I don’t think any school kids should go hungry because they chose the wrong parents so if the cost is also covering some kids whose parents can afford it I’m Ok with that.
1 Like
Eh. We could easily solve food with a small UBI.
No need for crazy socialist farm experiments.
UBI could work too.
I mean, a bananas be like 50 cents a lb.
If you want to eat, here’s a dollar, go buy yourself 2 lbs of bananas.
what in the po
I think you’re doing a little bit of a bait and switch. Sure, let’s give out free bread. You get a UBI of $250/mo per person. Next comes “but I want to paint in Central Park!”, I’ve no intention of subsidizing that.
I think pursuing a society where you can have a significant living standard while literally doing nothing sounds utopian but will create incentives where living standards start to fall.
Clearly you weren’t indoctrinated from a young age with classics like…
2 Likes
Well, that I agree with. But let’s also agree that being homeless and begging for food on the street and needing to shit on the street is a terrible situation no matter what living standard society is in.
At least we agree on some form of UBI such that people can avoid doing that.
<3
I can remember when I first wanted JSM’s utopia.
I was 11, in 5th grade social studies, and we learned how many people a farm feeds.
And I was like, why the f do people work?
I think people who want a UBI either want a massive increase in the size of the government or aren’t already getting subsidized by the government.
But yes, I think on the topic of food there’s so much and it’s comparatively so cheap you could effectively make it free to not be hungry. I certainly think we should do that with children (although we basically already do).
I think homelessness is often a tricky problem to solve and isn’t as simply solved as a $250/mo UBI.
Also, labor isn’t the only input. There are also things like land, fresh water, metals, and minerals that are inherently in limited supply, so keeping one person supplied means sacrifices for others. Technology will help us stretch that supply somewhat, but it won’t eliminate limits.
But it’s not free.
Plus, your focus on marginal production costs ignores the lifecycle costs of the automation. Who pays for that?
Based on your scenario, the ones capable of doing so are not willing to do so. In fact, your model seems to require people with an altruistic bent . . . but I’ve heard that altruism doesn’t really exist.
Sounds an awful lot like “from each according to ability (or in this case, willingness); to each according to need” . . .
“Required to work” doesn’t require unnecessary work to be created just to satisfy the criteria.
If the jobs/work isn’t there, that’s one scenario for socializing basic needs that I think most support. But if there are jobs/work available . . . then choosing to not work shouldn’t be a reason for socialized support.
1 Like
How can automation be free? Someone has to program, build, and invent the automation. That’s not free.
1 Like
The whole point of automation is to leverage automated production such that human labor vs output becomes so leveraged that it is irrelevant to compare them for the most part.
This was highlighted in my utopian example, where 10 people need to work to feed 100000 people. You want people to fix the machinery? Okay, throw in another 10 people. Want people to mine the minerals? Throw in another 5 people.
The point is, automation allows very few people to have to work to sustain the needs of millions of people. Those few people can get rewarded too, so it’s not an altruistic exercise like VA pointed out.
How high do you think the UBI would need to be for people to reasonably accept the lazy life?
1 Like
I like this revision to your post better than the one where you called homeless people lazy.
I assume Federal Poverty Level guidelines provide a rough answer to your question, obviously with lots of caveats.
1 Like
Not quite. In my version of JSM’s utopia, the people who work are “rich”, and the people who don’t work are “poor”.
The non-working class have food, housing, TV, books, computers, crappy clothes, etc. Stuff that is cheap.
The working class has nice housing, doctors, teachers, daycare, etc. Stuff that is nice.
In short, cheap shit for everyone. Luxuries for those that work..
1 Like
This.
Rich people will be rich because they want that lifestyle. But there are plenty of people who don’t care about that, and they shouldn’t be required to work to not suffer.
Ooh, I wanna nitpick this. I just can’t help myself.
What happens when a non-working person needs a doctor?
Does that TV include content subscription services to watch on it?
Does that computer include internet service?
Housing ain’t cheap.
2 Likes
The TV/internet/housing are a question of UBI size.
We could make up some number trying to redefine our existibg entitlement system.
X billions to UBI
X billions to medicaid
X billions to medicare
X billions to public education
-X billions to overlapping programs (ssi, ssdi, tanf, etc.)
Housing is expensive depending on location, services though I’m curious how cheap it could feasibly be. Maybe in our automation driven utopia, “houses” are all factory produced amazon shipping crates stacked in the desert that rent for $50/month.