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

Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

thesmartset.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#91

Post by hahooooo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #85
hahooooo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger I see with UBI, is (in addition to possible inflation, etc.) is that commentators on HN tend to be of higher education, curious, and simply "hackers". Most people here would love to be payed money so they could sit and program some cool OSS, start a new company or simply change the world. For them, UBI is fantastic. How many more Googles/GNUs/Apples would there be if engineers could quit existing companies…

The problem you point to is self-limiting. Regardless of the nominal level of UBI, it won't provide a satisfactory income unless a sufficient number of people remain working to provide the goods and services required to provide a satisfying style of life for the UBI-only recipients and sufficient additional value to workers for them to continue working. Prices will adjust to make this the case. As the quality of life…

In other words, the tragedy of the commons.

My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI (such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century), for every Newton or Voltaire were many more unknown nobles who spent their life grooming their mustaches.

I don't believe our society is that much better now.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#92

Post by hahooooo »

carapace wrote: post #90
hahooooo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger I see with UBI, is (in addition to possible inflation, etc.) is that commentators on HN tend to be of higher education, curious, and simply "hackers". Most people here would love to be payed money so they could sit and program some cool OSS, start a new company or simply change the world. For them, UBI is fantastic. How many more Googles/GNUs/Apples would there be if engineers could quit existing companies…

A thought experiment: Assume a near-future world where automation can provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Further assume there is a part of the population that just slacks off. Would you be in favor of some sort of punishment to make those folks conform to your standard of not wasting their lives?

My main point is that people tend to view everyone as themselves. So intellectuals tend to view everyone as intellectuals.

So we think that if only I'd have guaranteed income, I'd finally get around to fixing Firefox, or making an Open Source Google, or whatever. Therefore, it would be better for society if people would be free to leave "useless work" and innovate instead.

But once you see the "real world," you realize that it's not going to happen. Most people would just sit at home playing CS or chatting on FB.

Now once humanity is retired, and of no more use (singularity), then sure, why not. It'll be the AIs innovating everything, running everything, and no one will be doing anything useful anyways.

But until that point, I don't know if we can realistically afford three quarters of the population to just go into early retirement.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#93

Post by unabridged »

rubidium wrote: post #3

Glad to see someone acknowledging the myopic view of most intellectuals. During my time in academia (PhD), I'll admit now I had very little idea of what life was like for the majority of people. Since then I've been living among many working class and poverty-level folks. Average household income in my neighborhood is <$22K (U.S.). As a result, my thinking has changed to unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish,…

>unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish

UBI would be much better than unionizing the entire country (the IWW is the only union I know of that would accept all people regardless of skill). Everyone would be guaranteed unlimited strike pay that can sustain them. The effect on employee-employer relationships would be amazing, every degrading/dangerous job would instantly have to 2x or 3x its salary to keep workers. Every worker would be able to negotiate from a position of safety knowing they effectively have 'fuck you money'.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#94

Post by carapace »

hahooooo wrote: post #92
carapace wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thought experiment: Assume a near-future world where automation can provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Further assume there is a part of the population that just slacks off. Would you be in favor of some sort of punishment to make those folks conform to your standard of not wasting their lives?

My main point is that people tend to view everyone as themselves. So intellectuals tend to view everyone as intellectuals. So we think that if only I'd have guaranteed income, I'd finally get around to fixing Firefox, or making an Open Source Google, or whatever. Therefore, it would be better for society if people would be free to leave "useless work" and innovate instead. But once you see the "real world," you reali…

Heh, cool, I agree with you. :-)

I'm one of those who views UBI as a way of dealing with productivity explosion implied by (some models of) the singularity (as opposed to a form of welfare.) It seems a realistic option, and more desirable than e.g. slavery or genocide, once things are getting closer to the limit, eh?

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#95

Post by justinpombrio »

dragonwriter wrote: post #88
justinpombrio wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Translation: Currently, many social benefit programs give people less money the more they work. If a person is eligible for enough of these programs, they can even make less money by working than they would by not working. UBI (universal basic income) doesn't have this problem because it pays people the same amount regardless of weather they work. Thus, it is arguably more in line with "working class wants to work" t…

That's not a precisely accurate translation, as there are plenty of social benefit programs that are not means tested beyond perhaps treating some of the benefit as normal income (e.g., Social Security), and my post was not making the "most social benefit programs" claim, only comparing UBI to those programs which are means tested (and which therefore are obvious candidates to replace with a UBI, given the usual argu…

Yeah, it was bound to be inaccurate, because you clearly know more about this than I do!

It took me a few minutes (no exaggeration) to parse your post. But you made some excellent points, so I decided to simplify it for other unlettered folks like myself. (We have a hard time picking apart 70-word long sentences.) It would be even better if you could write for us directly. Even just capping your sentences at 30 words would make a big difference, I think.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#96

Post by yarrel »

hahooooo wrote: post #81
yarrel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you regard UBI as foolish given that real-world context? I'm interested as opinions for and against it do tend to be from 30,000 feet.

The danger I see with UBI, is (in addition to possible inflation, etc.) is that commentators on HN tend to be of higher education, curious, and simply "hackers". Most people here would love to be payed money so they could sit and program some cool OSS, start a new company or simply change the world. For them, UBI is fantastic. How many more Googles/GNUs/Apples would there be if engineers could quit existing companies…

Thank you, this is a great conversation.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#97

Post by [deleted] »

hahooooo wrote: post #81
yarrel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you regard UBI as foolish given that real-world context? I'm interested as opinions for and against it do tend to be from 30,000 feet.

The danger I see with UBI, is (in addition to possible inflation, etc.) is that commentators on HN tend to be of higher education, curious, and simply "hackers". Most people here would love to be payed money so they could sit and program some cool OSS, start a new company or simply change the world. For them, UBI is fantastic. How many more Googles/GNUs/Apples would there be if engineers could quit existing companies…

[deleted]

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#98

Post by dragonwriter »

hahooooo wrote: post #91
dragonwriter wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem you point to is self-limiting. Regardless of the nominal level of UBI, it won't provide a satisfactory income unless a sufficient number of people remain working to provide the goods and services required to provide a satisfying style of life for the UBI-only recipients and sufficient additional value to workers for them to continue working. Prices will adjust to make this the case. As the quality of life…

In other words, the tragedy of the commons. My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI (such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century), for every Newton or Voltaire were many more unknown nobles who spent their life grooming their mustaches. I don't believe our society is that much better now.

> In other words, the tragedy of the commons.

In a sense, but in this particularly case it operates as a negative feedback control mechanism which prevents the actual feared problem from occurring, so is hardly a "tragedy".

> My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI

There are no societies with UBI to look back on.

> such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century

A benefit restricted to a particular social class is not a UBI (or, at least, not much like what modern UBI proposals target, and not likely to serve as a guide as to what one can expect from them), nor, even ignoring that aspect, did the upper class of Europe through any of that time have anything remotely resembling a UBI, which is a flat, equal, unconditional grant to all members of a society.

Now, in much of that period, individual nobles had (either by definition or just disproportionately, depending on the particular time and place) either claims to income from substantial properties or family connections to those who did and who would support junior family members with, often quite conditional, support, but that's more the position of a wealthy capitalist or their associates in the modern era than that of a UBI beneficiary.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#99

Post by dozzie »

endzone wrote: post #35
eitland wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by education GP means higher education then I can possibly add something: IIRC there already seems to be a shortage of craftsmen (carpenters, welders, plumbers etc) and a surplus of people with various higher educations.

a shortage that's not reflected in the wages for skilled jobs (outside of powerful unions)

Quite the contrary. Welders, carpenters, or heavy equipment operators in my country enjoy a decent pay, yet there is a shortage. For some weird reasons those who studied so sought-after political studies or literature can't be bothered with a job that consists of physical work and doesn't require a degree.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#100

Post by saalweachter »

klank wrote: post #12
rubidium wrote: post #3

Glad to see someone acknowledging the myopic view of most intellectuals. During my time in academia (PhD), I'll admit now I had very little idea of what life was like for the majority of people. Since then I've been living among many working class and poverty-level folks. Average household income in my neighborhood is <$22K (U.S.). As a result, my thinking has changed to unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish,…

> ramping up education investment is pretty minimal in its returns. Creating real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best solution I'm confused about your stance on education. At first blush you seem to be diminishing it's impact while promoting it. Care to elaborate?

The risk of pushing "education" is that it's either duplicitous -- a well-rounded liberal arts education is a good thing, but doesn't guarantee the mythical "job" -- or just cost-shifting to potential workers: a lot of companies would prefer that a large number of potential workers pay for their own education as welders, machinists, and air conditioner repairmen, increasing their labor pool, driving down their own wages, and taking on the risk (of whether there is a need for their labor) themselves.

Education should be for the sake of learning; companies should be willing to train laborers, from machinists to drivers to software engineers.

Post reply on HN