This planet has finite resources, and a population that went from 2.5 billion in 1950 to now 7.4 billion people, and counting.
By growing we have increased our consumption of fish, arable soil, oil, freshwater, lumber... everything. I think we will need to also get used to the idea that we will need to downsize our population to a level in which it is sustainable.
downsizing ain't theoretically that hard in near future - give free, painless contraception without side effects, plus no incentives to milk social system effectively by having 10 kids (ie roma problem in some parts of europe), and most people will have 1-2 kids, if any -> population will slowly go down. universal education not only in this topic should help too.
reality is different though - STDs combined with slutty behavior from both genders all over the place. Poor billions of people not able to afford contraception (ie india), or not knowing how to use it. and so on
On the Roma problem - they don't have children to milk the social system. They have them because family is everything and fuck everyone else. Hence, make more family so you don't have to deal with anyone else. Weird culture.
Downsizing has already started. Most of the population growth from now on is simply young people growing up and having their 2 children.
Further downsizing is not gonna happen without war, which is not something that will make any of the problems related to overpopulation any better.
Basically, what we have to do is make this planet work with 10 billion people (a stretch, but not impossible), and from there on it should only get better.
UBI, the topic has been beaten to death. I like the idea, in theory and on the paper, but it will require complete restructuralization of whole society.
When I look how mankind struggles to get simple stuff right (no wars, +-democracy and freedom for all humans), this is Star Trek.
But then again, this guy seems very special. I wish all/most truly powerful people would be like him, not only doing charitable stuff for tax evasion purposes. His added value to mankind in long term seems to be immense, at least that's what I hope for.
The value he added is already immense - he had a big part in establishing e-vehicles as viable. I'd say he accelerated the transition by several years or more. Fear of him is the only thing driving BMW and co to tighten their e adoption schedules.
I don't think the challenge of BI is equal to all societies. In a place like Denmark, which has quite the extensive welfare-system, a large part of the BI could be funded simply by cutting out the bureaucracy of the welfare system.
I'd be interested to hear how this very website's basic income trial is going: www.qz.com/696377/y-combinator-is-running-a-basic-income-experiment-with-100-oakland-families/
- the average citizen isnt afraid to find out next meal
- innovation can be more focused on convinience and love rather than people desperate to succeed
- individuals or families burdened with loved ones unfit for work dont have to sacrifice in order to provide for them
- homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime
- small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.
Cons
- it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.
- the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income
- cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them
- the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage
- may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs
My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.
If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job
So long as that service can support more people than have to work it, you can make money.
Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.
Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer
> - homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime
Unless health insurance is included and we change how we treat mental illnesses, homelessness will still be a problem(albeit smaller)
> - small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.
But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks
> Cons
> - it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.
Well, it will be hard to find cheap employees. Force of the market right?
> - the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income
We don't know this, if you can survive just on the income in some rural areas, whereas the remaining jobs will be left in the cities you will still have different markets, some of which might have above and some of which might have below ui prizes
> - cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them
This is a bad thing? There will still be a market for stingy bastards...just like McDonalds has a market with stingy students
> - the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage
...good?
> - may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs
As opposed to the current government trend which is the epitome of freedom and privacy
> My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.
Those who want more money. This is not communism. This is finally decoupling humanistic society("we don't let people starve") from capitalistic free market economy("the government shouldn't control the economy"). An unconditional income means that you no longer need minimum wages, and even a staunch leftist like me would ease up on labour protection laws(where reasonable...health and safety still apply, but e.g. severance pay?gtfo) After all, it will truly be your choice to work there or not.
> If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job
Unless there is another guy who does that already.
> Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.
I don't understand this one
> Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer
Not the whole one, and not the last one but I think like our current system it will be good for 50-100ish years I think
> But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks
Part of the purpose of a union is to negotiate the costs for hard labor. Unions can still exist and arguably have more negotiation power through the threat of not working forever. I think unions are an important step for our species in that the working force can negotiate with the leader force rather than pray for a peice of cheese with their bread. Part of me worries that participating will be considered unnecessary or even undesirable since "Big Gov is here to protect you from the evil cooperations"
> costs of us manufactured goods goes up
Chyna, chyna, chyna. But really, globalization effectively allows companies to exploit other countries if the us citizens dont want to play ball. Perhaps slave like conditions for other people is a side effect of refusing to do shit work for shit pay
> realestate/rental prices will rise to just below universal income
Perhaps Im cynical but I view all landlords as "how much can I take from you before you leave?" If a landlord knows they can get $1000 out if someone. Why not? Doesnt matter if its a poor neughborhood or college students. As demand for n
> "Those who want more money [work]"
So basically we have inflation and on top of that if you dont have a job your screwed. Prices dont stay the same as more money is available. They go up. And knowing that people can make even more makes prices go even higher
> local community jobs dont exist if no one leaves them
This is an interesting concept. How many people does it take to work a job 24/7? More importantly, how many people can be serviced per 6 hr shift? And how many hours can a job be worked? What industries are necessary for a community to survive without over dependence on a centralized manufacturer or capital? Must a community exist that exports an important good or city that connected communities are dependent on?
Im not a fan at "throwing money at problems". Much more intetested in finding long lasting and realistic solutions that are in line with how we got here. If free money can get us even further, so be it!
> time for innovation comes from imbalance of jobs and who controls them
If company A has a near monopoly on jobs in the area all people wantjng a job must go to company A. Company A now can say "we omly select people willing to work 16 hour days 6 days a weak for $1 an hour". Obvious issue
If building wingdings takes 4 years of education and puts indivuduals in severe debt (because colleges charge absurd sums), they certainly want more money. Company B is the only multi billion dollar company that is capable of paying a 10 man workforce an above average wage, company B can now say "you must work 16 hour days, 6 days a weak but you will make $101 dollars an hour!". Debt payment is $90, but at least your making $10 more than company A
The claim that "less work produces better results" is simply a hypothesis that doesnt account for fear as a driving motivator.
As more companies are able to provide for their employees in the way the employee needs financially, the more relaxed each company must become to get the employees they are looking for.
If company C offers only $80 an hour but you only work 5 hour days 5 days a week and they hire more people. This allows 3 people a day to have 5 hours > of free time and a livable wage. But can only exist through negotiation power and competition.
The reason why most successful companies run people into the ground is because it works. Amazon and walmart are great examples of this. Google only offers utopia in order to attract the greatest minds. But that is because they believe the value of a great mind on your team is worth more than what they spend.
I certainly support free transportation. A place like Flint can only exist because there is no escspe.
Lots of talk in absolutes. Prices will go up - but not exactly as much as income goes up, because (lots of other economic pressures).
Its easy to play a game of FUD (fear; uncertainty; doubt) but the answer is None of the Above. A BI will change things sure. But so did pensions, and insurance, and retirement plans. They didn't bring the economy down in flames; neither will a BI.
Remember the spending of the poorest among us does not drive the entire economy. Wages will change, a little. Prices will change, a little.
The reason the poorest amoung us doesnt drive the economy is because they have no money to spend. Why would a business pwner accomadate for an individual that would cause sognificantly less profit margins.
However, when the value of USD is considered the same. But I know that _every single_ person in american can buy muy product at current price and higher. I will certainly bump it up. High until I hit a maximum where profit margins dip then settle.
Health insurance is caused the Skrelli fiasco and epipen fiasco. Probably more to come.
Universal Income sounds like a great idea from a naive perspective. But the real issue is there arent other solutions for it to compete with.
Supply and demand determine price for many consumables. Neither changes when folks have more money in their pockets. It doesn't even begin to make sense.
Thats distant future. Farming, mining, wars, police, government, cleaning... Robots arent doing everything. Additionally, these robots are being paid for by companies. If the companies want to give a life to everyone, fantastic! However, Im not comfident that better profit margins translates directly to post-scarcity.
I highly doubt that will happen. There is no politicsl party that currently supports overriding the patent system inorder to provide for the general welfare. And hypothetically if it happens, I now know that any tech I build cant be too useful in case it just becomes a public survice.
this is the main problem. if the tax rate gets too high, high earners will find creative ways to avoid taxes and/or be less motivated to work hard. either way it's a downward spiral.
That's only true as long as... automation actually takes human jobs for real instead of simply "displacing" jobs.
Looking at history, you as yourself where is the evidence for automation destroying human jobs...
... but Elon Musk is not a historian. He's a business man trying to increase the value of his automation and robotics ventures. It does not need to be true. It's just PR bullshit.
Malthusian theory was completely right about human history until just about the time it was written.
History is not always a predictor of the future because of technological changes. Many believe that we are upon such a technological change (and for good reason. Companies creating billions of dollars of value are generating a fraction of the jobs they once did. The jobs that are being generated tend to be part time instead of full time like they once used to be. Big data obviates a lot of thinking jobs as well. More precise automation makes a lot of skilled jobs easier to automate. There's just an order of magnitude between technology today that is easily replicable and intelligent in a way it never was, from the technologies of the past).
32 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 63.6 ms ] threadBy growing we have increased our consumption of fish, arable soil, oil, freshwater, lumber... everything. I think we will need to also get used to the idea that we will need to downsize our population to a level in which it is sustainable.
reality is different though - STDs combined with slutty behavior from both genders all over the place. Poor billions of people not able to afford contraception (ie india), or not knowing how to use it. and so on
Downsize all you want. We will take over.
America: 1 billion Europe: 1 billion Africa: 2 billion Asia: 5 billion
https://twitter.com/hansrosling/status/270835563802791936
2 billion in Africa is not that bad considering its size.
Further downsizing is not gonna happen without war, which is not something that will make any of the problems related to overpopulation any better.
Basically, what we have to do is make this planet work with 10 billion people (a stretch, but not impossible), and from there on it should only get better.
Unless we discover a way to revert aging.
This isn't all that relevant to UBI though.
Then, life expectancy and live births are growing, meaning people stay here longer.
When I look how mankind struggles to get simple stuff right (no wars, +-democracy and freedom for all humans), this is Star Trek.
But then again, this guy seems very special. I wish all/most truly powerful people would be like him, not only doing charitable stuff for tax evasion purposes. His added value to mankind in long term seems to be immense, at least that's what I hope for.
Pros
- the average citizen isnt afraid to find out next meal
- innovation can be more focused on convinience and love rather than people desperate to succeed
- individuals or families burdened with loved ones unfit for work dont have to sacrifice in order to provide for them
- homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime
- small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.
Cons
- it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.
- the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income
- cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them
- the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage
- may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs
My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.
If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job
So long as that service can support more people than have to work it, you can make money.
Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.
Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer
Some criticism: > Pros
> - homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime
Unless health insurance is included and we change how we treat mental illnesses, homelessness will still be a problem(albeit smaller)
> - small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.
But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks
> Cons
> - it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.
Well, it will be hard to find cheap employees. Force of the market right?
> - the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income
We don't know this, if you can survive just on the income in some rural areas, whereas the remaining jobs will be left in the cities you will still have different markets, some of which might have above and some of which might have below ui prizes
> - cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them
This is a bad thing? There will still be a market for stingy bastards...just like McDonalds has a market with stingy students
> - the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage
...good?
> - may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs
As opposed to the current government trend which is the epitome of freedom and privacy
> My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.
Those who want more money. This is not communism. This is finally decoupling humanistic society("we don't let people starve") from capitalistic free market economy("the government shouldn't control the economy"). An unconditional income means that you no longer need minimum wages, and even a staunch leftist like me would ease up on labour protection laws(where reasonable...health and safety still apply, but e.g. severance pay?gtfo) After all, it will truly be your choice to work there or not.
> If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job
Unless there is another guy who does that already.
> Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.
I don't understand this one
> Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer
Not the whole one, and not the last one but I think like our current system it will be good for 50-100ish years I think
Part of the purpose of a union is to negotiate the costs for hard labor. Unions can still exist and arguably have more negotiation power through the threat of not working forever. I think unions are an important step for our species in that the working force can negotiate with the leader force rather than pray for a peice of cheese with their bread. Part of me worries that participating will be considered unnecessary or even undesirable since "Big Gov is here to protect you from the evil cooperations"
> costs of us manufactured goods goes up
Chyna, chyna, chyna. But really, globalization effectively allows companies to exploit other countries if the us citizens dont want to play ball. Perhaps slave like conditions for other people is a side effect of refusing to do shit work for shit pay
> realestate/rental prices will rise to just below universal income
Perhaps Im cynical but I view all landlords as "how much can I take from you before you leave?" If a landlord knows they can get $1000 out if someone. Why not? Doesnt matter if its a poor neughborhood or college students. As demand for n
> "Those who want more money [work]"
So basically we have inflation and on top of that if you dont have a job your screwed. Prices dont stay the same as more money is available. They go up. And knowing that people can make even more makes prices go even higher
> local community jobs dont exist if no one leaves them
This is an interesting concept. How many people does it take to work a job 24/7? More importantly, how many people can be serviced per 6 hr shift? And how many hours can a job be worked? What industries are necessary for a community to survive without over dependence on a centralized manufacturer or capital? Must a community exist that exports an important good or city that connected communities are dependent on?
Im not a fan at "throwing money at problems". Much more intetested in finding long lasting and realistic solutions that are in line with how we got here. If free money can get us even further, so be it!
> time for innovation comes from imbalance of jobs and who controls them
If company A has a near monopoly on jobs in the area all people wantjng a job must go to company A. Company A now can say "we omly select people willing to work 16 hour days 6 days a weak for $1 an hour". Obvious issue
If building wingdings takes 4 years of education and puts indivuduals in severe debt (because colleges charge absurd sums), they certainly want more money. Company B is the only multi billion dollar company that is capable of paying a 10 man workforce an above average wage, company B can now say "you must work 16 hour days, 6 days a weak but you will make $101 dollars an hour!". Debt payment is $90, but at least your making $10 more than company A
The claim that "less work produces better results" is simply a hypothesis that doesnt account for fear as a driving motivator.
As more companies are able to provide for their employees in the way the employee needs financially, the more relaxed each company must become to get the employees they are looking for.
If company C offers only $80 an hour but you only work 5 hour days 5 days a week and they hire more people. This allows 3 people a day to have 5 hours > of free time and a livable wage. But can only exist through negotiation power and competition.
The reason why most successful companies run people into the ground is because it works. Amazon and walmart are great examples of this. Google only offers utopia in order to attract the greatest minds. But that is because they believe the value of a great mind on your team is worth more than what they spend.
I certainly support free transportation. A place like Flint can only exist because there is no escspe.
Its easy to play a game of FUD (fear; uncertainty; doubt) but the answer is None of the Above. A BI will change things sure. But so did pensions, and insurance, and retirement plans. They didn't bring the economy down in flames; neither will a BI.
Remember the spending of the poorest among us does not drive the entire economy. Wages will change, a little. Prices will change, a little.
However, when the value of USD is considered the same. But I know that _every single_ person in american can buy muy product at current price and higher. I will certainly bump it up. High until I hit a maximum where profit margins dip then settle.
Health insurance is caused the Skrelli fiasco and epipen fiasco. Probably more to come.
Universal Income sounds like a great idea from a naive perspective. But the real issue is there arent other solutions for it to compete with.
Robots.
Wasn't that always the point of automation and robotics in the science fiction past? "This will be great! We won't have to do as much work!"
Now we're finally getting there, and the reaction is "woah woah woah, you can't stop working just because a machine does it now."
Looking at history, you as yourself where is the evidence for automation destroying human jobs...
... but Elon Musk is not a historian. He's a business man trying to increase the value of his automation and robotics ventures. It does not need to be true. It's just PR bullshit.
History is not always a predictor of the future because of technological changes. Many believe that we are upon such a technological change (and for good reason. Companies creating billions of dollars of value are generating a fraction of the jobs they once did. The jobs that are being generated tend to be part time instead of full time like they once used to be. Big data obviates a lot of thinking jobs as well. More precise automation makes a lot of skilled jobs easier to automate. There's just an order of magnitude between technology today that is easily replicable and intelligent in a way it never was, from the technologies of the past).