Uber for Welfare • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber for Welfare

#51

Post by Kristine1975 » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:51 PM UTC

danjayh wrote: post #35

clavalle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That article about Denmark isn't proof of anything but that conservatives in Denmark don't like Denmark's welfare system.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#52

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

lentil_soup wrote: post #48

yummyfajitas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 welfare recipient with copious amounts of free time" So in your view, all welfare recipients are just sitting around watching TV? "The person with $10M is probably working hard" why? what makes you say that? Do millionaires work extra hard compared to everyone else?

Most of those on TANF - the program this article discusses - are in fact not working. The 36% or so who are already working would be unaffected by this proposal.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-wel...

Re: Uber for Welfare

#53

Post by AndrewUnmuted » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

khirasaki wrote: post #7

How about hell no? I'm curious who this author is, a lobbyist for Uber? How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American, which will do far more to address poverty as well as raise wages (if you're already receiving money, you'll be able to demand a higher wage for working a job). Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the government doesn't need to invent more regulations an…

> How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American

> Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the government doesn't need to invent more regulations

A guaranteed minimum income will without question lead to higher prices on consumer goods, putting us in the same position as before.

The regulations will not stop under this model - they will simply change. Where regulation exists now to keep prices artificially high and interest rates artificially low, the regulation policy resulting from a minimum pre-tax income will be that of price controls and the rationing of goods.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#54

Post by crdoconnor » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

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…

>It's kind of funny how expecting welfare recipients to work is "exploitative" but expecting workers to involuntarily support welfare recipients is not.

Well, if the stream of incomes directed at rentiers were instead redirected towards welfare recipients, workers would have to do no more supporting than they do now.

This could be done by:

* Raising land taxes

* Taxing wealth

* Taxing yield bearing assets

* Remove carried interest rule.

And then paying for welfare with that.

Or we could keep pretending that billionaire moochers aren't more expensive for society than welfare recipients.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#55

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #29

crystalmeph wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, making people work for free at for-profit businesses is not a valid precondition for welfare. I didn't see that in this article though. There has to be a social safety net, but I think it's a valid goal to encourage welfare recipients to work if they are able. One thing we should definitely do is reform the "vertical cliff" of payments, where once you make above a certain threshold, you stop receiving all benef…

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"? Not to mention that the flood of workers forced into this position will necessarily bid down the hourly rates.

Of course it will bid down hourly rates. That will increase demand for such services, thereby allowing more people to enter the workforce [1]. Unemployed workers get jobs, consumers get more services - a win for everyone!

[1] It's interesting how the gig economy can reduce sticky wages, making inflationary stimulus unnecessary.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#56

Post by creshal » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #49

yequalsx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. The article has this to say about that issue: "Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people wh…

> If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy.

Exactly. So why "rethink the entire safety net, affecting nearly every federal entitlement program, so that it is oriented around the gig economy"?

The gig economy isn't going to change the fundamental problem that there is not enough work, there won't ever again be enough work, and we can't centre our measurement of human worth around work. If we just keep pretending that's not the case we'll either end up with bullshit jobs that create no worth and are subsidized by the companies offering them (at best just a more convoluted form of benefits, paid by corporations directly); or with even more working poor that have a job and still depend on government benefits. Or both.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#57

Post by jefe_ » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

At least we've got a killer army.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#58

Post by yequalsx » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #49

yequalsx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. The article has this to say about that issue: "Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people wh…

Forcing people to do work they don't want to often times leads to disgruntlement. It appears that you are purposefully misreading what I wrote to come up with the last rhetorical question you made. Such tactics are not conducive to proper discourse.

Great to write on paper that we will exempt those who are mentally/physically unable to work. Then we will end up with a bunch of edge cases that force a government agency to be created that will end up drawing up rules/regulations in order to arbitrate these decisions. We will employ enough people in order to process/monitor all exempt people. It would in my opinion just be better to ensure a base level of existence regardless of ability.

I've met a number of welfare recipients who don't want to work and it is a good thing that they aren't working due to their toxic personalities. Then there are people who are on welfare who are great to be around. It's a sufficiently large group that you'll find all kinds.

In regards to your first sentence. Surely you don't believe that every person who can be employed can find work. I don't think anyone really believes that it is always the case that the number of people who wants jobs is less than the available number of jobs. Even if the system proposed is enacted then some people will still not be able to find work since there aren't enough jobs for everyone. We will add another layer of bureaucracy to ensure that those who claim they can't find work really can't find work. This already exists to some extent with unemployment benefits but would need to be expanded to really make sure no one is taking advantage of the system.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#59

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

dccoolgai wrote: post #17

This is the worst idea not proposed in jest that I have ever read. Uber and the "gig economy" are the death throes of an economy that is suffocating itself with rotten ideas about globalism ("We can all be rich if we stop making things and have other people do it for us!") hatched by corporate economists... Suggesting that we should all do each others' laundry more is just a brutal exacerbation of the underlying prob…

> This is the worst idea not proposed in jest that I have ever read.

Well, I can think of worse ideas not proposed in jest (some of which have been implemented), such as the Bush tax cuts.

Of course, many of those worse ideas come from the same general (or, in the specific case of the Bush tax cuts, in part the same specific) place. [0]

[0] Cesar Conda being one of the two authors of this piece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Conda

Re: Uber for Welfare

#60

Post by noam87 » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

A bold proposal indeed from Mr. Conda.

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great city, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These beggars, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up also turn thieves for want of work.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this is, in the present deplorable state of the country, a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these beggars sound, useful members of society, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.