Thett and Spacetime discussion thread

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 80
#61
Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
-->
@Tejretics

This is tangential to the central theme of that article, but I really dislike the idea of writing off entire occupations just because they have low pay or aren't perceived as "fulfilling" enough. Those jobs still serve a vital function by deterring idleness, forcing socialization, and providing earned income. 
Topic's author
#62
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@spacetime
Maybe just do it through the Social Security system instead of the tax system? Send monthly checks to everyone who qualifies, with the size of the check being determined by a formula. I propose naming it the $ocial $ecurity $tipend (abbreviated to $$$)

I had thought of that, but still since taxes are paid on a year to year basis it would be difficult. It would really mean restructuring the tax system
#63
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
The book argues that (1) standards of living today are better than standards of living for much of human society (better than paleolithic society as well), especially due to technological progress, the development of science, and the Industrial Revolution, but that (2) the standards of living for much of history after the Neolithic Revolution was not only much worse than today, it was likely worse than pre-agricultural societies as well. 
Ssounds a bit like Jared Diamond here.

Besides ignoring some of the issues and barbarism that could be present in paleolithic societies, I think a lot of times these people tend to overemphasize the immediate effects of the neolithic revolution rather than conditions later down the line. The first agrarian societies surely were pretty amoral (i.e. Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc.) and based of extensive amounts of forced labor and brutality but conditions definitely did improve later down the line. I'm probably projecting a bit here though considering I haven't looked too deep into it.

#64
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
-->
@Tyrone
This is tangential to the central theme of that article, but I really dislike the idea of writing off entire occupations just because they have low pay or aren't perceived as "fulfilling" enough. Those jobs still serve a vital function by deterring idleness, forcing socialization, and providing earned income. 
I absolutely agree here. As I was saying earlier, I don't think that any guaranteed standard of living (UBI, NIT, whatever) is reasonably going to solve a big issue of idleness here. Competition for jobs is going to get migraine-inducing hard if this trend keeps going. 

Humans have always spent some part of their life working... Having the masses of people idle is dangerous territory we're treading in. Moreover, work provides lower social classes with leverage power. Relying entirely upon government to for necessities is a loss of liberty and autonomy.
Topic's author
#65
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
We really need to do something about the lack of access to the legal system for everyone who isn’t in the top 1%. The barrier to entry in the legal system is so incredibly expensive that unless you have serious means, you effectively do not have accesss to it. Not to mention prosecutorial misconduct. I remember reading about how mere WITNESSES in the Mueller probe racked up six figure legal bills. Even if you are entirely innocent, any contact with the legal system is absolutely ruinous. At the bare minimum the state should reimburse the legal bills of anyone found not guilty. 
Topic's author
#66
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Honestly the single bigger problem with America is the lack of discretion. Yes, giving bureaucrats and prosecutors and judges more discretion would lead to many unfair and unjust outcomes, but not nearly as many as our current system where all of these people are beholden to a giant and ever increasing monstrosity of system that seemingly no one has any power over. 
Topic's author
#67
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Actually the higher education system might be America’s biggest problem. Outside of a handful of professions (eningeers, doctors, scientists, etc) undergrad is completely useless and even for them the majority of classes are of no value. More importantly, the expense is incredible and only a lucky few (like me) are able to have it paid for by their parents. 

Great idea to make going $30,000 into debt as an 18 year old a prerequisite for getting a basic job. Solid plan

Topic's author
#68
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
I hadn’t REALLY thought about the lost earnings due to college until now. A typical college grad starts out at about $50,000. I am skeptical of that number but let’s just use it for the sake of argument. So four years of that in addition to the cost of college which is typically at least $30,000. It doesn’t take long before the cost of going to college starts to approach a quarter of a million dollars. 

Obviously getting that kind of job out of high school, even in a society where college isn’t as valued wouldn’t be realistic...but make it $25,000 to start that would reach $50,000 after four years of experience and good work. Or go to a training program for six months and then get the job. It’s still a lot of money and time you could’ve spent becoming a better worker with experience and connections. Whatever else, there is absolutely no justification for undergrad taking as long as it does. The amount of free time the typical college student has is ridiculous. Allow them to hit the books harder and graduate in a year and a half if they are able. 


#69
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@thett3
Have you read Bryan Caplan’s The Case Against Education? It’s a very well-written and fun read that makes basically the same argument as you.

And I’m guessing you’ve already read Slate Star Codex’s post on tulip subsidies. 
#70
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
What does everyone here think about development aid?

Thoughts on the Moyo/Easterly vs. Sachs vs. Banerjee/Duflo/Kremer/Mullainathan (et al) schools on the efficacy of development aid? 

And, somewhat related: thoughts on effective altruism?
#71
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@thett3
When you say your ideology is “monarchism,” do you mean absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy? Because I’m guessing support for the latter isn’t really an ideology -- there are people across the political spectrum who support constitutional monarchies. 
#72
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@bsh1
That would just incentivize people to stop working. Why put in the work to earn $40,000 when I can sit on my ass, make $0, and have the gov. give me $40,000?
Topic's author
#73
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Tejretics
I have heard of it, but I haven’t read it. I don’t think education is a complete waste of time, I just think it is extremely inefficient. I would like to see more flexibility to allow students to branch out into studying the things they like earlier. I also don’t believe that the format of “sit down at a desk for eight hours a day” is so valuable that it’s worth drugging millions of kids who is doesn’t work for. Overall I think education is extremely important but our system is basically stuck in the 19th century. From what I understand this is pretty close to Caplan’s belief 

link to the SSC article? 
Topic's author
#74
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Tejretics
i don’t actually know why I put that. I think I was joking around, after I had seen this image (https://mobile.twitter.com/gritcult/status/1061816811040243712). That said I do think monarchy is cool and if I were building a society from the ground up I would include a monarch that had some formal powers 

I don’t really have an ideology any more 
Topic's author
#75
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Fallaneze
yeah this is true. There are a lot of places in this country where $40,000 would go a long way. If we do end up with mass automation related unemployment it’ll be hard to provide for people while also keeping skilled laborers the economy still needs from taking the deal. All in all it’s a really bad situation that I hope doesn’t happen

Topic's author
#76
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@triangle.128k
Speaking as someone who would love an agrarian society...it is extremely unlikely to happen. The overwhelming trend for the past century or so has been urbanization. Slowing that down would be difficult enough, let alone reversing it. We should make it easier for people to get into agriculture so that the small family farm can come back, because this is something good and important. But agriculture is never again going to come anywhere close to employing the majority of people in the United States. 

Now one thing that should happen is a return to artisanship. Maybe robots can do mass manufacturing better than humans can, but they’ll never be able to make a hand crafted pair of leather shoes from your local shoemaker 
#77
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@thett3
(1) For anyone else, I’d have guessed it was joking around -- though supporting constitutional monarchy is fine, I guess, fairly low-impact in my opinion -- but I’ve heard you say you wanted a constitutional monarch before, hence asked.

#78
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Fallaneze
Probably because whatever the threshold is will still be insufficient to live a truly comfortable life. I think, on balance, the evidence sufficiently dispels the idea that people won't work.
#79
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
The overwhelming trend of the last century has been an exponential increase in the rate of material evolution. And humans unwittingly or not, have been the architects of this process. Maybe we have also unwittingly been the architects of our own succession.  
Whilst other intelligence gets ready to zoom off into the future with all necessary information on board, all that the majority of us can do is harp on about the weather, worry about our health and drag our heels in the past.
Oh! and continue to worship money. The one true God that unites and divides us all.
   


14 days later

#80
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
I think the mainstream obsession with employment is totally misguided. Jobs are merely a byproduct of business operations. There has never really been any guarantee that the economy will generate enough jobs for everyone, or that all those jobs will pay enough to sustain a decent standard of living. And that's only going to become more and more true as labor-automating technologies continue to advance. Instead of uselessly trying to manipulate businesses into creating jobs and raising wages, the government should simply offer an unconditional financial safety net to all its citizens. Those who want to work for additional income are free to do so, whereas those who don't want to work (or are unable to find work) can survive regardless. Meanwhile, businesses are left alone to do what they do best -- competing against one another to sell goods and services at the lowest possible prices.
I'm back to this position. We can't rely on employment to support the entire population. Income redistribution is the only way to ensure a decent standard of living for all Americans. We need a "Social Security for All" program.