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

371–380 of 446 posts

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#371

Post by andai »

kristianp wrote: post #352
fasquoika wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is in no way a troll Really? Because this is this the basic premise behind one of the greatest examples of satire in history...

> Really? Because this is this the basic premise behind one of the greatest examples of satire in history... This one? A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public By Jonathan Swift (1729) http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

This is pretty fucked up.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#372

Post by EduardoBautista »

adrianN wrote: post #341
clairity wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we're so sophisticated now that we abstract the idea of work away from the idea of making a living (as in being able to be alive, as opposed to dead) and come up with concepts like UBI where we can simply not work, without realizing that not working correlates with not living. work is not some thing apart from ourselves. work is not something apart from play or recreation or relaxation or any such things. we move and…

I agree that work is very important for mental health. I disagree that the work has to be in form of a paying job. With UBI I could choose to work on open source, or create art or clean up my neighborhood. Without UBI I have to sell my lifetime and work on things that don't really interested me.

I can see GDP dropping massively.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#373

Post by atemerev »

dllthomas wrote: post #228
atemerev wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the luxuries like rent, education and healthcare. And yes, "somehow" is a word that appears very often in every discussion about UBI.

I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, so I'm done here.

Why I wouldn't be engaging in good faith? I really believe that UBI is impossible.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#374

Post by atemerev »

fahadkhan wrote: post #20
atemerev wrote: post #5

Guaranteed minimum income is: sustainable, sufficient for basic life necessities, can be implemented for the current population levels. Choose two. It is as inevitable as CAP theorem.

The current population is growing. Evidently there is enough resources to population at this level (food, water, space, air, energy, etc). If production of resources is automated why can't resources distributed to sustain current population?

The bulk of costs of living in modern societies: rent/mortgage, healthcare and education. Can't be really automated in the near future, expected to cost even more as everything else becomes more automated.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#375

Post by pg314 »

notahacker wrote: post #178
pg314 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things like basic food stuffs will get more expensive, because there will be more money chasing it. Rents will go up, since disproportionately more poor people rent. Why would demand go up? Do you think these people are currently not eating and living in the streets?

Do you think the fact people are renting property now is going to stop landlords putting the rent up when they know that their target market that's used to spending nearly all their income on rent now has a lot more to spend (and few more housing options than before)?

No. Market forces (and in some places rent controls) will stop them. If anything, I would expect rents to come down. Landlords do not have a monopoly, they compete with each other. So they can't simply raise prices. That's the supply side. On the demand side, people will be more mobile, since to survive, they are no longer bound as strongly to places with jobs. Demand in places with high rents will go down, and in places with low rents will go up. On top of that, more people will be able to afford to buy a house (getting a mortgage is much easier if you have a guaranteed stable income) instead of renting, causing demand for rental units to go down.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#376

Post by pg314 »

prostoalex wrote: post #355
ansible wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If poor people have income not tied to a specific location, I'm expecting that they're going to move to lower-cost locations, rather than stay in expensive urban areas. So I further would expect that this will overall depress rents in urban areas.

> If poor people have income not tied to a specific location, I'm expecting that they're going to move to lower-cost locations, rather than stay in expensive urban areas. So why haven't we seen a massive exodus to Detroit or Mississippi? Outside of coastal areas US already tends to be affordable and accessible.

Because that is not where the jobs are. Unemployment is at 9.8 % in Detroit, 5.6% in Mississippi, compared to 4.7% nationwide (all numbers Dec 2016).

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#377

Post by unityByFreedom »

nv-vn wrote: post #292
justinator wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Mini…

> 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

Could be both

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#378

Post by unityByFreedom »

lovich wrote: post #319
lovich wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what entry level jobs you worked at. Every single entry level job I worked at just taught you how to sign off paper work saying you did procedure A when you hadn't done it months, how palling around with the managers got you whatever shift you wanted, and how to turn a 2 minute trip into the back room into a 30 minutes break. There were some lessons in petty theft as well if you were interested in that.…

I'm going to add more to this cause the idea of entry level jobs teaching skills you need to work at other jobs isn't sitting right with me. As a rule, the only skill entry level jobs teach anymore that apply to future jobs is how to eat shit and keep going. Every single habit you would learn would need to be unlearned to be valuable in skilled labor. You need to be independent and able to think of novel solutions to…

> As a rule, the only skill entry level jobs teach anymore that apply to future jobs is how to eat shit and keep going

Eh, I've had this experience at well-salaried jobs too. It's a job thing, not a minimum wage thing.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#379

Post by mikekchar »

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, I live in Japan -- land of vending machines. I often have a choice between going to a convenience store or getting the exact same thing from a vending machine. I go to the convenience store and I do enjoy talking to the person there if they aren't too busy.

Obviously not everybody will be like that (I suspect I'm turning into one of those "old people" for whom they manage to keep the bank teller windows open for a few hours a day...) But I just want to point out that this isn't as straight forward as it seems. And, if my suspicion is true, with an ageing population society may actually swing in the direction where they prefer more human contact than less in their every day lives.

Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?

#380

Post by redahs »

prostoalex wrote: post #350
redahs wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is expensive because public spending is currently paid for using taxes on labor and its products rather than taxes on land. Public spending on infrastructure and services raises land values, as parks, police, and fire departments make locations more attractive to live in. This subsidizes landholders and allows them to charge higher rent whenever these services are paid for by a tax on labor rather than a tax…

> Public spending on infrastructure and services raises land values, as parks, police, and fire departments make locations more attractive to live in. This sounds like how the property tax works today. At municipal level, where a property tax bill is comprised of (a) land value, (b) improvements and (c) special assessments, which are voter-approved voluntary taxes to pay for things such as new tram line or a pump for…

The base assessment rate is only determined by the unimproved land value. The value of real property improvements is subtracted\untaxed. If an abandoned lot is adjacent to a well maintained house, the tax rate is the same for both owners, despite the real estate value of the house being much higher due to the labor invested by the homeowner. Values would be reassessed quarterly rather than only upon change of ownership. There would be no negotiated exemptions on taxes for commercial developers and they would have to pay the land value tax even if they leave the lot abandoned. If commercial developers want to decrease their land taxes, then they can build vertically and leave more land left over for housing and wildnerness.

There would be no sales, earnings, payroll, income, excise, personal property, tariffs,state, or federal taxes for residents. Residents in land tax counties would only pay the single land value tax to the county assessor. The county would then pay negotatiated state taxes on behalf of its residents, and ideally the state would also pay negotiated federal taxes on behalf of its counties.

Post reply on HN