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

101–110 of 279 posts

Re: The Future of Not Working

#101

Post by marmot777 »

reddytowns wrote: post #55
marmot777 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty cynical attitude. It's obvious the intent of this is to test a program that has the potential to keep people from drowning. I doubt you're now gasping for air as you sink below the waves.

That's the exact opposite of a cynical attitude. It's the attitude I hope all the participants will have. If everyone receiving BI are not trying to make something better out of their lives, then UBI is no better at helping the poor then any other charity -- the old give a man a fish thing. No US citizen in California really has to worry about starving to death. They do have to worry about losing their benefits, and…

So no basic income just let them steal everything they need? If you're suggesting that everyone can just get a job, the idea is that we are moving toward a time when there simply won't be enough jobs to go around. By the time this program is ready for prime time if it is ever is, that gap between available work and people might be well underway. This in addition to how many people are ready for retirement? There are a lot of trends coming together that could generate the perfect storm that drops us into to utter dystopian chaos.

I've probably spent way too much time on this thread today but this is the most hopeful thing I've seen a while. The news every day is relentlessly negative sometimes horrific.

I don't think this idea would turn that neighborhood you lived in into a utopia, either.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#102

Post by uiri »

tedmiston wrote: post #65
spyckie2 wrote: post #8

The article's title is misleading - it is not about not working, it's about giving money directly to poor villages for 12 years to provide what is similar to basic income but meeting fundamentally different needs in a very different part of the world. That said, I think it is a fascinating anthropological read. We often do not realize how many layers of wealth we had to stand on to possess our current wealth.

What's most fascinating to me is the dollar amount: $22/month ==> $264/year. It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. You don't have to be rich to cover one (or more) people's basic living expenses at this rate. Edit: Here's the link to donate: https://www.givedirectly.org/give-…

It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year.

That is, at least partially, because it can't cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. According to the World Bank, the global poverty line was US$1.90/day in 2015, after adjusting for purchasing power.[0] This amounts to $694/year or roughly $57/month. Of course, while it is possible that, after adjusting for purchasing power, those 2280 shillings amount to $60 or more of purchasing power.

I think most Western grocery bills amount to more than $60/person/month; never mind shelter and clothing. And yet, for all of our society's wealth, I wouldn't be surprised if the average Kenyan had a greater net worth than the average American. Without much wealth to speak of, access to debt is likely to be greatly limited.

[0] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...

Re: The Future of Not Working

#103

Post by morgante »

Clubber wrote: post #70
morgante wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Huh? In your worldview is charity just not a thing?

Not when it comes to payroll, it isn't. You think companies are gonna start cutting payroll checks for charity's sake? They ship jobs overseas to get cheaper workers and skirt environmental protections, what do you think they are going to do when they don't need 90% of them?

You started by talking about "wealthy people" and then switched to talking about companies and payroll. This is a motte and bailey argument: your reply is perfectly reasonable, while your original statement was definitely not.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#104

Post by tedmiston »

uiri wrote: post #102
tedmiston wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's most fascinating to me is the dollar amount: $22/month ==> $264/year. It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. You don't have to be rich to cover one (or more) people's basic living expenses at this rate. Edit: Here's the link to donate: https://www.givedirectly.org/give-…

It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. That is, at least partially, because it can't cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. According to the World Bank, the global poverty line was US$1.90/day in 2015, after adjusting for purchasing power.[0] This amounts to $694/year or roughly $57/month. Of course, while it is possible that, a…

Are you suggesting that the article is mistaken for calling this amount a basic income?

> The nonprofit is in the process of registering roughly 40 more villages with a total of 6,000 adult residents, giving those people a guaranteed, 12-year-long, poverty-ending income. An additional 80 villages, with 11,500 residents all together, will receive a two-year basic income. With this initiative, GiveDirectly — with an office in New York and funded in no small part by Silicon Valley — is starting the world’s first true test of a universal basic income.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#105

Post by StavrosK »

gwern wrote: post #72
tedmiston wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's most fascinating to me is the dollar amount: $22/month ==> $264/year. It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. You don't have to be rich to cover one (or more) people's basic living expenses at this rate. Edit: Here's the link to donate: https://www.givedirectly.org/give-…

> I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. There is? You give money to GiveDirectly. They even take Bitcoin (I've done it).

Jeez, when did Bitcoin fees go to $0.3? Wow.

I've donated, thank you! Seems like a great charity.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#106

Post by uiri »

tedmiston wrote: post #104
uiri wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. That is, at least partially, because it can't cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. According to the World Bank, the global poverty line was US$1.90/day in 2015, after adjusting for purchasing power.[0] This amounts to $694/year or roughly $57/month. Of course, while it is possible that, a…

Are you suggesting that the article is mistaken for calling this amount a basic income? > The nonprofit is in the process of registering roughly 40 more villages with a total of 6,000 adult residents, giving those people a guaranteed, 12-year-long, poverty-ending income. An additional 80 villages, with 11,500 residents all together, will receive a two-year basic income. With this initiative, GiveDirectly — with an of…

Yes. The region of Kenya described in the article is the Western part of the country near Lake Victoria. The national average monthly consumption per person in Kenya is 9,237 shillings.[0] 42% of the population of Kenya lives below the poverty line.[1] It is not a stretch to say that the poverty line in Kenya is going to be at least 6000 shillings a month, most likely closer to 7-8000 shillings per month. The 2280 shillings per month is great but it isn't a life-changing amount for a region where average monthly consumption is in the 6-8k shillings a month range. [0] It will most likely bring the poorest in this region up to the median level of wealth enjoyed by their neighbours.

[0] http://www.nation.co.ke/newsplex/counties-purchasing-power/2...

[1] https://www.unicef.org/kenya/overview_4616.html

Re: The Future of Not Working

#107

Post by Shivetya »

marmot777 wrote: post #39
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.

That puts the problem in perspective. This is a solvable problem. I'm a fan of solvable problems and people who solve them.

It is solvable in simplistic terms. It is not solvable by throwing money at it. It just an dumb attempt to guilt people and further this constant bemoaning there are some super rich people in our world.

Most people are poor because of their government. Either through corruption, lack of property rights, or wars both internal and external. We cannot fix poverty in this world until people are guaranteed freedom and safety of person and their property.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#109

Post by NumberCruncher »

marmot777 wrote: post #94
NumberCruncher wrote: post #52

The African people would me much better off if we would stop selling them weapons and would pay a fair price for their work and natural resources. But hey, that wouldn't be a great PR action making headlines!

Acting as you suggest and programs like this aren't mutually exclusive propositions. I doubt that the people backing this program are the same people selling arms to Africa. So nobody should do anything unless they can also solve all problems? I actually upvoted your comment because I agree that those things should stop but I don't have the slightest bit of power to stop it and those who are conducting these sort of…

My problem is that programs like this does not change anything except making us first world citizens feeling comfortable about not having the power to stop exploitation of a whole continent. It is like a drug for the society making us feel good when we should feel bad and ashamed.

And calling it "basic income" is just propaganda.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#110

Post by Eridrus »

einars wrote: post #7
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.

I also liked this: A vast majority of aid — 94 percent — is noncash. Donor resistance is one reason for this; it is not easy to persuade American oligarchs, British inheritors and Japanese industrialists to fork over their money to the extremely poor to use as they see fit. “There’s the usual worries about welfare dependency, the whole ‘Give a man a fish’ thing,” said Amanda Glassman, a public health and development…

I'm not against cash transfers, but I feel like they can't solve everything, having a bit more money won't necessarily cause hospitals or schools to appear, so I think that some non-cash support will continue to be necessary to provide expertise that they couldn't obtain on the free market.
Post reply on HN