[bruce511]

I too think Basic Income is a necessity. I don't think it can happen in the US (for cultural reasons) but I think elsewhere it can work. (And indeed in many places it kinda, sorta, already does).

>> That would enable the authors, activists and hackers to pursue what's meaningful

I would counsel not using the word "meaningful" in the context of BI. We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money". If society gets to judge what is meaningful or not, well, that's the system we currently have.

BI is about letting people do whatever they like especially if it is meaningless. BI implies an economy (you have to spend the Income on something) so meaningful will always be richly rewarded.

Incidentally publishers exist to act as curators and filters. The value they add is real. There's no shortage of self-published stuff on say Amazon, but 99% of it is drivel. I go into a bookshop to find the 1% that at least someone thinks is worth reading.

[Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe]

> I don't think it can happen in the US (for cultural reasons)

Cultural reasons are just a matter of spindoctoring/propaganda.

Nixon almost implemented a form of UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan

In Alaska there's already a form of UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

[bruce511]

The reason I think it is hard in the US is because there is a very strong "work or die" ethic in the US. Everything is driven by money. Even basic things like healthcare are driven by money. Your life after retirement is determined by how much money you accumulated. The word-association between "poor" and "lazy" is strong. Taxation should be light. Each man should keep what he accumulates.

BI by contrast values people over money. It recognises not just the social responsibility of the rich to the poor, but also the dignity of being human.

Some countries are further along that path than others. Health care, education, unemployment benefits, are all steps towards BI. The wealthy are taxed to pay for the poor. Ultimately the suppresses the excess, while raising the floor.

From a cultural point of view, the US has many steps to take before society is really for (real) BI.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I have an Irish friend that got a Ph.D, while on the dole.

That would never happen, in the US. We have a strong “Why do they get special treatment?” thing going on.

[mikeocool]

I think I get your point, but few PhD candidates pay tuition in the US and most actually receive a living stipend. In exchange they act as teaching and/or research assistants.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

That would be perceived differently.

I guess we know that Ph.D Research/Teaching Assistants tend to be worked to death, and paid peanuts.

The whiners would be OK with that.

[Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe]

I insist:

> Cultural reasons are just a matter of spindoctoring/propaganda.

[mlrtime]

Top 10% already pays 70.5% of all federal income taxes. US high income payers are already taxed to pay the poor.

Almost half of US federal tax payers pay 0 income tax.

[ethbr1]

Another way of looking at that is that the people who have been able to accumulate excessive gains from the capitalist system are forced to pay some of that back, to maintain the system that enriched them and those whose labor they profited from.

That seems like a screwy but ultimately more than fair deal for the top 10%.

Especially when the alternative is pitchforks and torches.

[cess11]

Before you go to the capitalist in their home and torch it or beat them in front of their family, try striking for a while. Usually they soften rather quickly when labour is collectively withheld.

[Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe]

Yes but going on a strike without a union is hard, and they know that.

> The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or total labor union "density") varies by country. In 2024 it was 9.4% in the United States, compared to 20.1% in 1983, the first year with data suitable for comparison.[2]: 1 [3] There were 14.3 million members in the U.S. in 2022, down from 17.7 million in 1983.[2][3] Union membership in the private sector has fallen to 6.0%, one fifth that of public sector workers, at 33.1% (2022).[2][3] From a global perspective, in 2016 the US had the fifth lowest labor union density of the 36 OECD member nations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...

[ethbr1]

Hence why corporate leadership is salivating over AI.

[jamiejquinn]

I disagree with your definition of meaningful here. Society's willingness to pay is certainly a signal for meaning in an output but it seems quite inaccurate. Think of the number of artists and thinkers that weren't recognised in their lifetimes, their work was still meaningful but society hadn't discovered it yet.

Similarly, there are a number of things that would be incredibly meaningful to all of society (eradication of disease, nuclear fusion, etc) that we choose to deprioritise to instead eat fois gras and fight.

Sorry to jump down your throat on this, we're on the same side, I think BI is inevitable and worthwhile. But it's worth pointing out that BI enables more than just the meaningless things.

[bruce511]

BI does not stop people doing meaningful things. Society will (mostly) reward things which add value. We have a very efficient system for that, and it doesn't go away under BI.

We are already spending massive amounts of money on disease, fusion and so on. There's no issue there, and BI doesn't move that needle.

At the moment society (especially in the US) operates on a "add value or starve" basis. (That's an over simplification, but the underlying "morality" us strong in that direction.)

BI moves the needle for those who are not "adding value" (in a materialistic sense.) Artists and Authors are free to spend their time creating works, of which a rounding error will have any value. Sure there's some unappreciated author out there cranking out literature, but there's also everyone else cranking out rubbish.

BI doesn't make 'big things' easier to do. Arguably it makes them harder. Rather it allows individuals to gain satisfaction from little things. Budding poets can write all day long. But if (great) poetry is currently ignored, do not expect much on that front.

I say this not to denigrate BI but rather because allowing the meaningless is precisely its goal. To miss that is to miss the point. It allows people to find worth and dignity without having to add value to society.

[mathgeek]

> allowing the meaningless is precisely its goal

I think you’re getting pushback because of this choice of language. It’s not the only goal, but it is a key feature. BI supports choices of how to spend your time and enables freedoms.

[cess11]

"add value or starve"

I think this is wrong. It's not about value, it's about being submissive.

[rbanffy]

> We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money".

This is a mechanism that’s very narrow and creates notable distortions between financial and artistic value, just to keep the example specific enough.

[phatskat]

> I would counsel not using the word "meaningful" in the context of BI. We already have a way of evaluating "meaningful", it's called "money". If society gets to judge what is meaningful or not, well, that's the system we currently have.

I’m also going to take issue with this interpretation of “meaningful” - I’ve known several amazing crafters and artists who have had an incredibly hard time doing their craft simply because the demands of capitalism prevent them from putting the time and effort into honing those skills, finding a market, creating a portfolio, etc.

If anything, I think BI is just as likely to add meaningfully to society as it is to give people the option to do meaningless things.