←back to thread

300 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.551s | source
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[] No.44410806[source]
> I heard one answer more than any other: the government should introduce universal basic income. This would indeed afford artists the security to create art, but it’s also extremely fanciful.

Until we start viewing "fanciful" ideas as realistic, our problems will persist. This article is another in the long series of observations of seemingly distinct problems which are actually facets of a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high. It's not just that musicians, or actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living, it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more. Broad-based solutions like basic income, wealth taxes, breaking up large market players, etc., will do far more for us than attempting piecemeal tweaks to this or that industry.

replies(31): >>44410825 #>>44410866 #>>44410867 #>>44410916 #>>44411075 #>>44411231 #>>44411300 #>>44411331 #>>44411377 #>>44411383 #>>44411390 #>>44411522 #>>44411551 #>>44411588 #>>44411793 #>>44411818 #>>44412810 #>>44413214 #>>44413504 #>>44413995 #>>44414020 #>>44414102 #>>44414213 #>>44414713 #>>44414846 #>>44415180 #>>44415597 #>>44415836 #>>44416489 #>>44416737 #>>44422633 #
GLdRH ◴[] No.44410825[source]
Except that socialism has failed already.

Universal basic income is impossible to justify morally.

replies(11): >>44410832 #>>44410842 #>>44410855 #>>44410860 #>>44410861 #>>44410889 #>>44410910 #>>44410924 #>>44411336 #>>44411438 #>>44416441 #
yoyohello13 ◴[] No.44410855[source]
The top 1% of people controlling more wealth and resources than the bottom 50% is mortally justifiable?

It’s funny whenever there is a comment like “hey, maybe we shouldn’t let individual people get so rich they can basically become thier own country.” Always get called socialists/communists. You can be capitalist while also having some care and protection for the little people.

replies(1): >>44410935 #
eru ◴[] No.44410935[source]
'A' being morally unjustifiable (by some metric), doesn't mean that 'B' is morally justifiable.

If there was a button that I could press that would double the wealth of the 99% of people and quadruple the wealth of the top 1%, I would keep pressing it, even though it technically makes inequality worse and worse every time.

It would be morally reprehensible not to press that button.

EDIT: just be clear, I am talking about real (i.e. inflation adjusted) wealth. I am not talking about how many zeros we add to all dollar amounts.

So I am talking about the number of houses and shoes and cars we have, and the amount of ice cream and education we can enjoy.

replies(2): >>44411007 #>>44414538 #
1. ryandrake ◴[] No.44411007[source]
It would be morally reprehensible to push that button, because the button would also cause prices of everything to inflate by the average increase (more than 2x). So you’d be making the 1% richer, relative to inflation, and the 99% poorer.

Ironically, our society is basically continuously pushing that button today, much to the glee of the 1%.

replies(1): >>44411019 #
2. eru ◴[] No.44411019[source]
You are mixing up nominal and real prosperity.

To be clear: I was talking about real prosperity.

You are talking about nominal prosperity. And I agree: just adding a zero at the end of all dollar amounts wouldn't make anyone better off.