Are we the baddies?

> If you open a government S&P 500 account for everyone with $1,000 at birth that’ll pay their social security cause it like…goes up…wait who’s creating this value again?

This is a good point. Some VCs were major proponents of this (and tons of other business people I'm sure), but this is of course just a guaranteed inflow into the largest companies and the companies that think they will be large some day. Yet another way to reallocate public cash to private companies.

Another similar example is UBI -- its proof of an economy that is not dynamic. It's a tacit approval and recognition of the fact that "no, you probably won't be able to find a job with dignity that can support you and your family, so the government will pay to make you comfortable while you exist".

> make you comfortable while you exist

I don't think there are many proponents of that type of ubi.

The way, at least I, see ubi is absolute subsistence - with a right to earn above that without affecting your subsistence.

IMHO something along UBI is needed for a democratized market economy - and I think the Scandinavian countries are the support for this claim.

> I don't think there are many proponents of that type of ubi.

Another good sign of a difficult policy to implement successfully/an idea that isn't ready for primetime. If everyone has different ideas of what the thing is, it's very hard to make good decisions, and easy for the "wrong" UBI to sneak in.

Other commenters have already made this point, but there are other ways to guarantee "subsistence". I think the hard to answer question is why are the targeted methods currently available not good enough? If we want to ensure people have food, then food subsidies/support make sense.

Also, if unemployment is the problem, fix that. If unemployment isn't the problem and people who are working aren't getting subsistence wages, fix that.

I think part of the problem is that no one wants to stick up and define what we think every human deserves and what we want society to provide. Does every human deserve housing? Access to green space? etc. Trying to clearly define this will lead to really interesting discussions that lay bare the disagreements core to society.

I think my early point still stands, UBI is not needed (we're making do without it now), and if it ever is needed, it's a sign of a lack of dynamism in the economy/ineffective wealth distribution mechanisms (basically, taxation).

> Another good sign of a difficult policy to implement successfully/an idea that isn't ready for primetime.

It will never be ready for primetime because the system under which we live requires an underclass of people that are coerced into working jobs that no one really wants to do for abysmally low wages. Because the only other option left for them is homelessness and starvation.

It is an inherently cruel system, but this cruelty is what keep things afloat. Any system that guarantees the basic subsistence of all would not do.

> I think my early point still stands, UBI is not needed (we're making do without it now)

It's important to qualify that "we" as "we that make six figures working in white collar jobs". Yes, "we" are making do without UBI just fine. This "we" does not include the vast majority of people.

Hopefully plummeting birth rates will throw a wrench to this system by making labor a lot more expensive.

> It will never be ready for primetime because the system under which we live requires an underclass of people that are coerced into working jobs that no one really wants to do for abysmally low wages. Because the only other option left for them is homelessness and starvation. > > It is an inherently cruel system, but this cruelty is what keep things afloat. Any system that guarantees the basic subsistence of all would not do.

We're talking about how it might be about to not require the this underclass, and how we might need a UBI to fix that right? Can it be both of these things at once?

Also as a side note, I think that it's kind of arrogant to think we can create a society where no one does work they don't like, for wages that are always perfect. Nature is not that way, and creating those condition is basically asking for utopia. There is probably always a percentage of undesirable outcomes that every society must endure (and undesirable outcomes are a moving target).

I get your stance on the cruelty of the current system, but I want to note that in the span of human time we've had MUCH crueler systems in place. For example in the US despite the perceived high cruelty of the system, soup kitchens exist, governmental help exists -- there are a lot of things that exist that wouldn't exist in a maximally cruel society/one you describe. There are places on the planet we live on now where these safety nets don't exist.

The problem is the relative position of those with the most resources in society to those with the least. That, is fixable.

> It's important to qualify that "we" as "we that make six figures working in white collar jobs". Yes, "we" are making do without UBI just fine. This "we" does not include the vast majority of people.

I mean that we in the sense that no known society has collapsed because of a lack of UBI (would love to be corrected here). UBI is clearly, objectively not a need.

There are other ways to create a society that works for those with and without, what is probably most needed is clarity on those steps/what we want to guarantee people who live in the given society.

I would disagree that the "majority" of people in (for example) the US are against the current situation. The poverty rate (likely a reasonable proxy for an economic system that really isn't working) is not above 50%. People may

It's hard to quantify -- one of the things about sentiment polling is that people often just don't have a good grasp on how well or how badly they're doing. See earlier this year, when sentiment polling basically was incredibly negative, yet the "economy" as a whole is still mostly chugging along and unemployment has not spiked dramatically across all industries. Tech is in dire straits but "regular" jobs like HVAC, Plumbing, etc are doing fantastic AFAIK.

> Hopefully plummeting birth rates will throw a wrench to this system by making labor a lot more expensive.

Yes, except that is happening at the same time that we've turned what could be a huge corner on automation of both white collar and maybe eventually blue collar work.

I think the price of labor needs to go up, but this is only part of the equation. The more direct answer is simpler -- we need higher taxes on businesses or automation or both.

If you want to profit from US citizens (US company or not!), enjoy infrastructure and stability provided by the US, then the price for that can rise. Charge businesses for the jobs they don't create.

The classic refrain to the increased tax is that businesses will leave. I think that's absolute bullshit -- the US is where people want to be for many reasons, and it is incredibly unlikely that companies will unseat themselves to go run their headquarters out of malta or whatever. Also, incredibly unlikely that all the people who work at those companies will go redomicile. Also, INCREDIBLY unlikely that those companies will give up on the incredibly profitable American consumer they're targeting. What we lack is politicians who can/want to reign in corporate power.

> Also as a side note, I think that it's kind of arrogant to think we can create a society where no one does work they don't like, for wages that are always perfect.

I would agree if there were no billionaires in a country where people also cannot afford things such as housing, food, healthcare and basic education. With economic inequality this high, I don't think we are trying hard enough to create a more egalitarian society.

> I get your stance on the cruelty of the current system, but I want to note that in the span of human time we've had MUCH crueler systems in place.

That scaphism is more cruel than stoning as means of execution, it does not make stoning more humane.

I think you get my analogy.

> I mean that we in the sense that no known society has collapsed because of a lack of UBI (would love to be corrected here). UBI is clearly, objectively not a need

No society collapsed directly because of use of slave labor. Many actually thrived in such a system.

That should not be an argument in favor of slavery.

Just because the lack of UBI does not cause society to collapse ot does not mean that a society as inequal as ours cannot be improved.

> Yes, except that is happening at the same time that we've turned what could be a huge corner on automation of both white collar and maybe eventually blue collar work.

I don't think we turned this corner. But if we did, then perhaps it's fine we head towards extinction. With no humans there will be no inequality eh?

> we need higher taxes on businesses or automation or both.

Agreed.

> The classic refrain to the increased tax is that businesses will leave. I think that's absolute bullshit

I always say the same. If businesses leave, but the demand for goods and services in that society still exists, other businesses will occupy that space. Either existing businesses will seize that opportunity or new businesses will spawn.

> What we lack is politicians who can/want to reign in corporate power.

In no small part because our current system favors capital above all else, and excessive capital concentration allows its owners to distort institutions to their will. Excessive economic inequality is a bitch.

Note that I said excessive. I am not against some economic inequality. I think it's alright for a surgeon to have a nicer house and a better car than, say, a store clerk.

I don't think it's alright for one to have a mutiple yachts and mansions on ski resorts, while the other fights starvation.

Not that I think surgeons have multiple yachts or mansions on ski resorts. But I think you get my point.