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

Guaranteed Minimum What?

granolashotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 446 posts

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#291

Post by lovich »

sokoloff wrote: post #155
lovich wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the benefit of UBI is removing a large amount of overhead that comes with current welfare systems. This is done by writing a check to every citizen in the system with overhead only to confirm that one citizen gets one check. When you add in other checks you increase how much money needs to be spent on just running the system

If I literally see a dime from the UBI check and pay $2 in taxes to support the UBI program for every dime in UBI I receive, it's reasonable to say that I'm not really receiving UBI on a net basis. (I still support it, and your arguments for why it must be universal are congruent with my own thinking.)

That's completely true, it's just cheaper to send the same check out to everyone than pay for the administrative costs to figure out who gets the check that week.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#292

Post by nv-vn »

justinator wrote: post #185
cbanek wrote: post #4

> Humans are agressively being eliminated from as many business models as possible. Well that's true, where they don't add value. What's the difference between the case of getting movie tickets and your waiter at a fancy restaurant? One of them is practically a useless annoyance, and the other one is part of the experience. Someone in a movie box isn't going to tell you about the movie, or have a conversation about i…

You write as though you've never held a minimum wage job. Have some compassion for those people who are working hard for almost nothing. Sometimes, it isn't their first choice, or it's their only choice. I would suggest a better experience is had when you give respect to the (say) service industry worker you engage in a transaction with.

I disagree. It's not that the GP isn't being compassionate or understanding their perspective. They're describing why automation is more appealing to a large company and why this change is taking place. That said, the change will likely be met with the same response that similar changes have come with: people won't be out of jobs, the job market will change. Programming jobs will become more common, for example. Minimum wage jobs will turn into more conventional jobs/push more people into the software industry. It's sad that they're losing their jobs now, but the hope is that this will elevate them in society and give them new opportunities (which in the past has proven to be the case, luckily).

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#293

Post by hinkley »

mamon wrote: post #94
bryanlarsen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you expect inflation? All sane UBI proposals don't create money, they just move money from rich people to poor people. If you're a Friedman disciple, then "inflation is a monetary phenomenon" and we can stop there. If we're moving money from rich people to poor people, perhaps we'll see the prices of stuff rich people buy go down and the prices of stuff poor people buy go up. The vast majority of stuff poor…

The problem with taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is that you undermine riches' motivation. If you limit the prize, then you also limit amount of effort that one is willing to make to get it. Therefore, after UBI is introduced on mass scale we might see a slow but steady decline in economic activity: fewer new companies started, fewer investments made, riches focusing on tax evasion and moving the…

The rich don't broker in dollars, they broker in power. Our current president filed for [corporate] bankruptcy ~~something like five~~ four times? He wasn't worried. He knew he'd be back on top again. All his relationships and social capital would be intact, except maybe with the people he owed money to.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#294

Post by kilroy123 »

drxzcl wrote: post #60
chris_va wrote: post #33

I realize that UBI is a very popular position on HN, so I am hoping someone here has given this more thought and can comment. My problem with UBI is that all tests to date look great, but have only been done on a micro level. The fundamental issue I would like addressed is the macro scale inflation you would expect when redistributing trillions of dollars without commensurate economic value being created directly. Mo…

Most western social democracies already have an overlapping network of benefit systems that are essentially a patchwork UBI in disguise. The system is designed not to go without food and shelter, but the exact mechanism varies depending on what population group you belong to. There's assistance for the temporary unemployed, for students, for people with disabilities, people with long-term illnesses, etc. There's pens…

I completely agree. I think moving to a single-payer health care system would also be required.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#295

Post by jfoutz »

brownbat wrote: post #289
jfoutz wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pick for year is 1878. I'd love to see your examples. But really, how do you quantify good? Taste is subjective. The original Transformers move is a great example. I didn't like it. but i believe 14 year old me would have absolutely loved it. It's similar to the statistics about Word users only use 5% of the functionality of Word. But everybody uses a different 5%. I guess if you want to go by money, i'm going to…

> My pick for year is 1878. Very funny. > I guess if you want to go by money, i'm going to pick 1939. You listed several great films, but I'm not disputing there were years with several great films, that's a completely separate point. > But really, how do you quantify good? Taste is subjective. I will concede that if we adopt a radical skepticism towards all aesthetic values then the claim "every year has bad films"…

Oh, for sure. We agree "Everything I the theater is terrible" is false.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#296

Post by jawns »

antisthenes wrote: post #203
jawns wrote: post #75

One thing that might cushion the displacement of workers by automation is if the workers themselves had an ownership interest in the automation technology. Yes, they would lose their jobs, but having an ownership interest would allow them to generate income. Maybe instead of UBI, we should consider a scheme where we grant an ownership interest in productive property. One naive way to implement that is to just grant s…

Yes, communism would cushion the displacement of workers. But that's not viable politically in many western countries.

What I'm proposing is not communism, where ownership is held by the state. In fact, what I'm proposing is starkly different.

I'm proposing the direct ownership of automation technology/companies by the workers themselves, not by their government.

This is in keeping with a political philosophy called distributism, which advocates for the widest possible (private) ownership of productive property. Proponents of distributism typically view both capitalism and socialism as systems that tend toward a small number of people holding power over a large amount of capital. (In the case of capitalism, super wealthy investors, and in the case of socialism, government officials.) They see widespread private ownership of productive property as a way of neutralizing the dangers of both Big Business and Big Government.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#297

Post by Turing_Machine »

cbanek wrote: post #4

> Humans are agressively being eliminated from as many business models as possible. Well that's true, where they don't add value. What's the difference between the case of getting movie tickets and your waiter at a fancy restaurant? One of them is practically a useless annoyance, and the other one is part of the experience. Someone in a movie box isn't going to tell you about the movie, or have a conversation about i…

"On the other hand, the fancy waiter will make recommendations. "

The fancy waiter will recommend whatever the owner of the restaurant wants him to recommend, because that is his actual job. He is employed to maximize the dollar value of food and liquor sold.

Now, there are limits to this. A good restauranteur isn't going to sell you inedible crap, and a good waiter isn't going to recommend it, because that will hurt the restaurant's long-term profitability (and in the short term, probably result in a bad tip for the waiter).

Nonetheless, it's wise to keep in mind that the waiter is working for the restaurant, not you.

If you have any friends who've worked in fancy restaurants, ask them about some of the strategies waiters use to encourage a large bill (and thus, a large tip).

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#298

Post by grblovrflowerrr »

In the barista example, the robot clearly will be able to make a more consistent cup. Maybe the solution then is to make the barista experience more elaborate and enjoyable, sort of like performance art? Flair bartending is a good example of that, aesthetic differences aside. Humans, when properly trained in the creative arts, are still the best entertainers of other humans.

I wonder how this will impact the world of fine dining and establishments that have a great reputation with their community. Just yesterday I was watching a Japanese show about a restaurant owner in Louisiana who would spend all night in his store going between the customers and the kitchen, coming up with new menu items on the fly with his friends(customers), introducing people to each other, going to the neighboring bars to visit and try out their new drinks/food, and just really combining the best aspects of a chef, host, and wait staff. I doubt his store will be severely impacted by automation since you're not just buying food or a drink, you're there to be a part of something you really love and supporting a man and his business in keeping something beautiful alive.

Maybe this whole automation issue will give the big box retailers and chain restaurants a kick in the butt to up add a deeper human element to their experiences? Or maybe the space will be filled in by people who can make spaces for people to just have a good time and connect with their community, instead of being walked along like dogs through a programmed conveyor belt experience.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#299

Post by Turing_Machine »

dredmorbius wrote: post #255
sqeaky wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you on almost every, but so much of it is soft and nebulous so lets you are correct for most of your comment. I just want to pick on tiny part: > Talking to a single person whose opinion I trust Why should we trust the person at the ticket counter? They have no special knowledge or insight. It seems likely to me they will have below average insight otherwise they wouldn't be working an easy to automat…

The point is expertise. If a consideration in employing someone at the ticket counter is that they have well-founded opinions or suggestions to offer on films, then , by way of their expert status, you've cause to believe them. Otherwise, this collapses to a general critique of the upstream assertion: that "low-value" positions, such as box-office worker, see no labour value add, whilst simultaneously a certain set o…

The person behind the counter in a movie theater is usually a high school aged teen.

Their opinions as to what constitutes a good movie are almost certainly wildly at variance with my own.

That said, Yelp-type reviews aren't much better.

About the best you can do is find a professional movie or restaurant reviewer whose opinions match yours and go with that.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#300

Post by kilroy123 »

redleggedfrog wrote: post #63

I hate to say this, and this is in no way a troll, but I believe the solution for this will eventually be to kill the poor. Not directly, at least I don't think, but through lack of health care, lack of shelter, lack of education, poor diet, use in waging war, incarceration, and probably once they get desperate and try and get theirs, being labelled terrorists. People who have money, and therefore power, in the Unite…

> Not directly, at least I don't think, but through lack of health care, lack of shelter, lack of education, poor diet, use in waging war, incarceration, and probably once they get desperate and try and get theirs, being labelled terrorists.

I sadly agree this is likely to happen. I really hope I'm proved wrong and we can all come together. To figure out a way to live in this world together, peacefully.

The conspiracy theory in me can't help but wonder though, if one day, some group will make a virus to wipe out a large chunk of the population. Kind of a forced cull if you will.

Post reply on HN