-- R. Buckminster Fuller, 1970We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.
The very essence of ephemeralization! Buckminster Fuller is quickly becoming an intellectual hero for me. What a brilliant man.
It would boost the economy. Everyone would have money to spend.
Of course it's more complicated than that. But if we did it right that would be the outcome.Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
- Albert Einstein
Well, what do you think theadvancedapes, should the government pay us to be alive? My guess is you might take issue with the "to be alive" portion and prefer to call it a basic income, but what do you think? Are you among the 50% of canadiens that support it or are you the other half?
I 100% support it. What I see in global brain is a world of abundance. A world where every single human has all of their basic needs met. The global goal, is to have shelter, food, water, etc. abundance for everyone. As we get closer to the 2020s this will become a necessity in the developed world. Why? Advancing ICT is going to take every single job that does't require education. Bus drivers? Computers. Grocery story clerks? Computers. Your local barista? Computers. Janitors? Probably computers. The result? First, as it says in the article, a healthy economy does not necessarily mean everyone has a job. Second, every single person now needs higher education. Higher education is going to become a right in the same way public primary and secondary school became a right throughout the industrial period. And if that's the situation we are heading towards, we need to make sure that no one is worried about rent and food. The thing is, we already live in countries where no one should have to worry about rent and food. This isn't 1950. Our societies are massively productive. We live in abundance. It just isn't allocated properly because the system is fucked and unequal and the board is rigged against all of us who don't have hundreds of millions of dollars. So yes, there should be a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Will some people do nothing? Yes, that's already the case. Does that matter? No it doesn't. What will most people do? They will get an education and do things that they genuinely enjoy with their life. Could be anything in the arts, sciences, maths, entertainment, athletics, etc. Things humans actually like doing with their life. For people like me, and a lot of other people in my generation who have educations but are in constant economic instability, this current economy is destroying our early lives and enslaving us with school and credit card debt. If I didn't have to worry about rent or food, I could write far more academic articles, blog posts, invest money in online video, perhaps build a company related to evolutionary science education, etc. There are a ton of things I want to do. Not only does rent prevent me from doing them, but it prevents me from investing in myself. But it's everyone. How amazing would society be if everyone was able to explore the things that make humans so special in the first place? There are so many bright people who don't try and make something of themselves because of their economic circumstance. Because school costs too much, or because their scared of losing their crappy dead-end job, because there are no jobs at all. Universal Basic Income is the right step towards a better society.
Considering that in the US we grow about 4500 (give or take) calories per person per day, I think we already have a world of abundance. What we don't have is a world of sensible distribution. According to a book I recently read, up to 30% of some types of crops are thrown out summarily for the simple reason that they don't look right (for example, green beans that are too short, or bent, or too dark in color, but otherwise are perfectly fine to eat), so grocery stores refuse to stock them. Instead of offering them to us at a cheaper price, they simply decide that we don't get to choose. That's kinda fucked, but we don't need any new technology to fix it; we only need some changes to the way we do business. Same thing with unemployment. I would love to see some kind of return to the WPA or CCC, or anything like it. My home city is a trash nightmare. There's litter all over the place. The government has plenty of cash to simply pay unemployed people $10 or $12 per hour to pick up garbage, keep vacant lots well manicured, or any other neighborhood improvement project. That would solve a pile of problems in cities. Again, no new tech required, just new policy. We have the tools and the resources right now to solve a lot of social problems. We just have to decide that it's a priority.What I see in global brain is a world of abundance.
I agree with most everything you said. I just want to add commentary to this comment: We may be at that point in the developed world. But a lot of work needs to be done in the developing world. And new technology can help realize abundance for the developing world quicker than most people think. One of the most popular examples is the SlingShot developed by Dean Kamen, which has the potential to help eradicate the world's water problems. There are still a lot of people who go without water, food, and shelter throughout the developing world, and it may need more than policy to fix (although global policy would obviously be massively helpful). EDIT: And my emphasis on advancing ICT is simply to state that there are emergent technological pressures that will force policy towards UBI (IMO).but we don't need any new technology to fix it
Would highly recommend a book called The End of Food to anyone interested in food policy. (It was recommended to me by kleinbl00, so I'm paying it forward here.) There are a lot of things about global food distribution that seem to be irrational. This book is an investigation of why the food system is the way it is, and what perverse incentives make it so. Very enlightening.
I'll definitely check it out. EDIT: For anyone who doesn't want to read the book, here is video of the author discussing The End of Food.
I wish I had time to finish this article and respond longer. This is a great idea in theory - but I don't think you've spent enough time with poor people to understand how and why this breaks. 1 - many of the poor are emotionally, mentally, or psychologically challenged and lack the ability to wisely spend what they get. That's a major part of why they are in the position they're in. Give them $10, $100, or even $100,000 and they will fritter it away into nothing meaningful and they will be back at the office asking for an advance on their next check. 2 - greed. at every level, greed ruins this. In the utopia where we truly have enough of everything to go around - it will take generations to get it through people's heads. In some ways we have everything we need today - but greed keeps it from being distributed to those in need. Hopefully I'll have time tonight to finish the article and perhaps the author will enlighten my darkened mind. I'd love to see this happen - but I'm a little too close to the reality of poverty to see this as the fix.
there have been some experiments in min income that show that it increases the entrepreneurial impulse. Look at generations of trust fund kids some of course are worthless but most CEOS come from that class. Oh wait they are worthless too but you get where I am coming from.
I would love to see that data, because more than anything, I hope for people to succeed. In my limited experience with the poor (over the last three years or so), everything I do is in hopes to provide a stable platform from which a person can catapult upwards. And unfortunately - the vast majority (2 out of hundreds I've worked with) have done anything to better themselves or their situation. I recognize that this comment and my previous comment may have sounded rude or demeaning to poor people. I genuinely don't mean to sound that way. Poverty isn't as simple as having money or not. It's about a set of skills to take care of one's self and one's family. It's a super complex issue that giving a basic income will not solve. And remind me where the basic income comes from? Because if you're coming to me for another freaking tax dollar, I'm gonna lose my mind.
You are an LDS bishop right? I am sure you have had more time on the ground on this issue than most people. I think like most things it is the framing not the cash that helps. Giving money to someone because you believe in them helps a lot more than paying someones rent because they have failed. Take the trust fund kids for example if they understand the free money is given to them because great things are expected of them they may turn out ok.
Let me find you some papers.
Guilty as charged. Maybe… but either way - how will a base income from the government accomplish this? "Free" money from Uncle Sam doesn't indicate belief in me or tell me I've failed. It's just an amount that gets loaded on my debit card every month. I'm still not saying this is a bad idea - I just don't know if we can predict the total outcome. For a large chunk of people, it would be amazing. I'm thinking of the hard working single parents who work two jobs for a basic life, who cling to hope that nothing will go wrong. A stipend from the government would give them some breathing room. But for others, it won't make a difference at all. For these people, poverty is a lack of knowing how to manage themselves. It isn't taught by schools, it isn't taught by their parents. Breaking the cycle of poverty is RIDICULOUSLY difficult to do. There is some appeal to just giving everyone a chunk of money and removing other programs like WIC, food stamps, Section 8 housing etc…. I like simplicity. But those programs can offer some controls around how the money is spent. complex issue. complex solution. I wish we could remove some greed, some pride, and some selfishness from all sides.You are an LDS bishop right?
Giving money to someone because you believe in them helps a lot more than paying someones rent because they have failed.
Everyone gets basic income if I understand it right no means testing. nobodies nose is rubbed in anything. (no bureaucracy to pay to do the means testing and nose rubbing ) For the rich it works like a standard deduction for the poor a payout it actually has a following and pedigree on the right. If I remember right. Of course it won't cure the real evils of income inequality which is disenfranchisement and powerlessness. But it will pay the bills and give Mormon Bishops more time to focus on home teaching numbers.
I born and raised in greater Deseret the only place were a Jew is a Gentile.
You should add CEOs CFOs and market researchers to your list.
-Edward BellamyEveryone has the right to a decent human life not because he
excels in this or that, but because he is a man.