How do you respond to criticism that it is not fair to forcefully take money via taxes and spend them setting up standard of living for someone else?
It wouldn’t be for someone else, it would be for everyone. Most people are okay with the idea of Universal Basic Income, because everyone gets it, even the rich, it’s fair.
Imagine applying that universal concept, but to food and shelter. It would not only help the most destitute, but also the innovators. Research has shown that people are more willing to risk becoming entrepreneurs in Canada due to healthcare not being tied to employment. Imagine if we took away the risk of homelessness and malnutrition from not working for someone else? Hundreds of thousands would now be in a beautiful position to start their own business with far less risk to their, or their families, well being.
I would also place emphasis on the Basic part of Basic Necessities. It would only be feasible to provide just the most economical basics, which would mean a small square footage dwelling (think large apartment blocks, cheap to build, but efficient to heat and maintain), running water, electricity (with a kwh power-limit per month, anything over that would cost money), internet since it’s a required utility in the modern age, and core/cheap but nutritious staple foods. We’re not talking luxury apartments and food here.
(Personally, I would argue Universal Basic Income is not viable within our current system, as that extra money would be quickly siphoned out of everyone’s pocket by increased rent and artificial price increases all around to capture this extra capital that would be floating around. It could only work if there were limits on rent and other basic necessities).
Being OK and being fair are different things. And I think significant amount of people, at least in US are against this, so, for them it would not be OK or fair. The reason I was bringing this up is to point on difficulty to define what fair is if it relies on things that are not fair to be implemented.
I mean, some people are against social security, welfare, and medicaid despite how significant of a difference they have made to reduce starvation, poverty, and medical induced bankruptcy for the disadvantaged. And no matter how much evidence is shown of those societal benefits, they would reject it because it does not align with their world view or is not in their immediate interest.
As complete 100% consensus is generally impossible to achieve, I would argue the thing that helps the most people is generally the most ethical choice, but that’s just my 2 cents.
Out of curiosity, how do you think those sorts of programs being implemented would be a net-negative for society as a whole?
I do not know if they will be net positive, it depends on metric the comparison is made with. I think on pure economic side it is not beneficial for GDP growth. Just take EU and compare it with US. I think the system in US is more fair and closer to true, fair value of labor.
But I think the fair world is a world without compassion and with huge separation between rich and poor. I think on ethical grounds we should make the world less fair, more equalized, despite of the fact that it reduces GDP growth, because there are other metrics possible, like human happiness and well being.
Our conversation started from me noticing that people in this discussion expecting that fair value for labor is higher than what is typically paid. And I think the reverse is true because there are things that artificially increase wages, like minimum wage in many states. So, “be careful what you wish for” kind of thing.
But I think the fair world is a world without compassion and with huge separation between rich and poor. I think on ethical grounds we should make the world less fair, more equalized, despite of the fact that it reduces GDP growth, because there are other metrics possible, like human happiness and well being.
I’m a bit confused by your definition of fair, to the point where I think that we hold the same precepts, but we may using different words for them. I would make the case that increasing ‘fairness’ is equivalent to making things more equalized. I would use both terms interchangeably.
In any deal, if one party has more leverage than the other, in principle it’s not a ‘fair’ deal, even if the disadvantaged party rationalizes that it could’ve been worse, or that the other party didn’t fully exploit the power of their advantage. In the context of labor, reducing the leverage that employers have over workers is evening out the playing field, which I would say is more fair.
To be clear, in an ideal world, neither party would have leverage over the other, and people would work for someone else or with each other only due to it being mutually beneficial in equal measure. In reality, things will never be that ‘perfect’, but I think it’s absolutely possible to remove the more egregious points of leverage.
The people using existing leverages will try to prevent that by removal kicking and screaming because they don’t want their advantages to be reduced, however they should try to be content with an equal power dynamic if they consider themselves at all moral. In all other areas of life humans have decried unjust imbalances of power, and I don’t see how labor relations would be subject to different rules than, say, competitive sports. We don’t stack the deck against one team or the other, we try to make it fair.
So when you say a fair world would is a world without compassion and even more division between rich and poor, I must ask, how are you defining the word fair?
Fair: without favoritism, cheating, impartial. A fair fight is when two people fighting without any help from anybody. Giving one guy extra boost (say, special gloves) because he is weaker is unfair, but more equal.
I think equality in freedom is fair. Equality in means is comparison and not fair, since you have to be partial and take money from the rich and give to the poor. It would be fair only if the rich actually stole from the poor against the law of the land, but if the rich earned himself (say, he is a successful lawyer) then equalization of means is not fair.
It wouldn’t be for someone else, it would be for everyone. Most people are okay with the idea of Universal Basic Income, because everyone gets it, even the rich, it’s fair.
Imagine applying that universal concept, but to food and shelter. It would not only help the most destitute, but also the innovators. Research has shown that people are more willing to risk becoming entrepreneurs in Canada due to healthcare not being tied to employment. Imagine if we took away the risk of homelessness and malnutrition from not working for someone else? Hundreds of thousands would now be in a beautiful position to start their own business with far less risk to their, or their families, well being.
I would also place emphasis on the Basic part of Basic Necessities. It would only be feasible to provide just the most economical basics, which would mean a small square footage dwelling (think large apartment blocks, cheap to build, but efficient to heat and maintain), running water, electricity (with a kwh power-limit per month, anything over that would cost money), internet since it’s a required utility in the modern age, and core/cheap but nutritious staple foods. We’re not talking luxury apartments and food here.
(Personally, I would argue Universal Basic Income is not viable within our current system, as that extra money would be quickly siphoned out of everyone’s pocket by increased rent and artificial price increases all around to capture this extra capital that would be floating around. It could only work if there were limits on rent and other basic necessities).
Being OK and being fair are different things. And I think significant amount of people, at least in US are against this, so, for them it would not be OK or fair. The reason I was bringing this up is to point on difficulty to define what fair is if it relies on things that are not fair to be implemented.
I mean, some people are against social security, welfare, and medicaid despite how significant of a difference they have made to reduce starvation, poverty, and medical induced bankruptcy for the disadvantaged. And no matter how much evidence is shown of those societal benefits, they would reject it because it does not align with their world view or is not in their immediate interest.
As complete 100% consensus is generally impossible to achieve, I would argue the thing that helps the most people is generally the most ethical choice, but that’s just my 2 cents.
Out of curiosity, how do you think those sorts of programs being implemented would be a net-negative for society as a whole?
I do not know if they will be net positive, it depends on metric the comparison is made with. I think on pure economic side it is not beneficial for GDP growth. Just take EU and compare it with US. I think the system in US is more fair and closer to true, fair value of labor.
But I think the fair world is a world without compassion and with huge separation between rich and poor. I think on ethical grounds we should make the world less fair, more equalized, despite of the fact that it reduces GDP growth, because there are other metrics possible, like human happiness and well being.
Our conversation started from me noticing that people in this discussion expecting that fair value for labor is higher than what is typically paid. And I think the reverse is true because there are things that artificially increase wages, like minimum wage in many states. So, “be careful what you wish for” kind of thing.
I’m a bit confused by your definition of fair, to the point where I think that we hold the same precepts, but we may using different words for them. I would make the case that increasing ‘fairness’ is equivalent to making things more equalized. I would use both terms interchangeably.
In any deal, if one party has more leverage than the other, in principle it’s not a ‘fair’ deal, even if the disadvantaged party rationalizes that it could’ve been worse, or that the other party didn’t fully exploit the power of their advantage. In the context of labor, reducing the leverage that employers have over workers is evening out the playing field, which I would say is more fair.
To be clear, in an ideal world, neither party would have leverage over the other, and people would work for someone else or with each other only due to it being mutually beneficial in equal measure. In reality, things will never be that ‘perfect’, but I think it’s absolutely possible to remove the more egregious points of leverage.
The people using existing leverages will try to prevent that by removal kicking and screaming because they don’t want their advantages to be reduced, however they should try to be content with an equal power dynamic if they consider themselves at all moral. In all other areas of life humans have decried unjust imbalances of power, and I don’t see how labor relations would be subject to different rules than, say, competitive sports. We don’t stack the deck against one team or the other, we try to make it fair.
So when you say a fair world would is a world without compassion and even more division between rich and poor, I must ask, how are you defining the word fair?
Fair: without favoritism, cheating, impartial. A fair fight is when two people fighting without any help from anybody. Giving one guy extra boost (say, special gloves) because he is weaker is unfair, but more equal.
I think equality in freedom is fair. Equality in means is comparison and not fair, since you have to be partial and take money from the rich and give to the poor. It would be fair only if the rich actually stole from the poor against the law of the land, but if the rich earned himself (say, he is a successful lawyer) then equalization of means is not fair.