Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#741

Post by danaris » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #728

danaris wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who will suffer most from continuing the way we're going are also the poorest people. If the industry is dying out because we introduce universal basic income , then the poorest people will still be at least as well off as they are now, and in many cases much better, because they are guaranteed to continue to be able to pay their bills, no matter what happens with their employment status.

If an industry dies out/becomes more expensive due to UBI, then the first people to lose access to the goods/services provided by that industry are the most economically constrained people. > guaranteed to continue to be able to pay their bills This all depends on how well your UBI keeps up with inflation. If you trigger runaway inflation, then you won't be able to buy bread with a wheelbarrow full of cash. Fundament…

> This all depends on how well your UBI keeps up with inflation.

Well, sure. That's more or less a given, but it's also an implementation detail, not a problem with UBI as a concept.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#742

Post by DaltonCoffee » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 6:43 PM UTC

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #464

DaltonCoffee wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've done that experiment. The results are self-evident I think the real experiment is perpetual consumerism and unchecked global free market capitalism. Some places that could be considered a UBI welfare state would be Scandinavian countries or parts of Canada, hardly examples of self-evident failures.

>Some places that could be considered a UBI welfare state would be Scandinavian countries or parts of Canada Canada does not have any UBI. What are you referring to?

The welfare and employment insurance system in parts of Canada (ie: those parts with little or seasonal employment) are effectively UBI.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#743

Post by staticassertion » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #656

staticassertion wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that's been made clear in the last two years is that even a very very measly increase to unemployment can have huge impact. And unemployment runs out after a while, and the increases have been tiny. And unemployment makes you jump through hoops, is very stressful, and wastes a lot of your time. I expect that UBI could start off very small and still have huge impact. A quick search shows that median income c…

If people are getting paid $80k a year to do nothing Im quitting my job and living in the woods. 1 less software engineer.

The point was to pay less than median income. So you're looking at closer to 30k at the high end.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#744

Post by Kim_Bruning » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 7:25 PM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #722

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I've gotten lucky with machine operators so far. The ones I've met are intelligent, though their locus of intelligence is in their thumbs. Someone on a project needs to have it there, so that's just fine by me!

But you get how you’re changing their life for a decision they didn’t make right?

Depends on the company maybe? Were you in a project that went bad?

Last time I did a robot project, the people who would ultimately be the machine operators were involved every step of the way, learning and building together with the team.

I'm not sure how installing a handful of machines in one small corner of a huge factory that's already full of machines would somehow change someone's entire life. Hopefully it does make it a little easier though!

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#745

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

nec4b wrote: post #737

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence we do have says that people are not going to mass-flee a country just because taxes go up to benefit the lower classes at the expense of the higher earning ones. I therefore assert that inglor_cz's assertion is baseless. Feel free to provide a counter-example.

Actually that happened in every socialist country before they prevented their citizens from emigrating.

I have a feeling you're pedantically latching on to the word 'socialist' as a, frankly quite silly, effort to try and link the concept of higher taxes with authoritarian-communist countries. I believe you to be arguing in bad faith.

Otherwise, I can simply point out that many almost all the countries with single-payer health care are still plenty enough peopled to be able to pay for it and don't have to have any draconian policies against leaving. As I understand it, even residing outside of them often exempts you completely from taxation, which even the 'can't afford single-payer!' US doesn't do.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#746

Post by yurishimo » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #655

padobson wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At $100+, you're looking at a hand wash and detail, potentially going up to hundreds of dollars for different aftercare options. It's also worth mentioning that you've jumped from menial to skilled labor at this point. There's a big difference between hosing off a Prius for the owner's commute and detailing a McLaren for an auto show. The latter is far more satisfying work.

Why is it a McLaren? I have a BMW and it’s around $80 for a quick vacuum, hand wash and detail. It’s not at all skilled labor and if I had a hose (I live in an apartment) I’d do it myself. Those polishing cars for auto shows are quite a bit in a different realm and not what’s being discussed here.

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't consider someone who washes/details cars as having a "skilled" labor job. Every job requires training, but I can give someone a checklist and one day of training and set them free after that.

I agree that detailing supercars is a different league.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#747

Post by kwhitefoot » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 8:05 PM UTC

0xfaded wrote: post #705

Sammi wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoted because you know OP meant "no _affordable_ manual car washes", so why did you have to make a bad faith interpretation?

I would welcome such a comment, it tempers what was admittedly my own hyperbole with a nuance of reality. But yes, I doubt an American full-service car wash would recognizable in the Nordics.

I don't really know exactly what a 'full service car wash' means but I do know that car washes with optional polishing and interior cleaning are available here in Norway because I see signs for them in the next town to where I live. I imagine that they are much less common than in the US simply because wages here are high. But they do exist.

And of course we have the kind where you wash the car yourself using a high pressure water jet in addition to the drive through kind (both those with and without brushes).

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#748

Post by kwhitefoot » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 8:05 PM UTC

Sammi wrote: post #697

kwhitefoot wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the Nordics, there are no manual car washes, This is simply not true, at least in the more densely populated parts of Norway. They are simply very expensive.

Downvoted because you know OP meant "no _affordable_ manual car washes", so why did you have to make a bad faith interpretation?

You might have known that. I didn't.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#749

Post by CraigJPerry » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 8:06 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #733

CraigJPerry wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> everybody poorer The people who are currently not able to make ends meet are suddenly succeeding. So not everyone is poorer. You’re confusing “things will be vastly different” - which is not disputed. The richest today will be relatively less rich.

> are suddenly succeeding How are you quantifying this success? If people have "more money" but are suddenly unable to afford things they previously could (those same strawberries), wouldn't they be worse off? > The richest today will be relatively less rich. Isn't this just communism with extra steps? Why do you think these things have always worked out poorly, economically speaking, triggering runaway inflation and…

>> How are you quantifying this success?

By the lack of:

>> threat of abject poverty

>> Isn't this just communism

Where would a planned economy come in?

Surely UBI results in something more like an-cap? You collect your ubi payment in exchange for agreeing to live in the area serviced by the United States corporation.

UBI wouldn’t be a small tweak around the edges of the current system. It’d be fairly radical.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#750

Post by thegrimmest » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 8:50 PM UTC

CraigJPerry wrote: post #749

thegrimmest wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are suddenly succeeding How are you quantifying this success? If people have "more money" but are suddenly unable to afford things they previously could (those same strawberries), wouldn't they be worse off? > The richest today will be relatively less rich. Isn't this just communism with extra steps? Why do you think these things have always worked out poorly, economically speaking, triggering runaway inflation and…

>> How are you quantifying this success? By the lack of: >> threat of abject poverty >> Isn't this just communism Where would a planned economy come in? Surely UBI results in something more like an-cap? You collect your ubi payment in exchange for agreeing to live in the area serviced by the United States corporation. UBI wouldn’t be a small tweak around the edges of the current system. It’d be fairly radical.

> Where would a planned economy come in?

By redistributing the amount of money in question, you are effectively planning the economy. You are writing into law the idea that everyone should be able to afford to eat, with no means to contend with the fact that there may not be enough food.

I don't think you're addressing my core thesis. When I worked in a restaurant, I did it to maintain myself - to pay primarily for rent and food. My coworkers were much the same. If I was provided these things, I wouldn't have applied at the restaurant. Multiply this by every tedious or difficult job and you'll find that many of them just wouldn't get done. People will avoid them, and pursue other fields. This sort of thing has actually happened in places like the USSR. Loads of highly educated, trained specialists, talented (or not) artists, shortages of farmers and labourers. Breadlines.