So the last survey has me a little surprised and confused regarding the amount of people who strongly disagree with entering great stagnation and strongly agree with basic income, all across the board.
Can someone shed some light on why this might be? I’m surprised because I would expect strong supporters of basic income to have some belief in the coming technological automation unemployment. You see this all the time in r/futurology, where they are always posting up articles talking about how jobs are going away and not coming back.
I’m not saying they are right, but the point goes to show that these two beliefs sorta go hand in hand, or at least from what I’ve seen. So what about LW made the survey so different? Is it that I have the wrong idea about what the great stagnation is?
As far as I understand the Great Stagnation, it’s basically this. I think that a belief in “the coming technological automation” is perfectly consistent with the belief that the stagnation will end because robots are oh so much more productive.
It’s not stagflation (which is the combination of low economic growth and high inflation) and the actual survey question said:
Do you believe we are currently in or entering a “Great Stagnation”, as proposed by Tyler Cowen and Peter Thiel, during which technological growth slows drastically? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stagnation for more information
Damn it, that was the worst time to make a typo. I meant Stagnation. But back to the point, I’m not following how someone could believe in the Great stagnation as presented in wikipedia to not having it be a motivating factor to support basic income.
I’ll try: The main thesis is that economic growth has slowed in the United States and in other advanced economies, as a result of falling rates of innovation >>> belief that further advancing automation will not raise wages and stagnant wages will persist, >>>support basic income.
If you think that the economic growth and wages will continue to stall, this implies that the living standards and general economic well-being will continue to be roughly the same (as opposed to the case of rapid economic growth when the living standards also rise rapidly). Why the idea of economic well-being remaining the same supports the basic income proposal?
Why the idea of economic well-being remaining the same supports the basic income proposal?
Wait isn’t that the point? I’m not saying basic income will or will not work, just that the idea of economic well-being remaining the same or perhaps worse, might already be an undesirable outcome for those that strongly support basic income?
a little surprised and confused regarding the amount of people who strongly disagree with entering great stagnation and strongly agree with basic income
People who disagree with Great Stagnation presumably think that the economic growth will pick up and be high. This means you’re surprised that people who think that the economic growth will be high are strong supporters of basic income.
I can propose a simple linkage as to why this is so: the no-stagnation people are (technological) optimists. They believe that in the near future there will be plenty of value/money/goods—enough for everyone. If so, in this environment of plenty it makes sense to provide a UBI to everyone.
To me, though, it seems that Great Stagnation and UBI are orthogonal issues and having a position on one does not imply a particular position on the other.
This means you’re surprised that people who think that the economic growth will be high are strong supporters of basic income.
Yes!
I can propose a simple linkage as to why this is so: the no-stagnation people are (technological) optimists. They believe that in the near future there will be plenty of value/money/goods—enough for everyone. If so, in this environment of plenty it makes sense to provide a UBI to everyone.
That is what I am trying to figure out; is this what they think? I have never encountered that way of thinking before, hence why I would be confused. It would seem to me that technological optimists predicting a future of plenty for everyone, would think it makes no sense to provide UBI.
It would seem to me that technological optimists predicting a future of plenty for everyone, would think it makes no sense to provide UBI
Ah, but you’re missing the sociopolitical aspects. See, if we don’t do anything the greedy conniving capitalists will just steal all the gains for themselves and leave nothing for the working man and women and any other gender that someone might wish to identify as (cf. people like Piketty and Krugman, the key words are something like “real median wages”).
We need to fleece the fat cats and equally distribute the fur! Econo-technological optimism merely provides assurances that there will enough fur to distribute.
In a bit less snide manner, UBI is redistribution of wealth from more productive members of society to less productive ones. To be able to afford it, the society has to be wealthy. If you believe we are entering the post-scarcity era, UBI is no big deal (economically) since there is enough wealth for everyone, we just need to spread it out a bit more evenly. But if you believe we are not economically growing, there is a debt overhang, and things generally aren’t getting better fast enough, why, UBI might be a luxury we can’t afford.
Not sure I’m defending the UBI, but: we already have enough food to feed everyone on Earth. Plainly social factors can interfere with this rosy prediction.
This means you’re surprised that people who think that the economic growth will be high are strong supporters of basic income.
Yes!
I can propose a simple linkage as to why this is so: the no-stagnation people are (technological) optimists. They believe that in the near future there will be plenty of value/money/goods—enough for everyone. If so, in this environment of plenty it makes sense to provide a UBI to everyone.
That is what I am trying to figure out; is this what they think? I have never encountered that way of thinking before, hence why I would be confused. It would seem to me that technological optimists predicting a future of plenty for everyone, would think it makes no sense to provide UBI.
People in r/futurology consider whether or not robots take away jobs a central political question. Most people don’t.
For most people the decision about whether basic income is a good idea is about whether they believe that people are more likely to engage in productive work if they are forced to search for a job and apply to jobs because they otherwise don’t get government assistance.
But even if we look at whether technology produces unemployement the fact that there’s technological advancement means that it’s possible to employ people to produce new products.
So the last survey has me a little surprised and confused regarding the amount of people who strongly disagree with entering great stagnation and strongly agree with basic income, all across the board.
Can someone shed some light on why this might be? I’m surprised because I would expect strong supporters of basic income to have some belief in the coming technological automation unemployment. You see this all the time in r/futurology, where they are always posting up articles talking about how jobs are going away and not coming back.
I’m not saying they are right, but the point goes to show that these two beliefs sorta go hand in hand, or at least from what I’ve seen. So what about LW made the survey so different? Is it that I have the wrong idea about what the great stagnation is?
As far as I understand the Great Stagnation, it’s basically this. I think that a belief in “the coming technological automation” is perfectly consistent with the belief that the stagnation will end because robots are oh so much more productive.
But the surveyed belief was about entering the great stagflation.
EDIT: I mean stagnation
It’s not stagflation (which is the combination of low economic growth and high inflation) and the actual survey question said:
Damn it, that was the worst time to make a typo. I meant Stagnation. But back to the point, I’m not following how someone could believe in the Great stagnation as presented in wikipedia to not having it be a motivating factor to support basic income.
Why do you think that believing this claim
should be a motivating factor to support basic income? How do you get from point A to point B?
I’ll try: The main thesis is that economic growth has slowed in the United States and in other advanced economies, as a result of falling rates of innovation >>> belief that further advancing automation will not raise wages and stagnant wages will persist, >>>support basic income.
If you think that the economic growth and wages will continue to stall, this implies that the living standards and general economic well-being will continue to be roughly the same (as opposed to the case of rapid economic growth when the living standards also rise rapidly). Why the idea of economic well-being remaining the same supports the basic income proposal?
Wait isn’t that the point? I’m not saying basic income will or will not work, just that the idea of economic well-being remaining the same or perhaps worse, might already be an undesirable outcome for those that strongly support basic income?
Hold on. Rewind.
You originally said that you are
People who disagree with Great Stagnation presumably think that the economic growth will pick up and be high. This means you’re surprised that people who think that the economic growth will be high are strong supporters of basic income.
I can propose a simple linkage as to why this is so: the no-stagnation people are (technological) optimists. They believe that in the near future there will be plenty of value/money/goods—enough for everyone. If so, in this environment of plenty it makes sense to provide a UBI to everyone.
To me, though, it seems that Great Stagnation and UBI are orthogonal issues and having a position on one does not imply a particular position on the other.
Yes!
That is what I am trying to figure out; is this what they think? I have never encountered that way of thinking before, hence why I would be confused. It would seem to me that technological optimists predicting a future of plenty for everyone, would think it makes no sense to provide UBI.
Ah, but you’re missing the sociopolitical aspects. See, if we don’t do anything the greedy conniving capitalists will just steal all the gains for themselves and leave nothing for the working man and women and any other gender that someone might wish to identify as (cf. people like Piketty and Krugman, the key words are something like “real median wages”).
We need to fleece the fat cats and equally distribute the fur! Econo-technological optimism merely provides assurances that there will enough fur to distribute.
In a bit less snide manner, UBI is redistribution of wealth from more productive members of society to less productive ones. To be able to afford it, the society has to be wealthy. If you believe we are entering the post-scarcity era, UBI is no big deal (economically) since there is enough wealth for everyone, we just need to spread it out a bit more evenly. But if you believe we are not economically growing, there is a debt overhang, and things generally aren’t getting better fast enough, why, UBI might be a luxury we can’t afford.
Well it would certainly help me if all these Econo-technological optimists who took that survey speak up and tell me what they think about UBI please!
But I thank you for your simple linkage.
Not sure I’m defending the UBI, but: we already have enough food to feed everyone on Earth. Plainly social factors can interfere with this rosy prediction.
Everyone on earth has also eaten at least fairly recently.
This means you’re surprised that people who think that the economic growth will be high are strong supporters of basic income.
Yes!
I can propose a simple linkage as to why this is so: the no-stagnation people are (technological) optimists. They believe that in the near future there will be plenty of value/money/goods—enough for everyone. If so, in this environment of plenty it makes sense to provide a UBI to everyone.
That is what I am trying to figure out; is this what they think? I have never encountered that way of thinking before, hence why I would be confused. It would seem to me that technological optimists predicting a future of plenty for everyone, would think it makes no sense to provide UBI.
People in r/futurology consider whether or not robots take away jobs a central political question. Most people don’t.
For most people the decision about whether basic income is a good idea is about whether they believe that people are more likely to engage in productive work if they are forced to search for a job and apply to jobs because they otherwise don’t get government assistance.
But even if we look at whether technology produces unemployement the fact that there’s technological advancement means that it’s possible to employ people to produce new products.