Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#531

Post by dang » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 2:41 AM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #281

Die, basic income. Of course, leftist supporters of democracy will say this does not count and wasn't "democratic".

> Die, basic income.

Please stop posting unsubstantive ideological comments to Hacker News. We don't want this level of discussion here. If you can't make a point thoughtfully, please don't post until you can.

The name-calling undermines your argument too. It's surprising to me how people who post comments like this don't seem to realize that they're diminishing their own cause in the mind of the reader.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#532

Post by dang » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 2:44 AM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #163

matthewmacleod wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please reconsider expressing your views in this offensive way. It's quite reasonable to discuss the current situation with immigration into Europe, but it's quite another thing to make unfounded accusations about"criminality, antisocial behavior, and otherwise degeneracy" when I'm sure you would accept that such behaviour is not engaged in by the majority. Rhetoric like this does nothing but inflame reflexive, unthin…

I wonder if you think that pro-immigration movements can be inflamed, reflexive, unthinking and possibly offensive? Actually they do not need to be because there's been a fait accompli in that at least one million immigrants have entered Germany on the basis of what appears to be the say-so of one woman. Discussion is over! This isn't the context for a rebuttal of your suggestion that unfounded accusations abound reg…

You've been using HN exclusively to prosecute ideological agendas. That's not a legit use of this site, and we've asked you before to stop doing it. If you can't or won't stop, we're going to ban your account.

This site is for collegial conversation, not for being blared at with bullhorns. Single-purpose accounts aren't welcome here to begin with, and certainly not ones whose single purpose is agitprop.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#533

Post by willu » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 2:57 AM UTC

wglb wrote: post #523

willu wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be realistic for a condo, but a single family home at that price would have to be a serious fixer-upper or have some other significant flaw (near gang areas, etc.). The types of homes most urban professionals would consider suitable are hard to find under $500k in Chicago. And if you're targeting one of the few decent public school districts, even that number is a stretch.

I am not sure where your figures come, but as someone who looked seriously at eight houses in various neighborhoods of Chicago, you can find quite suitable houses in the $200-250k range.

I guess I should have specified that I'm thinking of 3+ bedroom homes. Here's what Zillow looks like for a wide drawing of north-side Chicago SFHs under $250k.

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house_type/3-_beds/0-25...

This is dominated by auctions and homes in very rough west-side neighborhoods. Yes, there are a small handful of exceptions which are typically very old homes that have not been updated in decades, but to act like above $250k is "weird" or out of the norm is just not in line with reality.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#534

Post by geggam » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:01 AM UTC

soyiuz wrote: post #260

geggam wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at a place to live as an investment vehicle you are simply looking at it wrong. A home which is paid for is a place you can live without fear of not being able to make the next rent payment. A mortgage is a bit of a jail sentence. Saving money and purchasing a place to live is the right way to do it. No one will tell you that because they dont make money from you putting your money in the market.

But the same could be said about money in the bank: it is insurance against not being able to make the next rent payment. Saving money is the right thing to do---putting all of your savings into immovable property may not be.

A place to live where you can grow food without someone taking it away eliminates the homeless situation.

There is no other investment offering that security. Ask Etrade if you can have a place to live and food to eat if all your trades go wrong :)

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#535

Post by willu » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:19 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #369

willu wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I paid nothing close to 500k in Oak Park... Congratulations! I'm aware Oak Park has some affordable homes (but higher taxes) since much of my family lives there. But Oak Park is not Chicago and I was talking about Chicago. If I were going to live in one of the more remote Chicago neighborhoods that had $200k houses, I'd probably opt to live in Oak Park or Evanston since you'd get more for your money (sane school sy…

Oak Park is significantly more expensive than Chicago. I don't think you can legitimately call Jefferson Park "remote" while saying you'd like to live in Evanston, which is much farther from the center of the city. Jefferson Park is a straight shot down Milwaukee from the center of the city, and a pretty good chunk of every restaurant or bar you'd want to go to is along that shot. It's also got a Blue Line station, w…

I guess there are a lot of weirdos in Chicago by your estimation. Virtually every decent north-side neighborhood in Chicago (including Jefferson Park) has a median sales price above your $250k point and that includes all types and sizes of homes:

http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Illinois/Chicago-heat_map/

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#536

Post by pen2l » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:25 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #532

vixen99 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you think that pro-immigration movements can be inflamed, reflexive, unthinking and possibly offensive? Actually they do not need to be because there's been a fait accompli in that at least one million immigrants have entered Germany on the basis of what appears to be the say-so of one woman. Discussion is over! This isn't the context for a rebuttal of your suggestion that unfounded accusations abound reg…

You've been using HN exclusively to prosecute ideological agendas. That's not a legit use of this site, and we've asked you before to stop doing it. If you can't or won't stop, we're going to ban your account. This site is for collegial conversation, not for being blared at with bullhorns. Single-purpose accounts aren't welcome here to begin with, and certainly not ones whose single purpose is agitprop.

He doesn't appear to be a single-purpose account, though he does seem to have a propensity for commenting on political stories with strong emotions.

What I find surprising is his account's old age. Early users generally don't espouse the sorts of viewpoints he seems to espouse.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#537

Post by naveen99 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:44 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #486

aninhumer wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that by providing a fraction of the population with greater luxury than an equal allocation of resources would allow for, those people are able to achieve greater advances in technology than otherwise, which lead to better results in the long run. Or more pithily: Maybe we need gardens to cultivate civilisation. That said, I am very aware that this is probably a post-rationalisation for my tribal intuit…

This is a plausible argument, and a favored one among some neoreactionaries. But those folks point out that if we accept the "garden" premise, many folks currently in the garden (non-Asian minorities, various lower class white people) should be ejected. Do you have any argument against this? Coming up with arguments to keep out foreigners is easy. Coming up with arguments that don't also suggest kicking out blacks/hi…

Just playing devils advocate.

You can't kick people out because of existing contracts / promises based on citizenship.

Currently borders are leakier for big corporations / the rich, then they are for the individuals / poor. Corporations do have walled gardens across borders. A google employee is better off than a us citizen on average regardless of physical location in Palo Alto or Hyderabad.

If you did have open borders, you would probably end up with more privatized cities where all the land is spoken for by rich people. Eventually countries would be replaced by cities or corporations... I think we are kind of headed that way anyway in effect.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#538

Post by naveen99 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:50 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #209

sbmassey wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a given country at a given time, the set of people who are citizens of that country will have a given set of cultural norms, speak a particular language, have a particular understanding of the relation between the government and the people and the law. The immigration of enough people from outside that set will change those attributes, and therefore change how the country is run, which may be displeasing to the or…

If enough local people engage in political activism or other cultural activities, then those attributes may also change. Those changes may be displeasing to people who favor the original values. Therefore, should we also ban political activism? If not, why not? I'm assuming nothing about cultural attributes. I'm simply not understanding why the use of violence to preserve certain statistical distributions of cultural…

Local cultural movements are probably violently suppressed all the time. See activities of China, nsa, etc... In corporations, see various actions and words listed under "career limiting moves".

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#539

Post by aninhumer » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:55 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #486

aninhumer wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that by providing a fraction of the population with greater luxury than an equal allocation of resources would allow for, those people are able to achieve greater advances in technology than otherwise, which lead to better results in the long run. Or more pithily: Maybe we need gardens to cultivate civilisation. That said, I am very aware that this is probably a post-rationalisation for my tribal intuit…

This is a plausible argument, and a favored one among some neoreactionaries. But those folks point out that if we accept the "garden" premise, many folks currently in the garden (non-Asian minorities, various lower class white people) should be ejected. Do you have any argument against this? Coming up with arguments to keep out foreigners is easy. Coming up with arguments that don't also suggest kicking out blacks/hi…

I don't see how ejecting anyone follows from the premise?

The idea is just vaguely that wealth imbalances between arbitrary groups could be beneficial overall. That in itself doesn't specify anything about the size of those groups, or who should be in them.

And if we were setting out to create such arbitrary divisions, geography seems like a fairly practical way to do it. It's easy to keep people in separate areas separate, whereas segregating currently integrated races would be a significant undertaking.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#540

Post by naveen99 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:55 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23

greendesk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that basic income can only be "unconditional." If there are conditions attached to it, what might be they?

One basic-income like proposal is that it's available to those who are willing to work for others. I.e., society owes you enough income to survive, but in turn you owe society the fruits of your labor. The values of those obligations may not match up - i.e. unskilled people maybe paid $7.25/hour for labor worth only $3 - but at least it's a reciprocal situation with shared obligations. I.e., we're all in this togethe…

We are not there yet. If we had perfect law enforcement and security then maybe. There is a reason real estate in the middle of some cities is cheap (crime). Of course perfect law enforcement has its own problems (like when nazi's in power).

But yeah, I don't understand why we need protectionism on the internet.