Slashdot Mirror
VC, Entrepreneur Says Basic Income Would Work Even If 90% People 'Smoked Pot' and Didn't Work (techinsider.io)
An anonymous reader cites a story on TI: The chief complaint people lodge at universal basic income -- a form of income distribution that gives people money to cover basic needs regardless of whether they work or not -- is that it'll make them lazy. Sam Altman doesn't buy it. In a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast, entitled "Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?" Altman argued basic income could support huge amounts of productivity loss and still carry the economy on its shoulders. "Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win," Altman says. "And the American puritanical ideal that hard work for its own sake is valuable -- period -- and that you can't question that, I think that's just wrong." [...] The complaint Altman addressed on the Freakonomics podcast is a common one. Study after study, however, has shown that giving people extra money makes them feel financially secure. That security ends up leading to empowerment, not de-motivation.
This is the capitalist version of "let them eat cake." Because god help them if the proles feel like they deserve some of the money they're making capitalists.
I strongly suspect that my level of "basic needs" I'm willing to "give" to someone who smokes pot and plays video games all day is much lower than they will demand.
The entire American capitalist system is predicated on the idea that workers don't have the freedom to just leave their jobs, no matter how bad the conditions.
And yet I see plenty of people quitting their jobs. I quit my last job and spent four months deciding what I'd like to do next. My local economy didn't collapse.
Breakfast served all day!
In the war between facts and dogma, facts have a habit of coming second. Facts are hard to think through and analyse properly, and proper analyses are detailed and tough to understand. Dogma doesn't have any of these drawbacks.
John_Chalisque
The Capitalist system has created more jobs, more wealth, more prosperity, and higher income mobility than any other system in the history of mankind.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Ask the people in East Germany before they were set free from your idea of utopia if they think their lifestyles - as empowered by mandatory collectivist wonderfulness - was more or less corrupt, or polluted, or impoverished than was the lifestyle in West Germany.
You're deliberately pretending that history didn't happen so you can insist that having other people provide for you is somehow not only fair to them, but preferable. No. We don't want to be your slaves, slacker-boy. Trying to re-tell the history of prosperity so you can avoid looking at reality is just your juvenile way of wishing you could slack your way through life while other people work and create and make the things you want to be handed simply because you're breathing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Corruption exists in all economic systems.
More pollution and more trash are by products of people using more resources. Not all choices will be good choices
Capitalism is basically resource allocation based not on need but ability to cover the expenses of gathering those resources. It is flexible by letting people set their own lower bounds. Socialism tries to make it capitalism more efficient which It can do in limited grouping but not on the whole system. Some systems especially those dealing with people will always been horribly inefficient. That won't ever change. So the most flexible system will grow the most and that is capitalism.
Where capitalism fails is in providing minimum base level. If you want people to have healthcare capitalism will always fail at that. If you want everyone to get a minimum amount of food daily. Capitalism fails. Otherwise you get homeless hungry people dying on your streets.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
You people categorically against this do realize we are rapidly approaching a point where large parts of the population don't really have to work to support our basic societal infrastructure? So what happens then? Do we actually reevaluate our economic system or just proceed as we've been going with increasing economic inequality and subsequent societal unrest? Are you people so selfish that you would deny basic support for all if our society could afford it? There will always be an incentive for work because you'll be able to make more money and have more things.
If by "happiness" you mean "millions of dead and suffering people" then yes indeed, all socialist countries produce is "happiness". Just look at how "happy" Venezuela is these days!
Doesn't matter though if you manage to get in good with the rulers, and can bask in the reflected opulence. Sucking-up to the overseers is on hell of a retirement plan.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Good grief I'm tired of you people attempting to blame the system for human nature. Human nature is why we have corruption, and have had corruption in every system of power since the beginning of civilization. A Capitalist Republic is the best system humanity has ever implemented to reduce and control the impact of human nature. The US was not a half ass Republic like we saw in other countries which still hold/held Monarchies and and Noble classes/families. It was fully implemented from ground up as a Capitalist Republic. The fact that it took well over 200 years for the system to become so noticeably corrupt speaks volumes for how well it works. Name one communist country that has been clean for more than a week. Name a Socialist country that has been clean for more than a year.
To GP, I call complete and utter horse shit. There is no expectation of a stagnant worker in Capitalism, in fact that view defies any writing by Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and countless Economists in between. Economic mobility is one of the keys of Capitalist theory. If workers don't believe they should work for X dollars at Employer-A they try to work for Employer-B at Y dollars. People being stuck means that competition is lacking, not that workers are intentionally stuck. Workers who are "stuck" should be able to start their own businesses to compete. Competition exists at each of the 3 legs of capitalism, or at least it should.
What you may be attempting to claim is that "starter" jobs should pay as much as "professional" jobs, which is horse shit. Who would want to work hard when there is no payoff or benefit? Oh yeah! That doesn't work very well, which is why worldwide innovation is relatively flat. The US innovation bubble is a fluke of Capitalism.
I realize that it's trendy and cool to say the US is bad. I fully admit that corruption is a huge problem that I don't know we can fix without a reset. I am a US Citizen who denounces the corruption and entrenched politicians all the time. That does not make Canada a "better" Government.
In a do-over would you choose another Capitalist Republic or go Communism? If you say Socialist I implore you to determine how you are going to be different than communism to succeed. The Socialist governments in the EU are really not doing as well as many are being led to believe.
Me, I'd do another Capitalist Republic.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And if that is the way modern capitalism worked, you might have a point. But when you consider the amount of corporate welfare in most industrialized countries, and couple that with the fact that, as the Panama Papers show, the very wealthy are so powerful that they can actually manipulate, if not outright force the political system to make sure not only profits are guaranteed, but large amounts of cash is protected in tax shelters. There's nothing wrong with being wealthy, but when being wealthy effectively creates a whole new political class, capable of overawing politicians to guarantee compliance and leniency, then i'd say we've left behind the idealized capitalism and are well on the way to kleptocracy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
At that point, I think we need to let them starve or die. As harsh as that may sound, if someone is so much of a fuck up that they can't survive when given the resources to get by with no requirements on your end other than being alive, it's time to let nature run its course. If someone's too mentally diminished to make decisions like that for themselves, they already belong in a separate care facility, not out in society.
However, the argument also ignores another facet of human nature: man is a creature of infinite want. A UBI is about satisfying human needs, but people are still going to want things. What you'd likely see is a lot of people working part time jobs (10 hours / week) or joining the so-called gig economy to generate a small amount of supplemental income to cover those wants.
Oh for fucks sakes, anytime anyone offers anything, there are strings attached. The difference between government and private concerns is that governments are at least hypothetically responsive to the voter. But really, this is total paranoia. All housing, even privately owned housing, has rules attached to it. I can't dig a big ass mote around my property, nor can I build a five hundred foot tower. I still have to get permits, and if the plan violates local or state building codes, then that's that. If I play loud music at 1am, the fact that I own my house doesn't mean I can't be fined under nuisance bylaws, and potentially even end up in court.
This Libertarian fantasy of yours simply does not exist. We all have obligations, whether we're owners or renters, and whether, as renters we live in privately-owned housing or public housing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But almost certainly at levels of income that will not be satisfactory to them.
I don't think anyone should starve, so I would be happy to provide funds for as much beans, rice, and vitamins as would be necessary to prevent starvation. But I'm not happy about being asked to provide lobster, filet mignon, or even fast food.
"Basic needs" at this point though seems to be something like "a nice 2br apartment with all amenities and easy access to all the nice services, in a good school district, 400 channels on 50" 4k TV, 100Mbit internet, smart phone, game console" and "free pot". IOW, they expect my lifestyle without working for it (although I don't smoke pot), and demand instead that I reduce my lifestyle to fund theirs.
The difference between government and private concerns is that governments are at least hypothetically responsive to the voter.
Another difference is that private parties are responsive to their own welfare, and not just hypothetically because they must play well with others in order to have continued success.
So this debate boils down to which has more power to push common good: the set of voters or market forces? My thought is "both", and I think it's foolish to play the game of attacking one side just to promote the other.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
I have lived and worked in the Netherlands, you have no idea what you are talking about if you think the Dutch mindset is in any way socialist in nature. They were the original capitalists, which made them wealthy beyond measure.
The mindset of people in the Netherlands is very far from that of the socialist...
Mainly you can tell they are not socialist by the fact they are (a) permissive, and (b) happy - neither the sign of socialism at work (as well know all too well from countless historical examples, socialism and totalitarianism go hand in hand).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You're not wrong that work has virtue. The distinguishing argument is that not all PAID work has inherent virtue, and not all work that you can't be paid for is worthless.
People will find direction on their own--we have a tendency to find the meaning in our lives if we're given an opportunity. Minimum income plans are just a different way to provide *mobility*. If you can eat and pay rent without working a shitty retail job, you can set your sights higher. You can go to school, you can volunteer at animal shelters, or to work with people that have disabilities. There are so many things to do that have so much more value than scraping by, working at a McDonalds for less than it takes to stay alive.
I htink we were collectively distracted by the poor term "the 1%". The actual 1%, the moderately wealthy, the successful doctors and dentists and lawyers and small business owners, they aren't the issue here. The 1% aren't the people in the Panama Papers.
We should instead be upset at "the richest 100 families", who IMO have been causing so many problems. In some ways, the difference between "ideal capitalism" and "capitalism as practiced in the US" is the difference between the 1% and the richest 100 families.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I think the VC's claim is a little strange also:
Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,
Yes, people will continue to invent, they will create new products and services, music, art, etc. But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If 90% aren't doing anything except sitting at home on their basic income, what kind of domestic market are those 10% going to have for their products?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
This sounds nice on paper, except you still haven't dealt with the problem of those who feel they have the "right" to live there.
Sure I have: they don't have any such right. They have a guaranteed monthly income, and they can spend it how they like. If they can't afford the rent in Manhattan on that, then they'll have to move.
Remember also that New York was one of those states that wanted to justify having unemployment for longer than 99 weeks.
You don't need unemployment with BI, just like you don't need "disability", SNAP, etc. All these social programs are band-aid attempts to fix the problems caused by poverty. Eliminate poverty with a basic income and you don't need them any more.
Exactly.
Now one problem I do see is that a bunch of people are going to whine that the BI isn't enough to pay for their Manhattan apartment, and that they don't want to move because their family is there or whatever, and a bunch of bleeding hearts are going to try to "fix" this somehow. That needs to be fought against. The system won't work if they try to do some BS like giving people in Manhattan some huge BI (too many people will just want to move where the BI is higher, and the cost will be unaffordable, plus it'd drive up rents even more, bringing demands for even-higher BI in high-rent districts).