pull down to refresh
62 sats \ 8 replies \ @charonnakamoto 7 Jan \ parent \ on: Are state subsidised jobs just UBI with extra steps? econ
I would argue that there is no such thing as harmless government interventions. Each job adds up, and the taxpayer(you and I) ultimately pays for it. State-subsidized jobs create artificial market distortions and malinvestment by directing resources to non-market-determined ends. The government cannot efficiently allocate resources or determine what jobs are needed.
Though I agree with @stack_harder, this seems like UBI with extra steps. UBI represents institutionalized theft through taxation and would lead to an inflationary environment like what happened after Covid QE in the US. So, I am not sure it makes it okay to justify it through the lens of UBI.
Having said this, I am not sure what will happen to those displaced by AI and LLM in the future. I guess, they must find a way to be productive in a way that is out of reach of LLM/ML models.
i've been replaced or reduced by AI a few times, through translation and copywriting jobs and it's not pleasant.
but, i must say, even before chatgpt, i was losing work to geo-arbitrage anyway, which also sucks.
but i think you are also right that most people will have to have jobs that can't be replaced yet, aka builder traders, OF, or being a hairdresser lol
reply
I am sorry about being replaced by AI or geo-arbitrage.
I’ll have to consider working in the ‘atoms’ world instead of the ‘bits’ world. Once Blue-collar folks start snubbing white-collar ones in the AGI world, that will be a sight to behold
reply
the snubbing has begun lol, the office class have been getting squeezed and downsized for a while now too.
but fortunately we have bitcoin , would be very scary without it
reply
The sense of impending doom was a daily occurrence in the back of my mind when I didn't think much about retirement and had not figured out Bitcoin.
Now, having welcomed BTC into my life, not so much.
reply
all agreed, sir, but I was arguing withing a public system that already guarantees a certain threshold.
The gov intervention is already there, so at the margin it might as well be worth it having the lady staff the library than having her go on welfare.
Basically: there's no crowding out resources and there's no opportunity cost, since lady isn't employable elsewhere and in the absence of working at library would just be on welfare
reply
there’s no opportunity cost
Why do you say there’s no opportunity cost? When you think about it from the perspective of the one who pays her salary- her salary could have been provided to an additional healthcare worker, sanitation worker, library janitor, or security guard.
Ideally, you'd expect her to have saved enough in her lifetime to provide for her retirement. So, she doesn't ‘need’ the work. But since money is broken and debased, she is (hypothetically) forced to earn even at that age.
reply
But yes, if she would have received $X from welfare and now she received $X from working this job, then it makes sense there's no opportunity cost. The government shells out no matter the outcome here.
I guess I'm making an argument against the welfare state in the first place then, haha
reply
yes, precisely. This is the interpretation I'm taking here:
conditional on welfare state, gov gotta fork out $X anyway; might as well get something for it
This is also how I see UBI; conditional on gov supporting the population (taking care of base needs/starving on the streets-type poverty), it's better to have a fixed, equal, transparent amount to everyone (UBI) than a means-tested, corrupt/bureaucratic hoopla
reply