It seems that us as engineers either partake in pushing these souls into oblivion or join them. I see no way out unless we invent an economic use for those who will be useless.
No economic use is not oblivion. Being useless needs to somehow be destigmatized while not being encouraged. It's not the end of the world, there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others, there are some happy people with special needs who we don't try to make work and retired people who still enjoy life. There's no reason we can't have people being happy doing hobbies some day if we can get past training ourselves to feel like shit when we're not doing useless but socially necessary work (which is what most jobs are rapidly turning into). Some country is going to implement basic income and force us to talk about these ideas that successful people feel we can keep pushing away because it doesn't affect us yet.
> there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others
Monks choose to live that way. Most people need more than money to survive. They need challenge and creativity, too.
> Some country is going to implement basic income and force us to talk about these ideas that successful people feel we can keep pushing away because it doesn't affect us yet.
Scandinavian countries have had better social programs for years. It's why the wealthy in the US fear discussion of things like basic income. They don't want to pay the tax rates of those countries.
There are countless ways to find challenge and creativity that don't involve working for money. In fact, most paying jobs are pretty bad at satisfying that need.
I totally agree with you. I should have been more clear.
In my opinion, some people want to work. They want to contribute to society and receive validation in the form of a variable salary that can go up or down according to their contribution. Others don't. Both are fine.
Calling people "useless" is not a great selling point for basic income. It strikes a nerve with some people [1], and while I think the post I just cited went over the top, I see what they're getting at.
Useless is subjective. I wouldn't call monks or anyone else useless. Yet, this is one of Altman's reasons for supporting basic income [2]. I don't think he intended his statement to be interpreted that way. It is what it is.
So the solution is that the US should abolish the minimum wage and make it possible to cheaply bribe your way out of following regulations, so that middle class people can afford servants again?
Yes, we should abolish the minimum wage, and if necessary directly subsidize the poor with EITC and similar programs. That will reduce disincentives.
Of course, if we really cared about reducing poverty and inequality, we'd just skip the EITC and open our borders - but obviously the massive amounts of inequality between an American and an Indian are far less important than the relatively small amounts of inequality between two Americans.
Another solution is a basic job - basically a basic income, but you need to work for it (e.g., fixing our crumbling infrastructure and providing free child care for working mothers).
>Another solution is a basic job - basically a basic income, but you need to work for it (e.g., fixing our crumbling infrastructure and providing free child care for working mothers).
So you want to nationalize the construction and child care industries?
This is radically more communist than any basic income scheme i've ever heard of.
All I propose is putting people on welfare to work on all the left wing's favorite projects. This will save money (we can reuse the existing pool of welfare money rather than finding new money to pay Davis-Bacon wages) and reduce work disincentives (either do a sucky government job or go be a maid).
You are talking about the government providing jobs to citizens in private companies? How does that work? The government interviews you and places you with a construction company who has no say in who is hired?
I'm proposing to have them work directly for the government, FDR style. You go to the government and say you can't find work, and they say "go to X location and do what the foreman says, you get paid $7.25 x 8 hours at the end of the day".
Absent coercion, I'd assume that was that person's free choice and that taking whatever state subsidy was implied plug $40/week is better than just the state subsidy.
(Work provides a way to fill the time, have social interactions, and a sense of purpose and accomplishment, in addition to the financial aspect.)
See my other comment - if you want to transfer wealth to the poor you can do this with EITC or other programs that don't discourage work. A job guarantee is my preferred policy.
(And keep the borders closed - poor brown people don't even count for 3/5.)
Also, you seem to be imagining that if landlords of poor people would rather get $0/month in rent (with houses going vacant) than reduce rents. When did landlords become so non-greedy?
