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

Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

swissinfo.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 600 posts

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#451

Post by cronjobber »

kazinator wrote: post #227
elcapitan wrote: post #4

I wish I would live in a country where essential political decisions like that are made by the people and not by some professional political elite in a far away capital.

What if you were a discriminated minority, and important decisions specifically affected you were put to a referendum? Oops, 60% of the populace thinks you're a nuisance who should just shut up and put up (and ideally just go away).

If you get a different result under representative democracy, the minority must be assumed to have more actual (real world) power than mere headcount indicates.

In that case, direct democracy is indeed broken, but the reason is not "discrimination" against those who are actually pretty powerful, but eventual instability from the system's inability to act as a predictive proxy for more direct (less civilized) resolution.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#452

Post by jamesrcole »

elcapitan wrote: post #123
jamesrcole wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* > I'm very sensitive to noise, but neither church bells here nor the muezzin calling for prayer five times a day in my vacations in islamic countries have ever bothered me.* Then I don't think you can characterise yourself as "very sensitive to noise". Perhaps very sensitive to certain kinds of noise, but not noise in general?

I think that's obviously implied. If there was a general sensitivity to every kind of noise anywhere, you wouldn't be able to live. If I said "I have a food allergy", you wouldn't assume I don't eat because I'm allergic to food in general, or would you?

So what did you mean by saying "I'm very sensitive to noise [but not noises of type X and Y]"? How does that not imply a general issue with obtrusive noises?

I've heard of plenty of people who don't have particular sensitivities to noise but find those two types of noise obtrusive.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#453

Post by sgnelson »

vidarh wrote: post #294
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A two hour daily commute is like 12% of your waking hours crumpled and thrown away. That sounds like hell. Two hours is a long time! Sit around for the two hours doing nothing, you'll see.

I have done hour each way commutes for many years, and while I don't miss it, it's not nearly that much of a waste. It's not "sit around doing nothing" (though, I wish I had two hours a day to sit around doing nothing - it'd be fantastic). It's time people spend listening to music, reading, napping, catching up on e-mail, playing games. As much as I like currently not having a commute, it was certainly not time that…

You obviously didn't drive if you were reading, napping, catching up on email, playing games (at least I certainly hope not). At least within the US, a typical commute (with the exception of very large cities such as NYC, Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, which have large public transportation systems) involves spending time driving their own car, which essentially prohibits any activity other than listening to music, and maybe talking on the phone. So yes, it's wasted time for most of us.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#454

Post by dionidium »

kuschku wrote: post #414
bbarn wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are most other big cities like the loop after business hours? I'm always shocked at how deserted it is on weekends, and evenings aside from the odd theatre traffic.

Most big cities after business hours are full of life, full of people out going to bars, clubs, other events, etc. If you go outside in the downtown of most 200k+ cities, on any normal day, you’ll find lots of people there. On the other hand, the residential suburbs will be dead.

This isn't true in the U.S. Downtowns all across the country are dead at night.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#455

Post by lern_too_spel »

Retric wrote: post #360
maxerickson wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within weekend distance of NYC?

EX: http://mls.catskill4sale.com/idx/details/homes/b253/34760/4-... 200k, 10br house ~2h from NYC depending on traffic. Basically as soon as you step past reasonable daily commutes prices really fall.

It has four bedrooms, not ten. You can't reasonably fit ten bedrooms in 2912 square feet of living space.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#456

Post by bane »

soyiuz wrote: post #450
bane wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think your rent isn't simply amortizing those costs? The landlord isn't a utility/maintenance charity.

Many cities place artificial constraints on rent increases, for example which prevents full amortization.

Doesn't matter. Landlords who are in the business of renting aren't a charity. Somebody will be paying for those expenses and it's the goal of the landlord to make it not them.

Most of these kinds of arguments seen to stem from some kind of fantasy that renting is a smart choice because look at how we're pulling one over on landlords with all that free stuff they have to give me.

But no rental market can survive when landlords are losing their shirt to paying for other people's expenses.

And yet rental markets are full and robust everywhere which means landlords make money on the exchange, otherwise the entire rental market would be controlled by rapidly impoverished idiots, which is obviously not the case.

Landlords make money in several ways simultaneously, but providing charity to renters is not one of them.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#457

Post by insulanian »

rasur wrote: post #338
vikascoder wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that a Doner Kebab in Zurich is 20 dollars and up. That's US salary alright bit US price of living? Hell no

As a regular Zürich Döner eater, I'd be curious to see these fabled 20$ equivalent Döners. Mine are always in the 10/11CHF range (~$11).

In Munich you pay 4.00 - 4.50 EUR. That pretty much erases any advantage of Zurich vs German salaries.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#458

Post by lazyjones »

enraged_camel wrote: post #97
akerro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As already mentioned, you're ignoring a fact that even by working there for 10 years, it's close to impossible to buy a part of land and build a house anywhere near a city. Land and house prices are too high to stay there for live. It's only profitable to live there, make savings and buy 2-3 houses in Uk/Germany for it. Like two of my co-workers did.

I've never understood why people believe/feel that buying land and/or a house is the pinnacle of... something. Sure, it gives the person a feeling of control and stability. But rooting oneself in one labor market (vs. being mobile) decreases one's employment options and therefore their salary. It's also very risky, as it's the equivalent of putting one's eggs in one basket and leaves their financial wellbeing in the…

> But rooting oneself in one labor market (vs. being mobile) decreases one's employment options and therefore their salary.

True, but in most places outside the US (at least certainly in mainland Europe) moving great distances for a better job opportunity is unusual.

The main appeal of owning real estate vs. renting is the long-term and intergenerational perspective. At some point it'll be paid off and the housing cost will be extremely low - and the children will inherit something of value.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#459

Post by bane »

mgce wrote: post #433
bane wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those costs are simply amortized over the rental agreement. I'm not sure why people who rent seem to think landlords are appliance/maintenance charities.

Rental prices are what the market will bear. These may or may not be strongly correlated to the landlord's ownership. Two very relevant examples of when the "amortization" argument won't apply: - a rising market in which the landlord bought a long time ago. Their purchase price was way below the area's current market value. So they can cover their expenses while you still pay less in rent than what a modern-day mortg…

Correct. When rents get too far ahead of mortgages, people simply buy property instead.

In your first example, the landlord is amortizing expenses by charging rent above their ownership costs. It doesn't have to be at or higher than then current new mortgage rates.

The second example does happen. However, if the landlord's bet is wrong, and they have the runway to float the extra expenses for a while, they can simply wait for rents to rise and over decades make it back and begin amortizing then. Or they can sell and hope to make it back.

Property owners have many more financial options with their property than do renters.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#460

Post by sievebrain »

bane wrote: post #321
stupidcar wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In European cities like London, Paris or Zurich, the supply of housing is so constrained that, barring something catastrophic like a war or a global financial crisis, prices will never drop that much for that long. In fact, it's quite a big economic problem — there's little reason for the majority of people to put their savings into anything other than property, because it tends to be so reliable. And somewhere like…

In a great many places, the rental rates are set to be about the same as if somebody just purchased the property and were about to pay mortgage payments. In the short term, the renter makes out, because the owner has to assume taxes and maintenance, but over the long term, the existing mortgage doesn't increase while rent does and the property owner starts to cover those costs and then starts to make money off of the…

I've lived in Switzerland for a decade. My rents have never gone up. They have gone down once though, because the law here mandates tying of rent to interest rates and when they are lowered, you can write to your landlord and demand a reduction.

Unfortunately there are caveats. Last time I tried that, my landlord claimed that my rent was already lower than the market average for my area and thus I didn't qualify for the reduction.

Post reply on HN