291–300 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there's any data to prove that they wouldn't? Honestly what's more likely to happen is, the people who have always been self motivated to drive themselves towards goals will still succeed, the ones who would be pretty happy just playing video games and getting stoned/drunk will have an easier way of doing just that.
And where exactly is the problem with that?
Based on how most jobs will get automated some form of an UBI will be required sooner or later. Now the only question is: how to you phase in UBI while still rewarding extra productive people to keep creating/innovating? Some will say "those people will innovate out of love". This is not always the case, many people are good at what they do and create many awesome things but given the chance they would rather do some…
Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free? That's not how it went. People find new ways to create value all the time, and yet every time we invent anything new people keep saying "all the jobs are going away." It has yet to happen in spite of the agricultural, industrial, and now tech revolutions.
How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc. Its not like agriculture was invented and suddenly anyone who wasnt farming was philosophizing, there is always something productive for you to do. Having a UBI without replacing the people who actually do the productive work is just rewarding those who don't work, you didn't suddenly remove the need for work, someone still has to do all that work that needs to get done, but now there is less incentive for them to do so when they can just kick back and worry about someone else doing it.
A UBI is a socialist fantasy that will only ever work if you have a slave force (read: AI) that does work for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn‘t the government carrying out the trial, but a crowd-sourced private non-profit.
Then the title is inaccurate. "Trial begins in Germany." would be fine. But "Germany begins trial" means the nation-state -- the government -- is beginning a trial. If the government isn't hosting it, it isn't "Germany" beginning this trial. It's also a minor detail that doesn't significantly impact my opinion of the whole thing.
Basically, you were trashing the German government for something they never did, based on a faulty assumption.
Why do I read this here? (German here). It really baffles me that these things seldomly make it to our media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the title is inaccurate. "Trial begins in Germany." would be fine. But "Germany begins trial" means the nation-state -- the government -- is beginning a trial. If the government isn't hosting it, it isn't "Germany" beginning this trial. It's also a minor detail that doesn't significantly impact my opinion of the whole thing.
Yes, the title is inaccurate. Titles on the Internet often are. That is precisely why it is generally a good idea to actually read the article before firing off a flaming reply. Basically, you were trashing the German government for something they never did, based on a faulty assumption.
I'm well aware what I did is not a best practice. I've been on HN 11 years.
I've also thought a great deal about certain kinds of issues and formally studied them etc and I'm extremely frustrated with how certain things are being handled. I'm quite confident that reading the article wouldn't fundamentally change my opinion. It would only allow me to say it in a slightly more socially acceptable fashion.
The qualifier I gave covers any such inaccuracies and it's unimportant anyway because no one takes me all that seriously, though they really should.
And I don't really feel like pointlessly rehashing that fact. It never changes. It's the same BS as always and there's nothing I can do to fix that.
I'm done being silenced by that fact on subjects I'm knowledgeable about. I have enough karma to withstand a few downvotes for the crime of admitting I know something useful and never mind that no one is ever going to have a goddamned ounce of real respect for me. Whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not say what this plan is and what UBI you are talking about. In my example, which is what this trial does, it is plainly unaffordable.
Read his plan
That's a good summary of UBI, actually: It's great, please let's not get bogged down on details like financing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no proof that would actually appease you. That's not a reason to not even try to offer anything though. You could start with a trial of these 120 persons (select from all classes of society), give them UBI and double their taxes to make it realistic, because the UBI has to be paid somehow. If plenty of them would have less money during this trial and still find UBI worth it, that would be a strong signal.…
> You could start with a trial of these 120 persons (select from all classes of society), give them UBI and double their taxes to make it realistic, because the UBI has to be paid somehow. 1. I'd image the poster would have the same objections. It's not large enough, etc. 2. Why double their taxes at all? You could just give them less UBI. I don't see how this makes any sense. What's point of having UBI if you have l…
It'd only be less money for some, not for all. Since UBI is largely a redistribution scheme, you'll have to test what happens to those who are supposed to fund it as well. Are they happy? Will they move out of your jurisdiction? Do they stop working as much and rely on UBI instead?
These are important questions we need answered before we roll out UBI at large. If it turns out that everybody who's not profiting from UBI says their good byes and leaves for other countries, you'll have nothing to fund the UBI, and likely nobody to produce any goods either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And where exactly is the problem with that?
What is the problem when you reward people for not contributing anything?
For me it's a question about how we want to transform society in the long term, I don't think UBI for all will come next year.
I'd give back the following question: why are we rewarding people currently for doing mind-numbing bullshit jobs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. It scales with income, motivates working, is more fair, and avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response.
I think you are confused about how either UBI or negative income tax works. The most important difference is that negative income tax would do payouts once a year, and even that is not a hard requirement. Other differences are accounting differences and not practical differences in how much money people have available (as they can be made identical by tweaking the tax rates and tax brackets).
But UBI decreases motivation while also inflating the cost of goods and services so that they rise to meet the new money supply.
NIT avoids both problems by scaling with income. It provides motivation without paying every one. More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power.