On scarcity

 Ok, so I got some downtime for a few hours today so I'm gonna use at least a little of it to write some thoughts going through my head this week. I do have a lot of topics I want to approach philosophically after reading the Anderson book on private government, as well as some debates I've lurked here and there on reddit. 

I did the authority topic like a week or two ago. This time I wanna do scarcity. So...thoughts on scarcity. A common criticism the right likes to throw at the left is that we ignore the concept of scarcity, as if we cant have a world without work, until we can solve the issue of scarcity. But what does this mean? Well, in the eyes of the right, the bar is achieving a "post scarcity" economy. Ie, something that's star trek, where the concept of the finiteness of resources is solved. As long as resources are finite and take work to make, they support a world in which everyone must work and work to meet their own needs. But this is a bit of a false dichotomy. If we want to move from one world to another, we're gonna need some sort of transition period, and a lot of my own writings have been about how to handle that transition. Im not sure a true post scarcity world is possible, but it does not matter, an ideal is an ideal, reality may fall short of the ideal, but as long as we're familiar with the limitations and account for them accordingly, "compromising with reality" as I call it, then I don't see the problem. 

So...scarcity. I actually think scarcity is overstated. I grew up under the idea of scarcity. I believed that everyone needed to work, there wasnt enough to go around, and we'd all starve to death if we didn't. But in reality, we are an extremely rich society. GDP per capita is in the ballpark of $76,000 a year. People would argue if we had the dreaded "communism", no one would work, everyone would earn the same, there would be no incentive, and the economy would implode. Therefore, everyone has to work. But what if the amount of necessary labor that needs to be done in society is somewhere between 0 and 100% of the population? I would argue we are there now. We have "essential workers" and "nonessential workers", as demonstrated by covid in 2020. Essential workers are needed to ensure we meet our needs. Nonessential workers do work that may be nice to have, but is unnecessary for the sustainment of life. Yet, we still act like we live in a state of absolute scarcity, while no longer doing so. We abolished scarcity on a macro level a while ago, while enforcing it on a micro level in order to drive everyone to work to create more and more wealth. We claim a rising tide raises all boats, but it also seems to raise cost of living, ensuring many remain in poverty.

The disconnect between scarcity on an individual "micro" level and a societal "macro level" is something worth discussing. It has been said our society has poverty amid plenty. We have enough wealth to solve poverty and scarcity on a personal level several times over, but we keep insisting on keeping people poor to incentivize (read: force) people to provide it on a macro level. And that's where the disconnect is. And sure, maybe we cant just spread all wealth equally to ensure everyone gets a share without society falling apart. But what about a fraction of it? The poverty level in the US is just over $15000. GDP per capita is just over $75,000. We can redistribute 20% of this, ensure that no one is truly poor, and then leave the other 80% of it to the market. We can have our cake and eat it too. We will ensure there remains enough scarcity and difference in living standards to motivate people to work, while solving the age old issue of poverty and economic coercion under capitalism. 

I don't see why arguments have to be presented in an absolutist fashion of either we keep people in poverty and percarity perpetually to force people to work, or we have "full communism", when the answer is obviously something in between.

How much would a UBI of around the poverty line discourage work ethic? Unclear, but most studies seem to suggest it's not a lot. Studies with smaller amounts (say $500 a month) and no tax scheme such as ones practiced recently seem to produce next to no measurable work disincentive. Ones at the federal poverty line with a simulated tax increase might produce a mild work disincentive, on the level of 13% or so, with most of that concentrated in secondary earners like house wives and high school/college students. And if they drop out of the work force, is that necessarily bad? I'd argue no. 

As such, I see no reason why arguments about scarcity should be particularly relevant to my ideology or ideas. As long as any reductions in productivity are sustainable, I don't see why we shouldn't pursue the kinds of reforms I'm for. It's not like we're gonna destroy society like the right thinks we will.