Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rules (just imagine if a person playing Monopoly started with ten times the initial amount of money).

I prefer a definition of fairness that is actually achievable[1]: everyone has at least the bare minimum, regardless of fitness and deserving. You can quibble about what the definition of bare minimum, but to me it should include housing, food, education and health. Any society where anyone can't get those things by asking for them is not fair, as people who don't have access to those don't have the minimum to compete with those who do.

We can't have an equal playing field. But we can perhaps make the bare minimum livable.

[1]This is almost impossible, as opposed to entirely impossible

What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor?

They both likely have cars, homes and an iphone. Sure, your Hollywood actor is probably driving an exotic sports car and their iphone is diamond studded, but fundamentally, what does it matter?

> housing, food, education and health. Any society where anyone can't get those things by asking for them is not fair

I agree in the general but I suspect we disagree quite differently on the details. We do provide housing for the poor, and short term homelessness outcomes are actually generally positive - we tend to get people who lose their home back into another house. We provide free education through a high school diploma and community college in most areas is exceedingly affordable with massive scholarship opportunities available for ivy leagues. You can walk into any hospital and it's illegal for them to refuse you treatment.

Does this mean our society is without fault? Of course not - we've shown repeatedly that we're terrible at finding real solutions for the persistently homeless (and no, shoving them into homes doesn't actually fix their problems as much as it fixes the stats), and healthcare is at best described as "horrifically abberant".

And we should fix those things. But that some Hollywood starlett is flying around in a gulfstream has nothing to do with those fundamental problems - it is not a lack of resources but a lack of willingness and deep understanding of the problem space.

It's easy to blame the wealthy, it's much harder to solve the actual problem set.

And this is why UBI was supported by right leaning economists like Milton Friedman. If we believe that people in wealthy societies should have a minimal standard of living including basic food, housing and health care then we can provide it through the market in the form of a basic income

It will avoid the perverse incentives that lead people to get costly health care in the ER (which is then covered by other patients) instead of having health insurance and receiving preventative care

It can prevent people from avoiding getting a higher income lest they start earning too much to qualify for the social programs they depend on

No UBI won't fix all problems - but it may very well pay for itself through better externalities

Friedman proposed a negative income tax which is different, and arguably better, than a standard flat payment.

It's barely distinguishable from UBI for any practical purpose.

Not really. It scales with income, motivates working, is more fair, and avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response.

I think you are confused about how either UBI or negative income tax works. The most important difference is that negative income tax would do payouts once a year, and even that is not a hard requirement. Other differences are accounting differences and not practical differences in how much money people have available (as they can be made identical by tweaking the tax rates and tax brackets).

Of course both programs will guarantee a certain income, that’s the point after all.

But UBI decreases motivation while also inflating the cost of goods and services so that they rise to meet the new money supply.

NIT avoids both problems by scaling with income. It provides motivation without paying every one. More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power.

You are, frankly, just making stuff up. UBI proposals are not necessarily (nor usually) funded by creating new money supply.

Perhaps that was the wrong wording, but giving everyone money would only inflate costs as they rise to meet the new income levels (whether that money is printed or redistributed). What else are you claiming is made up?

> What else are you claiming is made up

"Motivates working, avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response"

"More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power"

I mean that it's a made up difference between UBI and NIT, they are simply equal in this regard, for better or for worse.

It makes no sense that they would be different, as the net money flow between individual (or household) and the government can be made exactly the same between UBI and NIT scheme, and how much money someone actually has in their hands is what determines motivation, fairness, purchasing power, inflation etc.

Under UBI: NetMonthlyIncome = income + UBI - taxes_ubi(income)

Under NIT (where taxes_nit can yield a negative value): NetMonthlyIncome = income - taxes_nit(income)

You can make taxes_ubi(income) == taxes_nit(income) + UBI and you get the same exact real life result, it's just that the accounting is different.

UBI and NIT are two different systems that provide the same minimum income guarantee. Saying they both provide a min income is obvious. That's what they're designed to do.

However the way they do it is very different and that's what changes everything. NIT guarantees min. income without just paying everyone. This costs less than UBI. NIT pays a (negative tax) bonus on the first dollars instead of immediately taxing earnings. This provides more motivation. Not giving everyone the same helicopter money prevents cost of living inflation. This provides better purchasing power.

How you provide the income is more important the final amount because the economy is an interconnected system with secondary effects. This is why Friedman recommended NIT instead of UBI. The mechanics of the system matter.

> What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor?

Well, if you didn't know, there's stuff like this:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/college-bribery-scand...

The special access and leg-up in society offered to people with very high wealth (whether an actor, a corporate CxO, or someone who inherits a business empire) is huge, and entire systems are set up to tend exclusively to their needs and the preservation of those advantages.

> We provide free education through a high school diploma and community college in most areas

Can you actually do anything with just an associate's? In my experience, most places that require college degrees require a minimum of a bachelor's.

My local community college offers some bachelor degrees, and an associates degree can be a meaningful life change even if it's just a move to a management position.

> What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor?

One has to keep working to live a comfortable life, the other doesn't (and neither will their kids).

I agree that simply blaming the wealthy isn't the solution to these problems, but your perspective regarding the plight of the American poor seems a bit rosy to me.

> We do provide housing for the poor

Waiting lists for both subsidized housing and homeless shelters are overflowing in many places. Have you ever tried to obtain housing as a person with limited resources?

> short term homelessness outcomes are actually generally positive - we tend to get people who lose their home back into another house.

What do you mean by positive? That most people don't stay homeless forever? Sure, that's better than the alternative, but you're ignoring the consequences of becoming homeless in the first place (ex. losing a job because you don't have a place to shower, sleep, or are simply overwhelmed due to your position, eviction records that make it difficult to rent again, exposure to unsafe conditions, etc.), as well as the factors that contribute to that phenomenon.

> community college in most areas is exceedingly affordable with massive scholarship opportunities available for ivy leagues.

Community college is not as cheap as many imagine it to be. Tuition typically runs $3 - 5,000/year, which doesn't include fees, course materials, or, most notably, living expenses. Financial aid isn't as generous as many would expect - as you'll see below, a grocery store clerk earning $22,646/year would receive less than $1,500 in grant aid (while being expected to contribute ~ $4,700/annually). Loans can help, but they can also become a considerable burden, especially for the 47% percent of college students who don't end up graduating within six years (or, ever, for the majority of those students). [10] Perhaps surprisingly, the typical community college graduate actually takes around 5.5 (calendar) years to earn their associate's degree (assuming no participation in "dual enrollment"). [11] If they continue on to earn their bachelor's degree, the overall process typically takes more than 8 (calendar) years. [11] That's a long time to be in a financially-tenuous position.

I may as well ignore your comment regarding the Ivy League, as the amount of poor Americans who will find it relevant is virtually zero.

> You can walk into any hospital and it's illegal for them to refuse you treatment.

...for them to refuse you treatment for a life-threatening injury, not regular checkups, non-essential treatment or preventative medicine. And if you are treated for an emergency, you'll be billed for it later. Although the ACA has made things much better for Americans, you can't simply walk into a hospital and expect free healthcare without health insurance.

> What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor?

> They both likely have cars, homes and an iphone.

If your grocery-store clerk is a middle/upper-middle class teenager whose parents give them those things, sure. Otherwise, this assumption seems pretty unrealistic to me. Some quick googling seems to confirm my assessment...

According to Glassdoor, the average American grocery clerk makes $22,646/year ($1,532/month) after taxes. [1] Abodo says that rent for the median one-bedroom apartment in the US cost $1,078/month last year. [2] That doesn't include utilities, which average around $240/month for renters. [3] That leaves your grocery clerk with $214 to use for all additional expenses each month. Owning a (cheap) car costs around $486/month overall, according to Nerdwallet (including a $111 monthly car payment [4] and $118 for car insurance [5], plus misc. expenses). [6] Now this grocery clerk is going $272 further into debt each month. If they want an iPhone and a ("cheap") phone plan from a major carrier, that will cost an additional $90/month (assuming they buy the cheapest iPhone 11 and keep it for two years - $700 / 24 - and opt for the cheapest standard phone plan [7]). At that point, they're spending $362 more than they earn every month and they haven't even spent anything on food, household goods, clothing, entertainment, or education!

Assuming this person wanted to improve their financial situation by attending community college (average tuition: $3,660 for 2018/2019 year [8]), they'd be eligible to receive around $1400 in Federal Pell Grants (depending on their state) and up to $1,465 in Federal Work-study benefits (assuming their college participated in the program and that they could manage working two jobs while going to school full-time), plus up to $9,500 in Direct Stafford Loans (note: not dischargeable through bankruptcy). [9] However, they would still be expected to contribute around $4,700/year toward their education.

1. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/grocery-clerk-salary-SRCH...

2. https://www.abodo.com/blog/2019-annual-rent-report/

3. https://www.apartmentlist.com/renter-life/average-utility-bi...

4. Calculated using https://www.cars.com/car-loan-calculator/ (assuming $5,000 car price/$500 down payment/7% sales tax/4.67% interest rate/48 month term)

5. Assuming average American cost in 2020 https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/car-insurance/average-co...

6. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-co...

7. https://www.consumerreports.org/cell-phone-service-providers...

8. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/tuition-at-community-college...

9. Calculated using above income info via https://fafsa.ed.gov/spa/fafsa4c/#/landing (Note: "Expected Family Contribution" (EFC) ended up being around $4,700/year)

10. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/freshman-year/just-over-half...

11. https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport11/

EDIT: Correction/clarification - The average American grocery clerk makes $22,646/year, gross, which comes out to about $1,532/month after taxes.

> Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances.

You are redefining fair to mean equal. I don't want equal at the expense of fair.

Inheritance is a made up rule, and as such can be unmade without having to change the definition of fairness.

But second, age is thing, older people tend to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, even without inheritance. Younger people tend to be fitter and more attractive and Hollywood knows it. An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans.

And that is why I say fairness is the most important, the rules have to be the same for everyone because that is the part that is up to us.

> I don't want equal at the expense of fair. > An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans.

Extreme economic inequality drives unfairness by tipping the scales towards the very wealthy. Nobody is suggesting that we somehow enforce biological equality, whether between individuals of the same age, or among individuals of very different ages. To suggest so is a strawman intended to distract from the real problem of growing economic inequality.

Also, you don't need to abolish inheritance to increase fairness, but in the context of growing inequality, you must limit the extent to which it drives unfairness by phasing it out as wealth grows exponentially.

"the rules have to be the same for everyone"

"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." --Anatole France (I always meant to get a more precise source for this quote.)

I'll restate what I said: In a game of Monopoly, someone who starts with more money is not playing under the same rules. A game of Monopoly where one player starts with more money is not a fair game, even thought we all move 6 spaces forward when we roll a six. The same thing is true in life.

Perhaps I can put it another way: the existing laws are not the only rules that govern our laws. We all live under the same laws, but we don't all live under the same rules. For some people, it's a rule that if they quit their job they will quickly be homeless. For other people (whose only merit is to be born in the right place), there is not such rule. This is not fair.

My definition of fair is not perfect, but it looks to resolve the most egregious cases of unfairness I can think of.

Why do you prefer a definition that is achievable?

What you describe is of course good, but maybe we could just call that a welfare society or some other words. Giving people the bare minimum won't automatically make their lives fair.

Some people are also more attractive and they are able to capitalize on it easily, they are treated better etc..

You are just targeting one thing it's called inheritance, what about other things like "social network and connections which are passed to the new heirs in the family", beauty/atheletic abilities and other talent?

I can't see our modern society lasting without this. Not much longer. Not after covid, and whatever 2020's throw at us, and global warming. Food riots, and real civil discord are only months away, if not weeks.

That's alarmist and unfounded. The economy has recovered heartily, in general civil discord has gone away in most areas, and grocery stores aren't running out of food or going insane with prices - I'm still sipping fancy kombucha at the same rate I paid a year ago.

More people are concerned about whether their uber eats driver is going to show up on time than food riots at the moment. I don't see that changing in the immediate future.

It seems like plausible fears could be raised for food riots in our lifetimes, but not really in weeks. There's not even widespread shortages and depression era soup kitchen lines today, and those would surely preceed food riots.

> Real fairness is everyone playing against the same rules and being treated the same under the law.

That is symmetry, not fairness. By your definition someone born with a disability should not be accommodated (because everyone has to be treated the same by your notion) and possibly left to suffer?

Or is it fair that you are enjoying products made in countries by workers that never had have the same rules and treatment you had? What did you deserve to get that, other than sheer luck of being born in the current circumstances?

Doesn't familial conditions differ so hugely that no one is really playing against the same rules and treated the same in the formative years of their lives, effects of which amplify for the rest of their lives?

No one gets to define "real fairness" without expanding what their normativity is about. And your notion is about symmetry for a subsection of civil life, not about the complexity and entirety of real human lives. I guarantee you if you were born into different circumstances you would have a very different sense of what is fair.

Just in case someone later asks and you're in doubt: this is where the thread derailed into that most tired exchange of entirely predictable arguments first seen immediately after the publication of Atlas Shrugged, and handed down from one mediocre 16 year-old to the next generation in surprisingly faithful reproduction ever since.

> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair.

Can you explain why? And if your answer amounts to "because people provide different amounts of [effort|value] to society" how would you reply to "so what?".

If your answer is "so what?" then I assume you are not interested in my answer.

"So what?" is not an answer, it is another question, and I asked it preemptively to try and avoid a simplistic answer to my original question. Do you have a more constructive answer?

because the stuff they get for existing has to come from someone else.

> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair.

> because the stuff they get for existing has to come from someone else.

Your statement doesn't hold unless we assume "it is unfair for one person to provide for the needs of another (unless it is reciprocated)", and it isn't at all clear that we can take that axiomatically.

Even setting to one side the more obvious cases of parents providing for children etc., if we were to assume that one person could, through their labour, provide for the needs of everyone else, why does it obviously follow that it is "unfair" for everyone to survive solely that person's labour?

More generally, it really isn't clear to me that these questions have such simplistic answers.

> Your statement doesn't hold unless we assume "it is unfair for one person to provide for the needs of another (unless it is reciprocated)", and it isn't at all clear that we can take that axiomatically.

the axiom is more like "it is unfair to force one person to provide for the needs of another."

obviously some people would disagree, which is their right. however by making this axiom and their disagreements with it explicit, we can discuss the reality of the situation more clearly.

> if we were to assume that one person could, through their labour, provide for the needs of everyone else, why does it obviously follow that it is "unfair" for everyone to survive solely that person's labour?

well would it be fair to force that person to provide for the needs of everyone, if they could do so but chose not to?

> More generally, it really isn't clear to me that these questions have such simplistic answers.

agreed. but discussion can help us to understand the question better, and perhaps if we realize that there is no "right" answer then that conclusion could still help us to create a society where everyone is better off.

> the axiom is more like "it is unfair to force one person to provide for the needs of another."

I think this seems like a reasonable statement (to me), but unlike for the axiom I provided, the original claim, that "fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair", does not immediately follow from your modified version.

Reading over the various answers people have provided, it seems clear to me that many people follow a similar line of reasoning, trying to argue from the (let's take it as axiomatic) unfairness of forcing someone else to do something, but that really isn't a necessary part of the original claim.

Returning to the extreme example of one person who could provide for everyone, we see this line of argument in your counter-question:

> would it be fair to force that person to provide for the needs of everyone, if they could do so but chose not to?

As we have agreed that it is unfair to coerce someone, the answer is clearly "no", but that isn't the only possibility in our scenario, because they could equally have decided that they do want to work to provide for the needs of everyone.

This (to me) makes it clear that the issue really rests on how this individual (and, in the real world, each member of society) feels about their obligations to others. Yes - if they (or we) have decided not to provide for others, then being forced to do so would be "unfair", but if, on the other hand, they (we) are happy to provide for others without coercion, then there is no apparent source of coercion (certainly not from the axiom you provided).

In short, "fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair" does not follow from your modified axiom, and instead is predicated on the beliefs of the "everyone" in question.

As a somewhat separate issue, some appear to have the impression that these kinds of beliefs are in some way fundamental, but to me it is incredibly clear that they are (at least typically) almost entirely socially contingent. Therefore, as I see it, it is entirely possible for society to shift back and forth between one that (collectively) believes in providing for others, and one that does not, without "coercion" in the sense as used throughout this discussion.

> discussion can help us to understand the question better, and perhaps if we realize that there is no "right" answer then that conclusion could still help us to create a society where everyone is better off

I agree!

As a society we should increase the standard of living for everyone. In order to do that, people need to be motivated to contribute.

I might agree with what you are saying, but it doesn't address the question, which is to provide a rationale for the claim "Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair."

Your statement is about motivations, not fairness.

You're right, it's not very clear, this is what I was going for:

It's not very fair to society as a whole if we implement policies which impede standard of living increases.

Again, something I could probably agree to, but it is interesting that we seem to have to move the frame from the individual up to (the individual's share of) society in order to provide a meaningful answer.

Despite others' somewhat antagonistic answers I really just wanted to explore the reasoning behind the original statement, which I think many people instinctively agree with whilst not being able to convincingly explain why (without referencing other ideas).

Society is a critical part of the answer because without it, there is no "amount" of anything.

Effort has a clear opportunity cost which is why I think a lot of people instinctively agree that individuals should be rewarded based on the amount they contribute to the societal pot.

Which is why Communism doesn't work. If what you get has no relationship to the work you do, there is no reason to do the work. But that's the problem a UBI solves -- you still get it when you take a job but you also get what you earn from the job. As compared with the status quo, which is already worse than this, because we have existing assistance programs that you lose by taking a job or earning more money.

> Which is why Communism doesn't work. If what you get has no relationship to the work you do, there is no reason to do the work.

It may surprise people to learn that even the Soviets effectively acknowledged the validity of that second statement. According to the 1936 Constitution of the USSR:

"ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality."

https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04....

The problem, of course, being that they weren't using anything like market pricing to allocate the rewards, so in practice they went to people based on corruption and politics.

“1 in 7 billion uses luxury of online anonymity to play at being a nihilist. Forgets real world self and political power is limited to whatever the masses enable. Would rather ostricize self politically than speak up.”

I presume you are aiming this at me, and if so it doesn't apply - I was simply asking for a rationale for the original claim that "Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair."

I would suggest that your retort, presuming that is what it is, is mere posturing; either you have a substantive answer to the question or not - so far you have not provided one.

Because no one owes you nothing by their unalienable right to be in charge of their own life, and you only get what you deserve by your actions. That's the fundamental moral principle of fairness. If your actions oriented towards creation then you get to hold your earnings by the right of your productive work. If your actions oriented towards extorting the value from those who create it, you deserve to be ostracized.

> Because no one owes you nothing by their unalienable right to be in charge of their own life

The question isn't whether people are obliged to provide for others, but whether or not it is necessarily unfair for them to do so. Your statement only addresses the former case, not the latter (irrespective of whether it is labelled "the fundamental moral principle of fairness").

> The question isn't whether people are obliged to provide for others, but whether or not it is necessarily unfair for them to do so.

sure, let's take a practical exercise and see how you feel about spending your days at cotton fields working for free. Doesn't have to be forever, just a few years, to get a meaningful conclusion about the level of that "necessarily" that you doubt about.

As a reminder, this is the original claim:

> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair.

I had asked for an explanation of why this should be so. Your example, "being forced to work in the cotton fields for free", is only rhetoric - it does not actually address the question. There are an infinity of circumstances that would involve "everyone getting the same amount just for existing" that do not involve "being forced to work in the cotton fields", "being forced to work", or indeed "being forced (to do anything)".

I find it interesting that in all the replies to my query, none have really been able to provide anything approaching an answer. The closest (in my opinion) is [0] by aeternum, but that boils down to saying that it is unfair if things don't progress as quickly as they could, but doesn't explain why - this in itself seems pretty radical, when made explicit (hopefully I haven't done too much of an injustice in my paraphrasing). These claims are made boldly, but the rationale seems more difficult to tease out.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215835

Fairness is leveling the playground. It's not equality.

By birth, you are unequal. Would you say we should have the same measures for people with physical disabilities from birth and healthy athletes?

No. That's why we have separate categories or measures. That is fair. And that is not treating everyone equally.

As sad as it is, I say we have to accept reality, and that means that a person with disabilities will not be able to do certain things, which does not mean he/she has nothing to do. Maybe he won't be an athlete but he can of course be a novelist.

But we first have to accept the real world and get off this childish notion we are all born equal because as you pointed out, we sadly are not.

I think you missed my point. We evaluate people differently on their backgrounds already.

A 10 year old will be judged and rewarded in a favorable way compared to a 30 year old programmer. My example was to highlight the bias that people already acknowledge as fair. Poverty is a handicap in similar fashion. When we acknowledge the former in age should be judged more leniently and with grater praise, we refer to the statistical odds of a 10 year old being as good as a 30 year old and other 10 year olds.

That's the reality. You are refusing to accept it by removing the background of people in your hypothetical world. Fairness is not based on outcome.

Someone who never had access to computers, internet, mentors, etc would be judged differently compared to someone who always did. At least I would.

I take it you consider yourself born on the right side of "not equal", more specifically the "better" side?

See also the "original position" thought experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

The notion of everyone being equal has to do with the equality under the rule of law, and nothing else. There can be no other categories of measures in that regard precisely because you cannot perform any meaningful measures across several different dimensions of differences. For instance, would you be able to make a meaningful measure of who is underprivileged the most - an orphan billionare who is not likeable by anyone in his close circle of "friends" or a poor family of 5 who regularly get invited to family dinners in their community? What are the standards?

People talk about it a lot but I don’t think there is any agreement on what fairness is.

Note that having a leader at all means someone has more power, and that’s inherently unequal, but most people think the benefits are worth it.

The law should be the leader. Sadly we have forgotten that.

then the people who write the laws become the leaders, except with a layer of obfuscation. how do we make laws that treat everyone equally?

> how do we make laws that treat everyone equally?

by stopping enacting laws that are oriented towards the abstract "society as a whole" and "benefits to the society as a whole", and by beginning treating an individual as the smallest minority in the world whose unalienable rights require protection from the crowd.

What’s truly unfortunate is how the people who can create such a cogent argument about the problems continue to enable them by bloviating at their screens on forums that don’t carry political weight, and avoid activities in general that do carry political weight.

Understand the politicians that most contribute to creating the problems are happy to absorb impotent rhetoric all day long.

Exceptional and gritty Americans will Grubhub, and social media, and otherwise luxuriate the country off a cliff rather than collectively get behind fairness in a real way.