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

Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

newamerica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#31

Post by evanpw »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #28
Bartweiss wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad. The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.

> It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference. Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.

It seems to be mostly back to normal: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#32

Post by jbooth »

nickff wrote: post #29
jbooth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. Ok, so you're just declaring yourself king of the US? You're allowed to travel wherever you want without playing by any of the rules the rest of us have agreed to? There are plenty of places in the world with no or non-functioning government, mostly Antarctica and subs…

I have not declared myself king, and I don't have any more authority to tell you how to live than you (or the state) have over me. Did you agree to the rules? I didn't agree to any, and I don't know anyone who did; most people just follow them. There are some interesting theories on political authority derived from democracy, but all that I've seen are fatally flawed. Antarctica has many (overlapping) claims by non-A…

And you haven't explained why I don't have a pony.

You don't get a patch of sovereign land as a birthright. That's never how it worked, anytime in history. You can play by the rules here, you can go someplace with different rules, or you can go someplace with no rules. Plenty of rural areas in the 3rd world with no effective government presence.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#33

Post by TeMPOraL »

nickff wrote: post #29
jbooth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. Ok, so you're just declaring yourself king of the US? You're allowed to travel wherever you want without playing by any of the rules the rest of us have agreed to? There are plenty of places in the world with no or non-functioning government, mostly Antarctica and subs…

I have not declared myself king, and I don't have any more authority to tell you how to live than you (or the state) have over me. Did you agree to the rules? I didn't agree to any, and I don't know anyone who did; most people just follow them. There are some interesting theories on political authority derived from democracy, but all that I've seen are fatally flawed. Antarctica has many (overlapping) claims by non-A…

I think this is a wrong point of view for the entire issue. After all, one of the primary reasons people form societies - and societies as they grow form governments - is to prevent the oppressor scenario you describe. You can say that maybe every generation of adults should decide again if they like this idea, but that seems a bit inefficient.

Consider instead a different question - what authority your parents have over you when you're a child? After all, you haven't agreed on anything. Aren't they an oppressor, that often forces you to do things (like eating broccoli) against your will?

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#34

Post by Bartweiss »

> An odd coalition of conservative, libertarian, and liberal intellectuals has advocated for Basic Income over the past 60 years.

This, of course, is the (political) downfall of UBI. That coalition will stand together right up until someone has to draft an actual Senate bill implementing the thing.

Then, the liberals want to phase out existing social programs gradually, or implement it as a more-palatable negative income tax. The conservatives want to drug test applicants, and add a "family bonus" to promote two-parent homes. The libertarians want to set a low price-point to encourage work, and tie it to ending student loan programs. And so on.

Basically, UBI has real value, but the current popularity is gained from being all things to all people. WIC and SNAP are concrete enough to hate, but UBI is still so ill-defined that people can 'agree' without having any overlap on what laws they would actually support.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#35

Post by TeMPOraL »

jbooth wrote: post #32
nickff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not declared myself king, and I don't have any more authority to tell you how to live than you (or the state) have over me. Did you agree to the rules? I didn't agree to any, and I don't know anyone who did; most people just follow them. There are some interesting theories on political authority derived from democracy, but all that I've seen are fatally flawed. Antarctica has many (overlapping) claims by non-A…

And you haven't explained why I don't have a pony. You don't get a patch of sovereign land as a birthright. That's never how it worked, anytime in history. You can play by the rules here, you can go someplace with different rules, or you can go someplace with no rules. Plenty of rural areas in the 3rd world with no effective government presence.

I'd also consider the whole dynamics over the course of history. Many times people wandered into uninhabited lands. They always eventually ended up forming societies and governments to regulate the commons and avoid infighting. This seems like a feature of human nature.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#36

Post by jbooth »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #35
jbooth wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you haven't explained why I don't have a pony. You don't get a patch of sovereign land as a birthright. That's never how it worked, anytime in history. You can play by the rules here, you can go someplace with different rules, or you can go someplace with no rules. Plenty of rural areas in the 3rd world with no effective government presence.

I'd also consider the whole dynamics over the course of history. Many times people wandered into uninhabited lands. They always eventually ended up forming societies and governments to regulate the commons and avoid infighting. This seems like a feature of human nature.

Hey, it's not like they got those "uninhabited" lands for free, unless we're talking about the first migrations out of Africa. They had to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and genocide their neighbors before they got any uninhabited lands. Now these anarcho-libertarian kids want to just get lands without any of that hard work butchering people. Sigh.. kids these days. No work ethic or respect for history.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#37

Post by lastyearman »

Kpourdeilami wrote: post #21
lastyearman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why we have super majority and other means to combat tyranny by majority. So how does one define the point at which taxation becomes immoral?

I'm no expert. However, I think taxation becomes immoral when the amount you pay in taxes, is more than the amount that you keep... so anything above 50%?

Have you ever done the math of much taxes you actually pay (hint: products you buy include a ton of taxes)?

Anyway, taxes don't matter. All taxes return to circulation (unless government is radically changing economic policy). What people are really saying is that they want to be better off than some other group of people.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#38

Post by BigDaddyD »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #9
BigDaddyD wrote: post #4

The UBI and this article are terrible. First of all, it's expensive. Guaranteeing every American a certain sum of money will cost a ridiculous amount. Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money. Third, it's funny that he points to Social Security when it is approaching disaster. http://www…

Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN. > Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money. Also known as taxation, or living in a society. If you don't like money being taken from you by force then fine, just please opt out of all the services and benefits the societ…

> Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN.

I'm new here! Don't kill me!

> Also known as taxation,

I wrote a lengthy reply to this argument below.

Automation:

There are still tons of physical jobs. The point is that even when automation "almost completely eliminated" the first type, unemployment did not skyrocket. I'd rather base my policy prescriptions on history and well documented economic factors than wild speculation about the effects future automation will have.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#39

Post by Apocryphon »

Kpourdeilami wrote: post #21
lastyearman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why we have super majority and other means to combat tyranny by majority. So how does one define the point at which taxation becomes immoral?

I'm no expert. However, I think taxation becomes immoral when the amount you pay in taxes, is more than the amount that you keep... so anything above 50%?

The wealthy in the U.S. are nowhere paying that high. I don't think the upper class in Europe even has to suffer that.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#40

Post by BigDaddyD »

samlevine wrote: post #24
BigDaddyD wrote: post #4

The UBI and this article are terrible. First of all, it's expensive. Guaranteeing every American a certain sum of money will cost a ridiculous amount. Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money. Third, it's funny that he points to Social Security when it is approaching disaster. http://www…

> Automation will not put everyone out of work and it will not spell the end of capitalism. The problem isn't going to be putting everyone out of work, it's going to be putting a quarter of the country out of work or loosely attached to the labor market. The social costs for this are going to be absolute huge. Our norms are not ready for that many people to not work, and you only need a handful of people with little…

Let me rephrase that...

Automation WILL put people out of work. Just looking at my agricultural example that is true. My point is that those people found other jobs in other industries which is why the unemployment rate isn't currently 52%. There is a reason why economists use the term "technological unemployment."

Post reply on HN