Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
I'd happily live on a BGI so long as it maintained my standard of living at the time the system was created.
It's a basic income. Should maintain you comfortably, but should not maintain you above a minimum level. Maybe in 200 years when we are at Star Trek level, but that's a long way off. For now, it's acceptable housing, food, public transportation, television, etc. It's the basics, it's the minimum.
It is possible with free energy. Literally things that cost $10 would cost pennies. When you consider the fuel costs, costs of gather resources, any machining, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller so would nutrient paste be good enough for you? It's also insanely cheap to produce.
It'll keep you healthy, but no one likes eating nutrient paste.
-
@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.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
I'd happily live on a BGI so long as it maintained my standard of living at the time the system was created.
That's not a fair situation - because you'd be condemning those who are super poor to stay there.
Not at all, because I'm above the poverty line, lowering my standard of living to get a free living wouldn't make sense. And since a GBI is a "above poverty line program" no one would be forced to suffer.
I don't follow.
Let's assume your household income today is $150K.
Now let's assume that when you elevate all poor people across the country, you end up at $110K per household.You're saying - nope, I don't want to do that because it will mean a 40K reduction in my standard of living but at the same time - you no longer have to work. Your time is your own.
Is that right?You are mixing up a GBI and welfare.
GBI is to get people out of the workforce who aren't needed. It isn't a welfare program to improve the standard of living by equalizing the standard of living among everyone.
GBI is just sensible welfare. They are the same program, just one is efficient and fare, and one is inefficient and very difficult to use properly.
-
@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.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
-
@Dashrender 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.
My standard of living is "high" im my own opinion, but I also sacrifice a lot of things by choice.
I don't have cable, I do have fiber internet at $75 a month. I don't have any subscriptions, but I do like a good bottle every now and then.
I don't eat high on the hog all of the time, but I also won't skip a steak if I want it.
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.
And we just stop creating fake jobs to keep them busy. The current system already automates tonnes of necessary jobs, or can at least. Lots and lots of jobs exist for no reason other than to keep people busy or to make it seem reasonable to pay people who have no clear value but we can't just let them starve.
-
@IRJ said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
I've thought about this alot... I think the only way that guaranteed basic income will work is with free energy. Many would argue we already have free energy available, but it is being supressed. I am not sure either way on that, but what I feel is that free energy is the only way to deal with robots taking over jobs. We must be able to get energy costs down to next to nothing since we are able to automate machines.
That's not really a big deal. Because humans working use a tonne of energy. We need brighter lights, cars to take us to work, heat and AC to make the environment perfect. Going to automation will easily reduce our power consumption, by a lot. Humans working is the top user of power, I think. Humans at home use far less than at work, even just doing the same tasks.
The power comes in all kinds of forms, from needing bigger buildings to needing more chairs to needing more power to do things.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
According to Scott (Adams not Alan Miller) 98% are not adding value to the system. The can work, they just don't work productively either at the individual or holistic level. They can stop working at the system either stays at equilibrium or improves - for everyone.
They are already "not earning" their resources. They get them as a hand out already, but through a really inefficient system that wastes power, money, etc.
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
No I'd say on on the lower end of high end for the position I fill today.
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
I never said I deserve more. I said I'm already making sacrifices to live the life I have today.
I could go and buy or lease a new car every few years, but I chose not to so I can instead save that money. I could pay $200 a month for cable/internet/phone but I choose not too.
I could choose to eat out at restaurants every day, but I choose not to.
I make those choices not because I can't afford those things, but because I don't want those things. A lot of the poverty of the world exists because 1) people can't get work or the work they have way under pays and 2) that no one wants to make personal sacrifices.
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@IRJ said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
I've thought about this alot... I think the only way that guaranteed basic income will work is with free energy. Many would argue we already have free energy available, but it is being supressed. I am not sure either way on that, but what I feel is that free energy is the only way to deal with robots taking over jobs. We must be able to get energy costs down to next to nothing since we are able to automate machines.
I agree, that's likely a major first step - the next one is giving up material things/power. As long as one person feels the need to lord something over someone else, (and that includes power, not the energy kind of power), we won't move...
Right, much of what people buy is useless. We all live better if we stop buying those things. Making things no one needs or wants takes power.
Those things start getting eliminated naturally with GBI. Because money goes farther if you aren't buying useless crap. And the cost of useless stuff goes way up, while the cost of useful stuff goes way down.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
The 5% being those that have so much to benefit society that they would keep working even though the ability to live for free is guaranteed.
-
@IRJ said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
AI and Microsoft.... What could go wrong? :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes: :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_cold_sweat: :face_with_tears_of_joy:
One could argue that all of Microsoft products are the product of bloat and creating jobs that are unneeded. With GBI, it seems logical that open source would rocket forward.
If 95% of people use slow, bloated software because "people aren't willing to learn" or "we refuse to not use bad software that doesn't work well" those are likely the 95% getting cut
-
@IRJ said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
I'd happily live on a BGI so long as it maintained my standard of living at the time the system was created.
It's a basic income. Should maintain you comfortably, but should not maintain you above a minimum level. Maybe in 200 years when we are at Star Trek level, but that's a long way off. For now, it's acceptable housing, food, public transportation, television, etc. It's the basics, it's the minimum.
It is possible with free energy. Literally things that cost $10 would cost pennies. When you consider the fuel costs, costs of gather resources, any machining, etc.
Energy is never free. Nor does it matter. Because what makes GBI work is that it uses less energy than the alternatives.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller so would nutrient paste be good enough for you? It's also insanely cheap to produce.
It'll keep you healthy, but no one likes eating nutrient paste.
I basically eat that already. It's called a bean burrito.
-
@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."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller so would nutrient paste be good enough for you? It's also insanely cheap to produce.
It'll keep you healthy, but no one likes eating nutrient paste.
I basically eat that already. It's called a bean burrito.
This kind of NP, not a fancy kind with a wrap.
-
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.
Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.
So you consider yourself one of the 5%?
Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.
Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?
And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?
Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@IRJ said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:
I'd happily live on a BGI so long as it maintained my standard of living at the time the system was created.
It's a basic income. Should maintain you comfortably, but should not maintain you above a minimum level. Maybe in 200 years when we are at Star Trek level, but that's a long way off. For now, it's acceptable housing, food, public transportation, television, etc. It's the basics, it's the minimum.
It is possible with free energy. Literally things that cost $10 would cost pennies. When you consider the fuel costs, costs of gather resources, any machining, etc.
Energy is never free. Nor does it matter. Because what makes GBI work is that it uses less energy than the alternatives.
In theory energy could 100% be free. There are already workable theories out there for it. There are propulsion systems that should work in theory, but they are missing a single element or enough power generation at the current time. So if one of those pieces were to be solved, we could have free energy.
