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

Trading Time for Money

nicolasbouliane.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: Trading Time for Money

#141

Post by drevil-v2 »

jlokier wrote: post #91
drevil-v2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

Where you are getting population level statistics that show beyond doubt that most people if they did not have to work to survive then they would be spending their time on "caring" for other people and on similar altruistic endeavours?

Re: Trading Time for Money

#142

Post by drevil-v2 »

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.

How do you know that?

Re: Trading Time for Money

#143

Post by GordonS »

mejutoco wrote: post #129
GordonS wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that's a valid comparison - unemployment benefits are barely enough to survive on, and those in receipt are both stigmatised by society and pressured by the government to find a job ASAP. Basic income is about giving everyone a "no-catches" income that's enough to actually live on, rather than merely survive on.

I find it an insightful comparison. Probably the closest to UBI today. How do we know receiving UBI will not be stigmatized? It can also vary from place to place (it is cultural). At least in one country I know unemployment is 60% of your previous salary. This could be enough to survive or to live a very comfortable life, depending on your income. I agree with you, though, with unemployment benefits being conditional…

> How do we know receiving UBI will not be stigmatized?

UBI is given to everyone, but I suppose it's true that those that live on UBI without also working might be made to feel marginalised.

> At least in one country I know unemployment is 60% of your previous salary. This could be enough to survive or to live a very comfortable life, depending on your income.

I'm in the UK, and have no experience of or knowledge of systems like this, but on the face of it, it sounds pretty good.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#144

Post by forgotmypw17 »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #142
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you know that?

logic and introspection and research and observation and quiet pondering for hours at a time

Re: Trading Time for Money

#145

Post by forgotmypw17 »

nicbou wrote: post #136
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tired because you have traded away your sleeping time for money?

Tired because I am stuck maintaining a bunch of dumb things I decided to build, if we're being honest.

wow! i looked at your (?) github, and it,s very cool and impressive. thank you for sharing your work.

may you find work-rest-play balance which works for you in thw near future )

Re: Trading Time for Money

#146

Post by drevil-v2 »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #69
drevil-v2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that’s on you brother. I like what I do and I like that I take responsibility for my life and that I am not handed anything.

but you ARE handed everything that you have, the idea that you ,,earned it,, is an illusion based on ignoring all the good fortune and gifts which have been rained on you, just like on me. otherwise you wouldn,t be in the position to comment on this board.

You don't know me and there is no way you infer that about me from the 3-4 online message exchanges we have had in this thread.

And then you seem to go all in and level the same baseless accusation about everyone(?) on this planet. That is pretty egotistical don't you think? Perhaps you should try for some humility and perspective before you start demanding that everyone should switch to your values and distorted ethics.

The meme that springs to mind is Cartman screaming "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITIE"

Re: Trading Time for Money

#147

Post by tempestn »

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…

Right, yes. My point though is that for this kind of value of time calculation to make any sense, you need to assume the amount of work for money someone can do is variable. Otherwise the amount you earn at work is essentially irrelevant when you're looking at the opportunity cost of spending time on something. So then if you are going to look at your net hourly earnings at work, I don't see how it makes any sense to consider all your expenses on the basis of per hour worked.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#148

Post by LoathsLights »

nicbou wrote: post #66
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 sincerely doubt that basic income will make us all Victorian-era gentleman scientists and patrons of the arts. I agree with the premise that culture comes from leisure, but realistically, if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? Instead of giving people free money, wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics? Is there any indication that UBI would…

> If you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly?

And what if it did? What if we gave every person the money and assets equivalent of the richest man on earth, 113 billion dollars [1]. Now Bezos would only be about twice as rich as the average person. Instead of being 1.13 million times as rich as the average household in the US [0]. Surely the prices would skyrocket, but now we're at a more even playing field.

[0]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-h... [1]: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires

Re: Trading Time for Money

#149

Post by BTinfinity »

LoathsLights wrote: post #148
nicbou wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely doubt that basic income will make us all Victorian-era gentleman scientists and patrons of the arts. I agree with the premise that culture comes from leisure, but realistically, if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? Instead of giving people free money, wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics? Is there any indication that UBI would…

> If you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? And what if it did? What if we gave every person the money and assets equivalent of the richest man on earth, 113 billion dollars [1]. Now Bezos would only be about twice as rich as the average person. Instead of being 1.13 million times as rich as the average household in the US [0]. Surely the prices would skyrocket, but…

Surely Bezos would adjust his prices as well, increasing his profit and leaving the playing fields very similar to what they are now

Re: Trading Time for Money

#150

Post by LoathsLights »

BTinfinity wrote: post #149
LoathsLights wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? And what if it did? What if we gave every person the money and assets equivalent of the richest man on earth, 113 billion dollars [1]. Now Bezos would only be about twice as rich as the average person. Instead of being 1.13 million times as rich as the average household in the US [0]. Surely the prices would skyrocket, but…

Surely Bezos would adjust his prices as well, increasing his profit and leaving the playing fields very similar to what they are now

That's why I included assets in the proposition, and not just the money. He would still have the ability to earn about twice as much as others given he also will be given the same amount of assets as the rest of the people.

edit: Which kinda makes it a bad comparison to UBI I guess. Maybe what we need is more than just money for UBI, but also a distribution of assets.

Post reply on HN