Why we should all have a basic income • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#181

Post by imgabe » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:39 PM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #168

Who is "we"? Who is "all"? Does this include migrants and undocumented aliens who do the dangerous jobs for low pay with no labor protections or civil rights? Or would they be excluded from the basic income? If they are excluded, and have no rights, but continue to perform the dirty jobs while the rest of "us" relax and benefit from their labor, how is that different from the system of chattel plantation slavery?

Slavery involves no pay and being unable to leave under threat of violence. Undocumented workers are paid and are free to leave. Indeed, many people are actively asking them to leave.

I take your point, but it's not slavery. A basic income isn't meant to preclude anyone from working. If it existed and undocumented workers were removed, those jobs would have to pay a wage sufficient to entice someone who doesn't need them for survival, or we'd have to go without those services.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#182

Post by EliRivers » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

raintrees wrote: post #169

jakeogh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. Personal taxes (taking things via threat of force) are theft. It does not matter who is doing the taking.

Thank you. If my seizing my neighbor's extra car because I do not have one is theft, it is still theft if I convince a majority to pass a law take it for me. And it is enforced with the threat of (or actual) violence against my neighbor, if my neighbor refuses.

Negative. Theft is a crime. Crime is defined by the criminal law. If you choose to have your own personal criminal law, so that you can call whatever you like theft, that's up to you, but if you're going to do that with language, you can claim anything is anything.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#183

Post by briantakita » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

> The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#184

Post by hncommenter_ » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #168

Who is "we"? Who is "all"? Does this include migrants and undocumented aliens who do the dangerous jobs for low pay with no labor protections or civil rights? Or would they be excluded from the basic income? If they are excluded, and have no rights, but continue to perform the dirty jobs while the rest of "us" relax and benefit from their labor, how is that different from the system of chattel plantation slavery?

and what about all the better jobs that will get freed?

And, anyway, would the situation be any different for them, than it is now, in case they'll keep doing the low wage jobs?

Why don't you switch your job with one of them? Aren't you taking advantage of their low wage labor right now?

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#185

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#186

Post by thephyber » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:47 PM UTC

omilu wrote: post #6

Tepix wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about machines doing most of the jobs so there are only a few jobs left? The value the machines generate would be enough to generate the basic income. Why is it impossible?

If machines could be doing most of the jobs, they would be doing them regardless of basic income.

Machines cost money to develop and buy. They will only replace a class of worker/task once the value exists.

It's very expensive to develop a machine that can replace sewing workers (DARPA is working on one because the US military has a need for it). It hasn't yet created any value because fabric is ridiculously complicated for robots but comparatively very easy for humans to manipulate). So far, the sewing robot is neither very useful nor very valuable (since it is still orders of magnitudes more expensive than fabric workers).

If low-paying work is less desirable than it is now, companies will have to deal with the game theory reactions of how consumers react to there being a shortage of fast food workers, bus boys, valets, etc. There is a certain amount of slack that consumers will absorb, either in resources (time, money, effort) expended. IKEA makes you bus your own tables like a cafeteria. I imagine if bus boys and fast food workers suddenly became more rare / expensive, companies would ask their customers to inconvenience themselves to maintain their profit margins / economic viability.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#187

Post by briantakita » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

kwhitefoot wrote: post #180

jjawssd wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans do not trust that the government has their best interests in mind, ergo Americans do not want to have their money taken away from them to pay for government programs.

Like roads, air traffic control, sewers, clean water, etc., etc.?

Yes, these systems that are mismanaged by bureaucrats & politics. It's not like our water is safe & people who wish to manage water on their own property are prosecuted by the state.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#188

Post by chongli » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

holograham wrote: post #136

yagga wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wise words. We do need a better way to measure value people create. For example, many geniuses (inventors, thinkers, etc) who do not have business skills live poor while creating more value than many CEOs that can manage, negotiate, raise funds, have connections, etc. Business people do create value too by connecting people, making things happen, etc., but often their value output is overrated. Many actors and musici…

You are conflating fairness vs. justice. The world is far from fair -- genetics, place of birth, medical conditions, accidents, etc will always exist like you mention. The moral/civil question is what is the role of government in an unfair world? Most governments opt to head down the justice route predominately (e.g. the US's Justice System holding 1/3 of our government powers) while creating a myriad of "fairness" r…

You are conflating fairness vs. justice.

There's an entire philosophy based on the work of John Rawls [0] that codifies the conflation of these ideas [1]. It's not at all a simple matter to strive for justice in an unfair world. Some libertarian folks elsewhere in this discussion have brought up the idea that taxes are theft. On the opposite end of that spectrum, I've heard it argued that property rights are a form of violence. What does it mean for the rights of an individual if, in a hypothetical future, all arable land is owned, fenced off, tended by drones, and guarded with extreme prejudice? A Mad Max-style dystopia sprinkled with little walled gardens.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#189

Post by skybrian » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #56

bryanlarsen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Americans currently consume (not necessarily eat) 3800 kcals/day of food without basic income. Are you saying that basic income will make that number go up? 2) The American housing market is very messed up and far from a free market, so any prediction up or down is very difficult. I predict that Basic Income will cause a bunch of people to move from high cost cities like NYC & SF into low cost areas so that they c…

> inflation is always a monetary phenomenon I don't understand this reasoning. Look, only one of the following can be true: (1) everyone can buy basic necessities of life, in which case nobody is poor and we don't need UBI, or (2) not everyone can buy the basic necessities of life. If (2) is true and we introduce UBI, then there will be more demand for the basic necessities of life (coming from all the people who wer…

Except when they're caught short during a natural disaster, Walmart is not supply-constrained. If they sell more they'll order more and factories will make more. The problem is (3) people don't always have the money to buy, which limits the size of that market.

Inflation happens when the market can't adjust fast enough or they hit real supply constraints (such as real estate in big cities).

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#190

Post by briantakita » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:50 PM UTC

raintrees wrote: post #169

jakeogh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. Personal taxes (taking things via threat of force) are theft. It does not matter who is doing the taking.

Thank you. If my seizing my neighbor's extra car because I do not have one is theft, it is still theft if I convince a majority to pass a law take it for me. And it is enforced with the threat of (or actual) violence against my neighbor, if my neighbor refuses.

Theft is a crime committed by another citizen. Redistribution of wealth is a "social program" committed by the State. See, with language, you can justify anything. One can make anything legal or illegal. It all depends on which Entity is saying those words. That's the nature of political power...

"A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me." ---George III of the United Kingdom