Trading Time for Money • Hacker News Board

Re: Trading Time for Money

#91

Post by jlokier » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

drevil-v2 wrote: post #46

ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are still better off working. You will still get ubi

Haha why not just increase the threshold at which you get taxed? Same end result except no one gets money for doing nothing. Those on low incomes get to keep all their earnings.

The point is that a lot of valuable work is incorrectly classified as "doing nothing" in the monetary economy.

For example caring for people who need caring for (elderly, children, disabled) is essential work that is mostly done for free. This is a lot of work collectively.

In a system that properly values essential work it would be paid, but it isn't paid because those needing care cannot pay for it, and other people and "the system" are not willing to.

But even if "the system" started targeting all forms of care work, there are countless other things which are valuable but unpaid. It seems utterly implausible that we would ever devise a system that pays for all work that is valuable, if only because people disagree about what is valuable and all the power dynamics that result in the emergent properties we see as capitalism, "the economy", etc.

In your idea, increasing the tax threshold does not solve this problem or even begin to address it. So it's not an equivalent result.

UBI does address it, by removing the power dynamics and gate-keeping for basic resources, letting people figure out themselves what is the best use of their time in each individual circumstance. The very concept of "what is valuable" gets a refresh, away from the systematic biases that emerge from centralised rule-making, power-law power structures, and the error of conflating money-value with human value when humans do not have evenly distributed access to money with which to signal what they value.

The fact a very large number of people put so much time into tiring unpaid work (such as caring), often on top of their paid jobs (if they have any time left for paid jobs, some don't and it sucks), shows that the "UBI fear" that everyone people would sit around idling their whole lives is very unlikely.

It's likely some people would still call it "doing nothing", as they do currently, but they would be wrong.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#92

Post by amelius » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

balfirevic wrote: post #90

taneq wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? I hear this argument a lot but I don't think it necessarily follows: - The supply of low end goods (the sort which you can afford with your UBI) is highly automated and will increase rapidly for any small price increase, making their pricing fairly inelastic. - The demand for these goods won't rise greatly (except for low…

That's probably true, except for one important category of goods that has a tendency to suck as much income from people as they can bear - housing. It is true that with UBI people have the option to move somewhere where housing is inexpensive, but I don't think it's desirable to have people already dependent on UBI move to places with lower economic opportunity - cementing their dependence on it. That being said, exp…

> That's probably true, except for one important category of goods that have a tendency to suck as much income from people as they can bear - housing.

Exactly. One important piece of evidence is how housing became more expensive when families got double incomes.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#93

Post by SubuSS » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 1:49 PM UTC

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #68

drevil-v2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you get to decide what’s on the approved list of the things that we need? I ate 2 extra toast with dark chocolate peanut butter today. Certainly didn’t need it but eh it’s the holidays. Where does that fall on your morality chart? Is it the re-education gulag for me?

i,m just saying that majority of jobs are non-essential, and if your extra toast didnt exist, and all the people and animals and plants who brought it into existence were doing something else instead, we,d be bettet off, not worse.

That leads to the angle where the animals wouldn’t have existed at all.

Think horses in the 1900s (ubiquitous) vs now (rare pets mostly, may be used for some farm work). The utility as dairy or meat producer gives them life. Are you sure that they’d be better off not living at all?

And what do you suppose those people would be doing that’ll be better off than being a productive member of the society making dark chocolate?

I am sure you meet a ton of people like me every day - even kids. I am surprised you’re coming away with the assumption that they’re are all full of drive to do something worthwhile and are being oppressed by the world into a day to day job: I think the job provides a lot of structure and purpose for many.

If your assertion is we’d be better off leisuring away our lives like wall-E people rather than working towards a productive albeit excess world, I wouldn’t consider it better off.

Tying this back to my first argument, In asking for a life of leisure + no excess, ironically and contradictorily - you are denying chicken et al the life you seem to want for the people :). Just live it out pottering around until death come.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#94

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 1:56 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #59

keiferski wrote: post #18

Analyses like this just make me think Basic Income will radically shake up civilization more than most people realize. In particular, it will help divorce this ubiquitous cultural association between time and money. This reason alone may explain some of the hostility toward implementing even a rudimentary form of UBI. Some of the most rewarding human experiences have zero financial value and subsequently are dismisse…

I know a sample of people on “basic income”: they are on unemployment benefits (or similar.) I am unsure I see any correlation with higher output of culture, art, religion etcetera from those on benefits, even though they may have under-the-table income for necessary tools and consumables. They often do spend more time on family and friends though.

I know a sample of people on “basic income”: they are on unemployment benefits (or similar.)

There is a much bigger cohort, that is retirees.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#95

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 1:57 PM UTC

thestepafter wrote: post #22

simonbarker87 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extreme savings/retire early website/guy (can’t remember the name and googling is failing me) essentially uses this for working out how early you can retire by focussing on the percentage of your take home that can be saved/invested rather than out right figures. It’s the thing we (my wife and I) focus on, the percentage left over as discretionary money to be saved, invested or spent as we see fit that matters th…

Do you mean this guy? https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/

Probably https://earlyretirementextreme.com

Re: Trading Time for Money

#96

Post by okthenletssee » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

aynyc wrote: post #79

okthenletssee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rewarding experience has zero financial value? I think you are very wrong about money.

For me, things such as raising my kids, cooking, fishing, climbing, skiing, reading, drawing terribly, and coding, etc give me rewarding experience and zero financial value. I’m not gifted in any of them, so won’t make money off them other than coding.

So spending time with your kids would not be worth any money to you?

You are very wrong and misguided about economics.

You have worked to earn money, so that you can give your family a home and be able to spend time with them. It is absolutely untrue that it has no financial value to you.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#97

Post by WA » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 1:59 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #65

robocat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But social acceptability should have little multiplier effect on the other benefits you listed e.g. artistic output (unemployed/beneficiary artists are already socially acceptable, in my circles at least).

Right, but the point is that this will change the whole system. How many talented artists decided to become stockbrokers instead, simply because they wanted financial stability? Or how many parents encourage their children to follow something "practical" and not what they are truly passionate about? Or academics that love their subject, but don't want to bother with the hassle of adjunct positions and constant reloca…

Please define "talented artist". Artist != someone who sells artworks. Selling art is something else than making art. You could argue that it is almost completely detached from making art.

If UBI makes 10% of the population "talented artists", what does that even mean? Who should consume all this art? Doesn't it make "art" much more common and thus, less valuable to society?

Re: Trading Time for Money

#98

Post by robocat » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 2:02 PM UTC

SubuSS wrote: post #85

keiferski wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the point is that this will change the whole system. How many talented artists decided to become stockbrokers instead, simply because they wanted financial stability? Or how many parents encourage their children to follow something "practical" and not what they are truly passionate about? Or academics that love their subject, but don't want to bother with the hassle of adjunct positions and constant reloca…

If we are going by numbers, how many talented artists are indeed there? Of this how many are talented enough to be both artists and stock brokers AND are overwhelmed by stock broking so much that they give up on their Picasso like talents? 0.0001% of the general pop? May be if we count every one with massive world class but oppressed talents, will they account for 0.1% of the world pop? As much as it would liberate t…

> it would only allow the rest 99.9% to focus their time into consumption

Here is an article in agreement with that point, from a different POV though: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/i-used-to-argue-for-ubi-then-... “[UBI] merely serves as a way to keep the wealthiest people (and their loyal vassals, the software developers) entrenched at the very top of the economic operating system.”.

Ideally I think a UBI appears interesting, however practically I can’t see how it could work.

I’ve digressed from the article topic, because I am interested in why UBI has such zealotry (appears to me at least).

Re: Trading Time for Money

#99

Post by throwaway2245 » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 2:04 PM UTC

nicbou wrote: post #42

tempestn wrote: post #21

Looking at net income makes sense, but when it gets into expenses I'm not sure I follow. The idea behind outsourcing is that you can spend additional hours doing paid work. You can't look at your fixed expenses in terms of a fixed amount of each hour's wage if you're increasing the number of hours worked. Of course, it also assumes that people can choose exactly how many hours they work at their regular hourly rate,…

> The idea behind outsourcing is that you can spend additional hours doing paid work There's a whole section of the article that argues that this is not possible. You can't scale your income up and down on a whim. > Of course, it also assumes that people can choose exactly how many hours they work at their regular hourly rate, which isn't usually the case, but that's a separate quibble. It doesn't. There's a whole se…

> Of course, it also assumes that people can choose exactly how many hours they work at their regular hourly rate, which isn't usually the case

It can be the case, but then the trade-off is even worse:

This article suggests calculating your net income as an average rate across all your hours worked.

If you have chosen to increase your hours, you are taxed at the marginal rate on these increased hours, i.e. the highest possible tax rate. Your net income per hour is reduced - as such, you are undervaluing your own time.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#100

Post by taneq » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

balfirevic wrote: post #90

taneq wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? I hear this argument a lot but I don't think it necessarily follows: - The supply of low end goods (the sort which you can afford with your UBI) is highly automated and will increase rapidly for any small price increase, making their pricing fairly inelastic. - The demand for these goods won't rise greatly (except for low…

That's probably true, except for one important category of goods that has a tendency to suck as much income from people as they can bear - housing. It is true that with UBI people have the option to move somewhere where housing is inexpensive, but I don't think it's desirable to have people already dependent on UBI move to places with lower economic opportunity - cementing their dependence on it. That being said, exp…

Fair point, housing is very close to a zero-sum game, assuming you need to be within commuting distance of a population center to work.

It'll be interesting to see how a combination of UBI and increasingly available remote work affects the geographic distribution of property prices. We're not short on land area to build houses, after all - we're only short on land nice and close to economic centers.