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

Suspicious Discontinuities

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 307 posts

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#261

Post by notJim »

glogla wrote: post #167
tjr225 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either that or a more progressive stance on socialist policies that provide basics to everyone. At least with socialist style policies there isn't the possibility of those spending their UBI on junk food or wine our whatever, but I really would prefer either to the current state of affairs.

I disagree strongly with your idea of "poor people would just spend on drugs" but there's a nugget of reason in it - there's a high risk that UBI without rent control would just be subsidizing the landlords, without actually helping the people.

If this is true, it would also be futile to raise the minimum wage (which I, and most leftists I know would support), because landlords would just capture the extra wage. I don't think this is supported by data from places where the minimum wage was raised.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#262

Post by notJim »

dllthomas wrote: post #259
jonnycomputer wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part people know best where there money needs to go; most of the financial advice people see from "experts" really is oriented toward people who have money left over after paying for necessities. As for housing, I think that this would be standard econ, really. More money means more demand, which in the absence of more supply, means higher prices. Things like housing are harder to increase the supply of…

One thing worth noting is that UBI actually has an impact on supply,. What people want to purchase is not simply housing - it's housing in their preferred location. I think a big part of what makes housing desirable, for the bulk of the population, is ability to earn enough of an income nearby. If that's the case, UBI might actually directly create desirable housing (out of almost desirable housing) and increase supp…

I don't get it, what is the mechanism by which you're proposing this would happen?

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#263

Post by [deleted] »

thrower123 wrote: post #78
tjr225 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either that or a more progressive stance on socialist policies that provide basics to everyone. At least with socialist style policies there isn't the possibility of those spending their UBI on junk food or wine our whatever, but I really would prefer either to the current state of affairs.

Government paternalism is terrifying. People are going to screw up, and make bad choices, but having choices is better than being treated like a child your entire life.

[deleted]

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#264

Post by apta »

DavidVoid wrote: post #242
apta wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't happen. A man who pretends to be a woman still carries XY chromosomes. This is a fundamental reality with no way around it.

They don't pretend to be women, transwomen are women (and transmen are men). There's a lot more to people and gender than chromosomes. And with your line of reasoning can an intersex person (such as someone with XXY chromosomes) never be considered a man nor a woman?

Intersex is a physical condition at the chromosome level. Gender dysphoria is a mental condition, so it follows that no, "transwomen" are not women, and "transmen" are not men, just how someone who believes that he's a dog doesn't make him a dog.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#265

Post by Dylan16807 »

RHSeeger wrote: post #240
kazagistar wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It behaves the same way from the perspective of the worker. For every hour I work of a minimum wage job, I see an increase to my spending abilities of 35% of minimum wage or whatever. It's only not a tax technically, but it still cuts into your direct benefit from working exactly like a tax.

> It's only not a tax technically In the same way that any benefit program being cancelled (eg. movies for kids for free every Friday on the town green, etc) are stealing. It's a benefit that had some or all of it taken away.

If it's part of your pay structure, and then suddenly it's not given to you, that would be stealing.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#266

Post by apta »

streb-lo wrote: post #244
apta wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't happen. A man who pretends to be a woman still carries XY chromosomes. This is a fundamental reality with no way around it.

A man can't go in space, can't fly, can't trick rocks into thinking, and can't do many things. But we do anways. Your understanding of reality is flawed. XY chromosomes provide the instructions for the human organism to construct a male body -- they do nothing to prevent the altering of it later on. Also, is this not 'hacker' news? Chromosomes are just the source code -- eventually we we will hack the souce or the bi…

Right, just remind me when we're able to change the physical construct after it has already been constructing. It's literally impossible. Might as well change a banana into a fly by "changing the source code".

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#267

Post by heavyset_go »

thu2111 wrote: post #260
mech1234 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm getting strange vibes for how people must be reacting to this. Your idea of a possible better world is so bad that you should feel bad! /s

Haha yeah -4, that's pretty far out. Lots of people who hate tax credits out there! It's really hard to defend libraries though. They're not just an inefficient use of space. They're bad for the environment too, as people have to travel back and forth all the time to swap books, discover the book they want isn't returned yet, etc. They're often badly maintained. Their books get damaged, lost or stolen. Their selectio…

You're missing the forest for the trees. Libraries are more than just books, they're free spaces for all types of learning, collaboration and production.

I work remotely, sometimes from a library. I can request a space to work with others, and even hold large seminars if I wanted. There are dozens of free programs for kids to meet and learn, and there are opportunities for for working adults and the elderly, as well. My local library will even do interview prep for those who want it, which includes mock interviews from people in industry who donate their time. There's also 3D printers there, too.

Librarians are more than just people who can find books on shelves. They can help you research, and have access to a multitude of databases that you might not know about. As an example, I wanted to contact the owners of a business and had trouble finding that information. That info existed in a database I didn't know about, and a librarian helped me retrieve it.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#268

Post by Dylan16807 »

FabHK wrote: post #180
Dylan16807 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> massively increases the number of people on benefits You have a very different definition of 'massively' than I do. > You've just invented tax, congratulations. Positive taxes can balance out negative taxes, ~tada~.

Dylan, just note that the problem as originally posed is not solvable. Your „solution“ is one that violates one of the constraints and then says „but it’s minimal“. Sure. But that was exactly the point of the comment above: by the nature of things, any change you make leads to an undesirable consequence. Either people who need the benefits don’t get them, or the „marginal tax rate“ is very high, or you extend the ben…

> Dylan, just note that the problem as originally posed is not solvable.

The original constraint was not a $0 increase. I did not violate the original constraint.

And even if you did take it to be $0, it said you can't "just afford to" increase. Proposing a tax to make up the difference meets that critera.

But even inside a hard "no more spending" constraint, it's not nearly as unsolvable as you make it out to be. It's quite possible that giving less money to people mildly below the old cliff edge, while giving more money to people mildly above it, is a net positive. That doesn't screw over people at the bottom, and it doesn't increase total cost.

Going from a hard cliff to a 90% marginal rate was obviously better, right? And going from 90% marginal rate to 85% was obviously better, right? They decided to stop at 63%. It doesn't mean that going further is a priori wrong.

And on top of all of that, smoothing out the curve to 50% very likely motivates more people in the range to work, reducing the amount of benefits they use.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#269

Post by Dylan16807 »

spockz wrote: post #205
Dylan16807 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does 'willing to pay' mean, exactly? Surely they're not turning down a raise out of stubbornness. And pay of that caliber is not often hourly.

They might accept the raise and try to work less hours to keep the total similar. Or it works as an incentive to start finding ways to pay less taxes, out of a notion of fairness.

They're being paid hourly? How many people making six figures are paid hourly, and what kinds of job do they do?

To be clear, I easily understand how a high marginal rate is demoralizing and unfair at the low end. I'm not convinced it's a problem if tax brackets at the high end go to some number above 50%.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#270

Post by dllthomas »

notJim wrote: post #262
dllthomas wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing worth noting is that UBI actually has an impact on supply,. What people want to purchase is not simply housing - it's housing in their preferred location. I think a big part of what makes housing desirable, for the bulk of the population, is ability to earn enough of an income nearby. If that's the case, UBI might actually directly create desirable housing (out of almost desirable housing) and increase supp…

I don't get it, what is the mechanism by which you're proposing this would happen?

Imagine a unit of housing, presently empty because it's undesirable, because there are no good job available nearby. There are some pretty good jobs, but none available that pay quite enough that competing for housing elsewhere isn't more attractive to the marginal consumer.

A UBI makes the pay matter a little less, and so makes places like that more attractive.

It doesn't, first order, cause more units to be built. But that is not the only way to increase supply.

Longer term, that kind of calculation about potential units, in places where it's easy to build, might lead to more units built. But that gets more complicated.

Post reply on HN