## Citizen's Wage

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Taxation reduces the supply, citizen's wage increases it. There is no net change in money supply or value of money with cash transfers, so the only real question is the effect on the labor market.

EDIT 2:

Or, if you really want asset-backed currency:

1) Have the government purchase all land
2) Have the government do away with taxes
3) Have the government use rent on the land in lieu of taxes
4) Compute the land income as [Cost of maintaining the current value] + [Total Revenue] given 10 year projections
5) Use discounted cash flow analysis to determine the equivalent value in treasury bonds

The government can then make sure that the total value of all currency printed is equal to the value of all land that it rents out. Or it could just not index it to anything, it really doesn't matter.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

ucim
Posts: 6818
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Thesh wrote:Taxation reduces the [money] supply, citizen's wage increases it.
This is just a restatement of "money comes from the government". However, money is not given value by the government, it is given value by the economy. "Value" is the relationship between a simolian and a quart of milk. The guy with the quart of milk will only accept simolians if he thinks that somebody else will accept those simolians to clean out the feed trough. If everyone gets (enough) free simoleans, they will no longer be very effective in convincing anybody to clean out the feed trough. So the guy with the quart of milk would rather drink the milk than sell it for simolians he can't use.

The economy pretty much halts. Barter takes hold. Simolians go to zero.

Thesh wrote:There is no net change in money supply or value of money with cash transfers
Sure there is. Remember, people don't want money; they want goods and services. Money is just an intermediary.

Taken to the extreme (which is the whole point of it), suppose all jobs disappear due to automation, except for the fifteen people that are in charge of Megafood Corp, Intelligent Solutions Inc., UberConnect.com, AllRobot Mfg., and a few others (and that Megafood's board is in the process of being replaced by an Intelligent Solutions Inc. digital decisionmaking module). The dystopic end result is world composed of extreme poverty who scrounge for whatever-it-is that Megafood Corp., etc. want in exchange for their autonomously machine-made goods. The top fifteen people have gobs of whatever-it-is that they want, but I'm not sure what they do with it, except subjugate the masses for the lulz. (More realistically, prices will just drop too, like salmon or long distance phone service, making things affordable again, if there is a way to get paid for something...anything).

But once you look past the currency, the citizens' wage solution reduces to these corporations being forced to give much of their goods away, so that the masses enjoy a "nice" standard of living, and the fifteen top people don't rule the economy. Even in that situation, what passes for "the economy" will be so different from what we are used to that I don't see that "money" has any meaning anymore.

That is for the "AI takes over" scenario. The other scenarios for which a citizens' wage is proposed are "rich people are too rich" and "poor people are too poor", and as I see it it doesn't really address either of those problems effectively. It has the same issues that welfare does, plus the same issues as a punitive tax system.

Thesh wrote:Or, if you really want asset-backed currency:
It's not a question of being asset-backed. It's a question of it undermining the thing that gives money its value in the first place. And even for asset-backed currency, that's not the asset. It's the desirability of the asset, and this will be changed by using it to back a currency in an economy that no longer functions.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

So what you are saying is that all of your concern is about the lack of labor supply, not the currency? If you can't get the revenues to pay the citizen's wage, it naturally goes down, causing people to have to go to work. I mean, imagine if it just paid 150% of poverty level. I'm sure you could find a hell of a lot of people who are not satisfied with that and willing to work for \$8/hr if it's offered, because that's a significant multiple of their current income.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

ucim
Posts: 6818
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Thesh wrote:So what you are saying is that all of your concern is about the lack of labor supply, not the currency?
No, I'm wondering what this is a solution to, because it does not actually solve the problems that it's touted for.

In the case of AI-dominated automation leading to a post scarcity no-jobs environment, giving people pieces of paper to trade does nothing, because nobody who has goods will want pieces of paper.

In the case of helping the poor in the current economy, there are already programs in place for that and I'm not at all convinced that this is any better or more efficient at doing so, nor that its side effects aren't as bad or worse.

In the case of bringing down the rich who have "too much money", it's the wrong end of the stick, because it focuses on giving money out, not taking money from the undeserving wealthy.

So, what is the actual problem (not to imply that there aren't any) that this citizens' wage is supposed to solve? I mean, free money always sounds nice, but there's no such thing.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

ucim wrote:In the case of AI-dominated automation leading to a post scarcity no-jobs environment

This is your problem. This is something absolutely no one is discussing. At that point you are so far beyond the concerns of modern economics that none of this is relevant.

As for what the citizen's wage solves, that's been discussed to death for the last 18 pages!
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

### Re: Citizen's Wage

ucim wrote:In the case of helping the poor in the current economy, there are already programs in place for that and I'm not at all convinced that this is any better or more efficient at doing so, nor that its side effects aren't as bad or worse.

Current solutions for this particular problem generally fall somewhere on the scale of 'abhorrent to merely horrible' and universally are of only limited if any effectiveness. It's almost inconceivable that a citizens wage/basic income/reverse tax/what-have-you wouldn't manage to be a significant improvement whatever other flaws such proposals may have.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

EdgarJPublius wrote:It's almost inconceivable that a citizens wage/basic income/reverse tax/what-have-you wouldn't manage to be a significant improvement whatever other flaws such proposals may have.
Certainly it's conceivable . No social program has ever been touted as likely to produce unwanted side effects.

ucim
Posts: 6818
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Thesh wrote:This is your problem. This [(AI-dominated automation...)] is something absolutely no one is discussing. At that point you are so far beyond the concerns of modern economics that none of this is relevant.
It's arguably what led to Trump's election. Mexico isn't taking our jobs, automation is, and they are not coming back. But in any case, if this is not the problem a citizens' wage solves, so be it.

Thesh wrote:As for what the citizen's wage solves, that's been discussed to death for the last 18 pages!
Then color me completely unconvinced that it is an improvement over anything we already have.

EdgarJPublius wrote:It's almost inconceivable that a citizens wage/basic income/reverse tax/what-have-you wouldn't manage to be a significant improvement...
I'm conceiving it. It's almost inconceivable that it would manage to be a significant improvement. In fact, it's likely to be a monstrosity, because
1: it doesn't do "enough", and
2: "enough" is unsustainable.

If the citizens' wage is just poverty level, it's basically our present welfare, without checks and balances, without allowances for extenuating circumstances (does someone get more money a higher wage because they are disabled and have high medical expenses?), and with significant waste (putting the rich on the dole too).

If the citizens' wage is middle class level, who will pay for it? And with that much free money floating around, who will do the grunt work of the economy?

And... when the economy adjusts, will the citizens' wage rise to compensate for the loss in buying power?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

elasto
Posts: 3750
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

ucim wrote:If the citizens' wage is just poverty level, it's basically our present welfare, without checks and balances

You're right, but it should not be overlooked that cutting out eligibility tests saves a heck of a lot of money.

If the citizens' wage is middle class level, who will pay for it?

Again, you're right, but the key part you're missing is just how much automation and AI will enhance global innovation and productivity.

Poverty is relative. A poor person today lives a life most a thousand years ago couldn't even conceive of. Heck, in many respects a middle class person today has luxuries even a king of ages gone by couldn't dream of.

To take one example, it's my belief that, within a century, VR will be virtually indistinguishable from real life. A poor person will be able to build and own a VR mansion on a VR island that would put a billionaire of today to shame. And it'll cost them pennies to run.

To take another example, it's my belief that, within a century, breakthroughs in nanotech and genetic engineering (directed by advanced AI) will usher in a new age for medicine. Currently a double-digit percentage of our GDP is spent patching up healthcare problems after the event; Medicine will shift to becoming mainly preventative, saving a fortune as well as massively improving quality of life.

So, to square your circle, the citizen's wage will pay 'poverty level wages', but a pauper of tomorrow will live like a prince of today.

And with that much free money floating around, who will do the grunt work of the economy?

Noone will. It'll be done by automation and AI. And that's a blessing.

Life is too precious to be wasted doing grunt work, and the generations to come will be bemused by today's puritanical obsession with a 'strong work ethic'...

ucim
Posts: 6818
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

elasto wrote:So, to square your circle, the citizen's wage will pay 'poverty level wages', but a pauper of tomorrow will live like a prince of today.
ucim wrote:And with that much free money floating around, who will do the grunt work of the economy?

Noone will. It'll be done by automation and AI. And that's a blessing.
... and to square that circle,
Thesh wrote:
ucim wrote:In the case of AI-dominated automation leading to a post scarcity no-jobs environment
This is your problem. This is something absolutely no one is discussing. At that point you are so far beyond the concerns of modern economics that none of this is relevant.
Things that make you go "hmmmmm....".

elasto wrote:To take one example, it's my belief that, within a century, VR will be virtually indistinguishable from real life. A poor person will be able to build and own a VR mansion on a VR island that would put a billionaire of today to shame. And it'll cost them pennies to run.
... and it won't keep them warm when it's cold outside, nor will it keep the bears away. Yes, I do see your point about tech and about poverty being relative. It's parallel to my point about money also being relative. A dollar isn't a "thing". It's a promise. These promises have come to be so common that nobody remembers what they are a promise of, and because of that, it no longer matters. It's treated as a thing. But a citizens' wage (sufficient to make a difference) exposes the dollar for what it is and what it isn't. It would probably collapse upon itself.

I'll be watching the experiments that bumped the thread, but I don't see it turning out any differently than the one in Canada: "The payments flowed for four years, turning Dauphin into a potent test site for the policy. But the project’s budget of \$17m – the equivalent of about \$85m today – ran short halfway through the project, hindering data collection.". Now while it's true that "Hospitalisations, accidents, injuries and mental health issues had all declined when the stipend were flowing into the community.", the money was coming as manna from heaven, not in a self-supporting manner that it would have to be if it were the whole country (or the whole world - poverty doesn't respect national boundaries).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Again, you're right, but the key part you're missing is just how much automation and AI will enhance global innovation and productivity.

I have seen a lot of such claims in recent years, which is in strange contrast with this:

The strongest declines in growth are presumably convergences with the US, where productivity growth started much earlier. US productivity growth seems to be slowly declining over the decades as well, though with a wavy pattern that makes hard conclusions difficult.

And the last decade has been bad. For all the talk about automation leading to joblessness, rich countries currently show the lowest productivity growth in living memory.

That's not an iron law of course -there could well be a rebound ahead. But that's pure speculation, definitely not an extrapolation of current trends.

EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

### Re: Citizen's Wage

ucim wrote:If the citizens' wage is just poverty level, it's basically our present welfare, without checks and balances,

For the most part, the 'checks and balances' on welfare are exactly the problem. One of the advantages of Basic Income proposals is that they combine, reduce and eliminate significant amounts of bureaucratic overhead. They also reduce/eliminate the politicization surrounding who 'deserves' welfare and who doesn't, and a lot of awful programs that try to create monetary incentives for social agendas.

without allowances for extenuating circumstances (does someone get more money a higher wage because they are disabled and have high medical expenses?)

That's a problem that should correctly be solved by a universal healthcare system, not economic welfare.

and with significant waste (putting the rich on the dole too).

The rich are a small fraction of the population, so there's not exactly room for significant waste there. A good number of proposals have the rich subsidizing the program through increased taxation anyway, so they might as well get something for their trouble.

And with that much free money floating around, who will do the grunt work of the economy?

People don't only work for money.

And... when the economy adjusts, will the citizens' wage rise to compensate for the loss in buying power?

I should hope the amount would be pegged to a floating value tied to a variety of economic indicators such as inflation, rather than be some minimum wage that has to be adjusted legislatively (and therefor won't be whenever it's not the popular thing to do, regardless of economic reality)
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Zamfir wrote:The strongest declines in growth are presumably convergences with the US, where productivity growth started much earlier. US productivity growth seems to be slowly declining over the decades as well, though with a wavy pattern that makes hard conclusions difficult.

And the last decade has been bad. For all the talk about automation leading to joblessness, rich countries currently show the lowest productivity growth in living memory.

That's not an iron law of course -there could well be a rebound ahead. But that's pure speculation, definitely not an extrapolation of current trends.

This. I have difficulty with claims regarding automation and AI breakthroughs displacing all jobs, etc. They border on religion when it comes to testability, particularly when they begin talking about the Singularity.

Runaway productivity growth seems like it'd be a nice problem to have. What to do with too much growth seems like a much easier problem than too little. Low growth inherently limits additional standard of living increases, regardless of if you want it in the form of more welfare or something else.

EdgarJPublius wrote:
And with that much free money floating around, who will do the grunt work of the economy?

People don't only work for money.

Mostly, they do. Over 70% of 'em hate their jobs, anyways.

http://www.gallup.com/services/178514/state-american-workplace.aspx

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:This. I have difficulty with claims regarding automation and AI breakthroughs displacing all jobs, etc. They border on religion when it comes to testability, particularly when they begin talking about the Singularity.

You can dismiss absolutes like "AI taking all jobs" easily enough, but it seems very hard to ignore larger and more imminent changes due to automation. I don't even know how to find statistics for automation replacing jobs over the past century, but right around the corner we have autonomous driving which will automate a sector of the total workforce larger than any single event in US history [citation needed, like I said].

The American Trucking Association puts truck drivers at ~3.5M in the US (and that's just professional truck drivers, no other type of professional drivers as far as I can tell). Total workforce is around 160M, so truck drivers are over 2% of the work force. Even if it's not happening in the next 5 years, it's happening at some point in the next generation... driving as a career will be displaced.

At some point "finding new careers to maintain the systems that replaced the old careers" hits a dead end as these systems improve. We really are moving towards "post-scarcity," even if that's a goal that can never truly be reached. It certainly seems reasonable to discuss how the economy is going to have to change to adapt to an increasing pace of automation (which really seems to be the most valid case for a citizen's wage).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Unemployment is decreasing at the moment, and it does not seem like we've had any systemic change in terms of what causes unemployment. Sure, the last recession sucked, but ascribing it to automation would require some serious mental gymnastics.

Truck driving is a growing field. Over the next decade, it should get 5% more jobs, not fewer. It thus makes a pretty poor example of industries that are going away. Automated driving is still very experimental, and will probably not suddenly displace all jobs. You'll also need maint folks, etc to keep those systems running.

And if we do get that, GOOD. That automation will make life more efficient, and allow a better standard of living. This fear of automation taking jobs is not even vaguely new, and has been the creed of luddites for generations. So far, they have an unbroken track record of being wrong when forecasting the end of society. Why should we listen to them, repeating the same old arguments, now?

If you accept that post-scarcity can never truly be reached, why are you concerned about it, or think that it is a necessary thing to plan for?

Why are you citing an "increased pace of automation", when this is not backed by data, and doesn't actually appear to be the case from growth, etc charts?

PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:
Zamfir wrote:The strongest declines in growth are presumably convergences with the US, where productivity growth started much earlier. US productivity growth seems to be slowly declining over the decades as well, though with a wavy pattern that makes hard conclusions difficult.

And the last decade has been bad. For all the talk about automation leading to joblessness, rich countries currently show the lowest productivity growth in living memory.

That's not an iron law of course -there could well be a rebound ahead. But that's pure speculation, definitely not an extrapolation of current trends.

This. I have difficulty with claims regarding automation and AI breakthroughs displacing all jobs, etc. They border on religion when it comes to testability, particularly when they begin talking about the Singularity.

If it is about all jobs then they are predictions about the far future the most we can do about long term predictions is run simulations if it is about something sufficiently simple and if not all we can talk about is what is plausible, we can't actually test any of them. As for the singularity, how about just not straw manning the topic? That there are people who bring up both does not make it a relevant unless someone does in the current dialog. The same goes for your random bringing up of Luddites as if people generally considered it something negative.

(Side note: What possible relevance could have the sector growing to the argument about automatic trucks coming somewhere in the next generation? It is not here yet so how could it prevent the growth of the sector? There are arguments against it you could make: Maybe the tech will run into a road block it is possible. Maybe for some reason human drivers will be preferred or it will be considered necessary to accompany the vehicles. Maybe an entirely different transport method will develop that needs people. Maybe people will just be cheaper Etc. But the current development of the sector is casually unconnected, future tech doesn't retroactively replace drivers, nor is it a tech that multiplies the efficiency of drivers resulting in their numbers slowly dropping as it gets better. The current state is I suppose relevant when talking about whether we have reached the point where there aren't enough replacement jobs or whether there is such a point but that wasn't the argument you responded to. (Btw I don't think we have. I do think we will eventually unless we hit some roadblock in ai that we never manage to overcome but I believe a full discussion about such predictions would be a distraction to the main topic.))

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

The singularity, as a concept, is something we cannot predict beyond. Which doesn't stop it's adherents from postulating various outcomes, of course. Still, it is not merely difficult to test due to the usual problems of predicting the future, it runs kicking and screaming from testability on principle.

The entire concept of ever-escalating automation and AI seems very doubtful. Predictions of the future have routinely over-estimated both of these. This single concept is what gets us ideas such as singularity/citizen's wage talk. They are both built on the premise of computers essentially doing everything, productivity skyrocketing, and it not really making much difference to society if you opt to paint art that nobody wants to buy, or working a soul-sucking entry level job.

There is essentially no evidence in favor of this actually being the case. All evidence we have points against it. Basic Income is a solution for a "problem" that does not exist, and which evidence indicates will not exist for the foreseeable future.

Essentially, it's religion.

PeteP wrote:(Side note: What possible relevance could have the sector growing to the argument about automatic trucks coming somewhere in the next generation? It is not here yet so how could it prevent the growth of the sector? There are arguments against it you could make: Maybe the tech will run into a road block it is possible. Maybe for some reason human drivers will be preferred or it will be considered necessary to accompany the vehicles. Maybe an entirely different transport method will develop that needs people. Maybe people will just be cheaper Etc. But the current development of the sector is casually unconnected, future tech doesn't retroactively replace drivers, nor is it a tech that multiplies the efficiency of drivers resulting in their numbers slowly dropping as it gets better. The current state is I suppose relevant when talking about whether we have reached the point where there aren't enough replacement jobs or whether there is such a point but that wasn't the argument you responded to. (Btw I don't think we have. I do think we will eventually unless we hit some roadblock in ai that we never manage to overcome but I believe a full discussion about such predictions would be a distraction to the main topic.))

It is not merely that it is predicted to grow as a sector. It's that it's predicted to grow in terms of jobs.

Which makes it a really poor example case for "the computers are taking er jerbs".

PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

… I am pretty sure you understand that "x hasn't happened yet" is not actually an argument against "Because y will happen, x will happen in the future", right? The y here is "autonomous street vehicles" the x "significant reduction in number of people paid for driving". You can argue against y, you can argue against y leading to x, or you can argue that they will simply move to other jobs like people did after the number of people needed for farming got much smaller (in richer countries at least otherwhere the sector isn't as tiny.). But x hasn't happened yet when the purposed cause hasn't happened yet is simply a non sequitur of an reply. (Or if I am less generous it is a straw man, it wasn't an example of jobs currently being replaced so declaring it one and arguing against it as one is misrepresenting the others argument to make it easier to attack.)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

That argument is always true, for a wild variety of things that have never happened, including the apocalypse, alien landings, or what have you. Yes, they could technically be true at some point in the future, despite having been false at every point until now.

But you still factor that into the credibility of each person proclaiming the imminent arrival of such a thing, and who demands that action be taken now in preparation for it. Most people don't build nuclear bunkers or what have you.

You need evidence. For exceptional claims, you need exceptional evidence. It is not sufficient that it has not been conclusively ruled out as a possibility. You need some good reason why it should be taken seriously. Same, same, all "Jesus is returning" or "the mark of the beast is whatever". Otherwise, this ideas credibility is no different than for those bits of nonsense. The list of things that could possibly happen is infinite.

Asking for evidence is not a non-sequitur, it's the basis of pretty much any prediction. I'm not asking for 100% proof, merely reason for why we should expect such a thing. If someone posits that the replacement of truck drivers is such a thing, it's entirely reasonable to point out that the truck driving industry itself does not expect to be replaced in the forseeable future. If your predictions are at odds with everyone else, clearly, there's something amiss. People also predicted that robots would replace all manner of other jobs, and that has not come to pass. The existence of a robotic vacuum cleaner has not displaced housecleaning services, for instance.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:You need evidence. For exceptional claims, you need exceptional evidence. It is not sufficient that it has not been conclusively ruled out as a possibility. You need some good reason why it should be taken seriously. Same, same, all "Jesus is returning" or "the mark of the beast is whatever". Otherwise, this ideas credibility is no different than for those bits of nonsense. The list of things that could possibly happen is infinite.

Asking for evidence is not a non-sequitur, it's the basis of pretty much any prediction. I'm not asking for 100% proof, merely reason for why we should expect such a thing. If someone posits that the replacement of truck drivers is such a thing, it's entirely reasonable to point out that the truck driving industry itself does not expect to be replaced in the forseeable future. If your predictions are at odds with everyone else, clearly, there's something amiss. People also predicted that robots would replace all manner of other jobs, and that has not come to pass. The existence of a robotic vacuum cleaner has not displaced housecleaning services, for instance.

But this isn't an exceptional claim because the evidence is so strong. Amazing advances in autonomous driving over the past half decade... massive investment in continuing to improve this technology for the foreseeable future.

What happens after "autonomous vehicles change the landscape of the driving profession" is significantly less clear, but "autonomous vehicles WILL change the landscape of the driving profession" is not (maybe I'm wrong and only read optimistic articles) something that's really a question of "if" but "how soon."

Yes, the "industry" (read: the ATA) says they're not expecting driverless trucks to ever be a thing. As is the rallying cry of every industry right before technology supplants it. In reality (on the internet, at least), there are already companies experimenting with autonomous specialized trucks.

Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

### Re: Citizen's Wage

You can dismiss absolutes like "AI taking all jobs" easily enough, but it seems very hard to ignore larger and more imminent changes due to automation. I don't even know how to find statistics for automation replacing jobs over the past century, but right around the corner we have autonomous driving which will automate a sector of the total workforce larger than any single event in US history [citation needed, like I said].

Not even close by a long shot:
Spoiler:

That shows a continuous drop of 0.5% of the workforce every year, for at least 120 years straight. In other words, like a complete elimination of trucking as a profession in 4 years time, then that same feat repeated 30 more times.

Now, this reduction in agricultural workforce might well the largest social phenomenon of the last centuries, with effects on virtually every aspect of life. But it underlines that our social institutions are not new to large-scale employment transitions. If anything, they're used to more.

The following report has relevant charts, especially chart 14 to 17.
https://www.bls.gov/mlr/2006/03/art3full.pdf
Of course, nothing compares to the farms - that's a unique event. But there are other cases as well. For example: machine operators other than vehicle drivers: 13% in 1970, 7% in 2000. A complete elimination of trucking every decade, three times in a row. In other words, fully automated trucks would just be a regular extension of that automation trend -after a slowdown in recent years.

Physical labourers: 9% in 1940, 4% in 1960 (with slower declines in the years before and after. Completely elimination of trucking in a decade, 2 times in a row.

Household servants: 6% to 4% from 1910 to 1920. Back up in the great depression, and down again from 4.5 to 2.5 from 1940 to 1950. And down to 0.5% in 1980. Here you see the effect of household appliances. Agatha Christie once remarked that as kid, she never expected to be so poor not to have servants, or so rich as to have a car.

Those are the big drops in the stats, there's some smaller ones as well. Probably still comparable to hypothetical impact of automated cars. Typists and secretaries: 5% in 1980, 3% in 2000. That's the IT revolution, right there. Craftsmen,7% to 5% from 1920 to 1940, and 4.5% to 2.5% from 1970 to 1980. Again, industrial automation is nothing new.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Trebla wrote:But this isn't an exceptional claim because the evidence is so strong. Amazing advances in autonomous driving over the past half decade... massive investment in continuing to improve this technology for the foreseeable future.

There have been excellent advances, true. However, they have been iterative, for the most part. You can look backward to the pervasive adoption of cruise control, through more recent advancements such as automatic parking. It's much more than a half decade here, and the timescale for adoption will be similarly much longer than that. Vehicles are often on the road for quite some time, and production lines themselves have significant spin-up times. A driverless society is still in the realm of science fiction. Perhaps slightly less so than with flying cars, but we're not anywhere close to it just yet.

What happens after "autonomous vehicles change the landscape of the driving profession" is significantly less clear, but "autonomous vehicles WILL change the landscape of the driving profession" is not (maybe I'm wrong and only read optimistic articles) something that's really a question of "if" but "how soon."

Yes, the "industry" (read: the ATA) says they're not expecting driverless trucks to ever be a thing. As is the rallying cry of every industry right before technology supplants it. In reality (on the internet, at least), there are already companies experimenting with autonomous specialized trucks.

Experimentation is a long way from adoption. Typically, you see a long curve with adoption, and the disruption is not like that claimed by those who would frame progress as a threat. It is likely that the first models will have teething issues, as is true of most technology, and actual use comes with a significant amount of limitations, which will be slowly iterated away. If, indeed, we're at a point where drivers start being displaced.

Another potential outcome is "this is still impractical for mass adoption". Cool experiments involving robots often pick up a great deal of press, but do not reach mass adoption. Even with, as the Roomba, where they do become commercially available, they're not terribly disruptive to society.

As Zamfir points out, the green revolution is by far the most widespread, far reaching example we have of this. For the most part, this was a very good thing, and society adapted to it pretty well. Therefore, if you're positing some variant of the ol' Future Shock hypothesis whereby change outstrips society's ability to cope with it...you need to postulate some change significantly greater than this. This is quite a high bar, and a potential decline in the number of truck drivers a couple decades from now isn't it.

EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:
And with that much free money floating around, who will do the grunt work of the economy?

People don't only work for money.

Mostly, they do. Over 70% of 'em hate their jobs, anyways.

http://www.gallup.com/services/178514/state-american-workplace.aspx

There's a big difference between hating your job, and hating work.

I imagine most people who 'hate their job' would, if given the option, rather find a better job (possibly even doing the same work, just at a different company/in a different environment) than to stop working, even if they would be supported without needing to work.

Someone who hates their job and receives a basic income, may finally have financial stability to quit and find a job they enjoy more or they could be able to retrain for more fulfilling work, or be able to pursue their own projects and start a small business that they wouldn't have been able to before.

Studies done of cash-transfer programs and basic-income pilot programs have shown fairly consistently that such programs tend to increase economic involvement, including employment, rather than reduce it.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/show-them-money
http://www.bignam.org/Publications/BIG_ ... rt_08b.pdf
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

EdgarJPublius wrote:
There's a big difference between hating your job, and hating work.

I imagine most people who 'hate their job' would, if given the option, rather find a better job (possibly even doing the same work, just at a different company/in a different environment) than to stop working, even if they would be supported without needing to work.

Sure. And they'd do so right now, if not for money.

In practice, money proves very important for most. And it's an important signaling mechanism for what's needed. It is likely that many people have dreams of becoming a pro sports player, but only a small number is really necessary. That small number is quite valuable, but the prices drop off extremely quickly for similar jobs once one goes beyond the top handful of people. More people pursuing that dream will not likely provide any net gain.

Many people have tried to remove money from employment, in some sort of commune-style life. At a certain scale, it works. A small scale. And some enforcement of contributions turns out to be pretty necessary. However, if these were so obviously advantageous, would they not have outcompeted corporations by now?

Someone who hates their job and receives a basic income, may finally have financial stability to quit and find a job they enjoy more or they could be able to retrain for more fulfilling work, or be able to pursue their own projects and start a small business that they wouldn't have been able to before.

Fulfilling is not the same as productive, of course. Nobody really contests that people might be able to find more fulfilling pastimes, if self directed.

The issue is that, as with the aforementioned dreams of sports greatness, they might not actually produce anything, or at least, not as much in general as the current system. The legions of people toiling away in modest jobs, reliving high school glory days while watching TV might not maximize fulfillment, but it's highly probable that they're doing more of value to others.

Studies done of cash-transfer programs and basic-income pilot programs have shown fairly consistently that such programs tend to increase economic involvement, including employment, rather than reduce it.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/show-them-money
http://www.bignam.org/Publications/BIG_ ... rt_08b.pdf

This was covered quite some time back. Basically, these manage to soundly prove that dumping money into an economy helps it. Which, of course, isn't what is necessary, and merely serves as a trivial proof of the desirability of another subsidizing your lifestyle. For it to be successful on a social level, it needs to work on an effectively cash-neutral basis, better than the current system. It is, after all, merely another system of redistributing wealth.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Let's be fair... the vast majority of the data points on that chart hide the fact that the raw number of workers in agriculture held essentially constant while population exploded. Noting in fact absolute growth in the industry until the early 20th century.

From https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm:
Spoiler:
1840 - Total population: 17,069,453; farm population; 9,012,000 (est.); farmers 69% of labor force
1850 - Total population: 23,191,786; farm population; 11,680,000 (est.); farmers 64% of labor force
1860 - Total population: 31,443,321; farm population: 15,141,000 (est.); farmers 58% of labor force
1870 - Total population: 38,558,371; farm population: 18,373,000 (est.); farmers 53% of labor force
1880 - Total population: 50,155,783; farm population: 22,981,000 (est.); farmers 49% of labor force;
1890 - Total population: 62,941,714; farm population: 29,414,000 (est.); farmers 43% of labor force
1900 - Total population: 75,994,266; farm population: 29,414,000 (est.); farmers 38% of labor force
1910 - Total population: 91,972,266; farm population: 32,077,000 (est.); farmers 31% of labor force
1920 - Total population: 105,710,620; farm population: 31,614,269; farmers 27% of labor force
1930 - Total population: 122,775,046; farm population: 30,455,350; farmers 21% of labor force;
1940 - Total population: 131,820,000; farm population: 30,840,000; farmers 18% of labor force
1950 - Total population: 151,132,000; farm population: 25,058,000; farmers 12.2% of labor force
1960 - Total population: 180,007,000; farm population: 15,635,000; farmers 8.3% of labor force
1970 - Total population: 204,335,000; farm population: 9,712,000; farmers 4.6% of labor force
1980 - Total population: 227,020,000; farm population: 6,051,000; farmers 3.4% of labor force
1990 - Total population: 261,423,000; farm population: 2,987,552; farmers 2.6% of labor force

There are some huge decreases as industrialization really spreads in the 20th century. We can call industrialization a bigger single event if you like... and that dramatically changed the economy of the country. I didn't mean to focus so neatly on truck driving, it was just a very obvious avenue that's imminent and visible. Probably the first real industry to be shaken up by A.I. like this, but I don't think it'll be the only industry affected any more than agriculture was the only industry affected by industrialization.

Tyndmyr wrote:As Zamfir points out, the green revolution is by far the most widespread, far reaching example we have of this. For the most part, this was a very good thing, and society adapted to it pretty well. Therefore, if you're positing some variant of the ol' Future Shock hypothesis whereby change outstrips society's ability to cope with it...you need to postulate some change significantly greater than this. This is quite a high bar, and a potential decline in the number of truck drivers a couple decades from now isn't it.

I wasn't suggesting automation was a bad thing... in fact I'm in the "it's a very good thing" page, as well. Neither do I think it will outpace society's ability to adapt to it... but, I thought we were discussing how society will adapt to it, and that a citizen's wage was being discussed as a possible mechanism for adaptation. I may have misunderstood the conversation.

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:As for what the citizen's wage solves, that's been discussed to death for the last 18 pages!
Then color me completely unconvinced that it is an improvement over anything we already have.

No one is trying to convince you; you have shown absolutely zero concern about any problem that a citizen's wage could possibly solve. IIRC, you see inequality as a feature, not a bug, as why would anyone possibly work unless they were being forced to?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

The general thrust of the conversation thus far has been that we should convert over to a citizen's wage in preparation for these technological developments or because it is a better system than current social welfare systems, depending on who is doing the arguing. In either case, a pro-active approach is being argued for, not merely that it is the inevitable result of the passage of time, etc.

Personally, I view inequality as merely a sign of interest, not something good or bad in itself. If massive inequality exists, I am curious as to the reason why, but there may well be good reasons for it. I do not consider myself a sufficiently good ballplayer as to command a high salary, for instance. And lots of people apparently do derive enjoyment from watching professionals, so they probably deserve it. But looking at the distribution of wages in sports folks is interesting, and educational. Worth at least glancing over.

There appears to be many for whom "it reduces inequality" is a sufficient reason for anything. I am definitely not one of those.

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:The general thrust of the conversation thus far has been that we should convert over to a citizen's wage in preparation for these technological developments or because it is a better system than current social welfare systems, depending on who is doing the arguing. In either case, a pro-active approach is being argued for, not merely that it is the inevitable result of the passage of time, etc.

Personally, I view inequality as merely a sign of interest, not something good or bad in itself. If massive inequality exists, I am curious as to the reason why, but there may well be good reasons for it. I do not consider myself a sufficiently good ballplayer as to command a high salary, for instance. And lots of people apparently do derive enjoyment from watching professionals, so they probably deserve it. But looking at the distribution of wages in sports folks is interesting, and educational. Worth at least glancing over.

There appears to be many for whom "it reduces inequality" is a sufficient reason for anything. I am definitely not one of those.

For the most part, high inequality is simply the result of capitalism, which puts all the powers in the hands of wealth, allowing the owners of capital to structure the entire economy around extracting rent. The nature of capitalism is that an upper class will inevitably reduce a lower class to slavery, and the citizen's wage/UBI prevents that by giving everyone an ability to say "fuck you." The problem some people have with automation, is it the current system gives 100% of power to capital, who can use it to exploit labor, and high unemployment further reduces the power of labor.

And yes, inequality has been a major part of this discussion, but you don't remember it because you don't actually care, feature not bug and all, and have focused entirely on the automation part. As long as jobs exist, regardless of what they pay, you simply won't care (unless you are the one affected, I'm guessing).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Inequality manifests in other systems as well. The dictator who revels in luxuries while his citizens starve, sure, that's not new. North Korea isn't particularly capitalistic, but it's got inequality as well. Describing it as unique to capitalism isn't quite right.

It's more of an indication of who has power. If they deserve power or not is rather a separate consideration, and full of complexity.

Thesh wrote:And yes, inequality has been a major part of this discussion, but you don't remember it because you don't actually care, feature not bug and all, and have focused entirely on the automation part. As long as jobs exist, regardless of what they pay, you simply won't care (unless you are the one affected, I'm guessing).

I did not say that we'd not discussed inequality. Therefore, the "don't remember" part is rather irrelevant, and you seem to be misunderstanding the thrust of my post.

As for the caring about inequality, I note that people notably only ever seem to care about those above them on the chain, not below. After all, merely being in the US(or another first world country) puts you vastly ahead of many others, and folks generally exhibit fairly little willingness to sacrifice to a median level for humanity, in order to benefit others. Caring does not seem to be particularly informative, here.

As for the "as long as jobs exist", I think we can safely say that jobs will definitely exist as long as we are both alive. If, somehow, all jobs are replaced by robots, that's interesting to contemplate, but since we can't very well figure out how to even make that happen yet, any planning for that eventuality seems quite premature. No doubt our great, great, great grandchildren or what not will readily figure out what to do with increased leisure time when it arrives, and won't give two figs for our opinions regarding what they should spend it on. Speculation on this appears to be roughly akin to when people discuss what they will do if they win the lottery. A fine thing, perhaps, but mostly entertainment, not actual planning that should be seriously put into practice.

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:It's more of an indication of who has power. If they deserve power or not is rather a separate consideration, and full of complexity.

Wealth brings power and power brings wealth - capitalism makes this relationship explicit. And like I said, you simply don't care as long as it is because of capitalism and not government.

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:And yes, inequality has been a major part of this discussion, but you don't remember it because you don't actually care, feature not bug and all, and have focused entirely on the automation part. As long as jobs exist, regardless of what they pay, you simply won't care (unless you are the one affected, I'm guessing).

I did not say that we'd not discussed inequality.

Well, then I really don't know what your point was, because we were specifically talking about every single thing discussed in this thread.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:
Studies done of cash-transfer programs and basic-income pilot programs have shown fairly consistently that such programs tend to increase economic involvement, including employment, rather than reduce it.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/show-them-money
http://www.bignam.org/Publications/BIG_ ... rt_08b.pdf

This was covered quite some time back. Basically, these manage to soundly prove that dumping money into an economy helps it. Which, of course, isn't what is necessary, and merely serves as a trivial proof of the desirability of another subsidizing your lifestyle. For it to be successful on a social level, it needs to work on an effectively cash-neutral basis, better than the current system. It is, after all, merely another system of redistributing wealth.

Where do you think the money for Alaska's Permanent Fund, or the Negative Income Tax and Mincome programs fromt he 70's/80's comes from exactly?

I'm not sure how the source of the money factors into people's decision to work or not anyway.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's more of an indication of who has power. If they deserve power or not is rather a separate consideration, and full of complexity.

Wealth brings power and power brings wealth - capitalism makes this relationship explicit. And like I said, you simply don't care as long as it is because of capitalism and not government.

No, I care about the power relationship behind it. You have mis-labeled this as the kind of "pro-inequality" you criticized ucim for, but it's not really the same thing at all.

Changing the wealth around a bit might not significantly alter the reins of power at all. The existence of welfare does not grant the poorest members of society much in real power, I think. Just because the one is a good warning sign for the other does not mean the two are logically equivalent, and all changes to wealth somehow trickle back to power.

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:And yes, inequality has been a major part of this discussion, but you don't remember it because you don't actually care, feature not bug and all, and have focused entirely on the automation part. As long as jobs exist, regardless of what they pay, you simply won't care (unless you are the one affected, I'm guessing).

I did not say that we'd not discussed inequality.

Well, then I really don't know what your point was, because we were specifically talking about every single thing discussed in this thread.

No, we were talking about the reasons for a Citizen's Wage.

Inequality is one reason for safety nets and what not in general, but as to why we select one form of those over another, that boils down to the reason I cited of "it's superior to existing options". If you want to make that case, have at it. If you think merely observing that inequality exists makes that case, then good luck, I suppose, but I find that wildly unconvincing. One could use the same argument to make some sort of argument for *any* safety net instead of nothing. The status quo, however, is not "nothing". So, the argument provides absolutely no evidence in favor of a Citizen's Wage as opposed to doing anything else.

EdgarJPublius wrote:Where do you think the money for Alaska's Permanent Fund, or the Negative Income Tax and Mincome programs fromt he 70's/80's comes from exactly?

I'm not sure how the source of the money factors into people's decision to work or not anyway.

Oil exports, mostly, for the first. Having the good sense to find vast natural reserves has been pretty good for people, regardless of how it is distributed. And I highly doubt that a payment of about a thousand dollars convinced anyone to give up working altogether. The amount simply does not make a good test of the purported goals of a Citizen's Wage.

The various mincome tests were merely randomly selected people within a given city for a limited time. There was no expectation of it being revenue neutral overall. Again, results are likely suspect on the basis of people not upsetting their life on the basis of a probably temporary program, and anyways, as they were reduced based on how much you worked, they don't really differ all that significantly from other forms of welfare for the un/underemployed.

I could go on at greater length, but again, these topics were already covered earlier, and they all act as very poor test cases for a Citizen's Wage.

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:No, we were talking about the reasons for a Citizen's Wage.

Did you even read the quote you were responding to?

Thesh wrote:
ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:As for what the citizen's wage solves, that's been discussed to death for the last 18 pages!
Then color me completely unconvinced that it is an improvement over anything we already have.

No one is trying to convince you; you have shown absolutely zero concern about any problem that a citizen's wage could possibly solve. IIRC, you see inequality as a feature, not a bug, as why would anyone possibly work unless they were being forced to?

I was responding to the whole idea that anyone is trying to convince ucim (or you for that matter).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

I was responding to Trebla, not you. You may have noticed that we had some back and forth conversation going, with the occasional quote. You interjected into that conversation, convinced it was about you, not the other way 'round.

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:I was responding to Trebla, not you. You may have noticed that we had some back and forth conversation going, with the occasional quote. You interjected into that conversation, convinced it was about you, not the other way 'round.

Then you should have quoted them; otherwise, the assumption is that you responded to the last person who posted. Or at least, you know, said "Oh, sorry, that was in response to the previous poster." Don't blame me because you don't know how to communicate.

EDIT: Looking at your original comment, you started mentioning inequality when I'm the only person on this page who mentioned inequality. Yeah, you were responding to me. Fucking liar.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I was responding to Trebla, not you. You may have noticed that we had some back and forth conversation going, with the occasional quote. You interjected into that conversation, convinced it was about you, not the other way 'round.

Then you should have quoted them; otherwise, the assumption is that you responded to the last person who posted. Or at least, you know, said "Oh, sorry, that was in response to the previous poster." Don't blame me because you don't know how to communicate.

EDIT: Looking at your original comment, you started mentioning inequality when I'm the only person on this page who mentioned inequality. Yeah, you were responding to me. Fucking liar.

Inequality doesn't show up until the second paragraph. I'm clearly responding primarily to Trebla's response to me. I address inequality in general terms, but only my view on it. I certainly do not take ucim's view on it, I merely clarified that the pro/con way of looking at it seems odd. This was not to you in particular, though I suppose I can see how it at least relates to your post. However, it was still part of the "summary of the conversation to date" for Trebla's benefit. Given that I explicitly state that I'm describing the thread of the conversation to date, I have difficulty understanding how you believed it to be directed at the last post. Given that I described multiple viewpoints, it would be extremely difficult for me to be merely quoting you.

Yes, I of course responded to you in turn once you opted to discuss my post, but seeing how we got to that point in the thread is easy enough.

You then misrepresented my argument as equivalent to ucims, and eventually got around to quote sniping to accuse me of not reading what quote I was responding to, despite the initial post you reacted to not having a quote at all. And now, it seems you insist on calling me a liar? Look, if there are communication issues here, you're not interested in solving them, merely in being "right".

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:Inequality doesn't show up until the second paragraph. I'm clearly responding primarily to Trebla's response to me. I address inequality in general terms, but only my view on it. I certainly do not take ucim's view on it, I merely clarified that the pro/con way of looking at it seems odd.

So you are saying you were responding to me? Do you have any wonder why I was confused?

Tyndmyr wrote:You then misrepresented my argument as equivalent to ucims, and eventually got around to quote sniping to accuse me of not reading what quote I was responding to, despite the initial post you reacted to not having a quote at all. And now, it seems you insist on calling me a liar? Look, if there are communication issues here, you're not interested in solving them, merely in being "right".

Ah, now you are going to accuse me a quote sniping. Yes, you are a liar. It's quite obvious that I haven't been quote sniping. That you are the one making the accusations, when Monday was generally "Tyndmyr's quote sniping day" in the Presidential election thread is just hypocrisy.

And for someone that resorts to accusing people of being Luddites whenever this topic comes up, maybe you shouldn't be the one accusing people of misrepresenting arguments?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Inequality doesn't show up until the second paragraph. I'm clearly responding primarily to Trebla's response to me. I address inequality in general terms, but only my view on it. I certainly do not take ucim's view on it, I merely clarified that the pro/con way of looking at it seems odd.

So you are saying you were responding to me? Do you have any wonder why I was confused?

I was responding to Trebla. This response was primarily a summary of the conversation to date, since Trebla had expressed uncertainty regarding the conversation(and it is quite a long thread, so fair). I suppose it's possible that your posts have influenced my summary, since it's a topic you've favored, but it was certainly not merely a response to you.

This should be fairly evident from the post above.

Tyndmyr wrote:You then misrepresented my argument as equivalent to ucims, and eventually got around to quote sniping to accuse me of not reading what quote I was responding to, despite the initial post you reacted to not having a quote at all. And now, it seems you insist on calling me a liar? Look, if there are communication issues here, you're not interested in solving them, merely in being "right".

Ah, now you are going to accuse me a quote sniping. Yes, you are a liar. It's quite obvious that I haven't been quote sniping. That you are the one making the accusations, when Monday was generally "Tyndmyr's quote sniping day" in the Presidential election thread is just hypocrisy.

And for someone that resorts to accusing people of being Luddites whenever this topic comes up, maybe you shouldn't be the one accusing people of misrepresenting arguments?

Quoting and addressing each poster or argument individually isn't quote sniping. It's merely a convenient way to take part in multiple conversations without double or triple posting. Taking single sentences out of context is rather different. For clarity, I'm spoiling the quote of the example I'm referring to:
Spoiler:
Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:No, we were talking about the reasons for a Citizen's Wage.

Did you even read the quote you were responding to?

I attempted to clarify what we were talking about, and all you're doing here is launching personal attacks. Do you want to continue actually talking about a Citizen's Wage? That's...kind of the central thing here. Sure, I get that inequality ties into that, and I'll discuss that if you like(and have!), but you can't reasonably expect *everything* to be about that.

At this point, I'm not sure what else to respond to, since you've not actually advanced any idea here, nor support for anything, merely included a large number of personal attacks.

Thesh
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Inequality doesn't show up until the second paragraph. I'm clearly responding primarily to Trebla's response to me. I address inequality in general terms, but only my view on it. I certainly do not take ucim's view on it, I merely clarified that the pro/con way of looking at it seems odd.

So you are saying you were responding to me? Do you have any wonder why I was confused?

I was responding to Trebla. This response was primarily a summary of the conversation to date, since Trebla had expressed uncertainty regarding the conversation(and it is quite a long thread, so fair). I suppose it's possible that your posts have influenced my summary, since it's a topic you've favored, but it was certainly not merely a response to you.

What you are saying makes no sense. They did not talk about inequality at all, and you just said that you were clarifying that the "pro/con way of looking at it seemed odd", which I can only assume meant that you were referring to this:

Tyndmyr wrote:Personally, I view inequality as merely a sign of interest, not something good or bad in itself. If massive inequality exists, I am curious as to the reason why, but there may well be good reasons for it. I do not consider myself a sufficiently good ballplayer as to command a high salary, for instance. And lots of people apparently do derive enjoyment from watching professionals, so they probably deserve it. But looking at the distribution of wages in sports folks is interesting, and educational. Worth at least glancing over.

Being in response to this:

Thesh wrote:
ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:As for what the citizen's wage solves, that's been discussed to death for the last 18 pages!
Then color me completely unconvinced that it is an improvement over anything we already have.

No one is trying to convince you; you have shown absolutely zero concern about any problem that a citizen's wage could possibly solve. IIRC, you see inequality as a feature, not a bug, as why would anyone possibly work unless they were being forced to?

I'm assuming you saw that, responded, mistakenly thinking it was part of their post, and all of your attacks against me are just you trying to save face.

As for what quote sniping is, it's responding to a ton of different sentences individually.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

### Re: Citizen's Wage

Tyndmyr wrote:The general thrust of the conversation thus far has been that we should convert over to a citizen's wage in preparation for these technological developments or because it is a better system than current social welfare systems, depending on who is doing the arguing. In either case, a pro-active approach is being argued for, not merely that it is the inevitable result of the passage of time, etc.

If it's inevitable, it seems like a proactive approach would mitigate the difficulties that some people would feel when getting to that as a balance in an "after-the-fact" fashion. If we can meaningfully predict (big IF, I know) that automation is going to cause the loss of ~3M jobs between 2021 and 2025 in the trucking industry alone (even if just temporarily while new industries arise around them), then I don't see why we wouldn't consider a citizen's wage (as well as other options) proactively to deal with a problem even if we don't technically have the problem yet.

Back to futurism, we don't need a driverless society to switch to driverless trucking. The segments of the population that see the greatest benefit (i.e., trucking) will be the first to move into the technology. So while it may take 100 years to truly get to a driverless society, it takes significantly less to supplant the trucking industry. (I kind of hate that I used this as an example since it's not the only industry that will likely get redefined in unprecedented ways by automation).