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

Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 348 posts

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#141

Post by wenc »

jpxw wrote: post #21
ghthor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Test it in production.

... which is a terrible idea

Not true.

Testing in production (with rollbacks and safeguards) is actually how things are done in many endeavors in life, especially with processes that are reversible or where the cost of mistakes are bounded. Reality is a better teacher than a simulation. This it not to put down tests -- it has its place -- but in complex systems, it's impossible to have comprehensive coverage. Stochastic things show up in real life that never show up in tests.

In software, you just keep building up your test suite. In complex stochastic systems, you'll have a much harder time building tests.

Software people have a notion that the world should be TDD-driven, but it doesn't really work like that.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#142

Post by colourgarden »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #122

I'm not even going to bother to read this article. I'm not a fan of UBI and I think this is an admission that we don't have real solutions for the pandemic and we aren't even going to try to come up with real solutions, like helping people get into remote work and creating germ control solutions (like Little Caesar's pizza portal) for things where remote work is not an option. I mean, glad to see they don't want thei…

What makes you assume this is in response to the pandemic?

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#143

Post by biomodel »

vorpalhex wrote: post #120
Fargren wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rules (just imagine if a person playing Monopoly started with ten times the initial amount of money). I prefer a definition of fairness that is actually achievable[1]: everyone has at least the bare minimum, regardless of fitness and deserving. You can quibble abo…

What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor? They both likely have cars, homes and an iphone. Sure, your Hollywood actor is probably driving an exotic sports car and their iphone is diamond studded, but fundamentally, what does it matter? > housing, food, education and health. Any society where anyone can't get those things by asking for them is not fair I agree in the general…

And this is why UBI was supported by right leaning economists like Milton Friedman. If we believe that people in wealthy societies should have a minimal standard of living including basic food, housing and health care then we can provide it through the market in the form of a basic income

It will avoid the perverse incentives that lead people to get costly health care in the ER (which is then covered by other patients) instead of having health insurance and receiving preventative care

It can prevent people from avoiding getting a higher income lest they start earning too much to qualify for the social programs they depend on

No UBI won't fix all problems - but it may very well pay for itself through better externalities

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#144

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aeternum wrote: post #125
mrow84 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. Can you explain why? And if your answer amounts to "because people provide different amounts of [effort|value] to society" how would you reply to "so what?".

As a society we should increase the standard of living for everyone. In order to do that, people need to be motivated to contribute.

Which is why Communism doesn't work. If what you get has no relationship to the work you do, there is no reason to do the work. But that's the problem a UBI solves -- you still get it when you take a job but you also get what you earn from the job. As compared with the status quo, which is already worse than this, because we have existing assistance programs that you lose by taking a job or earning more money.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#145

Post by baconandeggs »

Fargren wrote: post #79
baconandeggs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is why it will fail. Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. Real fairness is everyone playing against the same rules and being treated the same under the law. Sadly governments and politicians are too corrupt to implement real fairness and have decided instead for the populist way out while keeping their insane advantage intact.

Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rules (just imagine if a person playing Monopoly started with ten times the initial amount of money). I prefer a definition of fairness that is actually achievable[1]: everyone has at least the bare minimum, regardless of fitness and deserving. You can quibble abo…

> Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances.

You are redefining fair to mean equal. I don't want equal at the expense of fair.

Inheritance is a made up rule, and as such can be unmade without having to change the definition of fairness.

But second, age is thing, older people tend to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, even without inheritance. Younger people tend to be fitter and more attractive and Hollywood knows it. An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans.

And that is why I say fairness is the most important, the rules have to be the same for everyone because that is the part that is up to us.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#146

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

baconandeggs wrote: post #64
skybrian wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any UBI could be entirely reversed by an equal and opposite tax. Of course this would be pointless, but it shows that there are many possibilities, depending on what sort of taxes you combine it with, and some of them are certainly feasible because the net effect is small. UBI is largely about symbolic equality, the kindergarten-level fairness of everyone getting the same amount. That’s important because symbols of e…

And that is why it will fail. Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. Real fairness is everyone playing against the same rules and being treated the same under the law. Sadly governments and politicians are too corrupt to implement real fairness and have decided instead for the populist way out while keeping their insane advantage intact.

Just in case someone later asks and you're in doubt: this is where the thread derailed into that most tired exchange of entirely predictable arguments first seen immediately after the publication of Atlas Shrugged, and handed down from one mediocre 16 year-old to the next generation in surprisingly faithful reproduction ever since.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#147

Post by mrow84 »

baconandeggs wrote: post #132
mrow84 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. Can you explain why? And if your answer amounts to "because people provide different amounts of [effort|value] to society" how would you reply to "so what?".

If your answer is "so what?" then I assume you are not interested in my answer.

"So what?" is not an answer, it is another question, and I asked it preemptively to try and avoid a simplistic answer to my original question. Do you have a more constructive answer?

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#148

Post by grafporno »

baconandeggs wrote: post #130
searchableguy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairness is leveling the playground. It's not equality. By birth, you are unequal. Would you say we should have the same measures for people with physical disabilities from birth and healthy athletes? No. That's why we have separate categories or measures. That is fair. And that is not treating everyone equally.

As sad as it is, I say we have to accept reality, and that means that a person with disabilities will not be able to do certain things, which does not mean he/she has nothing to do. Maybe he won't be an athlete but he can of course be a novelist. But we first have to accept the real world and get off this childish notion we are all born equal because as you pointed out, we sadly are not.

I take it you consider yourself born on the right side of "not equal", more specifically the "better" side?

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#149

Post by DoreenMichele »

colourgarden wrote: post #142
DoreenMichele wrote: post #122

I'm not even going to bother to read this article. I'm not a fan of UBI and I think this is an admission that we don't have real solutions for the pandemic and we aren't even going to try to come up with real solutions, like helping people get into remote work and creating germ control solutions (like Little Caesar's pizza portal) for things where remote work is not an option. I mean, glad to see they don't want thei…

What makes you assume this is in response to the pandemic?

Fifty-five years of living and formally studying how people work and doing tons of therapy and yadda.

We've been murdering Black people in the US for years and years and years. The usual response is "Well, you gotta understand. Policing is hard and it's a judgement call and it's unfortunate that so man Blacks end up dead after the cops get hold of them, but ...blah blah blah."

And then a Black guy was murdered during the pandemic and suddenly people care.

I don't care how many years of planning went into it. They would still be batting it about and talking about it but not acting if we didn't have a pandemic where a third of Americans are failing to pay their rent and presumably similar shit is happening in Germany.

Edit: The PC term for it is "political will." It's easier to get a deal like this if you have a huge and obvious disaster ongoing to help justify it.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#150

Post by thelean12 »

nemothekid wrote: post #75
thelean12 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that anything besides regulated capitalism with some social features built in has utterly failed. And when it fails, it fails HARD. So implementing something so drastic without knowing if it'll work is extremely risky.

Why is UBI the thing that plunges us into full blown socialism, and not the myraid of other social safety nets?

I didn't call it socialism. It's certainly not full blown socialism. All I'm saying is that it's a massive, risky change.

The current social safety nets are not as drastic as something like a $1400/mon stipend for everyone in the country (as Germany is trying). That's $5 trillion a year in the US. That over doubles spending right there.

In 2019 the US federal government had $3.5 trillion in revenues and $4.4 trillion in spending. Add another $5 trillion -> $9.4 trillion in spending with $3.5 trillion in revenues. We'd have to almost triple our revenues!

I know there are plans to pay for it, and it's probably possible. But you can't deny that it is drastic.

It's very dangerous to implement such drastic changes to the economy. And the consequences of getting it wrong are horrific.

Post reply on HN