In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
I'd say we make that the minimum income -- it maximizes human happiness, after all -- and then see if we have a shortage of people willing to do really critical work (e.g., doctors, sanitation workers). If we do, I'm fine with creating an extra incentive to ensure those jobs are filled, although as you say that should be subject to a maximum income as well.
Well now we're conceiving of the problem differently, and my lib is showing. I guess I don't see 100k a year for everyone as a realistic possibility. To put it into perspective, if we were to evenly divide today's GDP among the world population, each person (adult and child) would receive about 11k a year in income. Now that's in part because we are inefficiently utilizing resources to satisfy the preferences of a TINY minority (basically, capitalism only works for the international bourgeois in the long run, the hundred millionaires and billionaires and yes, maybe even eventually trillionaires 🤮). Were we to change production I don't think we'd see the scarcity we have today for so many, so maybe 11k a year wouldn't be so bad, but I think we will always have to deal with some level of scarcity and certain resources or luxury goods will by necessity have to be restricted.
Assuming we can get everyone to an adequate living standard, meaning food, shelter, medicine, school, and some leisure time to boot, then I think anything beyond that should be contingent upon one's ability to add more than they take. Basically, society itself would exploit these exceptional workers. They would receive a part of their additional productivity in the form of special privileges and luxuries (longer/nicer vacations, luxury goods, nicer living conditions) in return for going above and beyond the minimum required to provide the basics for everyone else.
Edit: formatting
I was thinking more about far future, utopian goals than what I think we could realistically do in the next few decades. You're right that globally we aren't at post-scarcity in the sense of "everyone has a $100K income and a first-world standard of living," although you're also right that changing production might get us closer than we think.
Seems like a reasonable place to start.
I've thought about this a lot, but the problem is, anyone who could earn more in the US would just go to the US, which is precisely what's happening now, so unless the US collapses or something, this isn't gonna happen
I was thinking more about far future, utopian goals than what I think we could realistically do in the next few decades.
But to the problem of developing the Global North and incentivizing brain drain from the Global South, I think the only solution to that some form of wealth transfer back to developing countries with no direct benefit for the developed countries providing that wealth. That's something that might be possible in the near term.