Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber for Welfare

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Uber for Welfare

#31

Post by pjc50 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #28
pjc50 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for people who actually are producing things This is called a "job". If we could find a job for everyone, we wouldn't be talking about unemployment. Unemployment is when people are not able to find a job.

The article is proposing a mechanism that would find a job for more people, reducing unemployment. It also proposes that if a person claims to be unemployed, but actually just refuses to take work, that their welfare payments should be stopped. But surely you aren't discussing those people, right?

The article talks about work requirements, but does not specify a minimum wage or minimum effective wage. Is someone who is signed up for one of these task apps but only given one hour work a week "working"?

The process of determining 'refusing' to take work is surprisingly fraught as well. But again the question arises: if you cut off the money that someone is using to eat, what happens to them? They do not magically find a job that pays enough to eat.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#32

Post by yummyfajitas »

pjc50 wrote: post #24
yummyfajitas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only the authors of the article thought of that. Then they might have written this: Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed. Why not read the article to see what it actually advocat…

The process of assessing fitness to work then becomes much more controversial; there is a crackdown; genuinely disabled people fail to tick the right boxes; as their money supply is cut off, so is their food; this results in starvation, suicide, or at the very least exacerbation of their health problem. At least that's how it's turned out in the UK. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...

Your link provides no evidence of causality or even correlation between welfare cuts and death, or any evidence that even a single person starved. Strangely, the activists hyping these numbers don't seem to have even a single coroner's report of a person where cause of death is starvation.

Clinton's welfare reform program in the US did not have this effect. The main effect was a reduction in the welfare rolls and an increase in the labor supply.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#33

Post by yequalsx »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23
clavalle wrote: post #19

Absolutely horrifying point of view. I get it, we don't like leeches. But forcing people to work or else not get benefits meant for the poorest (i.e. let them starve or go homeless)? Wow. It's work camps without fences. Driving around and/or delivering things to people that are better off then they are? How is that helping people build their own human capital? The only people that helps are the people consuming those…

They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby making a person less risky to hire. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for thems…

Providing a base minimal level of living for each person tends to produce nice societies. What people with money get in return for supporting the deadbeats is definitely worth the, not large, cost. Having a massive security/punishment apparatus is the inevitable result of not doing this unless one doesn't mind living in a shitty society.

Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken: U.S. Libertarians/Republicans can almost be defined as someone with the irrational fear that some poor person, somewhere is getting something they don't deserve.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#34

Post by bryanlarsen »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23
clavalle wrote: post #19

Absolutely horrifying point of view. I get it, we don't like leeches. But forcing people to work or else not get benefits meant for the poorest (i.e. let them starve or go homeless)? Wow. It's work camps without fences. Driving around and/or delivering things to people that are better off then they are? How is that helping people build their own human capital? The only people that helps are the people consuming those…

They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby making a person less risky to hire. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for thems…

"expecting workers to involuntarily support welfare recipients is not. Could you explain that?"

Could those workers get a similar income and similar working conditions without a functional society? Unless those workers are subsistence farmers, the answer is "no". Society is supporting them, so forcing workers to support society is not exploitative.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#35

Post by danjayh »

clavalle wrote: post #30
yummyfajitas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby making a person less risky to hire. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for thems…

>They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching TV example)…

> Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them.

Friend, hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive, and it makes society as a whole poor. If you take too heavily from those who are productive to enable this, it dicencentivises them. This has been demonstrated repeatedly -- in the USSR, in China's old system, in Cuba, in the DPRK, in Saudi Arabia (who, with less oil money, are having serious problems), and even in the Internet's beloved Denmark ... literally over and over and over.

(ref for Denmark, since I know that will be one of the more contentious entries on my list: http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-stud... )

Asking them to take what someone else is willing to give them for their work, without the threat of imprisonment from the government to motivate the giving, is not asking them to work for less than they're worth. Quite the contrary, it's asking them to work for an amount that exactly reflects the value other humans assign to their labor.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#36

Post by anon1385 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #32
pjc50 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of assessing fitness to work then becomes much more controversial; there is a crackdown; genuinely disabled people fail to tick the right boxes; as their money supply is cut off, so is their food; this results in starvation, suicide, or at the very least exacerbation of their health problem. At least that's how it's turned out in the UK. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...

Your link provides no evidence of causality or even correlation between welfare cuts and death, or any evidence that even a single person starved. Strangely, the activists hyping these numbers don't seem to have even a single coroner's report of a person where cause of death is starvation. Clinton's welfare reform program in the US did not have this effect. The main effect was a reduction in the welfare rolls and an…

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/28/man-starved-t...

>Mark Wood, 44, who had a number of complex mental health conditions, died at his home last August, months after an Atos fitness-for-work assessment found him fit for work. This assessment triggered a decision by the jobcentre to stop his sickness benefits, leaving him just £40 a week to live on. His housing benefits were stopped at around the same time.

>The Oxfordshire coroner, Darren Salter, said that although it was impossible to identify the cause of death, it was probably "caused or contributed to by Wood being markedly underweight and malnourished". He weighed 5st 8lbs (35kg) when he died; his doctor said his body mass index was not compatible with life.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#37

Post by firstworldman »

Oh cool! Another dystopian policy idea! My first thought was, doesn't the person advocating for this realize they are rooting for the bad guys in the film? Then I realized, in science fiction, the bad guys often don't realize they're the bad guys. They are industrialists, or wayward idealists, or Ayn Randian capitalists. They are made villains by their philosophical tunnel vision and the belief that money is more important than human suffering.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#38

Post by yequalsx »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #16
astazangasta wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vehemently dislike when people say "no one is forced to do anything" in situations where, say, you will lose your food stamps if you do not do something. That is a force, the force of starvation.

People who give up food stamps will be prevented from going out and seeking work on their own, and buying food with the proceeds? I totally missed that part of the article.

We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. I'm content to let some tax money pay for food/tv/etc. for those at the margins. I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. I think it doesn't make sense in terms of overall societal emotional well being.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#39

Post by anon1385 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #32
pjc50 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of assessing fitness to work then becomes much more controversial; there is a crackdown; genuinely disabled people fail to tick the right boxes; as their money supply is cut off, so is their food; this results in starvation, suicide, or at the very least exacerbation of their health problem. At least that's how it's turned out in the UK. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...

Your link provides no evidence of causality or even correlation between welfare cuts and death, or any evidence that even a single person starved. Strangely, the activists hyping these numbers don't seem to have even a single coroner's report of a person where cause of death is starvation. Clinton's welfare reform program in the US did not have this effect. The main effect was a reduction in the welfare rolls and an…

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/david-c...

>The coroner said that when David Clapson died he had no food in his stomach. Clapson’s benefits had been stopped as a result of missing one meeting at the jobcentre. He was diabetic, and without the £71.70 a week from his jobseeker’s allowance he couldn’t afford to eat or put credit on his electricity card to keep the fridge where he kept his insulin working. Three weeks later Clapson died from diabetic ketoacidosis, caused by a severe lack of insulin. A pile of CVs was found next to his body.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#40

Post by yummyfajitas »

clavalle wrote: post #30
yummyfajitas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby making a person less risky to hire. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for thems…

>They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching TV example)…

Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them.

The article doesn't propose threatening anyone with pain or death. Did you read it?

All it proposes is requiring people receiving free money to be willing to work for money instead (same as the people who are forced to give them free money).

The person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money. That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might die, or at least be in pain, without it.

What about the marginal utility of time? The person with $10M is probably working hard. In contrast, the welfare recipient with copious amounts of free time will not die or be in pain if they spend some time working.

Why do the time rich get a free pass while the money rich are forced to contribute?

(The article explicitly advocates that people who will be in pain, i.e. those physically unable to work, would be exempt from such requirements.)

I don't know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection rackets are illegal.

A protection racket is when you threaten a person with violence if they don't give you money. Kind of like how tax financed welfare works, and not remotely like how the proposed "uber for welfare" works.

In a protection racket, I am worse off than I would be if the racketeer and I never encountered each other. In the proposed uber for welfare scheme the recipient is better off.

Post reply on HN