Brilliant essay. It reminds me of the work of James C. Scott. However, I am quite surprised by the conclusion: “I do not understand the Poverty Equilibrium. So I expect that a Universal Basic Income would fail to eliminate poverty, for reasons I don’t fully understand.” To me, the explanation of the Poverty Equilibrium is quite simple. Yes, there are diminishing returns in the marginal value of all resources, but there is also an increase in the subjective value of all resources in consideration of what you know others possess. Alice is happy with one banana, but she feels much less happy after knowing Bob possesses two. Inequality is not an abstract concept; it is a feeling, a feeling of injustice, a bad feeling like sadness, jealousy, or pain. Innumerable studies have shown this. Even ethology studies show it in mammals. You can rationally justify inequality, develop moral arguments like Aristotle’s geometric equality, saying it’s right, just, and deserved. You can also conceive of liberal economic theories showing that inequality is unavoidable or good for the growth of the system. But in the end, there will be poverty as long as some people possess the lion’s share and others collect the junk, would the junk be gold. Universal Basic Income would fail to eliminate poverty, but could contribute to mitigate it a little.
Edit / addendum : I receive disagreement votes with this comment, as I anticipated, but please set aside your liberal views for a moment and consider this thoughtfully. Examine your situation, your income, the food you eat, and the items you own. You’re far from being poor and quite content with your circumstances.
But imagine if most people around you had a hundred times your current income. If the food you can afford—the same food you currently enjoy—was marketed and socially regarded as dog food by the majority. These others eat better food than you’ve ever dreamed of. You tried it once when someone let you finish their plate, and it was absolutely incredible. All your possessions, all the cool things you’re so fond of and proud to own, are now socially considered junk because others have become so wealthy compared to you. You could even find better quality items than your prized possessions just by scavenging through garbage.
Would you still feel as far from poverty as you did before? Would you still feel satisfied and happy? Wouldn’t you feel somewhat ashamed of your situation, perhaps envious of others?
But this isn’t merely fiction… It’s what has actually happened to countless people, including the last hunter-gatherers Yudkowsky referenced, and many traditional farmers. Today, in our world, the gap between the richest and poorest individuals isn’t on the scale of hundreds, thousands, or even millions, but billions. Inequality definitely matters. Poverty isn’t exclusively relative—it’s not solely a social construct as there are absolute needs to be satisfied—but relative comparisons are certainly part of it.
Brilliant essay. It reminds me of the work of James C. Scott. However, I am quite surprised by the conclusion: “I do not understand the Poverty Equilibrium. So I expect that a Universal Basic Income would fail to eliminate poverty, for reasons I don’t fully understand.” To me, the explanation of the Poverty Equilibrium is quite simple. Yes, there are diminishing returns in the marginal value of all resources, but there is also an increase in the subjective value of all resources in consideration of what you know others possess. Alice is happy with one banana, but she feels much less happy after knowing Bob possesses two. Inequality is not an abstract concept; it is a feeling, a feeling of injustice, a bad feeling like sadness, jealousy, or pain. Innumerable studies have shown this. Even ethology studies show it in mammals. You can rationally justify inequality, develop moral arguments like Aristotle’s geometric equality, saying it’s right, just, and deserved. You can also conceive of liberal economic theories showing that inequality is unavoidable or good for the growth of the system. But in the end, there will be poverty as long as some people possess the lion’s share and others collect the junk, would the junk be gold. Universal Basic Income would fail to eliminate poverty, but could contribute to mitigate it a little.
Edit / addendum : I receive disagreement votes with this comment, as I anticipated, but please set aside your liberal views for a moment and consider this thoughtfully. Examine your situation, your income, the food you eat, and the items you own. You’re far from being poor and quite content with your circumstances.
But imagine if most people around you had a hundred times your current income. If the food you can afford—the same food you currently enjoy—was marketed and socially regarded as dog food by the majority. These others eat better food than you’ve ever dreamed of. You tried it once when someone let you finish their plate, and it was absolutely incredible. All your possessions, all the cool things you’re so fond of and proud to own, are now socially considered junk because others have become so wealthy compared to you. You could even find better quality items than your prized possessions just by scavenging through garbage.
Would you still feel as far from poverty as you did before? Would you still feel satisfied and happy? Wouldn’t you feel somewhat ashamed of your situation, perhaps envious of others?
But this isn’t merely fiction… It’s what has actually happened to countless people, including the last hunter-gatherers Yudkowsky referenced, and many traditional farmers. Today, in our world, the gap between the richest and poorest individuals isn’t on the scale of hundreds, thousands, or even millions, but billions. Inequality definitely matters. Poverty isn’t exclusively relative—it’s not solely a social construct as there are absolute needs to be satisfied—but relative comparisons are certainly part of it.