Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 2:45 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #216

kamaal wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>socialist economy collapsing simply due to mass underemployment The problem here is not underemployment. Underemployment is a situation where people want to work, but don't have jobs. The situation I mentioned systematically disincentivizes working making it very easy to get by life without work. The net situation is people feel they are entitled to free stuff without doing any work for it. And its always somebody…

Today we have automation on a scale never before experienced. Ultimately we will need approximately 0% of our population to work. This is not a problem; its actually the goal. We are not there yet, but a BI is a step.

Nonsense. Automation was the same 12 months, and largely the same 10 years ago.

0% working for some definitions of work. People want to be and do all sorts of things and will continue to, automation should help us live more comfortably and more gently on the earth, not make us redundant.

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

#232

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 2:54 AM UTC

chongli wrote: post #79

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. This is only one way to split the pie. Another way to look at it is the division between people who earn their lot in life by working and people who collect economic rents from the commons. It seems only fair to me that those who collect rents should contribute more. This is the principle underlying the concept of the social dividen…

The factory owner already us a net contributor to the taxation that paid for that infrastructure and those services.

His or her issue isn't with taxation specifically, his or problem is with more taxation in general.

My issues with Basic Income are similar to those raised by PJ O'Rourke about government in general. Government is incompetent, and BI is a recipe for handing even more power to politicians. I'm not convinced that is a good idea.

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

#233

Post by jimmyk » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 2:54 AM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #228

jimmyk wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe there are scarce resources? Or do you not believe money is used to direct how those scarce resources are used?

Considering the amount we waste is enough to feed the rest of the planet, no we don't really have scarce resources and resources are becoming less and less scarce every year.

I'm talking about economic scarcity. In economics, scarcity does not mean you don't have enough of something to fulfill some particular purpose. It means you have to make trade-offs. If I spend my day chopping wood, I can't spend my day cutting grass. Our time is fundamentally scarce. If I use a gallon of gas to drive to the store, I can't use that gallon of gas to light a huge fire. If we're using farmland and labor and capital resources to grow marijuana, we're not using that farmland and that labor and those capital resources to create other goods and services for people to consume. Does that make sense?

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

#234

Post by DougWebb » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 3:56 AM UTC

gwright wrote: post #229

tw04 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact there's a section of the population who believes that poor people won't turn to crime before starving to death simply amazes me. You actually have 4 options: do nothing and then put people in jail. Which will cost you WAYYYYYY more per person, per year, than just giving them money directly to "freeload". Do nothing and wait for the mass revolt when half the population is starving to death when you've got som…

I'm a bit dismayed at the lack of imagination in this thread. How about designing public policy that provide incentives to work rather than incentives not to work? (earned income tax credits) How about decreasing the cost of labor in order to increase employment while simultaneously providing programs that assist during periods of unemployment? (e.g., make it easier to hire and to fire and switch jobs while providing…

How does an incentive to work accomplish anything if the only jobs that are available (if any for a given person's skillset) are ones that pay far too little to live on. ("decreasing the cost of labor" == "reduce or eliminate the minimum wage")

Most poor people work very hard to earn enough to survive; much harder per $ earned than most people on this website. They don't need an incentive to work, they need jobs that pay better for each hour they work.

Raising the minimum wage won't accomplish that by itself, because most companies would reduce the number of positions to keep their costs stable. We could raise the minimum wage and then provide tax credits to businesses to offset the additional labor cost, but that'd wind up complex to administer and there would probably be loopholes that allow companies to take tax credits and keep the cash to themselves instead of paying them through to employees. With Basic Income, we effectively raise the minimum wage by direct payments to the employee; their income per hour worked goes up. This is much simpler to administer: everyone gets the same amount, and it counts as taxable income.

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

#235

Post by someguydave » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 3:56 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #67

sanxiyn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can some people exploit basic income system to "rob us"? Maybe they can fabricate people which don't actually exist? (Or more realistically, delay reporting death to collect basic income of dead people.) These are concerns, but hopefully modern government can deal with fake identities. These still seem a lot better than current welfare system. If you consider giving basic income to people who spend $500 on weed "…

People exploit basic income to rob us when they consume it without needing it. Why do you think having zero oversight and giving benefits to everyone, including those who don't need it, is somehow better than the current system? If you consider giving basic income to people who spend $500 on weed "robbing", well you are entitled to your opinion, but that's not exploit of system, because system is working as intended.…

>Yes, it's pretty clear that the goal is to create a vote bank of government dependents who exploit the rest of us.

There's a simple solution that all BI advocates should embrace: you take BI money and you give up your vote, because it is a conflict of interest.

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

#236

Post by someguydave » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 3:59 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #133

bvinc wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a super simplistic view. You're basically saying: Bad decisions leads to being poor. Not a single person is under the impression that all poor people made good decisions. Of course there is a causal relationship! But it's much more complicated than that. Some people are poor because they were born physically disabled, or mentally disabled. Some people got sick and lost their job and savings. Some peop…

Does a poor man on the street, with no shower, no transportation, no cell phone, and barely enough money in his pocket to eat, really have the ability to seek work? Yes. Hundreds of thousands of people manage to do this even with the additional hindrances of no tengo permiso de trabajo and no hablo Ingles . But I'm sure that those illegal Mexicans are suffering from privilege, unlike the white man born into a country…

I appreciate you taking BI supporters who are unable to rationally justify their positions to task.

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

#237

Post by douche » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 4:08 AM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #235

yummyfajitas wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People exploit basic income to rob us when they consume it without needing it. Why do you think having zero oversight and giving benefits to everyone, including those who don't need it, is somehow better than the current system? If you consider giving basic income to people who spend $500 on weed "robbing", well you are entitled to your opinion, but that's not exploit of system, because system is working as intended.…

>Yes, it's pretty clear that the goal is to create a vote bank of government dependents who exploit the rest of us. There's a simple solution that all BI advocates should embrace: you take BI money and you give up your vote, because it is a conflict of interest.

It'll be a cold day in hell before that idea flies. But how do you balance the mob voting themselves bread and circuses, against the wealthy voting to let the mob starve?

I think I still like the Starship Troopers, "Service guarantees Citizenship" model better.

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

#238

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 4:09 AM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #235

yummyfajitas wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People exploit basic income to rob us when they consume it without needing it. Why do you think having zero oversight and giving benefits to everyone, including those who don't need it, is somehow better than the current system? If you consider giving basic income to people who spend $500 on weed "robbing", well you are entitled to your opinion, but that's not exploit of system, because system is working as intended.…

>Yes, it's pretty clear that the goal is to create a vote bank of government dependents who exploit the rest of us. There's a simple solution that all BI advocates should embrace: you take BI money and you give up your vote, because it is a conflict of interest.

It's not a conflict of interest any more than accepting any other public service, like fire protection, is.

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

#239

Post by someguydave » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 4:10 AM UTC

douche wrote: post #237

someguydave wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, it's pretty clear that the goal is to create a vote bank of government dependents who exploit the rest of us. There's a simple solution that all BI advocates should embrace: you take BI money and you give up your vote, because it is a conflict of interest.

It'll be a cold day in hell before that idea flies. But how do you balance the mob voting themselves bread and circuses, against the wealthy voting to let the mob starve? I think I still like the Starship Troopers, "Service guarantees Citizenship" model better.

>I think I still like the Starship Troopers, "Service guarantees Citizenship" model better.

Agreed, sign me up. Power should always be balanced with direct responsibility. If you want to vote for the government to do something, you better be able to pay in blood or treasure to see it done.

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

#240

Post by someguydave » Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 4:11 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #238

someguydave wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, it's pretty clear that the goal is to create a vote bank of government dependents who exploit the rest of us. There's a simple solution that all BI advocates should embrace: you take BI money and you give up your vote, because it is a conflict of interest.

It's not a conflict of interest any more than accepting any other public service, like fire protection, is.

>It's not a conflict of interest any more than accepting any other public service, like fire protection, is.

You are correct, voting for a public service while being unwilling or unable to pay for the service is a fundamental conflict of interest. You ought not be able to vote if you aren't able to pay for the policy.