Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
That will add more work for those video game publishers, snack warehouses, manufacturers, etc...
There is essentially unlimited video games, movies, television, etc. as it is and more excess every day. Giving people more free time really only gives people more time to enjoy what is already there. It doesn't create more need for those things as a manufacturing quantity.
And snacks go down, not up. Less effort needed throughout the day. Food consumption does not increase as exertion decreases. Food will be mostly flat. But also, people are finally free to garden or farm at home like Romania does. That's how Romania tackles GBI. They almost have it today, and they live pretty well.
That's assuming everyone does less or exerts less energy once they stop working.
I would do a lot more, travel more, etc... I'd be making more money in other ways. I'd have time to do things to make myself money while I sleep.
You'd have more time, but not more money. Travel by foot might be super popular, but travel by plane would likely reduce a lot.
I never said I would stop working before bringing in more money. The whole idea of GBI is to cover basic needs... food, water, shelter... that's it. If someone wants nothign more than that in life, fine, they won't get anything more. Idc. Personally, I'll continue working so I can do what I want to do. I won't stop working until I can maintain the lifestyle I want to have without working. Perhaps with GBI, I won't have to work as much, in which case one may potentially have more time to spend on doing other things, whether that includes playing games, or creating another means of income like I mentioned earlier.
-
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
That will add more work for those video game publishers, snack warehouses, manufacturers, etc...
There is essentially unlimited video games, movies, television, etc. as it is and more excess every day. Giving people more free time really only gives people more time to enjoy what is already there. It doesn't create more need for those things as a manufacturing quantity.
And snacks go down, not up. Less effort needed throughout the day. Food consumption does not increase as exertion decreases. Food will be mostly flat. But also, people are finally free to garden or farm at home like Romania does. That's how Romania tackles GBI. They almost have it today, and they live pretty well.
That's assuming everyone does less or exerts less energy once they stop working.
I would do a lot more, travel more, etc... I'd be making more money in other ways. I'd have time to do things to make myself money while I sleep.
You'd have more time, but not more money. Travel by foot might be super popular, but travel by plane would likely reduce a lot.
I never said I would stop working before bringing in more money. The whole idea of GBI is to cover basic needs... food, water, shelter... that's it. If someone wants nothign more than that in life, fine, they won't get anything more. Idc. Personally, I'll continue working so I can do what I want to do. I won't stop working until I can maintain the lifestyle I want to have without working. Perhaps with GBI, I won't have to work as much, in which case one may potentially have more time to spend on doing other things, whether that includes playing games, or creating another means of income like I mentioned earlier.
Right, I think Dash is mixing GBI and SA98 which is an extension of GBI to address the world's bloat and make GBI really work as intended. But the effect of it is likely that almost no additional jobs will exist.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
perhaps it would be possible to bring all the poor people up to the level you are accustomed to.
That's not at all realistic, since GBI isn't about bringing people up to others standards of living. But getting people out of the workforce who are redundant.
Doesn't matter, equal is equal. You have no way to "earn" more if you are doing nothing. What you did in the past is irrelevant.
For the first generation it absolutely is relevant. Those first 2 billion of "middle class and upper class" will require a SOL that matches what they have today. Otherwise the system would never get off the ground.
You think they'd opt to starve instead? Since their jobs wouldn't exist and their standard of living would be "starvation."
They wouldn't starve though. They'd just keep working and killing of the GBI idea by showing what "working smart and hard" can produce. Making others envious of them and refusing their NP food and board.
No, workers have no decision making power in the GBI / 98% theory. Their jobs don't exist and they have no means of creating more value since working for no purpose would not be rewarded.
GBI means you are giving a minimum standard to live off of. Not that you aren't allowed to work and make more. Look at the link I posted.
The issue is that these "1 percenters" would simply outshine the value of a GBI program and make people envious and want more than GBI can provide without people going and working more.
you missed the whole point that there is no work for them - it's all automated. The best you could hope for would be to become an inventor, and then you'd be part of the 2%, but what are your chances? Pretty slim. And it would be super short lived - I wouldn't expect you to be at 2xGBI for life just because you invented something useful, maybe you'd get it for a year or two.
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
perhaps it would be possible to bring all the poor people up to the level you are accustomed to.
That's not at all realistic, since GBI isn't about bringing people up to others standards of living. But getting people out of the workforce who are redundant.
Doesn't matter, equal is equal. You have no way to "earn" more if you are doing nothing. What you did in the past is irrelevant.
For the first generation it absolutely is relevant. Those first 2 billion of "middle class and upper class" will require a SOL that matches what they have today. Otherwise the system would never get off the ground.
You think they'd opt to starve instead? Since their jobs wouldn't exist and their standard of living would be "starvation."
They wouldn't starve though. They'd just keep working and killing of the GBI idea by showing what "working smart and hard" can produce. Making others envious of them and refusing their NP food and board.
No, workers have no decision making power in the GBI / 98% theory. Their jobs don't exist and they have no means of creating more value since working for no purpose would not be rewarded.
GBI means you are giving a minimum standard to live off of. Not that you aren't allowed to work and make more. Look at the link I posted.
The issue is that these "1 percenters" would simply outshine the value of a GBI program and make people envious and want more than GBI can provide without people going and working more.
you missed the whole point that there is no work for them - it's all automated. The best you could hope for would be to become an inventor, and then you'd be part of the 2%, but what are your chances? Pretty slim. And it would be super short lived - I wouldn't expect you to be at 2xGBI for life just because you invented something useful, maybe you'd get it for a year or two.
It's not ALL automated, there is still a lot of creative stuff out there and things that can't be automated. 2% is still a shit tonne of people.
-
Currently, the US employs 129m workers.
A 2% number is 6.6m workers and a 5% is 16.5m workers. Those are still massive numbers. It's not a small workforce.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
perhaps it would be possible to bring all the poor people up to the level you are accustomed to.
That's not at all realistic, since GBI isn't about bringing people up to others standards of living. But getting people out of the workforce who are redundant.
Doesn't matter, equal is equal. You have no way to "earn" more if you are doing nothing. What you did in the past is irrelevant.
For the first generation it absolutely is relevant. Those first 2 billion of "middle class and upper class" will require a SOL that matches what they have today. Otherwise the system would never get off the ground.
You think they'd opt to starve instead? Since their jobs wouldn't exist and their standard of living would be "starvation."
They wouldn't starve though. They'd just keep working and killing of the GBI idea by showing what "working smart and hard" can produce. Making others envious of them and refusing their NP food and board.
No, workers have no decision making power in the GBI / 98% theory. Their jobs don't exist and they have no means of creating more value since working for no purpose would not be rewarded.
GBI means you are giving a minimum standard to live off of. Not that you aren't allowed to work and make more. Look at the link I posted.
The issue is that these "1 percenters" would simply outshine the value of a GBI program and make people envious and want more than GBI can provide without people going and working more.
you missed the whole point that there is no work for them - it's all automated. The best you could hope for would be to become an inventor, and then you'd be part of the 2%, but what are your chances? Pretty slim. And it would be super short lived - I wouldn't expect you to be at 2xGBI for life just because you invented something useful, maybe you'd get it for a year or two.
It's not ALL automated, there is still a lot of creative stuff out there and things that can't be automated. 2% is still a shit tonne of people.
It might be a shit ton of people - but it would likely be no where near the demand level of people wanting to be higher than Dustin's gruel level GBI.
GBI would need to be at a level where people can take vacations regularly - say, yearly to a foreign country or Disneyworld, etc... while still being at home watching TV, playing video games, watching TV, etc. Only by being at this level or higher will you start driving the demand for those 2% jobs down anywhere near 2% of the population.
-
The US currently has around 20m college students alone. Just reducing college students from 20m to 500K would easily clean up another 20m unneeded support jobs. That's one single thing to fix, that would massively affect the overall numbers that need to be reduced. That's like 15-20% of the total right there in a single shot!
-
Government reduction would be similar. Just removing bloated, no purpose government jobs would be several million more positions, plus all of their associated support people. You might get 15-30% there.
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
perhaps it would be possible to bring all the poor people up to the level you are accustomed to.
That's not at all realistic, since GBI isn't about bringing people up to others standards of living. But getting people out of the workforce who are redundant.
Doesn't matter, equal is equal. You have no way to "earn" more if you are doing nothing. What you did in the past is irrelevant.
For the first generation it absolutely is relevant. Those first 2 billion of "middle class and upper class" will require a SOL that matches what they have today. Otherwise the system would never get off the ground.
You think they'd opt to starve instead? Since their jobs wouldn't exist and their standard of living would be "starvation."
They wouldn't starve though. They'd just keep working and killing of the GBI idea by showing what "working smart and hard" can produce. Making others envious of them and refusing their NP food and board.
No, workers have no decision making power in the GBI / 98% theory. Their jobs don't exist and they have no means of creating more value since working for no purpose would not be rewarded.
GBI means you are giving a minimum standard to live off of. Not that you aren't allowed to work and make more. Look at the link I posted.
The issue is that these "1 percenters" would simply outshine the value of a GBI program and make people envious and want more than GBI can provide without people going and working more.
you missed the whole point that there is no work for them - it's all automated. The best you could hope for would be to become an inventor, and then you'd be part of the 2%, but what are your chances? Pretty slim. And it would be super short lived - I wouldn't expect you to be at 2xGBI for life just because you invented something useful, maybe you'd get it for a year or two.
It's not ALL automated, there is still a lot of creative stuff out there and things that can't be automated. 2% is still a shit tonne of people.
It might be a shit ton of people - but it would likely be no where near the demand level of people wanting to be higher than Dustin's gruel level GBI.
yes, but his vision is unrelated to what anyone is discussing. GBI on its own is to upgrade welfare. But SA98 GBI is to make the average better, everyone wins because every job eliminated increases value.
-
SA98 is all "use less, get more." It's that simple. You can argue the "how" or that there really aren't that many idle people, that's one discussion. But all the talk of "people won't like it or it'll be so poor" is missing the boat.
The economic concept is one of "how to make everyone richer by removing waste without removing productivity." It is about making the global consumption much smaller, while making the actual economic value higher. Everyone wins, as long as we spread it out. And even spread out, the poor get way richer, and the rich get a little richer. There is no loser in the GBI SA98 approach.
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
GBI would need to be at a level where people can take vacations regularly - say, yearly to a foreign country or Disneyworld, etc... while still being at home watching TV, playing video games, watching TV, etc. Only by being at this level or higher will you start driving the demand for those 2% jobs down anywhere near 2% of the population.
Would it? The average person doesn't even begin to do that stuff today. And the idea of vacations is weird when you have no job to vacation from. Sure travel is nice, but the need for it goes way, way down. Especially since people are way more free to move around anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
GBI would need to be at a level where people can take vacations regularly - say, yearly to a foreign country or Disneyworld, etc... while still being at home watching TV, playing video games, watching TV, etc. Only by being at this level or higher will you start driving the demand for those 2% jobs down anywhere near 2% of the population.
Would it? The average person doesn't even begin to do that stuff today. And the idea of vacations is weird when you have no job to vacation from. Sure travel is nice, but the need for it goes way, way down. Especially since people are way more free to move around anyway.
Well, you're talking average across the globe, and I'm thinking more average across the US. So you have me there.
Perhaps traveling desires will go way down in a generation or two, but I think for now - Americans at least would very likely want to spend as much time as possible traveling, etc. Why be idle (or hobbying at home) when you can be at an amusement park? or out seeing things you've never seen before?
I would also expect an even larger migration to warm climates - again, all this free time, why not spend it at the beach? Sure, there will be people who prefer the cold/snow etc...
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
GBI would need to be at a level where people can take vacations regularly - say, yearly to a foreign country or Disneyworld, etc... while still being at home watching TV, playing video games, watching TV, etc. Only by being at this level or higher will you start driving the demand for those 2% jobs down anywhere near 2% of the population.
Would it? The average person doesn't even begin to do that stuff today. And the idea of vacations is weird when you have no job to vacation from. Sure travel is nice, but the need for it goes way, way down. Especially since people are way more free to move around anyway.
Well, you're talking average across the globe, and I'm thinking more average across the US. So you have me there.
US is famously one of the least likely to travel countries in the world. Even of those affluent enough to travel, almost none have passports!
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
Perhaps traveling desires will go way down in a generation or two, but I think for now - Americans at least would very likely want to spend as much time as possible traveling, etc. Why be idle (or hobbying at home) when you can be at an amusement park? or out seeing things you've never seen before?
Current trends say the opposite. Americans are amongst the least traveled people in the world, while having the most capacity.
And things like amusement parks are not travel, those are typically local. But very expensive. Much more expensive than travel.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
Perhaps traveling desires will go way down in a generation or two, but I think for now - Americans at least would very likely want to spend as much time as possible traveling, etc. Why be idle (or hobbying at home) when you can be at an amusement park? or out seeing things you've never seen before?
Current trends say the opposite. Americans are amongst the least traveled people in the world, while having the most capacity.
And things like amusement parks are not travel, those are typically local. But very expensive. Much more expensive than travel.
Interesting - I wonder if it's the lack of access - i.e. the perception of our easy to travel neighbors is that of 3rd world countries, undesirable locations. Our northern neighbor is basically USA Jr, and I'm not aware of any thing really cool in Canada that are must see things for me personally. So I don't really consider it that fair to judge US citizens compared to the rest of the world.
If you live in Europe - you can travel so easily - no passport - and cheaply (compared to flying from the US to Europe - now sure, if you live in a major international airport city, flights can be more reasonable, but still not cheap) and in general is like 2-3 hour flight, not 6 hour min.
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
Perhaps traveling desires will go way down in a generation or two, but I think for now - Americans at least would very likely want to spend as much time as possible traveling, etc. Why be idle (or hobbying at home) when you can be at an amusement park? or out seeing things you've never seen before?
Current trends say the opposite. Americans are amongst the least traveled people in the world, while having the most capacity.
And things like amusement parks are not travel, those are typically local. But very expensive. Much more expensive than travel.
Interesting - I wonder if it's the lack of access - i.e. the perception of our easy to travel neighbors is that of 3rd world countries, undesirable locations. Our northern neighbor is basically USA Jr, and I'm not aware of any thing really cool in Canada that are must see things for me personally. So I don't really consider it that fair to judge US citizens compared to the rest of the world.
If you live in Europe - you can travel so easily - no passport - and cheaply (compared to flying from the US to Europe - now sure, if you live in a major international airport city, flights can be more reasonable, but still not cheap) and in general is like 2-3 hour flight, not 6 hour min.
So... given that... and knowing that in the EU you can go to SO many countries without needing a passport, isn't it super shocking that Europeans get passports so much more often than Americans do? You made my point for me, Europeans don't need passports to see country after country, one safe place after another, unlimited history and culture and food. Yet they do, constantly, go abroad. Americans need a passport to do anything, yet almost never do.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
Perhaps traveling desires will go way down in a generation or two, but I think for now - Americans at least would very likely want to spend as much time as possible traveling, etc. Why be idle (or hobbying at home) when you can be at an amusement park? or out seeing things you've never seen before?
Current trends say the opposite. Americans are amongst the least traveled people in the world, while having the most capacity.
And things like amusement parks are not travel, those are typically local. But very expensive. Much more expensive than travel.
Interesting - I wonder if it's the lack of access - i.e. the perception of our easy to travel neighbors is that of 3rd world countries, undesirable locations. Our northern neighbor is basically USA Jr, and I'm not aware of any thing really cool in Canada that are must see things for me personally. So I don't really consider it that fair to judge US citizens compared to the rest of the world.
If you live in Europe - you can travel so easily - no passport - and cheaply (compared to flying from the US to Europe - now sure, if you live in a major international airport city, flights can be more reasonable, but still not cheap) and in general is like 2-3 hour flight, not 6 hour min.
So... given that... and knowing that in the EU you can go to SO many countries without needing a passport, isn't it super shocking that Europeans get passports so much more often than Americans do? You made my point for me, Europeans don't need passports to see country after country, one safe place after another, unlimited history and culture and food. Yet they do, constantly, go abroad. Americans need a passport to do anything, yet almost never do.
No, it's not shocking - Americans are attached to all their stuff - Europeans are more about experiences, at least from my exposure... So Americans are willing to travel short distances for low fees, where Europeans are more likely willing to spend more on flights, etc to get over here or anywhere a passport is needed.
And who said anything about the need for a passport? You brought that up. I personally love to get out to other countries, but most people I know have and do travel around the US, so no passport is required.
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
Perhaps traveling desires will go way down in a generation or two, but I think for now - Americans at least would very likely want to spend as much time as possible traveling, etc. Why be idle (or hobbying at home) when you can be at an amusement park? or out seeing things you've never seen before?
Current trends say the opposite. Americans are amongst the least traveled people in the world, while having the most capacity.
And things like amusement parks are not travel, those are typically local. But very expensive. Much more expensive than travel.
Interesting - I wonder if it's the lack of access - i.e. the perception of our easy to travel neighbors is that of 3rd world countries, undesirable locations. Our northern neighbor is basically USA Jr, and I'm not aware of any thing really cool in Canada that are must see things for me personally. So I don't really consider it that fair to judge US citizens compared to the rest of the world.
If you live in Europe - you can travel so easily - no passport - and cheaply (compared to flying from the US to Europe - now sure, if you live in a major international airport city, flights can be more reasonable, but still not cheap) and in general is like 2-3 hour flight, not 6 hour min.
So... given that... and knowing that in the EU you can go to SO many countries without needing a passport, isn't it super shocking that Europeans get passports so much more often than Americans do? You made my point for me, Europeans don't need passports to see country after country, one safe place after another, unlimited history and culture and food. Yet they do, constantly, go abroad. Americans need a passport to do anything, yet almost never do.
No, it's not shocking - Americans are attached to all their stuff - Europeans are more about experiences, at least from my exposure... So Americans are willing to travel short distances for low fees, where Europeans are more likely willing to spend more on flights, etc to get over here or anywhere a passport is needed.
And who said anything about the need for a passport? You brought that up. I personally love to get out to other countries, but most people I know have and do travel around the US, so no passport is required.
The point was that Americans don't have passports. The ratio is super low, even though we need them for even the tiniest thing. But Europeans broadly have them, even though they can spend a lifetime traveling and not need one.
-
The U.S. is more "Live-to-work" where as most other places are more "Work-to-live".
-
@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
The U.S. is more "Live-to-work" where as most other places are more "Work-to-live".
Why do you say that? Give me examples of people living to work instead of the opposite.
