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.
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.