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

Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#91

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mmirate wrote: post #89
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't be quite that stark. I view society as "spending" people, rather than "employing" them. We used to spend a huge chunk (35%?) of our population on agriculture. Then we industrialized agriculture, and now we spend something like 2% of our population on it. The rest could go make that farm equipment, and washing machines, and thousands of other things. Society as a whole became better off. As a society, we…

But who is "we", and who is anyone to decide which of the 35% should be retrained, or which new field to retrain them in, or how to allocate resources to such retraining? Those are the difficult questions that are most deftly answered by the Dead Hand when we grant each "35-percenter" the responsibility for their own retraining; they either retrain ("evolve"); figure out how to stay relevant in their old field (also…

I suggest that we should grant each "35-percenter" (wherever that term came from) not only the responsibility for their own retraining, but the resources to do so, and maybe even some suggestions (not orders!) as to what direction they should go in. Just giving them the responsibility without the resources sounds like the worst kind of "Social Darwinism".

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#92

Post by throwawayjava »

commandlinefan wrote: post #29
throwawayjava wrote: post #6

> Education is ripe for disruption. There’s a commonly believed fallacy right now that technology companies, specifically VC-backed technology education companies, are going to disrupt education. That’s bullshit. Instead, Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Stanford are the favorites to disrupt education when they fall under heavy and sustained government pressure over the irrational and immoral hoarding of their mammoth endowme…

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have a tough time believing that the preference for graduates from "top" colleges is entirely because they produce the best results rather than just a way to (necessarily) artificially limit access to a scarce resource. Just for the sake of round numbers, let's say there are enough quarter-million-dollar-a-year jobs for 1% of the population, but 10% of the population, with a bit of train…

> Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have a tough time believing that the preference for graduates from "top" colleges is entirely because they produce the best results rather than just a way to (necessarily) artificially limit access to a scarce resource.

This is not really relevant. The author of this piece suggests that the path to affordable higher ed in the US is elite institutions doubling their full-rides. But that's a drop in the bucket; "everyone go to an ivy on a full ride" is not a sustainable or realistic way of decreasing the cost of college.

> Just for the sake of round numbers, let's say there are enough quarter-million-dollar-a-year jobs for 1% of the population, but 10% of the population, with a bit of training, could step in and do those jobs.

This is also not a problem. Most people who go to college would be perfectly happy with a stable 80k. Or even 60k. The problem is not that folks can't get 250k. The problem is the massive amount of money they have to spend to get certain jobs that pay those wages, even at lower-tier universities. And more Harvard scholarships aren't going to solve that problem.

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#93

Post by mmirate »

usrusr wrote: post #88
mmirate wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what if an uncomfortably large part of the population just really doesn't have anything economically worthwhile to offer in the modern context? They and their skillsets must evolve or perish. This is nothing new, ever since at least the Industrial Revolution.

Any implementation ideas for that perishing? Starvation? In the streets or organized in ... camps? Or something quicker, the arena perhaps? Suicide booths? "Perish" is such a comfortably abstract term... Personally, I suspect that one day, unlikely within our lifetime, ethics will evolve to the point where it becomes acceptable to pay people for getting sterilized. This could turn into the biggest boost to average ed…

> Any implementation ideas for that perishing? Starvation? In the streets or organized in ... camps? Or something quicker, the arena perhaps? Suicide booths? "Perish" is such a comfortably abstract term...

If a given person is smart enough, they will see that their strategy isn't working, sell their tools and use their remaining resources to learn something new. Not-so-smart types will try out crime; that's what police, courts and prisons are for. Even-less-smart types will indeed starve.

Thing is, anyone who reaches this point is clearly incapable or unwilling to perform any valuable task.

(Or in the meta-sense, to learn how they can perform a valuable task... w.l.o.g.)

At which point the obvious question arises: what is gained by doing anything more than getting such people out of society's way as efficiently as possible?

Or: why are you loading your question in exactly the wrong direction? The obvious answer is "whatever method is most efficient". Perhaps whoever runs an arena can collect enough admissions fees to offset cleanup, land, and other expenses. But it's all - as are so many things - a question of facts-we-don't-have.

> Personally, I suspect that one day, unlikely within our lifetime, ethics will evolve to the point where it becomes acceptable to pay people for getting sterilized. This could turn into the biggest boost to average education since mandatory schooling.

I already hold these beliefs; I merely lack the resources to do this and everything that is more important. (Which is quite significant, really; "improve society-at-large, effective after I am dead" is about as far down the priority list as I can think of.)

Provided that the exchange is voluntary, mind you - if this scheme were to be conducted via government then dystopia could easily follow suit.

But in the absence of such a downfall, this is the only form of "danegild" that I think is really feasible.

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#94

Post by mmirate »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #91
mmirate wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who is "we", and who is anyone to decide which of the 35% should be retrained, or which new field to retrain them in, or how to allocate resources to such retraining? Those are the difficult questions that are most deftly answered by the Dead Hand when we grant each "35-percenter" the responsibility for their own retraining; they either retrain ("evolve"); figure out how to stay relevant in their old field (also…

I suggest that we should grant each "35-percenter" (wherever that term came from) not only the responsibility for their own retraining, but the resources to do so, and maybe even some suggestions ( not orders!) as to what direction they should go in. Just giving them the responsibility without the resources sounds like the worst kind of "Social Darwinism".

Again: who is "we" and -more importantly - how do we decide which/how-much resources to grant?

Write a nice letter to the Gates Foundation? Steal from the productive and call it "taxation"?

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#95

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mmirate wrote: post #94
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest that we should grant each "35-percenter" (wherever that term came from) not only the responsibility for their own retraining, but the resources to do so, and maybe even some suggestions ( not orders!) as to what direction they should go in. Just giving them the responsibility without the resources sounds like the worst kind of "Social Darwinism".

Again: who is "we" and -more importantly - how do we decide which/how-much resources to grant? Write a nice letter to the Gates Foundation? Steal from the productive and call it "taxation"?

"We" is society as a whole. (Moderately careful reading of my first post should have made that clear, but you seem more interested in arguing than in understanding.)

How do we decide? The process wasn't specified. (How does society as a whole make decisions? These kind of decisions it makes through the political process.) The point wasn't the mechanics of the decision-making process. The point was that we should view these people as an under-utilized asset rather than a liability, and figure out how to use them for the progress of our society.

> Steal from the productive and call it "taxation"?

You want to let people starve (judging by your posts in this thread) rather than pay taxes, which you regard as theft? You need to replace your moral compass; it's a bit defective...

Do you feel the same way about taxes to pay for, say, highways and airports? Or do you give those a pass because it's infrastructure, from which you benefit?

If we can get these people able to contribute to society, we'll benefit, in at least two ways. One is that they'll pay more taxes, which could lower yours. Second, they'll do things that are useful, and some of it we'll personally use.

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#96

Post by mmirate »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #95
mmirate wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: who is "we" and -more importantly - how do we decide which/how-much resources to grant? Write a nice letter to the Gates Foundation? Steal from the productive and call it "taxation"?

"We" is society as a whole. (Moderately careful reading of my first post should have made that clear, but you seem more interested in arguing than in understanding.) How do we decide? The process wasn't specified. (How does society as a whole make decisions? These kind of decisions it makes through the political process.) The point wasn't the mechanics of the decision-making process. The point was that we should view…

> Do you feel the same way about taxes to pay for, say, highways and airports? Or do you give those a pass because it's infrastructure, from which you benefit?

I don't give them a pass. Not by a long shot.

Right now I'm only benefiting from one particular nearby highway, and even then only a few miles of its vast length. Of the two nearest airports (both of which are at least an hour's drive away), I have never used one, have not used the other in at least a year, and have no intention of using either for at least a couple decades; yet I am still forced to pay for them, beyond the length of any "professional's retainer" term that I might have voluntarily chosen. (I correctly predicted which airport usage would be my last, several years prior to it.)

But of course there are others who feel differently - they'd like to have a different stretch of that highway, a different highway, an airport with nonstop roundtrips to Podunk, Alabama, you name it. And I do not wish to quarrel with them.

In a properly-functioning free market, when there is a selection of alternative goods available and different people have different preferences, the result is that the people who prefer one good purchase it, and the people who prefer another good purchase it instead of the previous. Both goods end up being sold to the people who prefer them.

The anomalous situation in any of certain markets (e.g. infrastructure of a given kind; security; morals; laws) wherein people must coercively prohibit the sale of all goods except one, the one to be chosen by all manner of unpleasant quarrels - be they the heated vitriol before an election, or the cold hard bullying might of dynasties and coups d'etat ... it only results when there is a localized monopoly on the use of unprovoked force - also known as a government.

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#97

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mmirate wrote: post #96
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" is society as a whole. (Moderately careful reading of my first post should have made that clear, but you seem more interested in arguing than in understanding.) How do we decide? The process wasn't specified. (How does society as a whole make decisions? These kind of decisions it makes through the political process.) The point wasn't the mechanics of the decision-making process. The point was that we should view…

> Do you feel the same way about taxes to pay for, say, highways and airports? Or do you give those a pass because it's infrastructure, from which you benefit? I don't give them a pass. Not by a long shot. Right now I'm only benefiting from one particular nearby highway, and even then only a few miles of its vast length. Of the two nearest airports (both of which are at least an hour's drive away), I have never used…

So this is getting somewhat afield from the original topic, but... have you ever lived somewhere where there is not a monopoly on the use of unprovoked force? (I have never done so, but some who have state rather eloquently why having the government having a monopoly on this is really beneficial compared to the alternative.)

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#98

Post by mmirate »

pitaj wrote: post #5

I'm a libertarian, and don't support a welfare state in general. I view UBI as a great replacement for current welfare programs including food stamps. It largely eliminate the "welfare gap", where when people earn more money, their benefits start dropping off, resulting in a reversed incentive structure leading to trapping people in poverty. UBI implemented as a negative income tax would result in much less waste and…

I keep forgetting that UBI, implemented properly as you describe, in a nation with pre-existing Robin-Hooding ... is a net-gain for liberty.

Yet, given history, I doubt that the median-minus-one politician could have the courage to end the current welfare programs if and when a UBI system is enacted. So I'm ... ambivalent ... about what to think of UBI.

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#99

Post by mmirate »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #97
mmirate wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you feel the same way about taxes to pay for, say, highways and airports? Or do you give those a pass because it's infrastructure, from which you benefit? I don't give them a pass. Not by a long shot. Right now I'm only benefiting from one particular nearby highway, and even then only a few miles of its vast length. Of the two nearest airports (both of which are at least an hour's drive away), I have never used…

So this is getting somewhat afield from the original topic, but... have you ever lived somewhere where there is not a monopoly on the use of unprovoked force? (I have never done so, but some who have state rather eloquently why having the government having a monopoly on this is really beneficial compared to the alternative.)

Me neither; and such a place does not (yet) exist, and to my knowledge humans have never truly created such a place since the dawn of agriculture, if not earlier. It's entirely in the realm of theory, for now. I'll even admit: we barely have the information-technology today with which to conduct business as quickly, frequently and frictionlessly as it could theoretically need to be conducted in such a place.

In places where there is not only a monopoly on the use of unprovoked force, but where the same entity also monopolizes everything else, there is another collection of people who eloquently state why that was a bad idea.

If you're wondering what is the difference between an area with all markets free; and an area whose governments merely don't call themselves as such, and tend to compete via (expensive) violence instead of advertising - then this tome should provide a much more eloquent description (albeit as theoretical as ever) than I could ever hope to achieve: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Re: Big Tech’s View of Universal Basic Income Is Deeply Flawed

#100

Post by dragonwriter »

mmirate wrote: post #98
pitaj wrote: post #5

I'm a libertarian, and don't support a welfare state in general. I view UBI as a great replacement for current welfare programs including food stamps. It largely eliminate the "welfare gap", where when people earn more money, their benefits start dropping off, resulting in a reversed incentive structure leading to trapping people in poverty. UBI implemented as a negative income tax would result in much less waste and…

I keep forgetting that UBI, implemented properly as you describe, in a nation with pre-existing Robin-Hooding ... is a net-gain for liberty. Yet, given history, I doubt that the median-minus-one politician could have the courage to end the current welfare programs if and when a UBI system is enacted. So I'm ... ambivalent ... about what to think of UBI.

Since you probably can't implement a sufficient UBI to provide an income floor that removes the need for other programs initially (at least, anytime soon), but instead need to start low and ramp up with productivity gains, you need a phase-in mechanism.

You can do this in a way that avoids forcing politicians to have the will to eliminate existing means tested programs but achieve that in effect by simply, add party of the phase in, specifying that UBI income counts as income in applying benefit formulas for existing programs.

It'll be much easier to kill each of the programs when no one has a low enough income to qualify for it.

Post reply on HN