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

Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

basicincomecanada.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 259 posts

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#41

Post by rco8786 »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

> those who are net recipients of government money, and those who are net contributors.

Isn't that already the case?

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#42

Post by 1123581321 »

duaneb wrote: post #13
IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

> Don't let basic income advocates evade the question of who pays for their utopian scheme. Have you witnessed this?

I have seen it in every discussion. Some of the forms of evasion include:

* focusing on the wealth/profit generated by a surge in entrepreneurship from the millions suddenly motivated to start successful businesses

* focusing on the unlimited wealth created by robots/asteroids/solar in space which will fund any program we wish

* focusing on how we can't afford not to try BI, i.e., the default system is a financial failure anyway so comparison is pointless

* taking the position that BI is only replacing current welfare programs (until it's pointed out that current programs would not support anyone if spread around)

Occasionally, someone will admit that they are proposing a 100% tax rate, which is about what such a system requires. Even more occasionally, it's admitted that every country must implement a 100% tax rate at once to avoid mass emigration of anyone earning more than ~$20k/year.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#43

Post by snuxoll »

psycr wrote: post #10
troncheadle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright John Gault. If we're talking nation level, your startup is not a 'tentpole.' How does your market cap compare to GE, Google, Amazon, Lockheed? Those are redwoods, and there are plenty of those. You're a maple sapling, there are plenty of those too. You're doing that thing where the middle class rebels against their own interests by positioning said interests as the interests of the working class, because they…

Opportunity is not evenly distributed, yes. But neither is skill. > Basic income doesn't come off the backs of small business, and that is a silly reason to be so afraid of it. What's the name of your business?

> Opportunity is not evenly distributed, yes. But neither is skill.

Skill can be learned with enough drive. Opportunity is required for success, there's plenty of smart, skilled people in the world who are stuck in the workforce because of lack of it.

Malcom Gladwell's book "Outliers" is a good read on the effect opportunity (or the lack thereof) has on our lives. It can come off as pretty over simplified and anecdotal so don't take my praise of the book as me touting it as something it's not, but it's worth reading (and I rarely say that of required texts from courses I've taken).

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#44

Post by heartsucker »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36
sanxiyn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this seems to say is that people shouldn't starve, but to get food people should demonstrate that they are starving. I am unsure why demonstration is essential, because either way others are still obligated to provide food so that people aren't starving.

If my brother tells me he's hungry and broke I might make him dinner and let him crash on my couch. If I just saw him spend $500 on weed I'll probably tell him he's on his own. The demonstration is essential because if we don't require it, some people will exploit our kind nature to rob us. This is already a massive problem in programs where we do require demonstrations of need. See NPR's expose on rampant disability…

But at what level do we accept there's assholes and move on and not let them ruin it for all of us?

If we have a program that helps 1 person and 1 person scams it, we might get rid of that program. What if it helps 10 for every 1 scammer? 1,000? 1,000,000? Certainly with the last we'd say it's ok.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#45

Post by clavalle »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #27

It's extremely counterproductive to, as the article puts it, "take the question of the moral quality of the poor off the table." The fact is that a large amount of poverty is directly correlated with "moral quality". Most poor people in the US (maybe Canada is different?) have low "moral quality", which I define as engaging in behaviors that are likely to keep a person poor. These behaviors include not seeking work […

So it is your sincere belief that most poor people are 'broken' in the sense that they can't even make rational decisions where 'rational' means 'likely to improve one's life'?

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#46

Post by jackcosgrove »

krupan wrote: post #37

Every time basic income comes up people seem to missunderstand the key points: 1) It's basic income, like, enough for beans and rice and a small apartment. Nobody who is willing to work at least a part time job is going to just sit back and live off of basic income alone for their whole life. 2) It's a huge reduction and simplification of government, replacing several huge bureaucratic entities with one that effectiv…

> Nobody who is willing to work at least a part time job is going to just sit back and live off of basic income alone for their whole life.

That's a glib statement that ignores the experience of welfare pre-reform, and SSDI currently. Of course some people will do just that, and the relative difficulty of earning a wage compared to the relative generosity of a basic income would determine the proportion of people who live like this.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#47

Post by epistasis »

krupan wrote: post #37

Every time basic income comes up people seem to missunderstand the key points: 1) It's basic income, like, enough for beans and rice and a small apartment. Nobody who is willing to work at least a part time job is going to just sit back and live off of basic income alone for their whole life. 2) It's a huge reduction and simplification of government, replacing several huge bureaucratic entities with one that effectiv…

I'm not sure if there's agreement on either of those points, honestly. A good number of people who talk about basic income are talking about giving less than is enough for subsistence living. And many talk about keeping additional programs in place, such as disability (somebody with special medical needs will not be able to live on the same income as somebody that can care for themselves and does not need additional medical care).

It's important to come up with concrete proposals. I don't think that there's going to be much overhead savings from your point number (2), and I'm not sure if we're ready for the tax levels that (1) would bring.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#48

Post by shams93 »

Basic income shouldn't be welfare imagine you have an ai or robot doing your job who owns the output? If only a few people benefit from this productivity the system eventually implodes. In order to keep capitalism functioning in a post human work society you need a mechanism for redistribution . Basic income shouldn't be welfare it's supposed to represent your share of the productivity of a post human economy.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#49

Post by ZeroGravitas »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

People often miss the fourth dimension when talking about welfare and social security, even though it's a fairly direct element of most of it e.g. "you pay when you're healthy, you get healthcare when you're sick", "you pay when you're young, you get money when you're old".

So there wouldn't be a bright line division, as some people would be receiving one week/month/year/decade and paying the next.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#50

Post by pmalynin »

erpellan wrote: post #22
pmalynin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there was a bit on NPR a few months ago that discussed the idea that having a fallback will make you work and try less exactly for the same reason. I think having the "cornered animal" type of drive goes a long way.

By that logic productivity in all industries could be improved by introducing flogging / periodic executions of lowest performing staff. What's more likely: someone takes a risk knowing that if they fail their kids won't be homeless, or knowing that if they fail, they will be?

You are right -- that's how we built the Pyramids and America pre civil war, and look how far that got us.

If you want interpret my response at the extremes I'm more that glad to dance.

Post reply on HN