[darkerside]

I posit that, in that case, a new "normal" baseline would be established by social consensus (perhaps, owning a home, smart phone, access to media, high quality medical care, and organic food) that is above what is afforded by the UBI. Falling below that threshold would then be deemed just as unacceptable as the poverty line today. And people won't solve it by taking on these undesirable jobs, they'll rail against an unfair system instead, just like we do today when things are already better than they've ever been.

Such is human nature. Always has been, always will be. We just do the best we can to balance between indulging it with socialism, and leveraging it with capitalism.

[mlthoughts2018]

If we imagine that "life goodness" can be measured by a single real number, and we model it with a normal distribution with a mean somewhere on the positive axis, then one way to say what you describe is that we create a threshold somewhere along the left-hand tail of that distribution, and we declare anything below the threshold as morally unacceptable, in need of social constraints that prevent the permissibility of outcomes falling further to the left than our threshold.

As technology enables expansion of the right-side tail for the relatively most wealthy, it seems like a reasonable utilitarian goal to say that we should adjust the left-side threshold more and more to the right, in a "optimize the well-being of the least well off" sense.

So I'd view this ever rightward moving threshold as a very good thing that represents exactly what we want in terms of progress.

If we ever got to a point where we said, welp "poor people" are now above the magic threshold (e.g. because the people on the left tail of the distribution mostly have hot showers, cell phones, and Netflix), so what more do they want? ... why are they complaining? ... this would be incredibly frightening. Essentially the wealthy would be deciding at which threshold upward human progress gets to stop, in favor of creating skewness in the distribution that concentrates more wealth into the right-side tail, as long as that left-side threshold stays above the "hot showers, cell phones, and Netflix" line.

[turc1656]

"Essentially the wealthy would be deciding at which threshold upward human progress gets to stop..."

No, that's not what that would mean. It means the producers of society get to determine at what point they wish to stop providing government mandated subsidies through either taxation or deficit spending to the non-producers or those who produce far less value.

There should be absolutely nothing wrong with people deciding that they do not wish to handover any more of their wealth. If your opinion is that the "system" is the culprit and these people are being squashed by bad laws, policies, etc., the proper recourse is not to legally rob others to help those people - the solution is to fix the bad laws and policies that may benefit the rich unfairly.

Underlying your claim appears to be some baseline assumption that the poor have some sort of legitimate claim on the productivity of other citizens. I strongly disagree with this assumption. I personally do not believe that anyone has a right to the fruits of my labor. The government, however, says otherwise and demands that I fork over non-trivial amounts of money to other people - individuals, to be clear, not public goods. I'm fine with the idea of taxation to provide for public goods like roads, military, etc.

The modern poor in developed nations (and especially the US) have a standard of living that exceeds what the average family experienced in most of the 20th century. This concept of poor is obviously relative and it is the Keeping Up With The Jones' mentality that drives this nonsense of ever-increasing handouts.

There was a great video I saw once by a guy who used to be homeless and on welfare. He said that when he was on welfare he was never grateful for anything he received because he was just mad others had more. He gave the analogy of imagining that your boss came over and said you did such a fantastic job you are getting 100k for a bonus. You're ecstatic and grateful. Then you find out that everyone else in your office got 200k bonuses. You immediately turn to anger and resentment, despite the fact that you are now 100k wealthier.

Helping thy neighbor is great. But legally mandating it is a terrible idea and has been terrible in practice.

[grasshopperpurp]

>There should be absolutely nothing wrong with people deciding that they do not wish to handover any more of their wealth. If your opinion is that the "system" is the culprit and these people are being squashed by bad laws, policies, etc., the proper recourse is not to legally rob others to help those people - the solution is to fix the bad laws and policies that may benefit the rich unfairly.

How do we fix bad laws when the wealthy are paying good money for those bad laws?

>Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/without-the-right-p...

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/amazon-...

[turc1656]

"How do we fix bad laws when the wealthy are paying good money for those bad laws?"

The wealthy only account for a small percentage of the overall population. It is very easy to change the law if and only if people care enough to do so. But they don't. Because that involves work like protesting, writing to representatives, organizing community events, and maybe recalling mayors of congressional reps with votes of no confidence. They'd rather pretend to be outraged on Twitter, so that they don't have to actually do anything and instead watch Dance Moms or binge watch Netflix.

The fix is simple conceptually, but it is society's collective refusal to demand that laws be changed or for existing laws that are being broken to be enforced. If society really, truly wanted to fix the whole "paying good money for those bad laws" issue, it could do so relatively easily. But it's much easier for people to pretend it's not that big of a problem since things are relatively stable and people have what they need for the most part. Why rock the boat, right?

The problem isn't just the wealthy - it's all of us in our refusal to demand the law be enforced, as-written, without exceptions given based on wealth or size of the company/organization. Why was Wells Fargo, for example, allowed to just pay a fine for millions of fake accounts that were created which ripped people off? Those are clear cut felonies. If I opened a small, local bank and did that I'd be rotting in Federal prison right now, guaranteed. The only reason the employees that engaged in this and/or the Wells Fargo executives are not in jail is because society didn't demand the DoJ do it's damn job and indict them at the individual level. Hell, society at large didn't even withdraw their funds in bulk. Why would any retail customer hold deposits with an institution like that when this is a proven, admitted fraud, and was well-publicized? That's the real question. And it's the heart of the matter. And that's just one outrageous scam upon the people that comes to mind. There are many more.

[grasshopperpurp]

>he wealthy only account for a small percentage of the overall population. It is very easy to change the law if and only if people care enough to do so. But they don't. Because that involves work like protesting, writing to representatives, organizing community events, and maybe recalling mayors of congressional reps with votes of no confidence. They'd rather pretend to be outraged on Twitter, so that they don't have to actually do anything and instead watch Dance Moms or binge watch Netflix.

I like the idea, but that's not how it works. We don't even have mandatory time off for voting, and not all states have mail-in ballots. People in the US work way too much for the average person to set aside time to understand complex issues. For those with an interest, sure, they'll set aside the time. But, the blue-collar worker from the Rust Belt can be easily tricked into thinking freeloaders, immigrants, and colored people are the reason they're poor, and that's a very basic, obvious issue. Combine that with the attack on the educational system (some Southern states have/are trying to remove Slavery from the Civil War portions of textbooks), and you have America - an ignorant, confused, disinterested public. The time spent on mindless activities (imo) indicates a level of tiredness. It's sad, and people should do better, but when we know they won't under these conditions, it's time to look at the conditions.

>I’ll let the researchers speak for themselves: “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

>Main Street alone does not matter. Nor do interest groups that purport to support the general welfare. The data show that politicians cater to rich people and groups organized to advance their own narrow interests. Worse still, those interest groups tend to lobby for positions that are “negatively related to the preferences of average citizens.”

>Again, I quote: “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04...

>The problem isn't just the wealthy - it's all of us in our refusal to demand the law be enforced, as-written, without exceptions given based on wealth or size of the company/organization. Why was Wells Fargo, for example, allowed to just pay a fine for millions of fake accounts that were created which ripped people off? Those are clear cut felonies.

I agree, but how many politicians do you think Wells Fargo owns? The average person doesn't matter to those politicians. The money and perks do. Also, again, people don't have the time/energy to hold these people accountable. Manipulation by the media also contributes to this - outrage fatigue, etc..

>And that's just one outrageous scam upon the people that comes to mind.

There are too many to keep track of. I appreciate the well-thought response. I think you're basically right in theory, but, in practice, I think you're expecting too much of the average person.

[turc1656]

Yes, I probably am expecting too much from my fellow countrymen. And that's the issue. I think what we can most likely both agree on, after reading our back and forth, is that the issues you raised are more of the symptom of the illness rather than the actual problem itself. You said yourself the public is ignorant, confused, and disinterested. That's the crux of it. Their lack of concern has led to the current situation and we, as a society, are 100% responsible for our malfeasance/mismanagement. The people who have been able to profit from it are just taking advantage of our collective lack of vigilance.

[philwelch]

> Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below.

Economics is not a zero-sum game.

[philwelch]

Here's the thing, though. On a global level, poverty is measured by a threshold of whether or not you can sleep through the night without getting bitten by malaria-infested mosqitoes. Gig workers in Western countries aren't anywhere near the left-hand side of the tail. Most of these distributive justice arguments have a nationalistic bent where the global poor don't matter at all.

[mlthoughts2018]

I agree with you completely, and spent a lot of time in the past decade reading around 80000 Hours, Giving What We Can, Peter Singer, etc. But I do think there are other forms of suffering, for example severe mental suffering that co-occurs with extreme addiction-related problems, combined with poverty conditions that are surprisingly quite bad, even on a world scale, in parts of the US. In general, I think far too little attention is paid to the way overall quality of life degrades in the presence of psychological trauma. You can have plenty of first world resources and still be living one of the worst lives on the planet, in terms of experienced suffering.

My comment was couched in terms of creature comforts that we have in most parts of the first world, but that's not necessarily the specific standard I'm advocating for, and the more general idea is just that people towards the left of the distribution should never be made to feel like they "shouldn't have" the comforts further to the right -- basically that we all should see progress as somewhat tied to both driving the mean to the right, and reducing the variance so that people at least in the far left tail are continuously brought closer to the far right tail.

[darkerside]

But that existential psychological suffering will ALWAYS be there. No matter how we move lines and curves. Some people will always be missing out, and giving them more won't fix it if we provide the same benefit to all their peers as well.

There are other better ways to resolve the vicious psychological cycle you describe, but they're not material.

[darkerside]

Trying to move that line is laudable. Just don't think we'll ever be done moving it, regardless of whether indeterminate progress is sustainable or not.

[Certhas]

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by "won't solve it by taking on jobs just as today". Today people take on these jobs, and in most countries that I know of, the social welfare net is contingent on actively looking for work. Today your (legal) options are: Try to work or die.

Do you think you can get a fair price if the other side knows you have to sell with a gun to your head?

I suspect most people would work for reasons you mentioned, but I also suspect that the price for undesirable unskilled labor would be much much much higher than it is today.

Which would incentivize automating this type of labor first. As it should be.

[kazagistar]

Are you saying that "food, heat, and a roof over your head" is an arbitrary social construct?

[darkerside]

A cave with a fire and a dead pig satisfy that. I'm pretty sure that's not what you're really advocating for a baseline lifestyle.