[bsmith]

I disagree with the author here on UBI. The root of the issue goes deeper than deciding to prop up job markets so that there is enough supply of jobs to meet the demand. Based on the arguments in the article, this can only be a temporary fix; eventually automation will take over too many jobs for every person to have one—or at the very least, human labor is a commodity that eventually becomes so cheap that the laborers cannot survive.

The author seems to be solidly in the 'work == virtue' camp and argues that UBI decreases the incentive to work. While partly true, the REAL work we want done is not menial, but innovative, and leads to the next big breakthroughs that increase productivity and eliminate even MORE jobs. This is capitalism, no? UBI is there so everyone still survives to have a crack at it, if they want to.

This becomes an ethical question quite quickly: does being born make you worthy of survival?

[daliwali]

>does being born make you worthy of survival?

Does the world owe you a living? Most would answer "no".

Civilization is often in direct opposition to nature, which is cruel and unforgiving. A civilization in collapse will revert to natural selection, in which the fittest survive and reproduce.

I believe that we are witnessing the breakdown of the social contract as the atomic unit of society shifts from the family to the individual. Atomized individuals are much more vulnerable, and replacing the family with the state will further alienate people. Entire novels have expounded on this idea.

[logfromblammo]

The world does not owe me a living, but then again, it has no rules that I am bound to obey.

Civilization does owe me a living, in exchange for my good conduct. If civilization cannot or will not provide me with my survival needs, I will instead break its laws and prey upon its people and systems to get not just what I need, but also what I want. If your system cannot reasonably accommodate everyone, you will have outlaws fighting it.

You can build walls or commit genocides, but they are not going to play any game by the rules when the rules guarantee that they will lose it.

[BatFastard]

Well said, Civilization is indeed a contract. However there are various ways to enforce the contract. In the middle ages in Europe is was enforced via religion. Behave or go to hell. In communist countries it was contribute or go to work camps. In capitalist societies so far it has been behave and reap upward mobility or go to jail. When there is no upward mobility, I am not sure if jail is enough to enforce the contract.

[daliwali]

Ok, what I said had nothing to do with violence though. Sounds like you are trying too hard to role-play as an outlaw or a revolutionary. Consider the homeless, they may be out of a job through no fault of their own, and most are non-violent. Even as a last resort, it is not justified for the homeless to hurt people. Violence as a first principle is the folly of ideologues.

[logfromblammo]

You mentioned civilization. What, exactly, do you think that is?

For many thousands of years, the underlying principle of civilization has been "might makes right". The governments in it codify their laws such that the government itself becomes the regional monopoly on the justified use of force. Within the past few centuries, civilization has slowly been moving towards "the ends justify the means". While that is slightly better, as a fundamental organizing principle of civilization, it is still not ideal, in my opinion.

For now, civilization largely consists of a mutual compact regarding when it is morally acceptable to employ violence. In exchange for obeying the rules, we are promised some of the benefits resulting from collectively standing down from a state of universal hypervigilance.

A hungry and homeless person may perceive that he or she is not getting their fair share of society's mutual benefits. Civilization has not honored its end of the bargain, so they need not honor theirs. There is no moral reason for them to restrain themselves from committing any act considered a crime by civilization. They may still choose to remain within the law, for practical reasons, but it would not be because they are morally obligated to do so. They could rebel at any time. Many do not, and never will.

Consider that if no one ever went outlaw, civilization would have little incentive to give its underclass anything. If you only need a million warm bodies to run the machines, you dump 3 Mcal down the feed chutes every day, and let the rabble argue among themselves over who gets to eat it. If no one is willing to fight the system, everyone is safe to ignore.

Civilization would serve itself best by ensuring that its bounty is distributed evenly enough such that those at the bottom perceive that they would have something significant to lose by rebelling. Though it may also preemptively defend itself against such people by ensuring that they cannot present a significant criminal or military threat if they do turn. You can build shelters and bread lines, or you can build prisons and walls. Not coincidentally, those are the typical strategies of parties considered "left" or "right" politically, worldwide.

If it truly is a last resort, a human with nothing is not ethically restrained in any way from doing anything at all. It might be breaking your car window and stealing something out of your back seat. It might be beating you to death and eating your liver. It might be to give you the sad, puppy-dog eyes, shake some change in a coffee cup, and sing the blues. A civilization that provides no benefits cannot reasonably expect conduct different from the savage, naked savannah-ape in the wild. They don't always kill each other, but they certainly don't worry about laws when they do.

[daliwali]

Cast aside the revolutionary rhetoric for a moment and reconsider what you are saying. Isn't that the same rationale of spree killers, rapists, and other violent low-lives?

A few in recent history have been moderately wealthy, but their poverty lies not in the economic but rather sexual market. Society has denied their right to reproduce, and did not arrange a marriage for them which could have prevented their killing spree. Were they morally justified to harm others?

You are saying that gives them a license to kill. Society denied them something, so you are saying that a justifiable response is to lash out at others. You see there is no point negotiating with people like that, that's when violence is justified.

[logfromblammo]

I think you are mischaracterizing my statements as "revolutionary rhetoric". The ethical system of the dominant civilization is not the "one true ethical system" for all of humanity. There is no particular reason why any rational person should adhere to it in the absence of any tangible benefit from it.

If you choose to enslave someone, you can never trust them to not rise up and murder you in your sleep. There is always the chance that they will think it through and reach the morally correct (for them) course of action--to kill the slave-owner. So logically, if you don't want to be murdered in your sleep, you can either abolish slavery, or you can lock all the slaves up every night. Either one of those strategies would work. In different eras, both have been considered the ethically correct action.

The morally correct response for someone denied reproductive freedom by, for instance, laws supporting polygamy, is to break the laws abolishing adultery. If one man has four wives, there will generally be three other men who shouldn't really consider marital fidelity to be all that important. Or maybe some of them won't consider strict heterosexuality to be a culturally critical ideal.

And if that particular society further undermines those men--perhaps by vigorously defending the wives and daughters, and beheading the ones seeking alternate arrangements--they would be morally justified in committing violence against the people and institutions who denied them those benefits of having a civilized society. It is by no means guaranteed that such people will be able to precisely or accurately identify the "correct" people or institutions. They are right to lash out. They are getting shafted by an unfair system, after all, and that system is unlikely to change for their benefit if they continue to passively support it.

As such, it is also morally justified for other societies, recognizing that violent and possibly ignorant potential, to either proactively defend themselves against it, or to deflect the violence towards alternate targets. It is therefore possible for multiple sides of a violent and bloody conflict to all be acting in a manner that they consider to be morally correct.

It would be better for everyone, all around, if civilization did not choose to stratify itself such that a permanent underclass exists. If fewer people were treated unfairly, fewer people would lash out against the unfairness. As the violence is itself usually applied unfairly, unfairness begets unfairness, injustice breeds injustice, vengeance calls for more vengeance.

If you don't want unending spirals of oppression and rebellion, you have to take proactive measures to peacefully increase the perception of fairness in society. There are many ways to accomplish that. If you don't want peaceful, civilized people to wind up dead because there were too many people that saw no benefit from being peaceful and civilized, you should be pushing to bring more benefits of civilization to more people. Or you should be exterminating the "uncivilized" people. Either way. I personally consider one of those to be ethically abhorrent, but civilization as a whole still seems to be on the fence about it.

[loader]

I reread this comment like 4 times. I really like the simplicity of it but how profound it is.

I guess we can't be too upset when people don't obey our rules if we aren't providing for their basic survival.

[marchenko]

True and succinctly stated.

[UweSchmidt]

Um, yes? Being born makes you worthy of survival. Where is the ethical dilemma? Otherwise I agree with your post.

[bsmith]

It's meant to be rhetorical; of course being born makes you worthy of survival! But what if working doesn't provide you enough sustenance? And what if you don't even have the opportunity in the first place, once the demand for human labor is low enough?

[devoply]

We have more than enough resources. If working does not provide enough sustenance then we need to replace the government. These are political issues not economic ones. We can solve the problem of production with automation, however the problem of distribution remains and if the government is not distributing resources to you then you need to take that government down and replace it with one that does. That ultimatum hopefully makes politicians understand that they are no longer serving their corporate overlords but the people. They have been ignoring the people so long that might get some getting used to.

Most innovation done today I would say a good 99% of what constitutes the job market is trivial and can be automated away in the next 50 years. What remains is the 1% of scientists and engineers that actually make shit happen and strive to change the game. It's fine with me if these people live like kings and the rest of us have enough resources and all the free time in the world to do whatever we want and not be encumbered by trivial work. Maybe we can bring back hunting gathering civilizations or other microcosms of civilization and ways of life.

[pharrlax]

>It's fine with me if these people live like kings and the rest of us have enough resources and all the free time in the world to do whatever we want and not be encumbered by trivial work.

One problem with this that springs to mind is that historically, relative numbers of young, bored, jobless men and crime rates are tightly correlated.

[devoply]

Gaming. Virtual reality. Virtual reality porn. They can be hooligans there. You want somewhere to prove yourself do it there. We should in fact create a de facto virtual reality simulation to take over lots of useless social things we do with material goods and services like expensive cars, clothing, and whatnot. All the conspicuous consumption can happen in virtual reality. That's much better for the environment too. Leave the actual real world alone and focus on implementing our imaginations in the virtual world.

It's already happening: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-video-games-jobs-e...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/gamer-prefers-virtu...

[pc86]

This argument ignores history, human psychology, and basic reality.

[jk563]

I think that instead of creating pseudo-jobs to counter this, perhaps we look into the 'bored' aspect. Can we provide stimulation to avert the negative results seen historically? When we say that we have and distribute the resources needed to survive, do we include entertainment among these resources?

[crispyambulance]

... and that's when you reach for the pitchforks along with the others.

[jbob2000]

And get crushed by drone strikes. The old methods of overthrowing power don't work any more!

[crispyambulance]

mmm, don't be so sure about that, at least not yet.

Drone strikes have failed to "crush" any insurgency thus far and there is a strong argument that they've inflammed the situation wherever they've been used as weapons.

Moreover, "pitchforks" come in many forms.

[gremlinsinc]

THere's also the fact that given enough timeline when 90% of the world's population is out on the street, All economies will suffer, because you cannot have capitalism IF you don't have consumers. No purchases = No income. -- UBI puts money in pockets, for people to keep consuming locally, and props up local economies.

[TheAdamAndChe]

Exactly. The reason the US has had a drawn-out War on Terror right now is because it has the potential to hurt us more than anything else. Asymmetric warfare strategies can be very, very effective while using almost no resources.

[DannyB2]

Those ordering drone strikes on their own citizens might discover that some significant fraction of drone operators are unwilling to carry out such orders.

[crispyambulance]

Keep in mind, however, that civil wars are among the most cruel and vicious of all wars.

The Rwandan genocide was between Tutsi's and Hutu's, the culmination of a long list of beefs the origin of which defies rational explanation.

Not saying that something similar is likely here, but it could happen in time given the right environment and grievances.

[plandis]

This is why you keep the military well off comparatively. Give them a nice incentive and the majority won't turn

[ccallebs]

> Um, yes?

That's easy to say with no resource scarcity.

[TheAdamAndChe]

There is no resource scarcity. 6 men own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the _planet_. This is a crisis of capitalism and wealth distribution.

[Noseshine]

I would replace "own" with "control". They don't hoard production facilities and buildings in their locked cellar. The things they own are still being used to produce stuff consumed by other people than the owner.

No, but they control the economy. They decide what projects to start, and since they are so rich they only think in hundreds of millions at least. So we get less local control - which are all small projects - and more mega-projects/corporations. Which are better at producing at scale, but are (much) worse at providing a satisfying work environment. So we end up producing more than enough stuff, but much of it not actually needed - here you need clever marketing to convince people to consume stuff they don't need, from drugs to insurance to a new shiny car.

I think much of the discussion and the picture a lot of people have in their heads about "the 0.1%" is Scrooge McDuck, with all the money right there only for himself to even see. But in reality capitalist ownership is more a matter of control of what, where, how.

Apart from the means of production, the "body" of the economy, they also control a large share of the "blood" of the economy, the money. Wherever that flow is directed things grow, where it doesn't go lights go out.

While the rest of the population still has quite a bit of money taken together, there is another problem of psychology: Money is no problem for a rich capitalist. They can easily finance billions. But for the people who don't have such easy access to the streams of finance money is much more static, money is much more valuable for the majority of people. Also, "credit" has different meanings for someone investing in a small venture and a billionaire: The latter has financial instruments so that he ends up carrying little to none of the risk.

[socmag]

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but it isn't quite so black and white.

6 men owning as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the planet doesn't actually mean much while ever they aren't keeping their money under the bed away from everyone else - it's still in distribution.

They still go to sleep at night, get up in a morning, have a shower and grab a cup of coffee then go to the bathroom, eat dinner, watch a movie and go to bed I would imagine.

The wealth that they have is an illusion even for themselves.

Now on the other hand, that six individuals have the power to control how their money is distributed is a very real problem, but the wealth itself isn't.

I haven't really been a fan of macroeconomics since the nineties when the whole thing was proved to be an illusion and then confirmed yet again in 2008.

It is a crisis for sure.

[TheAdamAndChe]

> on the other hand, that six individuals have the power to control how their money is distributed is a very real problem, but the wealth itself isn't.

I wouldn't say the wealth is the problem, but wealth inequality is. Our current system allows for a few people to make millions of dollars a day while others can't even get jobs or afford a house. A certain amount of inequality is required to incentivize high performers to create more, but the current amount of inequality is obscene.

[socmag]

Again, I get where you are coming from, but then there is this:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hU7LNS3S3F0/UgQM8LZeTuI/A...

It shows Shanghai in 1987 vs 2013

From a humanist angle, those buildings are outrageous monstrosities and monuments to human egos. However, they were built from wealth generation that probably gave farmers in paddy fields the opportunity to be elevated out of relative poverty to positions where they could gain an education and likely some are now right here with us on HN.

Likely it was all paid for by your average WalMart / Apple / Amazon shopper.

A deeper question is if we feel this is money well spent, and skyscrapers as legacies certainly didn't start in China and are quite prevalent in the West as well.

Taxing the hell out of frivolous luxury goods might be a jolly good start but dunno if that's going to fly anytime soon because even that is a subjective call at best.

Boo, tricky stuff :/

[golergka]

> the current amount of inequality is obscene

Can you back this opinion up with some arguments?

[yummyfajitas]

My 1 year old nephew also owns more than all the people with debt > assets combined. 3 billion x negative number < $0.

Such a crisis of capitalism.

[gjem97]

Globally, how many people have net debt? I bet it's fewer than you think.

[yummyfajitas]

Lots. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding...

[skizm]

You can't eat money though. If they (the 6 most wealthy people) cashed in all their stock and re-distributed their wealth as best they could, the value of money would plummet since so much more is in circulation. It would crash the global economy and cause even more poverty.

[TheAdamAndChe]

The money they have isn't in some vault somewhere. It's already in circulation through various investments and whatnot.

[socmag]

Huh, it's already in distribution. Presumably those shares are held by institutions who use those for investments in projects.

That only the few can control which projects are invested in and compounded by [lack of] any semblance of "altruistic transparency" is the main concern not the wealth itself.

[maxerickson]

No it wouldn't.

The global economy is tens of trillions of dollars. Drop a couple trillion in there and it just gets consumed.

[skizm]

Inflation occurs when the US government adds around $10 billion of money to the market every year though (they print money to replace existing / lost currency, but always over produce). The money gets "consumed" but the value of each dollar goes down. And that's just with $10 billion.

That point aside, my original point was that just because the 6 richest people have paper value of more than half the planet doesn't mean there are enough resources to keep everyone alive just because they are born. (which is ideal in a theoretical world obviously)