North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world, and many people starve there every year. It's also a ruthlessly oppressive totalitarian state; the government decides who can enter and leave the country. The government also runs the entire economy, and directs most of it toward military spending. This is all because the country is essentially under the total control of a single person whose father and grand father decided they like things this way, and the geopolitical situation happened to work out in their favor from 1950 to the present.
Suppose you've got an infinite pile of money to give to North Koreans to solve their problems with not having enough food to eat. It's illegal for you to enter that country without permission and illegal for the North Koreans to accept money from foreigners. So how do you give them the money?
Let's assume you can give them the money; that you have a big cargo plane you can fly over North Korea and can throw money out the back of and be certain that a deserving poor starving person will receive it. Where is the deserving poor starving person going to go to buy food? There's no private farm to shop at. The government run stores aren't going to take this foreign money. They're stuck with whatever the government dictates will be produced, which is obviously not enough food.
Ignore that problem and assume the shopkeeper or the farmer would take the money. What are they going to do with it? Private property is basically illegal in North Korea, so it's not like the farmer is going to save his money to make a better farm that can feed more people. He can only spend money in state run enterprises, which all feed directly into the government, and the government spends it all on Kalishnakov rifles, nuclear weapons programs, and weird foreign assassinations. These things are not great for solving the problems of starvation and poverty.
North Korea is the most extreme example, but lots of poor countries have problems like this that cannot be solved by simply throwing money out the back of a cargo plane. Poor societies often need to change to become not-poor.
Fair enough, the universal basic income would not work in a number of countries that are either failed states on one side or authoratarian on the other, but much of civilization, including the developed world, falls in the zone where this program might work and is at least worth testing. I accept your premise that this can't work unless some minimum conditions are met.
Given that, do you toss the whole idea or do you think it could work in places like Kenya and the United States?
Given that, do you toss the whole idea or do you think it could work in places like Kenya and the United States?
I think it could work in places like the United States, if it is implemented correctly. I'm skpetical that a correct implementation will be possible because the incentives that created the haphazard system of poorly designed transfer payments we have today aren't just going to go away.
It's too easy for someone to say "Group X needs additional support for Reason Y" and end up with something just as expensive and complex as what we have now. I know, because I've managed to bait people on both the left and the right into doing it for different values of X and Y.
By "correct implementation", I mean one that replaces all welfare, social security, and probably some parts of the tax code. Healthcare maybe you can get away with treating separately.
I don’t know enough about Kenya to say one way or the other.
It's too easy for someone to say "Group X needs additional support for Reason Y" and end up with something just as expensive and complex as what we have now. I know, because I've managed to bait people on both the left and the right into doing it for different values of X and Y.
By "correct implementation", I mean one that replaces all welfare, social security, and probably some parts of the tax code. Healthcare maybe you can get away with treating separately.
I don’t know enough about Kenya to say one way or the other.
Yes, I agree, as part of what makes this program appealing is its simplicity and its relatively un-leaky bucket. That is if I have $2000 available for Bob, it's still pretty damn close to $2000 by the time it reaches his account.
As you suggest, it's difficult to imagine this shoehorned in with the tangle of programs administered by multiple agencies.
As you suggest, it's difficult to imagine this shoehorned in with the tangle of programs administered by multiple agencies.
Of course cash transfers won't topple dictatorial regimes, that's not what it is for.
You can't expect a microeconomics proposal to solve an international political crisis.
You can't expect a microeconomics proposal to solve an international political crisis.
I think we're in violent agreement. I just picked an example where
> someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government.
is obviously not a solution. NK is the most extreme example, but there are others which are less extreme and don't rise to the level of "international political crisis."
> someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government.
is obviously not a solution. NK is the most extreme example, but there are others which are less extreme and don't rise to the level of "international political crisis."
Not to mention that if the resources simply aren't available, money doesn't perform magic. Money is symbolic, more powerful than your average symbol, but still, it's not edible.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39088777
Looks like they only paid $90 for the assassination (and materials I guess)).
Looks like they only paid $90 for the assassination (and materials I guess)).
Do you know what the number would be if you included developed countries in the calculation? Or perhaps better worded, how much would the total tab for this be per year? Of course, it's crazy to think it'll be implemented in every corner of the world but maybe this thing will work so well that the holdouts will end up doing it.
The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage.
This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings. This will probably go on perpetually.
This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings. This will probably go on perpetually.
I have no idea if what you say is true but let's say it is true. So the options are incomes and stability or no income and uprisings and instability. Which world would you rather live in? The uprisings don't put food on the table but are likely to have the opposite effect so I'm in favor of the income and I'm in favor of stability. I have a young son and a stable world is my dream for him, along with breathable air, an intact Amazon Basin, etc. The things that I can think of that would make the world a better place are not impossible.
Nobody can predict the future, I was just pontificating, BUT the US government (both parties) don't really work for the American people. I'm talking Congress and the House, the ones that have the real power. The US government was setup by elites for elites. Why do you think white, male landowners were the only ones who could vote? It's in our foundation and has only changed in brief periods.
I think a living wage will be required eventually, but you better believe the people who donate largely to campaigns will fight it tooth and nail. Not only that, they will make sure it's just enough to quell uprisings and comes out of debt rather than increased taxes.
I think a living wage will be required eventually, but you better believe the people who donate largely to campaigns will fight it tooth and nail. Not only that, they will make sure it's just enough to quell uprisings and comes out of debt rather than increased taxes.
Why would they fight it if it was in their interest? The elites have an interest in stability. There would have to be some good marketing and some good direct sales to said elites but to me, it seems obvious that something will have to be done on this to preserve stability. Even an ice cold sociopath would want that, I would think unless these elites are a different species altogether. I doubt it.
For the same reason they fight it now, they don't like writing checks.
Who fights what exactly? I'm not disagreeing I'm trying to understand.
And are elites just one monolith? I don't think that's how it is. I think every group in society has its cool people and its narrow-minded, greedy cretins. I doubt that there's a single entity called the elite that acts in concert after the annual meeting.
And are elites just one monolith? I don't think that's how it is. I think every group in society has its cool people and its narrow-minded, greedy cretins. I doubt that there's a single entity called the elite that acts in concert after the annual meeting.
I think you are pretending to be obtuse. Wealthy people can afford to lobby congress, poor people cannot. Congress (has a whole) rarely does squat unless they are paid to do so. Most, if not all lobbying is controlled by wealthy people. Not all wealthy people control lobbying efforts.
Therefore, when 90% of the workforce is not needed, people who can afford to lobby congress (wealthy) will assuredly continue to lobby congress to ensure that the laws to deal with that problem don't affect their interests negatively. Paying what is essentially social security for everyone isn't going to be cheap. Paying 150 million people (approx workforce) $1000 a month would cost $1,800,000,000,000 a year, and that probably won't be enough.
This is not limited to the GOP and there is a ton of historical evidence of this. The middle class has been stagnant since Reagan. Globalization, trade agreements, ignoring the minimum wage limits, increasing visa limits, not prosecuting employers who use illegal labor, weakening of unions, not allowing the government to bargain on drugs they purchase through tax dollars, not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries, extending copyright monopoly durations, etc. None of those things help the middle class, they only help the corporations and people who lobbied congress.
Here is a list of the top 20 lobbying groups / people. I cannot see of any (except the AARP) that has citizens interest's in mind when they lobby. I certainly don't see any who would lobby to increase their taxes to support a living wage. These organizations are all controlled by wealthy people.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
In short, wealthy people and organizations lobby congress because they are the only ones who can afford to.
Therefore, when 90% of the workforce is not needed, people who can afford to lobby congress (wealthy) will assuredly continue to lobby congress to ensure that the laws to deal with that problem don't affect their interests negatively. Paying what is essentially social security for everyone isn't going to be cheap. Paying 150 million people (approx workforce) $1000 a month would cost $1,800,000,000,000 a year, and that probably won't be enough.
This is not limited to the GOP and there is a ton of historical evidence of this. The middle class has been stagnant since Reagan. Globalization, trade agreements, ignoring the minimum wage limits, increasing visa limits, not prosecuting employers who use illegal labor, weakening of unions, not allowing the government to bargain on drugs they purchase through tax dollars, not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries, extending copyright monopoly durations, etc. None of those things help the middle class, they only help the corporations and people who lobbied congress.
Here is a list of the top 20 lobbying groups / people. I cannot see of any (except the AARP) that has citizens interest's in mind when they lobby. I certainly don't see any who would lobby to increase their taxes to support a living wage. These organizations are all controlled by wealthy people.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
In short, wealthy people and organizations lobby congress because they are the only ones who can afford to.
I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I fully acknowledge that greed is one of the forces ripping the society to shreds. However, people act in what they misperceive to be their best interests all the time. If your scenario comes to pass, then it will be flatly impossible to have anything close to a stable society. The rich do not become rich and stay rich in a vacuum. Maybe some of them think they didn't act on a platform or that they don't need society but if things start to fall apart and the safety net goes from frayed to ripped, the situation can go from bad to worse very fast and keep going.
These lobbyists you speak of and those who fund them can be dethroned in the next wave of populism to hit. The next wave might come from the left, might come from the right, or might just hit as a nihilistic spasm.
The order that you describe above is there based on an illusion.
I'm not trying to make some mystical claim. Pull a bill from your wallet. Try to eat it. What's it worth? It's worth money because of a tacit agreement on its value. There's no inherent value in that $5.
Go to the campus of a University. Why is that place University and not the park down the block? Because we've agreed and yes made laws to protect that designation and the professors and students show up at one and not the other but it's not objective reality woven into the fabric of the universe.
There's a lot of assumptions and agreements in almost everything that's part of civilization, including the details of the order that you described above.
That you will always have electricity, water, and enough to eat are also not written in stone either. Nobody who really understood some history, I mean feels it beyond mere abstraction, would say a destabilizing word in public or try to stir anyone else to act against stability. This person would have a broader understanding of their own interests. They would never advocate for authoritarianism as they'd grok Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., etc.
I am not saying that it's even close to guaranteed that civilization will pull off survival nor do I have any clue how fast we are sliding and how much acceleration is to come and when. Nobody does. But I think it would be foolish for smart people to not consider this with an open mind.
To act in time I think will require some persuasion because if this idea is forced to wait until it can sell itself, then conditions will have deteriorated to the point where even those deep in denial will feel it. Reality can hit hard and fast.
I'm not saying you personally think things are just fine as I can't imagine anyone on HN who is not at least aware of the inevitability of a growing gap between those who need to work to survive and the number of jobs.
Further, I'm sure you're aware there are millions who are not going to be even close to ready to survive through their retirements.
If this all comes together with a malevolent or just clueless demagogue then things could get a whole lot worse, a whole lot faster.
I hope people are watching and learning and can put aside whatever ideology they currently cling to because those ideologies are just hindrances to clear thinking.
These lobbyists you speak of and those who fund them can be dethroned in the next wave of populism to hit. The next wave might come from the left, might come from the right, or might just hit as a nihilistic spasm.
The order that you describe above is there based on an illusion.
I'm not trying to make some mystical claim. Pull a bill from your wallet. Try to eat it. What's it worth? It's worth money because of a tacit agreement on its value. There's no inherent value in that $5.
Go to the campus of a University. Why is that place University and not the park down the block? Because we've agreed and yes made laws to protect that designation and the professors and students show up at one and not the other but it's not objective reality woven into the fabric of the universe.
There's a lot of assumptions and agreements in almost everything that's part of civilization, including the details of the order that you described above.
That you will always have electricity, water, and enough to eat are also not written in stone either. Nobody who really understood some history, I mean feels it beyond mere abstraction, would say a destabilizing word in public or try to stir anyone else to act against stability. This person would have a broader understanding of their own interests. They would never advocate for authoritarianism as they'd grok Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., etc.
I am not saying that it's even close to guaranteed that civilization will pull off survival nor do I have any clue how fast we are sliding and how much acceleration is to come and when. Nobody does. But I think it would be foolish for smart people to not consider this with an open mind.
To act in time I think will require some persuasion because if this idea is forced to wait until it can sell itself, then conditions will have deteriorated to the point where even those deep in denial will feel it. Reality can hit hard and fast.
I'm not saying you personally think things are just fine as I can't imagine anyone on HN who is not at least aware of the inevitability of a growing gap between those who need to work to survive and the number of jobs.
Further, I'm sure you're aware there are millions who are not going to be even close to ready to survive through their retirements.
If this all comes together with a malevolent or just clueless demagogue then things could get a whole lot worse, a whole lot faster.
I hope people are watching and learning and can put aside whatever ideology they currently cling to because those ideologies are just hindrances to clear thinking.
Great comments. I understand your comments on money, but I suspect other modern economies will fair the weather much better than the US. The US wealthy have diversified their wealth in physical assets, gold, foreign currencies, etc; things that have intrinsic value outside of the US. Not only that, they can continue to manufacture in foreign lands and sell to foreign markets. Capital is mobile, labor is not. What they almost certainly won't do is voluntarily give their wealth, without a fight, to combat mass unemployment. They will lobby hard against it (my original thought) or just leave the country.
The Great Depression saw a peak unemployment at around 25%. That took 10+ years, some arguably unconstitutional laws and a massive, global war effort (with destruction of many competing economies) to get out of. That was in a time period when both the political parties actually wanted to solve the problem. In the worst case scenario, with near complete automation and offshore labor, you'll be looking at around 75-90% unemployment in the US in a fairly rapid time period (10-20 years?). We've never seen anything like it; not that quickly.
I'd like to think we would figure out how to adapt, but we've had a serious political discussion about climate change for going on 10 years now, and the US has barely come around to agreeing it exists and is man caused (and I'm being generous) let alone an actionable plan to retard it, let alone reverse it. This denial and inaction is caused by the very same forces that will cause inertia when figuring out how to combat a US economy that can't support a fraction of the workforce.
We recently had the worst financial crisis since the great depression. Who got bailed out and who didn't? I understand why we needed to bail out the banks, but about the only thing the average homeowner got was weak refinancing laws that were abused by the wealthy banks! Furthermore, we haven't taken any serious measures to prevent it from happening again. What measures we did manage to take (Dodd-Frank) are constantly being picked away by those same forces.
We've had middle class wage stagnation for going on 30 years now and the electorate keeps voting for people who do things to perpetuate and accelerate that stagnation (both parties), thanks in part to misinformation and secrecy funded by those same forces.
As far as political shakeups, Occupy Wall Street did nothing. The Tea Party was absorbed then gradually extinguished by the GOP. The most recent political shakeup the US electorate could come up with was electing Trump. I don't have high hopes about him solving our upcoming economic problems either.
What we've been through in the last 10 or so years isn't even the scary part if my dire prediction comes to fruition. I don't think our political system is healthy enough to deal with what might be coming.
PS: This was a lot longer winded than I anticipated, so apologies if it reads all over the place.
The Great Depression saw a peak unemployment at around 25%. That took 10+ years, some arguably unconstitutional laws and a massive, global war effort (with destruction of many competing economies) to get out of. That was in a time period when both the political parties actually wanted to solve the problem. In the worst case scenario, with near complete automation and offshore labor, you'll be looking at around 75-90% unemployment in the US in a fairly rapid time period (10-20 years?). We've never seen anything like it; not that quickly.
I'd like to think we would figure out how to adapt, but we've had a serious political discussion about climate change for going on 10 years now, and the US has barely come around to agreeing it exists and is man caused (and I'm being generous) let alone an actionable plan to retard it, let alone reverse it. This denial and inaction is caused by the very same forces that will cause inertia when figuring out how to combat a US economy that can't support a fraction of the workforce.
We recently had the worst financial crisis since the great depression. Who got bailed out and who didn't? I understand why we needed to bail out the banks, but about the only thing the average homeowner got was weak refinancing laws that were abused by the wealthy banks! Furthermore, we haven't taken any serious measures to prevent it from happening again. What measures we did manage to take (Dodd-Frank) are constantly being picked away by those same forces.
We've had middle class wage stagnation for going on 30 years now and the electorate keeps voting for people who do things to perpetuate and accelerate that stagnation (both parties), thanks in part to misinformation and secrecy funded by those same forces.
As far as political shakeups, Occupy Wall Street did nothing. The Tea Party was absorbed then gradually extinguished by the GOP. The most recent political shakeup the US electorate could come up with was electing Trump. I don't have high hopes about him solving our upcoming economic problems either.
What we've been through in the last 10 or so years isn't even the scary part if my dire prediction comes to fruition. I don't think our political system is healthy enough to deal with what might be coming.
PS: This was a lot longer winded than I anticipated, so apologies if it reads all over the place.
I think you've made some cogent points here. The '30s here were not deeply structural or were they? That is, during the Depression, there was always the potential to climb back closer to full employment. It was thought to be part of the business cycle.
If automation takes way more jobs than it creates, possibly a lot more jobs, then nothing will jump start economy into jobs creating machine even if with higher economic growth.
So there's no gaming the business cycle to kick job growth into gear, though.
Without UI or perhaps a better program that works on the same program, you're NOT keeping the dire wolf from showing up at your window to collect his due. The '30s came close to that condition.
So angry tea partiers were not starving, the protesters on the left aren't starving. This Trumpian wave of populism isn't the worst case. The worst case is a Stalin, a Hitler or some of the sort of malevolence we don't have the imagination to understand due to its depravity. Imagine the difference between well-fed activist headed to the pub after a protest vs. millions of displaced with no hope and nothing to lose. I
I look at what I've written and I can tell I'm losing some coherence due to fatigue as the night wears on so hope it still came through what I was trying to say here. Sadly, because I don't stop by HN enough I might have to sign off soon but maybe I'll stay only for while surfing to see what emerges as I've personally found this discussion great. And other than maybe some minor flair ups of which I'm guilty of as much or more than average, I feel this HN community is pretty damn solid. Nobody actively tried to make look stupid or applied ad hominem attacks, it's an earnestness here that I admire Earnest gets worthwhile work done so keep it up.
If automation takes way more jobs than it creates, possibly a lot more jobs, then nothing will jump start economy into jobs creating machine even if with higher economic growth.
So there's no gaming the business cycle to kick job growth into gear, though.
Without UI or perhaps a better program that works on the same program, you're NOT keeping the dire wolf from showing up at your window to collect his due. The '30s came close to that condition.
So angry tea partiers were not starving, the protesters on the left aren't starving. This Trumpian wave of populism isn't the worst case. The worst case is a Stalin, a Hitler or some of the sort of malevolence we don't have the imagination to understand due to its depravity. Imagine the difference between well-fed activist headed to the pub after a protest vs. millions of displaced with no hope and nothing to lose. I
I look at what I've written and I can tell I'm losing some coherence due to fatigue as the night wears on so hope it still came through what I was trying to say here. Sadly, because I don't stop by HN enough I might have to sign off soon but maybe I'll stay only for while surfing to see what emerges as I've personally found this discussion great. And other than maybe some minor flair ups of which I'm guilty of as much or more than average, I feel this HN community is pretty damn solid. Nobody actively tried to make look stupid or applied ad hominem attacks, it's an earnestness here that I admire Earnest gets worthwhile work done so keep it up.
>The '30s here were not deeply structural or were they? That is, during the Depression, there was always the potential to climb back closer to full employment.
Yes and no, I mean knowing the outcome certainly makes it seem that way. We certainly didn't have the economic knowledge we do today. 10 years of working at the problem had modest results and then a second recession occurred. The war spending was really what got us out of it. We supplied, at a nice profit, war material to England and France for two years before we got involved.
Back then, they (Hoover admin) believed the economy would take care of itself and did nothing (sound familiar?) Finally, Hoover (who was considered a brilliant businessman at the time) decided to enact a protectionist import tariff on Canada which was met with a retaliatory tariff on our goods and that was akin to throwing gas on the fire. A funny anecdote: Congress didn't do much about the dust bowl in Texas/Oklahoma until a 10,000 foot dust cloud was blown all the way from Texas/Oklahoma region, across half the continent, settling in Washington DC.
http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274
>Imagine the difference between well-fed activist headed to the pub after a protest vs. millions of displaced with no hope and nothing to lose.
Yes, I envision this as well, and on a massive scale. With the current militarization of the police in even the smallest towns, I fear, based on history, the local and state government would crack down hard on the protesting, a la Chicago riots in 1968 or the union busting in the early 1900s. Based on how authoritarian and stubborn the US government has become, it won't be long before they get involved and throw what remaining constitutional protections we have out the window. This could go on for years. Propagandists will continue to pit poor against poor along racial lines as they have been since after Bacon's rebellion and as they do today. Violence will begat violence and it might come closer to a 1930s Soviet landscape than we care to imagine as our government will see the protesters as "threats to democracy," and the "anarchists" moniker of the 1900s will come back and need to "be dealt with harshly." It will look foreign where you have the wealth class, the political / enforcement class, and everyone else. Only the last class will be the vast majority of the population, and as you said, starving. Not only starving, but oppressed, harassed and imprisoned. I don't trust our current government culture to handle this gracefully or intelligently. The biggest difference between now and the 1930s is that in the 1930s, the population trusted the government to act in their (citizen's) best interests, to their best ability. I don't think we're anywhere near that today.
As an aside, the Civil War had the benefit of a country versus a country; blue uniforms vs. grey uniforms. With this, if it comes to that, it would devolve into gurilla uprisings, not unlike the Arab Spring with the outcome of either side winning looking pretty ugly. I saw a photo that hit me like a brick. During the protests in Oakland, I believe, a young protester was wearing an Arab head scarf fashioned into mask like you would see in an ISIS video (Shemagh). I hope that wasn't a foreshadow of things to come.
>Nobody actively tried to make look stupid or applied ad hominem attacks, it's an earnestness here that I admire Earnest gets worthwhile work done so keep it up.
Yes, I really enjoy a good, thoughtful, intellectual discussion on the internet. This was the best discussion I've had in a while. I prefer discussing via typing rather than speaking, because I have time to research my own assertions as well as other's. HN is truly a pearl in a sea of mud.
Yes and no, I mean knowing the outcome certainly makes it seem that way. We certainly didn't have the economic knowledge we do today. 10 years of working at the problem had modest results and then a second recession occurred. The war spending was really what got us out of it. We supplied, at a nice profit, war material to England and France for two years before we got involved.
Back then, they (Hoover admin) believed the economy would take care of itself and did nothing (sound familiar?) Finally, Hoover (who was considered a brilliant businessman at the time) decided to enact a protectionist import tariff on Canada which was met with a retaliatory tariff on our goods and that was akin to throwing gas on the fire. A funny anecdote: Congress didn't do much about the dust bowl in Texas/Oklahoma until a 10,000 foot dust cloud was blown all the way from Texas/Oklahoma region, across half the continent, settling in Washington DC.
http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274
>Imagine the difference between well-fed activist headed to the pub after a protest vs. millions of displaced with no hope and nothing to lose.
Yes, I envision this as well, and on a massive scale. With the current militarization of the police in even the smallest towns, I fear, based on history, the local and state government would crack down hard on the protesting, a la Chicago riots in 1968 or the union busting in the early 1900s. Based on how authoritarian and stubborn the US government has become, it won't be long before they get involved and throw what remaining constitutional protections we have out the window. This could go on for years. Propagandists will continue to pit poor against poor along racial lines as they have been since after Bacon's rebellion and as they do today. Violence will begat violence and it might come closer to a 1930s Soviet landscape than we care to imagine as our government will see the protesters as "threats to democracy," and the "anarchists" moniker of the 1900s will come back and need to "be dealt with harshly." It will look foreign where you have the wealth class, the political / enforcement class, and everyone else. Only the last class will be the vast majority of the population, and as you said, starving. Not only starving, but oppressed, harassed and imprisoned. I don't trust our current government culture to handle this gracefully or intelligently. The biggest difference between now and the 1930s is that in the 1930s, the population trusted the government to act in their (citizen's) best interests, to their best ability. I don't think we're anywhere near that today.
As an aside, the Civil War had the benefit of a country versus a country; blue uniforms vs. grey uniforms. With this, if it comes to that, it would devolve into gurilla uprisings, not unlike the Arab Spring with the outcome of either side winning looking pretty ugly. I saw a photo that hit me like a brick. During the protests in Oakland, I believe, a young protester was wearing an Arab head scarf fashioned into mask like you would see in an ISIS video (Shemagh). I hope that wasn't a foreshadow of things to come.
>Nobody actively tried to make look stupid or applied ad hominem attacks, it's an earnestness here that I admire Earnest gets worthwhile work done so keep it up.
Yes, I really enjoy a good, thoughtful, intellectual discussion on the internet. This was the best discussion I've had in a while. I prefer discussing via typing rather than speaking, because I have time to research my own assertions as well as other's. HN is truly a pearl in a sea of mud.
It is a Pearl. I'm going to come back to this thread to read your comment and others I've missed later on as apparently there's more to life than HN.
Is this community kept civil exclusively by users up and down voting posts or are there moderators, too? Regardless, if you value civility you get civility.
I feel gratitude toward those who have built the culture here. Thank you.
Is this community kept civil exclusively by users up and down voting posts or are there moderators, too? Regardless, if you value civility you get civility.
I feel gratitude toward those who have built the culture here. Thank you.
I came back and read this. It sounds to me like your a pessimist. I can't say I blame you. I'm a natural optimist who's optimism has been strained to the limit. Do you see some paths that lead to reasonably good outcomes and stability?
Also, what puzzles me about for example those preaching hatred and stirring people up, is what it is that they want? Are they nihilists who just want to see everything in flames even if they burn too? Do they think they're somehow immune? Are they so blinded by ideology they actually think things will go the way their ideology says it will if only x, y, and z?
How could any human being, other than a sociopath or someone completely blinded by their ideology, possibly subscribe to authoritarianism of any kind? We now have access to all the information we need to find out the outcomes. Do they not at least attempt to grok Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin, Kim Il Sung, et al? If it's ideology-induced blindness then there's hope.
If it's malevolent nihilism as then there will be no redemption.
To ideologues who want to dismantle the state, are you not familiar with the outcomes when states fail? Or do you think that we can't fail as bad or worse than other failed states such as Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Yemen? Do you think you are immune from violent death, disease, famine?
If the United States fails, we may well eat it more thoroughly in the end as there's no aid from governments or non-governmental organizations to even attempt to buffer us from failure.
We will, whether it's through concerted effort or no effort at all, take everyone down with us who thought their geopolitical position or other interest would benefit from hobbling us.
Do you think that all ideologies are wrong or just all ideologies are wrong except yours? Do you think you or anybody else really has the truth? How did you get your ideology and from whom? Why do you need it?
I feel hope when I talk to people who are free from the grip of ideology, who don't let others manipulate their thoughts and emotions. It's not the only thing that needs to happen but the more people who are free from the bullshit the better.
Also, what puzzles me about for example those preaching hatred and stirring people up, is what it is that they want? Are they nihilists who just want to see everything in flames even if they burn too? Do they think they're somehow immune? Are they so blinded by ideology they actually think things will go the way their ideology says it will if only x, y, and z?
How could any human being, other than a sociopath or someone completely blinded by their ideology, possibly subscribe to authoritarianism of any kind? We now have access to all the information we need to find out the outcomes. Do they not at least attempt to grok Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin, Kim Il Sung, et al? If it's ideology-induced blindness then there's hope.
If it's malevolent nihilism as then there will be no redemption.
To ideologues who want to dismantle the state, are you not familiar with the outcomes when states fail? Or do you think that we can't fail as bad or worse than other failed states such as Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Yemen? Do you think you are immune from violent death, disease, famine?
If the United States fails, we may well eat it more thoroughly in the end as there's no aid from governments or non-governmental organizations to even attempt to buffer us from failure.
We will, whether it's through concerted effort or no effort at all, take everyone down with us who thought their geopolitical position or other interest would benefit from hobbling us.
Do you think that all ideologies are wrong or just all ideologies are wrong except yours? Do you think you or anybody else really has the truth? How did you get your ideology and from whom? Why do you need it?
I feel hope when I talk to people who are free from the grip of ideology, who don't let others manipulate their thoughts and emotions. It's not the only thing that needs to happen but the more people who are free from the bullshit the better.
You might like The Penultimate Truth by Philip K. Dick[1]. In this 1964 novel the world has shifted slightly: Instead of giving "just enough to quell the uprisings", large parts of the population are just kept eternally busy to support the wealthy lifestyle of a few.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penultimate_Truth
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penultimate_Truth
Hey if you're a person receiving basic income so you have basic security, then you're free to work for more money or if that fails as it likely will at times, you'll really appreciate having that foundation of basic income.
Yes, there are huge disparities of wealth but when I look at the world my young son is living in and has to deal with, I don't want instability, revolutions, chaos as know enough history to know the failure rate of all that stuff's very high. If the underlying purpose is to "quell the uprisings" or because of pure motives does not particularly concern me. I'm interested in results.
Yes, there are huge disparities of wealth but when I look at the world my young son is living in and has to deal with, I don't want instability, revolutions, chaos as know enough history to know the failure rate of all that stuff's very high. If the underlying purpose is to "quell the uprisings" or because of pure motives does not particularly concern me. I'm interested in results.
Marx predicted that...hundred forty years ago. Hasn't happened. History suggests revolts occur when basic needs are unmet, usually after a nation falls into debt and ruin as a consequence of war
What amazes me is that people keeping keep increasing the definition of basic needs and we wonder why things become unstable.
Universal healthcare is now considered a basic need. We're not even talking about basic healthcare either. I see people arguing all the time that everyone is entitled to a level of care that is for all intents and purposes a premium product that commands a premium price.
If you were to tally up all the entitlements people argue should be basic human rights, you'd have a economically unsustainable system, because you'd eventually take so much from those working that the motive for them to continue participating in the system would disappear. It got so bad in East Germany, that they had to build a wall to keep those that were productive from fleeing.
Universal healthcare is now considered a basic need. We're not even talking about basic healthcare either. I see people arguing all the time that everyone is entitled to a level of care that is for all intents and purposes a premium product that commands a premium price.
If you were to tally up all the entitlements people argue should be basic human rights, you'd have a economically unsustainable system, because you'd eventually take so much from those working that the motive for them to continue participating in the system would disappear. It got so bad in East Germany, that they had to build a wall to keep those that were productive from fleeing.
You could argue that "premium" universal healthcare can't be a basic need because it isn't sustainable, but the alternative, deciding who deserves it based on who can afford it, seems even worse.
This growing sense of entitlement that many people complain about is mostly just normal people wanting all the same perks that modernity brought the wealthy, and I don't think thats unreasonable.
(As a thought experiment, imagine that premium health care was extremely cheap. It would be completely intuitive that everyone deserved it, since we are basically talking about ensuring that people stay alive/in good health.)
(As a thought experiment, imagine that premium health care was extremely cheap. It would be completely intuitive that everyone deserved it, since we are basically talking about ensuring that people stay alive/in good health.)
deciding who deserves it based on who can afford it, seems even worse.
If premium healthcare were extremely cheap, everyone could afford it.
The max is generally: food, shelter, health care, education, communication
But what good is the minimum? Food that you grow and cook yourself, or fried chicken at McDonald's?
Shelter - at what size is the minimum? I remember US standards increased the size of the houses two-fold within the past 30 years (I might be mistaken, I can't find the source now).
Health care - does it include complex treatments?
Education - would signing up to Coursera classes be considered minimum, or a drop in the level of education?
Communication - I considered a broadband minimum for reasonable standard of life. Would 10 Mbt/second be guaranteed? I do not think everyone shares this opinion what is minimum standard of life. When working with others, you would see disagreement over all aspects of it - and it will prove hard to come to an agreement how to define the exact minimum. Furthermore, it might become very hard if the resource you are distributing is referred as a 'free' one.
Shelter - at what size is the minimum? I remember US standards increased the size of the houses two-fold within the past 30 years (I might be mistaken, I can't find the source now).
Health care - does it include complex treatments?
Education - would signing up to Coursera classes be considered minimum, or a drop in the level of education?
Communication - I considered a broadband minimum for reasonable standard of life. Would 10 Mbt/second be guaranteed? I do not think everyone shares this opinion what is minimum standard of life. When working with others, you would see disagreement over all aspects of it - and it will prove hard to come to an agreement how to define the exact minimum. Furthermore, it might become very hard if the resource you are distributing is referred as a 'free' one.
>Marx predicted that...hundred forty years ago. Hasn't happened.
Marx didn't predict that there would be an endless cycle of appeasement. He predicted that there would become a state of automation so advanced that the capitalist mode of production no longer suits the people under it who are being driven to more and more low-standard jobs. The idea that if something doesn't happen in 140 years then the predciton is false is truly a fallacy.
Marx didn't predict that there would be an endless cycle of appeasement. He predicted that there would become a state of automation so advanced that the capitalist mode of production no longer suits the people under it who are being driven to more and more low-standard jobs. The idea that if something doesn't happen in 140 years then the predciton is false is truly a fallacy.
I'm not entirely sure how Marx thought we would reach communism. Looking at it now it looks like super-advanced automation might be the answer, but AFAIK Marx never actually stated as much. He just contended that somehow it would happen. In fact he said things that indicated he thought the transformation into communism was imminent and even happening right then in the events of the time. Certainly historical Communist leaders such as Lenin and Mao thought they could make it happen con-temporarily by executive fiat.
In principle modern democracy, liberalism and capitalism combined with super-advanced automation could well lead to a communist system as described by Marx without violent revolution. If capital equipment (intelligent computers and automated factories) by themselves create more capital, then why would we need capitalists anymore? Currently productive ventures (companies) require investment and management, but if they become self-generating and self-managing then capitalists themselves become necessary. All we do then is vote in democratic governments that tax and regulate such ventures for the benefit of the majority and we're done.
Marx wasn't really against capitalism as such. He was perfectly well aware that it was massively increasing wealth and productivity. He saw it as an inevitable but temporary phase in world history. In that respect he might have been right but not necessarily for the right reasons and we're still to see whether he was right about what would come afterwards.
In principle modern democracy, liberalism and capitalism combined with super-advanced automation could well lead to a communist system as described by Marx without violent revolution. If capital equipment (intelligent computers and automated factories) by themselves create more capital, then why would we need capitalists anymore? Currently productive ventures (companies) require investment and management, but if they become self-generating and self-managing then capitalists themselves become necessary. All we do then is vote in democratic governments that tax and regulate such ventures for the benefit of the majority and we're done.
Marx wasn't really against capitalism as such. He was perfectly well aware that it was massively increasing wealth and productivity. He saw it as an inevitable but temporary phase in world history. In that respect he might have been right but not necessarily for the right reasons and we're still to see whether he was right about what would come afterwards.
If you're saying there haven't been revolts and chaos then I refer you to a citation called the 20th century. Do you want to go another round of that craziness but very likely worse?
>The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to.
No, that is not true. Human beings are complicated, and different people do things for different reasons. There are lots of rich people like Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates who spend the first part of their lives doing everything they can to get rich, and the second part giving it away for the benefit of mankind.
No, that is not true. Human beings are complicated, and different people do things for different reasons. There are lots of rich people like Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates who spend the first part of their lives doing everything they can to get rich, and the second part giving it away for the benefit of mankind.
I agree with you, but those are the exceptions, not the norm and I was generalizing. Also, the context I intended was payroll or taxes. Carnagie did it because he believed rich people won't go to heaven.
"He believed in the "Gospel of Wealth," which meant that wealthy people were morally obligated to give their money back to others in society."
I'm not sure why Bill Gates does it, but I commend him for it. Also keep in mind, most of his charity goes over seas. Furthermore, Gates is worth around $90 billion. If he gave the entirety of his wealth to all US working people (about 150 million), it would come out to a one time payment of $600.
The US is going to have to start keeping it's natural resources and stop giving it to companies for free or pennies on the dollar. You should see how cheap my state sells water to bottling companies that then sell it for a %1600 markup or something like that.
"He believed in the "Gospel of Wealth," which meant that wealthy people were morally obligated to give their money back to others in society."
I'm not sure why Bill Gates does it, but I commend him for it. Also keep in mind, most of his charity goes over seas. Furthermore, Gates is worth around $90 billion. If he gave the entirety of his wealth to all US working people (about 150 million), it would come out to a one time payment of $600.
The US is going to have to start keeping it's natural resources and stop giving it to companies for free or pennies on the dollar. You should see how cheap my state sells water to bottling companies that then sell it for a %1600 markup or something like that.
Exactly. I remember when Bill Gates was the king of the villains now he's a saint. I have whiplash.
Whitewashing his reputation for posterity by spending money that has never been rightfully his.
Oh man, don't get me nostalgic for Bill Gates, the greatest villain the world has ever known. I was happy when he was the villain but didn't know I was happy.
We can't call him out of retirement now, he's busy, and besides Microsoft isn't as scary as it used to be. Nothing stays the same so learn to appreciate it next time an assholish villain rises up to roll you without the slightest pretense of charm and subtlety.
Thank him for occupying you and your friends' thoughts and prayers for mercy and for endless hours of debate, strife, and paranoia because you won't realize what you've lost until it's gone.
One day you'll wake up and your favorite villain will have become a hippie, smoking hash with bedouins, curing diseases, and exuding something suspiciously close to charisma but it's hard to tell.
We can't call him out of retirement now, he's busy, and besides Microsoft isn't as scary as it used to be. Nothing stays the same so learn to appreciate it next time an assholish villain rises up to roll you without the slightest pretense of charm and subtlety.
Thank him for occupying you and your friends' thoughts and prayers for mercy and for endless hours of debate, strife, and paranoia because you won't realize what you've lost until it's gone.
One day you'll wake up and your favorite villain will have become a hippie, smoking hash with bedouins, curing diseases, and exuding something suspiciously close to charisma but it's hard to tell.
> The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to.
Huh? In your worldview is charity just not a thing?
Huh? In your worldview is charity just not a thing?
Not when it comes to payroll, it isn't. You think companies are gonna start cutting payroll checks for charity's sake? They ship jobs overseas to get cheaper workers and skirt environmental protections, what do you think they are going to do when they don't need 90% of them?
You started by talking about "wealthy people" and then switched to talking about companies and payroll. This is a motte and bailey argument: your reply is perfectly reasonable, while your original statement was definitely not.
Large companies that lobby congress are controlled wealthy people, are they not?
the problem with this scenario is that it does not correctly evaluate the dynamic nature of "wealth". Money has exactly one use, and that's the fact that you can give it to people in exchange for things. The value of money itself falls in proportion to its concentration.
Could you elaborate? I was thinking along the lines of money as it relates to Maslow's triangle. The more money you have (or skills that equate to money) the higher you can go. Money is freedom, money is self esteem (for many), money is power. Lack of money is imprisonment, despair and weakness to even protect yourself from predators (metaphorically speaking). If 70% of the population is stuck on the first rung, nasty things are going to happen. Once creating automation can itself be automated, that will jump to 90-95%.
For many, money is survival. It's just a convenient instrument to trade. If you are unable to make or have money, you are unable to accomplish anything you can't do by yourself (this includes shelter and sustenance which requires land).
Also, wealth concentration globally is a lot different from wealth concentration nationally. In other words, if we follow globalization as it's been seen in the US recently, the owners can easily sell goods to offshore markets while neglecting the local labor market, allowing them to further diminish. The wealth class can (and do) simply pay the government for protection (police, imprisonment, military, etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Personally, I'm not so sure a living wage is enough to keep the population at bay. People need something to climb up Maslow's triangle that money is only a prerequisite for. People still need a feeling of accomplishment.
For many, money is survival. It's just a convenient instrument to trade. If you are unable to make or have money, you are unable to accomplish anything you can't do by yourself (this includes shelter and sustenance which requires land).
Also, wealth concentration globally is a lot different from wealth concentration nationally. In other words, if we follow globalization as it's been seen in the US recently, the owners can easily sell goods to offshore markets while neglecting the local labor market, allowing them to further diminish. The wealth class can (and do) simply pay the government for protection (police, imprisonment, military, etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Personally, I'm not so sure a living wage is enough to keep the population at bay. People need something to climb up Maslow's triangle that money is only a prerequisite for. People still need a feeling of accomplishment.
I think you're saying that money does not ipsofacto have value, it's valuable because we agree to that value and can exchange it for items with real value? Sure, so this program won't protect anyone from a famine but are shortages usually the issue?
I see this sentiment a lot and it saddens me because it's a) extremely dark and b) generalizes and simplifies the motivations of large groups of people.
Of course the wealthy are going to lobby for lower taxes, only a dumdum in their situation wouldn't. They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't.
Of course the wealthy are going to lobby for lower taxes, only a dumdum in their situation wouldn't. They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't.
>They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't.
Heh. Now who's generalizing? (sorry, a little snarky). There's a little over 500 billionaires in the US. Gates and Buffet are on record pledging to do this, as are some of their friends. That's a whole lot shy of "most."
Heh. Now who's generalizing? (sorry, a little snarky). There's a little over 500 billionaires in the US. Gates and Buffet are on record pledging to do this, as are some of their friends. That's a whole lot shy of "most."
Um, cite? I'd expect most wealthy Democrats aren't lobbying for lower taxes, because that's a Republican belief.
Famous billionaires who have spoken in favor of higher taxes include Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
Famous billionaires who have spoken in favor of higher taxes include Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
Speaking and lobbying are completely different things. You and I speak, ExxonMobile lobbies. Guess where half of congress (slightly more) currently stand on global warming?
This looks so shiny only because the experiment is low-scale. In a country with an acute shortage of access to capital, small money explainably gives huge returns. If it was done to every, or even every poor, household in Kenya, it won't have resulted in anything but inflation and probably riots/genocide/burning of Give Directly workers for witchcraft. If everyone could buy that fishnet, fish in Lake Victoria will run out in a month, and almost everyone who did that will have simply lost that money. Further advancement will need a ton of capital AND education, and tradition of legal system to sustain complex companies that depend on intangible assets... Simply put, require a first world country to be done in. Handing out $22 a month to every Kenyan would do absolutely nothing for him - at least many times less than handing out $22 to 0.01% of Kenyans.
It's not like i don't believe in UBI. There are few other visible solutions to the automation problem (other may be economic incentivizing - like through tax breaks - and cultural promotion of resurrection of personal servants as a mass occupation) - but it can't work as good as this example simply because it doesn't scale so well.
It's not like i don't believe in UBI. There are few other visible solutions to the automation problem (other may be economic incentivizing - like through tax breaks - and cultural promotion of resurrection of personal servants as a mass occupation) - but it can't work as good as this example simply because it doesn't scale so well.
This is the thing that irritates me soo much. People come up with an idea that doing X will solve problem Y but they ignore the fact you can't just change one simple thing in a complex system and not expect other variations. Giving everyone in the country X dollars will just result in inflation like you said. Plus, it will take wealth away from those people who had wealth currently make up to a small multiple of this new income.
Adding access to clean water, plumbing and electricity is enabling and the kind of investment that will have the most return. Returns can also be had by starting to give access to credit/loans to enterprising people. I liken this issue to Democracy. You can't give a country Democracy but you can help create conditions for its citizens to build it themselves. But there is also a chance that they don't want it.
Adding access to clean water, plumbing and electricity is enabling and the kind of investment that will have the most return. Returns can also be had by starting to give access to credit/loans to enterprising people. I liken this issue to Democracy. You can't give a country Democracy but you can help create conditions for its citizens to build it themselves. But there is also a chance that they don't want it.
As a form of foreign aid giving money directly probably works well. But idea that developing countries need basic income because of automation is just absurd.
If anything they need to get to work developing their country; those shacks are not going to be built by robots.
Fully developed countries on the other hand may face the situation where their country is so well run and have such a high level of automation and specialisation that there is too little work left for the population to be fully employed.
And thus they may lower their pension age, experiment with 30 hour work weeks, sabbaticals, maternity leaves, basic income and so on.
The countries that are closest to this are probably the Scandinavian countries. However at the moment they are all moving towards lower social transfers and higher pension age.
If anything they need to get to work developing their country; those shacks are not going to be built by robots.
Fully developed countries on the other hand may face the situation where their country is so well run and have such a high level of automation and specialisation that there is too little work left for the population to be fully employed.
And thus they may lower their pension age, experiment with 30 hour work weeks, sabbaticals, maternity leaves, basic income and so on.
The countries that are closest to this are probably the Scandinavian countries. However at the moment they are all moving towards lower social transfers and higher pension age.
I got to this on my reading list finally, realizing my first impression that this was a piece promoting an organization called GiveDirectly, wasn't a sound impression (lesson: don't comment till you read the article). This is a higher level than that, it's testing Universal Income, frequently called universal basic income.
Public policy whether implemented by governments or by organizations should test, innovate, change, not just pick an approach and run with it as seems to happen with the largest programs here in the U.S. As far as I can tell there's not been much innovation in the implementation of the safety net since Johnson.
Like anything else humans try to do, there will be bugs, there will be blind alleys, there will be mistakes. Small scale testing is a necessary step so that a working model is ready for larger-scale testing or maybe it'll be found that the implementation will have to have configurations that vary according to local conditions and even just preferences.
I'm a Pacific Northwest guy perhaps out of touch with what Silicon Valley is up to, sometimes I'm critical, but for this initiative, I say thank you. I have no clue how I'd thank anyone for this so just in case anyone involved is reading my comment I would like to express gratitude for doing work that has a high probability of playing a part in making the world a liveable place for my young son and the rest of humanity in the years to come.
By the way, if you've got the chops to beta test UI any chance you could save the Amazon Basin?! Please.
Public policy whether implemented by governments or by organizations should test, innovate, change, not just pick an approach and run with it as seems to happen with the largest programs here in the U.S. As far as I can tell there's not been much innovation in the implementation of the safety net since Johnson.
Like anything else humans try to do, there will be bugs, there will be blind alleys, there will be mistakes. Small scale testing is a necessary step so that a working model is ready for larger-scale testing or maybe it'll be found that the implementation will have to have configurations that vary according to local conditions and even just preferences.
I'm a Pacific Northwest guy perhaps out of touch with what Silicon Valley is up to, sometimes I'm critical, but for this initiative, I say thank you. I have no clue how I'd thank anyone for this so just in case anyone involved is reading my comment I would like to express gratitude for doing work that has a high probability of playing a part in making the world a liveable place for my young son and the rest of humanity in the years to come.
By the way, if you've got the chops to beta test UI any chance you could save the Amazon Basin?! Please.
If every known resource acquisition task was automated, and the discovery of unknown non-automated tasks could be automated to be automated, we'd be post-scarcity and the concepts of working and income wouldn't be useful metrics anymore.
So, yeah machines are a big black hole and our jobs are doomed asteroids spiraling into the black hole. As they spiral into the singularity, humans will be displaced at an accelerating rate, and it will take more ingenuity and effort for humans to maintain "work". And, for what? In the asymptotic limit, the outcome should be no more jobs and "work" in a the way we currently define them, and humans will be truly free to creative pursuits. Never shall a beautiful human mind be wasted on labor which a machine can do.
At some point, machines will be the dominant species pushing civilization forward, not us.
Until then, we're forced to work, we're forced into employment because our world does not simply give us what we want. Food and spears don't fall out of the sky, so we will waste our time hunting and farming until we figure out how to make those things "fall out of the sky".
So, yeah machines are a big black hole and our jobs are doomed asteroids spiraling into the black hole. As they spiral into the singularity, humans will be displaced at an accelerating rate, and it will take more ingenuity and effort for humans to maintain "work". And, for what? In the asymptotic limit, the outcome should be no more jobs and "work" in a the way we currently define them, and humans will be truly free to creative pursuits. Never shall a beautiful human mind be wasted on labor which a machine can do.
At some point, machines will be the dominant species pushing civilization forward, not us.
Until then, we're forced to work, we're forced into employment because our world does not simply give us what we want. Food and spears don't fall out of the sky, so we will waste our time hunting and farming until we figure out how to make those things "fall out of the sky".
The African people would me much better off if we would stop selling them weapons and would pay a fair price for their work and natural resources. But hey, that wouldn't be a great PR action making headlines!
Acting as you suggest and programs like this aren't mutually exclusive propositions. I doubt that the people backing this program are the same people selling arms to Africa.
So nobody should do anything unless they can also solve all problems? I actually upvoted your comment because I agree that those things should stop but I don't have the slightest bit of power to stop it and those who are conducting these sort of studies have more power than me but when put up against giant problems, it's at the margins. That is, they can't stop the arms trade either.
So nobody should do anything unless they can also solve all problems? I actually upvoted your comment because I agree that those things should stop but I don't have the slightest bit of power to stop it and those who are conducting these sort of studies have more power than me but when put up against giant problems, it's at the margins. That is, they can't stop the arms trade either.
My problem is that programs like this does not change anything except making us first world citizens feeling comfortable about not having the power to stop exploitation of a whole continent. It is like a drug for the society making us feel good when we should feel bad and ashamed.
And calling it "basic income" is just propaganda.
And calling it "basic income" is just propaganda.
I don't think that's the point. This program's testing the basic income and I think the idea is there will be a number of tests under different conditions.
If this concept proves viable, then that could serve as a model to scale it up. The problem this is trying to solve isn't that of just the developing world, the developed world is sliding toward a catastrophic failure of the system that depends on there being a job (aka a way to make a living) for every adult who wants to work.
I'm not sure but we could be there now. If we aren't there now it won't be long. The trend toward automation and the rise of AI are enough on its own but there are other trends working against the current system. Add to that even for people who have steady work how well has the retirement saving system been going in the U.S.? There are millions of people who will retire completely unprepared to support themselves for even a decade of retirement.
The need will be global. Unless you're wealthy enough to have no worries at all about money, you might someday be grateful for these initial tests that led to the successful deployment of this system for you. I know I worry about how many years I can make it into retirement when that day comes and I really worry about my son who's a small child. The system is failing yet slow enough that perhaps it hasn't hit you yet.
Actually, even if you ARE wealthy, if the system becomes too unstable ultimately we all eat it. Instability is everyone's adversary.
If this concept proves viable, then that could serve as a model to scale it up. The problem this is trying to solve isn't that of just the developing world, the developed world is sliding toward a catastrophic failure of the system that depends on there being a job (aka a way to make a living) for every adult who wants to work.
I'm not sure but we could be there now. If we aren't there now it won't be long. The trend toward automation and the rise of AI are enough on its own but there are other trends working against the current system. Add to that even for people who have steady work how well has the retirement saving system been going in the U.S.? There are millions of people who will retire completely unprepared to support themselves for even a decade of retirement.
The need will be global. Unless you're wealthy enough to have no worries at all about money, you might someday be grateful for these initial tests that led to the successful deployment of this system for you. I know I worry about how many years I can make it into retirement when that day comes and I really worry about my son who's a small child. The system is failing yet slow enough that perhaps it hasn't hit you yet.
Actually, even if you ARE wealthy, if the system becomes too unstable ultimately we all eat it. Instability is everyone's adversary.
>> This program's testing the basic income and I think the idea is there will be a number of tests under different conditions.
IMHO there have been enough test for basic income where the basic income was decoupled from the free job market. It is called socialism / communism. All of these tests failed badly and ruined whole generations. No sane person have lived behind the iron curtain would consider it as a sustainable economic solution.
IMHO there have been enough test for basic income where the basic income was decoupled from the free job market. It is called socialism / communism. All of these tests failed badly and ruined whole generations. No sane person have lived behind the iron curtain would consider it as a sustainable economic solution.
No, you've got this wrong. First off, let's distinguish our terms to prevent completely muddled thinking. There are different flavors of socialism: national socialism, communist flavor socialism, democratic socialism. You seem to lump democratic (aka European style socialism) with the heavy handed-killed-20-million-of-his-own-people Stalin-style central planning socialism. You can be opposed to democratic socialism just fine without, perhaps unintentionally, confused thinking. If you would take the time to define your terms you can avoid crying wolf.
Basic income does not presume any of the flavors of socialism, though if your particular ideology is libertarianism or conservativism then you've likely been taught to throw any sort of government program into the same category in order to attempt to discredit it.
This is basic income with no strings attached. You can take that money to buy ramen so that you can be a half starving artist or you can take a chance on that job or start the business that you've been hesitant to take a chance on because you estimated the odds of falling hard and broke were too high.
If you retire and didn't save enough in your 401k and Roth IRA's to make it to the finish line without working when you're old and tired then this might make the difference. If you fall on hard times as many human beings do at some point in their lives sooner or later, the UI would be the floor with a little padding.
There's not a single thing about this that has anything to do with the "iron curtain." Nobody thinking this through themselves using reason would arrive at your conclusions and you're probably pretty damn smart. So I suspect the problem that it is not your thinking, you are instead parroting some quasi-talking-points from some ideology or other that you subscribe to.
Please try to get beyond seeing everything that you encounter through the lens of your ideology or any ideology at all for that matter, but if you need your ideology for whatever reason, at least review and define your terms again to make sure you at least have that part right or what follows doesn't have a prayer of coming together as a cogent argument.
Basic income does not presume any of the flavors of socialism, though if your particular ideology is libertarianism or conservativism then you've likely been taught to throw any sort of government program into the same category in order to attempt to discredit it.
This is basic income with no strings attached. You can take that money to buy ramen so that you can be a half starving artist or you can take a chance on that job or start the business that you've been hesitant to take a chance on because you estimated the odds of falling hard and broke were too high.
If you retire and didn't save enough in your 401k and Roth IRA's to make it to the finish line without working when you're old and tired then this might make the difference. If you fall on hard times as many human beings do at some point in their lives sooner or later, the UI would be the floor with a little padding.
There's not a single thing about this that has anything to do with the "iron curtain." Nobody thinking this through themselves using reason would arrive at your conclusions and you're probably pretty damn smart. So I suspect the problem that it is not your thinking, you are instead parroting some quasi-talking-points from some ideology or other that you subscribe to.
Please try to get beyond seeing everything that you encounter through the lens of your ideology or any ideology at all for that matter, but if you need your ideology for whatever reason, at least review and define your terms again to make sure you at least have that part right or what follows doesn't have a prayer of coming together as a cogent argument.
How long have you been living in a country where everything is basic? Your job, your income, your home, your education, your healthcare? What do you know about how humans living under sutch conditions act and how sutch systems end up? You call it ideology, I call it experience.
[Edit:] I appreciate your intent to build up a working socialism and not to fvck it up this time. But some systems simply does not work with humans, only with ants and robots.
[Edit:] I appreciate your intent to build up a working socialism and not to fvck it up this time. But some systems simply does not work with humans, only with ants and robots.
I live in a country with a guaranteed level of education and healthcare (I guess that's what you mean) and I love it. No need to worry when I go to a doctor or whether I can afford university.
As far as I know what has never been tried on a large scale is to give everyone a no-strings-attached 'salary' and let them do whatever they want, without consequences for that income.
Communism definitely didn't let you do whatever you want, while still paying you for it. And in all socialist countries I know of unemployment benefits are decreased as soon as you start working, sometimes even at a net-negative rate (yes, I consider that stupid as well).
I don't know what you mean with a basic home. I guess you could call where I live right now 'basic', but only because I don't care enough to spend more for it.
As far as I know what has never been tried on a large scale is to give everyone a no-strings-attached 'salary' and let them do whatever they want, without consequences for that income.
Communism definitely didn't let you do whatever you want, while still paying you for it. And in all socialist countries I know of unemployment benefits are decreased as soon as you start working, sometimes even at a net-negative rate (yes, I consider that stupid as well).
I don't know what you mean with a basic home. I guess you could call where I live right now 'basic', but only because I don't care enough to spend more for it.
I live in the U.S. and I'm not sure what you're saying about everything being basic. This is about the reality of automation and, soon, AI, not to mention other economic forces whereby far fewer jobs available than people needed to fill those jobs. I assume since you are here in HN you are well aware of what I'm talking about.
So what are your ideas to mitigate the problem? Or would you rather cling to your ideology rather than think about a problem that's destined to destabilize the system that supports your existence? If the basic assumptions and agreements that make civilization possible go out the window, you go out the window as well.
And I'd appreciate it if you'd go easy on the red herrings. Talking about UI does is not the same as talking about the other things you mentioned.
So what are your ideas to mitigate the problem? Or would you rather cling to your ideology rather than think about a problem that's destined to destabilize the system that supports your existence? If the basic assumptions and agreements that make civilization possible go out the window, you go out the window as well.
And I'd appreciate it if you'd go easy on the red herrings. Talking about UI does is not the same as talking about the other things you mentioned.
Of course the best solution is for everybody to just coordinate. But coordination is hard, because there are strong incentives for individuals to defect (see also "Meditations on Moloch").
Making incremental improvements is the next best hope, and this one (giving cash) could turn out to be much more effective than previous state-of-the-art interventions (giving food, medicines, books, etc.). Additionally, enough incremental improvement might reach a tipping point where the poverty/coordination trap can be escaped, and the global equilibrium shifts.
Making incremental improvements is the next best hope, and this one (giving cash) could turn out to be much more effective than previous state-of-the-art interventions (giving food, medicines, books, etc.). Additionally, enough incremental improvement might reach a tipping point where the poverty/coordination trap can be escaped, and the global equilibrium shifts.
It would seem like 'going to work' is becoming a thing of the past, at least for increasingly many people. Labor force participation at multi-decade lows. Gig jobs, welfare, disability, prolonged education, social security/retirement, and the 'underground economy' is replacing a significant chunk of the traditional job market.
Not in the UK. "The employment rate in the UK has hit another record high of 74.2%, and there are more people in work than ever before." https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employment-rate-hits-reco...
> "The research wing of Sam Altman’s start-up incubator, Y Combinator, is planning to pass out money to 1,000 families in California and another yet-to-be-determined state."
Oh, really? Where do we sign up? I'd love to be able to build my business(es) without taking investor funds.
Oh, really? Where do we sign up? I'd love to be able to build my business(es) without taking investor funds.
I believe it's happening in Oakland for the California one at least.
Your remark about building your business without taking investor funds may have been made in jest, but most people build their small businesses through debt rather than investor equity.
For those interested in loans for building a small business, Kiva (who I work for) offers interest-free loans here in the U.S. to those without access to traditional credit or those building socially impactful businesses.
Your remark about building your business without taking investor funds may have been made in jest, but most people build their small businesses through debt rather than investor equity.
For those interested in loans for building a small business, Kiva (who I work for) offers interest-free loans here in the U.S. to those without access to traditional credit or those building socially impactful businesses.
I note in the article many recipients of the cash used it to start businesses. Maybe it's a common response.
[deleted]
That's a pretty cynical attitude. It's obvious the intent of this is to test a program that has the potential to keep people from drowning. I doubt you're now gasping for air as you sink below the waves.
I don't think you understand what Basic Income is. Basic income is meant to support people who desperately need it as well as wealthy hipsters who just don't feel like working.
Means-tested welfare is indeed a program with the intent of "keeping people from drowning", but that's explicitly NOT what this is about.
Means-tested welfare is indeed a program with the intent of "keeping people from drowning", but that's explicitly NOT what this is about.
I get that is ultimately the idea but I guess I figured that the first stage of rolling something like this out would be to those near the edge and there's no shortage of those.
My assumption is the money would be calibrated to subsistence level so it doesn't concern me that a hipster wants to do art instead of work for money. They'll have to live simply but god bless them if they want to paint in a shared house with other hipsters. Then those who want more money will get jobs. The moral hazard of this doesn't concern me but maybe I'm misguided.
My assumption is the money would be calibrated to subsistence level so it doesn't concern me that a hipster wants to do art instead of work for money. They'll have to live simply but god bless them if they want to paint in a shared house with other hipsters. Then those who want more money will get jobs. The moral hazard of this doesn't concern me but maybe I'm misguided.
So the first stage of testing a BI is to build a means tested program? Huh?
The moral hazard of this doesn't concern me but maybe I'm misguided.
vs
That's a pretty cynical attitude...I doubt you're now gasping for air as you sink below the waves.
I'm confused.
The moral hazard of this doesn't concern me but maybe I'm misguided.
vs
That's a pretty cynical attitude...I doubt you're now gasping for air as you sink below the waves.
I'm confused.
No i didn't say that was the first stage, I was assuming that they were going to test this with very poor people near the edge before they tested it with people higher up the income ladder. It's an assumption, possibly completely wrong.
The second statement about sinking beneath the waves was there are people who are starving right as we speak even here in the U.S.
The second statement about sinking beneath the waves was there are people who are starving right as we speak even here in the U.S.
I am afraid of the situation where a person who is reasonably well decides to let go of opportunities in the presence of UBI. The parent post is a case in point - what if the person tries the startup idea; but since the person's livelihood is not on the line, the startup never lift offs?
If UBI endangers the motivation of people 'higher in the income ladder', they are likely to become 'people near the edge'. Since UBI hypothesis is testing ideas for the future, it is hard to predict but important that it does not create a demotivated/poorer workforce.
If UBI endangers the motivation of people 'higher in the income ladder', they are likely to become 'people near the edge'. Since UBI hypothesis is testing ideas for the future, it is hard to predict but important that it does not create a demotivated/poorer workforce.
[deleted]
I apologize for calling your initial post cynical as that's right up there with guessing someone's motives. It's usually a wrong guess and, regardless, not helpful.
What's cynical about it?
I guess I must not understand what UBI is all about. I had thought it WASN'T a form of welfare. Rather, it's UNIVERSAL in nature. That would mean theoretically everyone from millionaires, to the poorest, would receive UBI funds.
I'd love to be free from having to earn an income, so that I can work on my own projects (businesses). But who wouldn't, right?
I guess I must not understand what UBI is all about. I had thought it WASN'T a form of welfare. Rather, it's UNIVERSAL in nature. That would mean theoretically everyone from millionaires, to the poorest, would receive UBI funds.
I'd love to be free from having to earn an income, so that I can work on my own projects (businesses). But who wouldn't, right?
I tried to right my mistake of saying it was cynical by apologizing above. It's not cynical.
As far as free from having to earn an income, of course, you realize we're talking about a floor? Someone could correct me on this but my understanding is "basic income" means enough to survive?
Some people would accept living very simply so they could work on their personal projects, build their business, etc., while others would make seeking additional income their highest priority. That's what I like about this concept is that there does not appear to be coercion or social engineering involved.
As far as free from having to earn an income, of course, you realize we're talking about a floor? Someone could correct me on this but my understanding is "basic income" means enough to survive?
Some people would accept living very simply so they could work on their personal projects, build their business, etc., while others would make seeking additional income their highest priority. That's what I like about this concept is that there does not appear to be coercion or social engineering involved.
One interpretation of UBI is reverse taxation, where you start off with a negative tax obligation instead of 0, and positive tax obligations are added on top of that, usually resulting in a positive balance.
In that situation, is someone with a positive tax obligation really receiving UBI funds? What about if all taxes are raised slightly so that the majority of people's tax obligations remain unchanged? It all gets very pedantic, but it is generally considered both welfare and universal.
It can get even more pedantic in other interpretations, especially when it isn't the government providing the income.
In that situation, is someone with a positive tax obligation really receiving UBI funds? What about if all taxes are raised slightly so that the majority of people's tax obligations remain unchanged? It all gets very pedantic, but it is generally considered both welfare and universal.
It can get even more pedantic in other interpretations, especially when it isn't the government providing the income.
Yes, the "negative income tax" seems to be a mechanism by which to implement UBI. This idea has had champions on the left and right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
That's the exact opposite of a cynical attitude. It's the attitude I hope all the participants will have. If everyone receiving BI are not trying to make something better out of their lives, then UBI is no better at helping the poor then any other charity -- the old give a man a fish thing.
No US citizen in California really has to worry about starving to death. They do have to worry about losing their benefits, and in some cases having to retroactively pay them back.
I have my doubts about UBI, though. I lived in a poor neighborhood in Las Vegas. About a quarter of the residents were drug addicts, and living among them were the drug dealers. They all were on public assistance, and spent most of their time trying to steal anything they could from the people and shops around them.
Ever wonder why so many poor people vote Republican? This is it. People there were afraid to leave their homes at night and the hope was a Republican government would clean up their neighborhood for them. But I digress...
No US citizen in California really has to worry about starving to death. They do have to worry about losing their benefits, and in some cases having to retroactively pay them back.
I have my doubts about UBI, though. I lived in a poor neighborhood in Las Vegas. About a quarter of the residents were drug addicts, and living among them were the drug dealers. They all were on public assistance, and spent most of their time trying to steal anything they could from the people and shops around them.
Ever wonder why so many poor people vote Republican? This is it. People there were afraid to leave their homes at night and the hope was a Republican government would clean up their neighborhood for them. But I digress...
Consider that if basic income isn't tied to a job, it makes it that much easier to move away from such places. (For example, look at all the retirees living in Florida.)
So no basic income just let them steal everything they need? If you're suggesting that everyone can just get a job, the idea is that we are moving toward a time when there simply won't be enough jobs to go around. By the time this program is ready for prime time if it is ever is, that gap between available work and people might be well underway. This in addition to how many people are ready for retirement? There are a lot of trends coming together that could generate the perfect storm that drops us into to utter dystopian chaos.
I've probably spent way too much time on this thread today but this is the most hopeful thing I've seen a while. The news every day is relentlessly negative sometimes horrific.
I don't think this idea would turn that neighborhood you lived in into a utopia, either.
I've probably spent way too much time on this thread today but this is the most hopeful thing I've seen a while. The news every day is relentlessly negative sometimes horrific.
I don't think this idea would turn that neighborhood you lived in into a utopia, either.
Your concern is the moral hazard. What if automation and other changes make impossible to find jobs for everyone, a massive challenge already, maybe already impossible?
And if everyone's included there doesn't need to be resentment as bob down the street isn't getting something you are not getting, right?
And if everyone's included there doesn't need to be resentment as bob down the street isn't getting something you are not getting, right?
we do not use money because it makes sense. money exists in the form it takes today because of human nature. we think someone has to earn their food. we think a homeless person deserves a handout because they look like they are at least trying to get on their feet (or not when they dont). machine intelligence is not the only problem that our wealth distribution system is facing. we have faced massive inequality before, and are facing it right now, and no solutions have been implemented. and like all the trials of equality before it, the automation of jobs will result in the smartest and fasted humans owning the vast majority of wealth and influence while the rest of us sit in mud.
> the automation of jobs will result in the smartest and fasted humans owning the vast majority of wealth and influence while the rest of us sit in mud.
So you are arguing the rich are rich because they are the smartest? I would tweak your assessment. The rich are rich because wealth perpetuates the capture of wealth at a rate greater than the expansion of the economy.
So you are arguing the rich are rich because they are the smartest? I would tweak your assessment. The rich are rich because wealth perpetuates the capture of wealth at a rate greater than the expansion of the economy.
having wealth is one half of the equation when it comes to self perpetuation of wealth. being very smart is the other half. look at people who win the lottery. they spend it all away, often becoming broke. and the people who get wealth in the first place are more likely to be smart. smart people end up getting a lot of money because they are smart. and they use it to stay wealthy because they are smart.
[deleted]
Interesting comment below the article regarding a government-run programme in Brazil trying something similar:
"However, there is a trend of the part of these persons become dependent of this benefit and do not strive to change this situation..."
That was my immediate reaction after reading this. What about after the twelve years, when the donors ride off into the sunset? There are some encouraging stories there of participants using the money wisely, but not all will do so. You could argue that nobody is forcing them to participate, but it does seem at least a little ethically questionable. Particularly given the targeted demographic of a rural Kenyan community with (presumably - I could be wrong) low education levels.
That was my immediate reaction after reading this. What about after the twelve years, when the donors ride off into the sunset? There are some encouraging stories there of participants using the money wisely, but not all will do so. You could argue that nobody is forcing them to participate, but it does seem at least a little ethically questionable. Particularly given the targeted demographic of a rural Kenyan community with (presumably - I could be wrong) low education levels.
If this solves their basic needs, housing, food, medical, education, ..., then why would they need to 'strive for change"? Seems to me the world would be a far better place if people could get more content with just living. We have no shortage of produce already, and that is before the automation revolutions coming in the next decades. Just living without exponential 'wealth' accumulation plans that invariably seem to include some form of over-exploiting natural resources while externalizing the effects, or rent-seeking schemes that create lopsided distributions, seems to be a far more 'civil' future.
Here's how I think the only possible way this will ever be realized: A non-profit organization will have one of the highest (top 10 to pick an arbitrary number) net-worths of any company on earth.
Like a government?
The article states that the $66bn "it would take to get everyone above the poverty line" is "about half of what the world spends on foreign aid." Maybe they could just reallocate a bit.
The Catholic Church.
I think that fundamentally, the thing we're going to run up against is population growth.
I think history has proven that we can live in extremely wretched conditions. By giving money to people, are we going to be increasing their living standards or just creating more mouths to feed?
Note that the basic income only applies to whoever registers at the beginning of the program. Would that amount of basic income cause the population to explode, so that the per-capita amount of goods/money remains constant?
I think history has proven that we can live in extremely wretched conditions. By giving money to people, are we going to be increasing their living standards or just creating more mouths to feed?
Note that the basic income only applies to whoever registers at the beginning of the program. Would that amount of basic income cause the population to explode, so that the per-capita amount of goods/money remains constant?
Wealth has the opposite effect as a number of studies have demonstrated. People with a little money in their pocket have fewer kids. I can easily find more citations if you'd like but here's an outline of the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
"A little money" is relative. They're giving on the order of 250 dollars a year, and the income/fertility chart only really kicks in at about 10k or 20k a year.
I don't know the threshold between living in crushing poverty versus simple poverty, but this amount of money wouldn't greatly affect fertility rates based on the chart, but might encourage people to have more children.
I don't know the threshold between living in crushing poverty versus simple poverty, but this amount of money wouldn't greatly affect fertility rates based on the chart, but might encourage people to have more children.
Ah, my knowledge of this was not detailed enough to catch that threshold. So in this Kenyan Village it's still $10k to $20k threshold?
I don't know if there's a threshold per se, but the X-axis on the graph you cited is demarcated as 10k per line. 250 dollars a year is about 1/40th of each unit on the X-axis.
And that graph seems to apply to people all over the world, I don't see why this Kenyan village would be any different.
The fertility reductions really only seem to matter once you get to 10k or 20k of annual income a year. I agree that if you gave 10k a year strings unattached to every person in that community, fertility might drop.
However, by injecting that much capital into a poverty stricken area, fertility might actually increase, as they would be the most prosperous group by far in the area. Also, there would almost certainly be huge unintended consequences, such as massive inflation and the increase in deprivation of people not receiving the money.
And that graph seems to apply to people all over the world, I don't see why this Kenyan village would be any different.
The fertility reductions really only seem to matter once you get to 10k or 20k of annual income a year. I agree that if you gave 10k a year strings unattached to every person in that community, fertility might drop.
However, by injecting that much capital into a poverty stricken area, fertility might actually increase, as they would be the most prosperous group by far in the area. Also, there would almost certainly be huge unintended consequences, such as massive inflation and the increase in deprivation of people not receiving the money.
Yes, you make some sound points here for sure. What is your position on the concept of universal basic income, setting aside beta tests for now.
And what do you think it's viable, what would it take to make it viable. Maybe consider a few scenarios say how it might work (or not work) in different parts of the world, including both developing and developed.
And what do you think it's viable, what would it take to make it viable. Maybe consider a few scenarios say how it might work (or not work) in different parts of the world, including both developing and developed.
I don't know enough about UBI to say anything for sure.
I know that either UBI will have to be so slow that it'll be useless for those in a first world country (like 250 dollars a year) or else we'll have to have far stricter immigration controls than ever - a UBI for first world standards would be unimaginable luxury for those living in third world conditions.
Fundamentally I think it comes down to population control. A geometrically increasing population is simply not sustainable for any long enough period of time. My personal opinion is that if UBI could be linked to contraception (you only receive UBI if you're not allowed to have children while on UBI or take care of children with your UBI funds) then that could work.
I know that either UBI will have to be so slow that it'll be useless for those in a first world country (like 250 dollars a year) or else we'll have to have far stricter immigration controls than ever - a UBI for first world standards would be unimaginable luxury for those living in third world conditions.
Fundamentally I think it comes down to population control. A geometrically increasing population is simply not sustainable for any long enough period of time. My personal opinion is that if UBI could be linked to contraception (you only receive UBI if you're not allowed to have children while on UBI or take care of children with your UBI funds) then that could work.
wealth is strongly inversely coorolated with population growth. Keeping people in poverty means they have more children, not the reverse.
Only because wealth is positively correlated with education and impulse control.
There's no reason to believe handing a poor, uneducated person with no impulse control a big wad of cash will have the same effect.
There's no reason to believe handing a poor, uneducated person with no impulse control a big wad of cash will have the same effect.
As replied to above, the basic income doesn't highly correspond to wealth on the scales involved based on the studies frequently cited.
UBI would incentivize people to have more kids. I think that would override the wealth to children correlation.
Also, wealthy people are often busy trying to maintain their own wealth. The excuse about not having kids is often about being more career oriented.
Also, wealthy people are often busy trying to maintain their own wealth. The excuse about not having kids is often about being more career oriented.
Sounds like a great programme with little reported short-term negative effects. By no way is this a beta test to anything other than reproducing this in other similar cultural conditions, which may also require having seen previous aid attempts fail.
The worst-case scenario I fear is that UBI given without also providing outlets for activities that actually get used will result in an adult version of problem of otherwise well-off of suburban youth.
The worst-case scenario I fear is that UBI given without also providing outlets for activities that actually get used will result in an adult version of problem of otherwise well-off of suburban youth.
Work will have to be redefined. It's a psychological need to form teams and solve your needs or some others. That is the underlying basis.
In order for this to work, you have to define "universal" in the context of how automation affects the global economy, not just the US or any national economy. Example: are we going to send a stipend to Bengali citizens who are displaced from textile manufacturing jobs by robot factories in the U.S.?
the title does not reflect the article and the article does not reflect the subject. like everyone else here, i did not read it because after dangling a few hard facts and conclusions in front of your face, the article goes off on tangents about the personal stories of people who are involved but not instrumental. this toxic mix of novel-style story telling and actual reporting has made these articles unreadable for me. people dont give a shit about the narrative of the stupid author or even people involved in setting up this whole thing -- people want to know how the experiment went! did it work? did the people end up being lazy and unproductive like all the ubi detractors say they will? but no, i cannot know these things without fishing through pages of garbage. and when i know someone else has already done it here in the comments to reap the karma, why on earth would i even click the link?
This is a nice article, but I'd like to remind everyone that it's probably also native advertising.
The New York Times discloses their native advertising. Also, I doubt that GiveDirectly has the budget for a $100k+ media campaign.
Can someone summarize the results?
[deleted]
Why is "defining a problem called 'not working'" not called "massively manipulating the economy"? From the point of view of the people who work hard to make Kenya's economy work, this can't possibly be helpful. It sounds like an evil, abusive psychological experiment.
Forget about "fake news", the New York Times is literally evil news. It is literally promoting views that proliferate evil. Injecting this level of disorder into an economy and lying about it is a level of deception that goes into moral perversion.
Let me make this clear: I am directly accusing Annie Lowrey of promoting excessively morally corrupt views. She is responsible for promoting evil. This is a person who wakes up in the morning and works hard to promote evil.
Think about that.
Edit: I was down-voted without explanation or rebuttal. If you disagree with what I have written, don't attack my anonymously. I want my karma to be a healthy score, and I don't appreciate people (or bots) decreasing my karma score, and I consider it a personal attack against my reputation.
Forget about "fake news", the New York Times is literally evil news. It is literally promoting views that proliferate evil. Injecting this level of disorder into an economy and lying about it is a level of deception that goes into moral perversion.
Let me make this clear: I am directly accusing Annie Lowrey of promoting excessively morally corrupt views. She is responsible for promoting evil. This is a person who wakes up in the morning and works hard to promote evil.
Think about that.
Edit: I was down-voted without explanation or rebuttal. If you disagree with what I have written, don't attack my anonymously. I want my karma to be a healthy score, and I don't appreciate people (or bots) decreasing my karma score, and I consider it a personal attack against my reputation.
This is all speculation, but from what I've observed on HN there could be a number of reasons you were downvoted.
- HN isn't primarily for political or ideological debate. Creating a new account and starting with a contentious comment probably looked like someone creating an account purely for ideological battle, which is an abuse of HN.
- The HN community strongly values civil discourse, which usually requires keeping strong, passionate, strident language at a lower level, particularly on contentious issues. Phrases like "literally evil news", "literally promoting views that proliferate evil", and "moral perversion" don't meet the expectation of civil discourse, regardless of how strongly you believe them to be true. (Yes, this is "it's not what you say, it's how you say it".)
- You've made a direct, harsh attack on someone without providing any support.
- After receiving downvotes, you complained about it. This is explicitly against HN guidelines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As I stated from the outset, this is speculation. For what people would consider obvious disregard for community standards, they may downvote and not think it's necessary to comment why.
As you express concern about your karma, as you're new to commenting on HN, I suggest refraining from commenting on contentious topics for a while until you become more accustomed to the HN community. There are plenty of other interesting submissions that you may find to contribute to and not find yourself as open to downvotes. I'm sorry you've found your first brush with the HN community to be negative. I hope you find what I've written useful and that you have a more positive experience in the future!
- HN isn't primarily for political or ideological debate. Creating a new account and starting with a contentious comment probably looked like someone creating an account purely for ideological battle, which is an abuse of HN.
- The HN community strongly values civil discourse, which usually requires keeping strong, passionate, strident language at a lower level, particularly on contentious issues. Phrases like "literally evil news", "literally promoting views that proliferate evil", and "moral perversion" don't meet the expectation of civil discourse, regardless of how strongly you believe them to be true. (Yes, this is "it's not what you say, it's how you say it".)
- You've made a direct, harsh attack on someone without providing any support.
- After receiving downvotes, you complained about it. This is explicitly against HN guidelines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As I stated from the outset, this is speculation. For what people would consider obvious disregard for community standards, they may downvote and not think it's necessary to comment why.
As you express concern about your karma, as you're new to commenting on HN, I suggest refraining from commenting on contentious topics for a while until you become more accustomed to the HN community. There are plenty of other interesting submissions that you may find to contribute to and not find yourself as open to downvotes. I'm sorry you've found your first brush with the HN community to be negative. I hope you find what I've written useful and that you have a more positive experience in the future!
Anything that reduces the oppression of women is a good thing. Freedom is the ability to make choices.
returnbuyer(1)
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's interesting how this runs counter to the two dominant political ideologies in the US.
Liberals believe that the poor are too dumb and helpless to figure out what they want, so the government should do it, both domestically and in foreign aid.
Conservatives believe that the poor are poor because they are unintelligent and lack good values (or they are acting rationally in response to liberal welfare programs), and domestic and foreign programs should be eliminated in favor of religious missions.
What programs like this are finding is the the poor are intelligent and well-motivated, and they just need an opportunity to get out of the hole they are stuck in.
Let me add that, from what I understand, foreign aid programs can be very helpful in areas like public health.
Liberals believe that the poor are too dumb and helpless to figure out what they want, so the government should do it, both domestically and in foreign aid.
Conservatives believe that the poor are poor because they are unintelligent and lack good values (or they are acting rationally in response to liberal welfare programs), and domestic and foreign programs should be eliminated in favor of religious missions.
What programs like this are finding is the the poor are intelligent and well-motivated, and they just need an opportunity to get out of the hole they are stuck in.
Let me add that, from what I understand, foreign aid programs can be very helpful in areas like public health.
I think it's important to realize that there are many causes of poverty, ranging from political to cultural to infrastructure to capital. What programs like GiveDirectly and the Grameen Bank's operations in Bangladesh are finding is that when the limiting factor is lack of money, giving people money helps, a lot.
There are other places in the world where the limiting factor is that if you give people money, some warlord will come in with guns and take it away. There are other places where if you give money, the local villagers will drink it away. There are still other places where you can give money and people will use it productively to grow more crops, and then the crops will rot in the fields because the transportation infrastructure to transport them to where they're needed doesn't exist.
In places like Kenya or Bangladesh where there is relatively peace, a relatively industrious culture, and the know-how to profitably invest capital, giving money helps. In other places - DRC for example, or rural Peru - the money just gets redistributed to people who will use it to keep the locals down.
There are other places in the world where the limiting factor is that if you give people money, some warlord will come in with guns and take it away. There are other places where if you give money, the local villagers will drink it away. There are still other places where you can give money and people will use it productively to grow more crops, and then the crops will rot in the fields because the transportation infrastructure to transport them to where they're needed doesn't exist.
In places like Kenya or Bangladesh where there is relatively peace, a relatively industrious culture, and the know-how to profitably invest capital, giving money helps. In other places - DRC for example, or rural Peru - the money just gets redistributed to people who will use it to keep the locals down.
This program doesn't have an ideology I don't think nor does it make assumptions about people. Give people money and some will work on top of it to live higher, some will write a novel, some will devote themselves to building software. And yes some will sit around taking bong hits and eating Cheetos.
It does not matter to me as none of these is likely to hurt others. Where someone is using this money to hurt others we have laws as imperfect as they are. Humans will always be imperfect and society will always be imperfect as an understatement.
It does not matter to me as none of these is likely to hurt others. Where someone is using this money to hurt others we have laws as imperfect as they are. Humans will always be imperfect and society will always be imperfect as an understatement.
Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies. That ideology also strongly believes in personal responsibility, you are the master of your own outcomes. While there is a realization that yes, the system is rigged in favor of rent seeking and exponential accumulation, there is also the believe that at least some of the wealth is shared through 'trickle down' employment schemes. It is important to realize this 'sharing' is not a deliberate goal, but more like the man in the story hiring a day-laborer to help with his fishing, an accidental byproduct of accelerating rent-seeking wealth accumulation. The fishing aid is not hired for charity, but because the potential of the fishing net in maximizing return is higher even after deducting wages. He also has no concept of sustainability. His motive is immediate profit maximization, so he can go on hiring boats and fisherman until the lake is all fished up. By that time he'll be 'rich', probably living far away or at least long have crossed the threshold where is further wealth accumulation does not depend on any specific lake or industry. It is those hired fishing aids that will feel the brunt of this natural disaster, not the owner. Back to the US. What happens if trickle down stops because machines are better/cheaper/faster? What do you 'do' with 'people'? Let them starve in horrible circumstances while you hide behind big fences guarded by a ruthless G4S private army? Or do you somehow continue to trickle down? But on what basis? 'Meaningless' labor, just because you can't stand 'laziness'? Or do you provide the 'basics', like food, shelter, medicine, regardless of their inherently meaningless chore completion rate? I guess what it realy boils down to in the end is the question of what we believe 'being human' is all about.
> Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies.
I suppose that from 1992 until (but not including) 2016, looking from the outside only at major party Presidential nominees, it would be easy to miss the substantial dissent from the neoliberal consensus in the US (even within both major parties, and even in the segment of those parties in government.)
OTOH, since we elected an authoritarian populist whose economic approach blends mercantilist protectionism with corporatism, the idea that the only economic philosophy with any currency in US politics is neoliberalism isn't even something that relatively disengaged foreign observers can be excused.for.buying into.
I suppose that from 1992 until (but not including) 2016, looking from the outside only at major party Presidential nominees, it would be easy to miss the substantial dissent from the neoliberal consensus in the US (even within both major parties, and even in the segment of those parties in government.)
OTOH, since we elected an authoritarian populist whose economic approach blends mercantilist protectionism with corporatism, the idea that the only economic philosophy with any currency in US politics is neoliberalism isn't even something that relatively disengaged foreign observers can be excused.for.buying into.
> As automation reduces the need for human labor, some
Silicon Valley executives think a universal income will
be the answer — and the beta test is happening in Kenya.
This is not the situation I think of when I hear "basic income." Why Kenya?
> GiveDirectly wants to show the world that a basic income is a cheap, scalable way to aid the poorest people on the planet.
Oh.
I was under the belief that only the middle class protested for basic income. It would have been more interesting if the "beta test" was done on educated/ first world persons, so we can finally get progress (or a full stop) on this debate.
I believe this idea wasn't thought out past the "we want to put on airs" phase. Is injecting capital into a system that relies on crime to keep afloat, really the best idea GiveDirectly could have come up with?
This is similar to the Toms fiasco where they would donate a pair of shoes to Africa for every pair bought -- it crippled the local fabrics businesses.
Perhaps if one wanted to fix the African economy, one would invest into economic think-tanks and their executionary tandems, instead of over glorified tax shelters.
This is not the situation I think of when I hear "basic income." Why Kenya?
> GiveDirectly wants to show the world that a basic income is a cheap, scalable way to aid the poorest people on the planet.
Oh.
I was under the belief that only the middle class protested for basic income. It would have been more interesting if the "beta test" was done on educated/ first world persons, so we can finally get progress (or a full stop) on this debate.
I believe this idea wasn't thought out past the "we want to put on airs" phase. Is injecting capital into a system that relies on crime to keep afloat, really the best idea GiveDirectly could have come up with?
This is similar to the Toms fiasco where they would donate a pair of shoes to Africa for every pair bought -- it crippled the local fabrics businesses.
Perhaps if one wanted to fix the African economy, one would invest into economic think-tanks and their executionary tandems, instead of over glorified tax shelters.
Kenya is very cheap, as opposed to a UBI trial in America, which would be far more expensive
This is true.
It looks like Finland is doing the first experiment, even if it's only on the unemployed[0].
[0]http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/finland-begins-...
It looks like Finland is doing the first experiment, even if it's only on the unemployed[0].
[0]http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/finland-begins-...
I'm sure that those who tested this in that community would like to test it in all kinds of different communities. It seems obvious to me that they would think that way but who knows. Maybe there's less red tape and people who are near the edge welcome these sorts of things with open arms and their government officials don't get in the way of it.
>I was under the belief that only the middle class protested for basic income. It would have been more interesting if the "beta test" was done on educated/ first world persons, so we can finally get progress (or a full stop) on this debate.
The middle class protests for UBI because the middle class is the one with enough education and free time to think about these problems, and push for solutions, and that also cares about such things (the rich generally don't). The middle class also is closer to the poor side, and both sees what the welfare state is really like and how much of a mess it is and why UBI would be so much simpler and easier to administer, and the middle class also has to worry more about backsliding into the lower classes and so realizes how good it'd be to have that safety net in place.
You're absolutely right, it would be better to "beta test" in industrialized nations, esp. the USA with its very large amount of spending for social services (SNAP, TANF, etc.) and also its large and growing divide between rich and poor and the falling of many poorer people into poverty as their jobs are automated away. Places like Kenya don't really have this issue; they were never highly industrialized. However, doing a "beta test" in the US would be very expensive and it is flatly impossible, politically, at this point in time. The best we can hope for is to try it out in someplace like Finland. So until then, I guess the idea is to try it out in places like Kenya, where it can be done extremely cheaply because the local cost-of-living is so ridiculously low and the standard of living is low too. (Give $10 a week to a Kenyan living in a hut and it'll have a big effect on their lifestyle; give $10 a week to an American, anywhere in the US, and it won't make any difference at all. Maybe they can buy lunch 1 or 2 days with it, and that's about it. It certainly won't pay the rent.)
>This is similar to the Toms fiasco where they would donate a pair of shoes to Africa for every pair bought -- it crippled the local fabrics businesses.
That's something people are going to have to deal with in a globalized world; local businesses have to compete, to some extent, with businesses across the planet. But this is not similar to what you describe. This is giving cash directly to people, to spend how they will; it doesn't favor or disfavor any local business, it just injects more money into the local economy, mainly at the lowest levels, where it'll be spent quickly. If anything, it should be a boon for local fabrics businesses, as the locals will now have more disposable income to spend on things like that. Of course, they might also spend it on manufactured goods shipped from China, but that's not such a bad thing: it'll raise their standard of living regardless.
The middle class protests for UBI because the middle class is the one with enough education and free time to think about these problems, and push for solutions, and that also cares about such things (the rich generally don't). The middle class also is closer to the poor side, and both sees what the welfare state is really like and how much of a mess it is and why UBI would be so much simpler and easier to administer, and the middle class also has to worry more about backsliding into the lower classes and so realizes how good it'd be to have that safety net in place.
You're absolutely right, it would be better to "beta test" in industrialized nations, esp. the USA with its very large amount of spending for social services (SNAP, TANF, etc.) and also its large and growing divide between rich and poor and the falling of many poorer people into poverty as their jobs are automated away. Places like Kenya don't really have this issue; they were never highly industrialized. However, doing a "beta test" in the US would be very expensive and it is flatly impossible, politically, at this point in time. The best we can hope for is to try it out in someplace like Finland. So until then, I guess the idea is to try it out in places like Kenya, where it can be done extremely cheaply because the local cost-of-living is so ridiculously low and the standard of living is low too. (Give $10 a week to a Kenyan living in a hut and it'll have a big effect on their lifestyle; give $10 a week to an American, anywhere in the US, and it won't make any difference at all. Maybe they can buy lunch 1 or 2 days with it, and that's about it. It certainly won't pay the rent.)
>This is similar to the Toms fiasco where they would donate a pair of shoes to Africa for every pair bought -- it crippled the local fabrics businesses.
That's something people are going to have to deal with in a globalized world; local businesses have to compete, to some extent, with businesses across the planet. But this is not similar to what you describe. This is giving cash directly to people, to spend how they will; it doesn't favor or disfavor any local business, it just injects more money into the local economy, mainly at the lowest levels, where it'll be spent quickly. If anything, it should be a boon for local fabrics businesses, as the locals will now have more disposable income to spend on things like that. Of course, they might also spend it on manufactured goods shipped from China, but that's not such a bad thing: it'll raise their standard of living regardless.
It's an interesting question. I'm trying to imagine how a test of this nature would go over in my town. Would it be welcome or would politicians try to stop it for whatever reason? I have no idea.
Giving money is a great short term solution but we all know that free always has a limit. 22 dollars per month is a good start but at 22 bux they will never reach the standard of living we enjoy in the west. The goal should be to ensure that everyone has a job or business that provides the person a decent living.
I think that in addition to the money they should help with the following:
1)Education and the ability to get it at will. Financial education should be a priority. 2)Entrepreneurship, make sure anyone that wants to start a business knows what to do. 3)Security and the enforcement of the law thru a judicial system, both criminal and civil. 4)A working financial system. Make sure businesses and people can borrow money. 5)A way to go bankrupt that will let people start over. It should not be too painful for both creditors and borrowers. 6)A political system that works for the majority. 7) Community leadership that works towards the betterment of the town. 8)A tax system that will let the town provide items that no single person can provide on their own. It's a reality as painful as they are taxes and their prudent use help improve the community's standard of living. 9) Secure property rights. If someone owns something they should do with it what they want without infringing on the community's well being and no one should be able to take it away from them by force.
What gets me railed up is the inability to use the town's human capital. Giving free money will not help forever. If you could get people to work together they would eventually get out of poverty. Maybe the current generation might not but eventually they would be able to do it.
I think that in addition to the money they should help with the following:
1)Education and the ability to get it at will. Financial education should be a priority. 2)Entrepreneurship, make sure anyone that wants to start a business knows what to do. 3)Security and the enforcement of the law thru a judicial system, both criminal and civil. 4)A working financial system. Make sure businesses and people can borrow money. 5)A way to go bankrupt that will let people start over. It should not be too painful for both creditors and borrowers. 6)A political system that works for the majority. 7) Community leadership that works towards the betterment of the town. 8)A tax system that will let the town provide items that no single person can provide on their own. It's a reality as painful as they are taxes and their prudent use help improve the community's standard of living. 9) Secure property rights. If someone owns something they should do with it what they want without infringing on the community's well being and no one should be able to take it away from them by force.
What gets me railed up is the inability to use the town's human capital. Giving free money will not help forever. If you could get people to work together they would eventually get out of poverty. Maybe the current generation might not but eventually they would be able to do it.
You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated.
Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth.
Don't want so many disgruntled and unemployed people? Endorse some form of guaranteed income, or incorporate basic housing, meals, healthcare and internet into the list of undeniable human rights.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamplighter
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-boy
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchboard_operator