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

The Future of Not Working

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 279 posts

Re: The Future of Not Working

#81

Post by jackcarter »

loteck wrote: post #73
chrispeel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doc [1] below agrees that there are about 700m in extreme poverty now, which it defines as living below $2/day. If we gave each of those people $2/day, we'd need $550billion/year. So yes, $66b seems low for the $2/day threshold. I wonder if this $66b is for those who are below $1/day. Looking at the plot in [1], we can guess that the number at $1/day is much lower; $66b would give 181 million people a dollar a da…

there are about 700m in extreme poverty now, which it defines as living below $2/day. If we gave each of those people $2/day, we'd need $550billion/year 700m × $2 = $1.4b. What am I missing?

The multiplication by 365 to get the annual number.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#82

Post by marmot777 »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #23
paulpauper wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the subtlety is 'of', not 'is', which changes the meaning. Agree it's kinda a poorly written headline

It's not just the headline. This is essentially describing charity to poor communities. That's not new. The article's connection between it and "basic income" is tenuous. To be fair, that's not the fault of the article as much as the program itself. How is charity to poor rural communities with collectivist leanings a test of the vague notion of basic income? Or what will this program tell us about basic income in th…

I may be repeating myself but I think aid programs and welfare programs usually aren't as efficient as cash transfers and usually include a means test. The vision, at least, of this program is cash and no means test.

There's the classic problem of the leaky bucket, meaning that overhead drains some resources before they reach the problem itself. Cash is about as efficient as it gets.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#83

Post by marmot777 »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #37
marmot777 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's cash on the barrelhead. Most aid of all sorts and most social safety net programs are not that straight forward. Also, universal basic income presumably won't penalize people for working or starting a business.

Also, universal basic income presumably won't penalize people for working or starting a business. There's no universal definition of basic income and it certainly won't be so straightforward once it goes through the meat-grinder of legislation. It's cash on the barrelhead to the poorest of the poor from outside organizations. That's charity.

I don't understand your point with regard to charity. What's your objection if this is charity?

I understand your concern about messy legislation but is that an argument against it? I see your point, though. I'm guessing, possibly wrong, that the people involved in this have considered or at least will consider how this will be implemented and will fund lobbying to try to get this done as cleanly as possible. I realize I'm making some assumptions here but people aren't going to invest boatloads of money in testing a concept than just let it fail during deployment.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#84

Post by marmot777 »

hackathonguy wrote: post #5

"One estimate, generated by Laurence Chandy and Brina Seidel of the Brookings Institution, recently calculated that the global poverty gap — meaning how much it would take to get everyone above the poverty line — was just $66 billion. That is roughly what Americans spend on lottery tickets every year, and it is about half of what the world spends on foreign aid." Love this.

Do you know what the number would be if you included developed countries in the calculation? Or perhaps better worded, how much would the total tab for this be per year? Of course, it's crazy to think it'll be implemented in every corner of the world but maybe this thing will work so well that the holdouts will end up doing it.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#85

Post by mirimir »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #23
paulpauper wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the subtlety is 'of', not 'is', which changes the meaning. Agree it's kinda a poorly written headline

It's not just the headline. This is essentially describing charity to poor communities. That's not new. The article's connection between it and "basic income" is tenuous. To be fair, that's not the fault of the article as much as the program itself. How is charity to poor rural communities with collectivist leanings a test of the vague notion of basic income? Or what will this program tell us about basic income in th…

No, it's not just "describing charity to poor communities". It's about efficiently jump-starting them. Sure, ~$1 per day is very little. But in Kenya, it's enough to start small businesses. And with no need assessment or repayment management, the overhead is very low. Also, I suspect that at least some successful recipients would willingly become donors, making the system somewhat self-supporting.

Average incomes in the US are much greater, for sure. But there are places in the US where average income is just as small, relative to the national average. And what will happen when trucking is fully automated? What would prevent parts of the US from becoming as impoverished as this area in Kenya?

Edit: typo

Re: The Future of Not Working

#86

Post by marmot777 »

Clubber wrote: post #71
marmot777 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea if what you say is true but let's say it is true. So the options are incomes and stability or no income and uprisings and instability. Which world would you rather live in? The uprisings don't put food on the table but are likely to have the opposite effect so I'm in favor of the income and I'm in favor of stability. I have a young son and a stable world is my dream for him, along with breathable air,…

Nobody can predict the future, I was just pontificating, BUT the US government (both parties) don't really work for the American people. I'm talking Congress and the House, the ones that have the real power. The US government was setup by elites for elites. Why do you think white, male landowners were the only ones who could vote? It's in our foundation and has only changed in brief periods. I think a living wage wil…

Why would they fight it if it was in their interest? The elites have an interest in stability. There would have to be some good marketing and some good direct sales to said elites but to me, it seems obvious that something will have to be done on this to preserve stability. Even an ice cold sociopath would want that, I would think unless these elites are a different species altogether. I doubt it.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#87

Post by temp-ora »

the title does not reflect the article and the article does not reflect the subject. like everyone else here, i did not read it because after dangling a few hard facts and conclusions in front of your face, the article goes off on tangents about the personal stories of people who are involved but not instrumental. this toxic mix of novel-style story telling and actual reporting has made these articles unreadable for me. people dont give a shit about the narrative of the stupid author or even people involved in setting up this whole thing -- people want to know how the experiment went! did it work? did the people end up being lazy and unproductive like all the ubi detractors say they will? but no, i cannot know these things without fishing through pages of garbage. and when i know someone else has already done it here in the comments to reap the karma, why on earth would i even click the link?

Re: The Future of Not Working

#88

Post by marmot777 »

paulpauper wrote: post #15
Clubber wrote: post #6

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage. This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings.…

Marx predicted that...hundred forty years ago. Hasn't happened. History suggests revolts occur when basic needs are unmet, usually after a nation falls into debt and ruin as a consequence of war

If you're saying there haven't been revolts and chaos then I refer you to a citation called the 20th century. Do you want to go another round of that craziness but very likely worse?

Re: The Future of Not Working

#89

Post by marmot777 »

woodandsteel wrote: post #51
Clubber wrote: post #6

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage. This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings.…

>The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. No, that is not true. Human beings are complicated, and different people do things for different reasons. There are lots of rich people like Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates who spend the first part of their lives doing everything they can to get rich, and the second part giving it away for the benefit of mankind.

Exactly. I remember when Bill Gates was the king of the villains now he's a saint. I have whiplash.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#90

Post by marmot777 »

ouid wrote: post #16
Clubber wrote: post #6

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage. This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings.…

the problem with this scenario is that it does not correctly evaluate the dynamic nature of "wealth". Money has exactly one use, and that's the fact that you can give it to people in exchange for things. The value of money itself falls in proportion to its concentration.

I think you're saying that money does not ipsofacto have value, it's valuable because we agree to that value and can exchange it for items with real value? Sure, so this program won't protect anyone from a famine but are shortages usually the issue?
Post reply on HN