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

Moving Forward on Basic Income

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#921

Post by quadrangle »

jeffdavis wrote: post #904
drabiega wrote: post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stated elsewhere, I don't think it is fair to say that moving into the wilderness is an option. As cheap as land is in some remote areas, it's still beyond the resources of the people for whom it would be an improvement from their current situation.

That doesn't really answer the question though: if you could live in the wilderness, is that freedom?

who gives a shit? The pedantic question of "is that freedom?" only applies to nincompoops who think that ethics or economics revolve around whether or not we achieve some singular dogmatic principle like "freedom". It's far more valuable to ask actually useful questions that have practical answers.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#922

Post by quadrangle »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #874
lewisl9029 wrote: post #804

The most compelling case I've seen made recently for basic income is from Yanis Varoufakis (the infamous Greek finance minister who resigned after refusing to agree to the terms of the bailout that the Greek people voted against in a referendum): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3y0Ss There were many gems in that talk, but this one stood out to me in particular: "The right to turn down a job is essential for a w…

>"The right to turn down a job is essential for a well functioning labor market, and for a civilized society. And to have that right, a genuine right, to turn down a job, you must have an alternative: An outside option. Because desperate people will accept to do desperate things..." i think it will bring downs the salary for a number of professions - why bother to pay when you can get volunteers on basic income for f…

well yeah, but why is that a problem?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#923

Post by autokad »

Zikes wrote: post #912
autokad wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you loved austrailia so much, move back. you have to take the 'bad' with the good. we built a system that enables people with ideas to chase their dreams and succeed. that means companies have the ability to pay people with low skills and experience less than those with. honestly, if you are being treated like a slave, move to another company. if you cant, you don't have skills employers want. get them. during the…

Speaking as a native American, I cannot disagree more. The spirit and very origin of our great nation is to never accept the bad with the good, but to doggedly pursue the very best in everything.

one who gives up nothing, loses. That's like saying 'i want to invest in riskless stocks but make huge gains'. you cant be the best at anything if you try and be the best at everything. But really this is a whole other conversation

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#924

Post by marcus_holmes »

jeffdavis wrote: post #904
drabiega wrote: post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stated elsewhere, I don't think it is fair to say that moving into the wilderness is an option. As cheap as land is in some remote areas, it's still beyond the resources of the people for whom it would be an improvement from their current situation.

That doesn't really answer the question though: if you could live in the wilderness, is that freedom?

I kinda does answer the question. If there isn't any "wilderness" to live in, because it's all owned by people, then the question is pointless.

I live in Australia, where we actually do face this question. There are Aboriginal people living on their ancestral lands in the outback. They have dramatically shorter lifespans and worse health conditions. There are all sorts of reasons for this, not least that colonialist administrations have messed with their ability to live on their land. But the government now faces a choice:

- do we let them live out in the bush on their ancestral lands, where they have these measurably worse lives by all the standards we use to measure such things, or - do we remove them from their lands and try to improve their life choices so they live better (in all the standards we measure such things).

This question basically comes down to: if a person wants to live free in the wilderness, but the cost of that freedom is a dramatic reduction in their health, life expectancy, education, and quality of life, should we let them?

We haven't really worked out an answer yet, but it is increasingly looking like the right one is actually "no".

So, to answer your question "if a person wants to live free in the wilderness, are they free?", the answer that we're discovering is: "maybe, it depends on whether they can support themselves and their children to an acceptable standard doing that, and there needs to be government inspectors who decide whether that's the case"

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#925

Post by auntyJemima »

autokad wrote: post #909
grecy wrote: post #888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The right to turn down a job is essential for a well functioning labor market, and for a civilized society. I agree 100%, and I must say having immigrated from Australia, it's probably the worst thing about America. It feels like Employers have all the power in America, and therefore all the Employees are basically slaves, and are treated as such. I think it's important for a functioning society to value it's workf…

if you loved austrailia so much, move back. you have to take the 'bad' with the good. we built a system that enables people with ideas to chase their dreams and succeed. that means companies have the ability to pay people with low skills and experience less than those with. honestly, if you are being treated like a slave, move to another company. if you cant, you don't have skills employers want. get them. during the…

You sound like some kind of redneck with that "go back to your country" bullshit. Someone is making very good points and that's the best thing you can say.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#926

Post by livestyle »

Why isn't anyone talking about how they will actually be able to pay for this? We know how people respond already. It's called welfare. The interesting part is that everyone gets it. But the 1000lb gorilla in the room is HOW will it get funded. Do we have an energy boom like Alaska etc and fund it that way?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#927

Post by InquilineKea »

grecy wrote: post #888
lewisl9029 wrote: post #804

The most compelling case I've seen made recently for basic income is from Yanis Varoufakis (the infamous Greek finance minister who resigned after refusing to agree to the terms of the bailout that the Greek people voted against in a referendum): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3y0Ss There were many gems in that talk, but this one stood out to me in particular: "The right to turn down a job is essential for a w…

> The right to turn down a job is essential for a well functioning labor market, and for a civilized society. I agree 100%, and I must say having immigrated from Australia, it's probably the worst thing about America. It feels like Employers have all the power in America, and therefore all the Employees are basically slaves, and are treated as such. I think it's important for a functioning society to value it's workf…

How does Australia give one the right to turn down a job?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#928

Post by dragonwriter »

livestyle wrote: post #926

Why isn't anyone talking about how they will actually be able to pay for this? We know how people respond already. It's called welfare. The interesting part is that everyone gets it. But the 1000lb gorilla in the room is HOW will it get funded. Do we have an energy boom like Alaska etc and fund it that way?

> We know how people respond already. It's called welfare.

Welfare is not the same as BI, and has different structural incentives, so there is no reason to expect that people will respond to BI the same as they do to means-tested welfare programs.

> Do we have an energy boom like Alaska etc and fund it that way?

No, we have a "growing returns to capital" boom, and fund it by taxing capital the same as other income, rather than tax favoring it.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#929

Post by godspiral »

pithic wrote: post #861
lewisl9029 wrote: post #804

The most compelling case I've seen made recently for basic income is from Yanis Varoufakis (the infamous Greek finance minister who resigned after refusing to agree to the terms of the bailout that the Greek people voted against in a referendum): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3y0Ss There were many gems in that talk, but this one stood out to me in particular: "The right to turn down a job is essential for a w…

>The Mafia loves to give us options that we can't refuse, to make us offers we can't refuse. Send us a fat portion of your workers' pay to fund our Utopian vision. Or else.

> Send us a fat portion of your workers' pay to fund our Utopian vision. Or else.

The freedom that UBI provides includes your freedom to refuse the oppressive burden of becoming rich and having to pay taxes in the process.

The more people who do object to the burdens of wealth, the easier it will be for the non-retarded to become rich in their place.

Paying income taxes is completely voluntary. Don't earn any/much income and you pay 0.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#930

Post by livestyle »

dragonwriter wrote: post #928
livestyle wrote: post #926

Why isn't anyone talking about how they will actually be able to pay for this? We know how people respond already. It's called welfare. The interesting part is that everyone gets it. But the 1000lb gorilla in the room is HOW will it get funded. Do we have an energy boom like Alaska etc and fund it that way?

> We know how people respond already. It's called welfare. Welfare is not the same as BI, and has different structural incentives, so there is no reason to expect that people will respond to BI the same as they do to means-tested welfare programs. > Do we have an energy boom like Alaska etc and fund it that way? No, we have a "growing returns to capital" boom, and fund it by taxing capital the same as other income, r…

> No, we have a "growing returns to capital" boom, and fund it by taxing capital the same as other income, rather than tax favoring it.

Could you please provide some sort of example of this?

> Welfare is not the same as BI, and has different structural incentives, so there is no reason to expect that people will respond to BI the same as they do to means-tested welfare programs.

I'm well aware they are not the same. However I work with many who are on wellfare and understand their mindset a good % of people who will be on BI will be these people.

Post reply on HN