/r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification • Hacker News Board

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#231

Post by bleachedsleet » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #115

gruez wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. I have a hard time figuring out whether: 1) all the people who are saying "no we don't really mean defund the police" are just the moderate elements battling it out with the extreme elements (eg. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... ) 2) most of them…

"Defund" can be a relative term that doesn't necessarily mean to fully remove funding. E.g. we've had decades of hyperbole where relatively small cuts to defense funding are referred to by opponents as "defunding" US troops. We spend a whole lot on policing compared to most other developed nations, and we're not getting terrific outcomes either on civil liberties or crime rates. It might be time to take a different a…

> On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided.

This statement disturbs me. Please clarify.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#232

Post by gruez » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

mojzu wrote: post #120

monkeybutton wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of low skilled jobs in a service economy. I imagine that a significant fraction of all jobs are low skilled ones. Not everyone is chasing the hustle or whatever either, so there's a significant amount of people will be working those low skilled jobs their whole lives. What quality of life do they deserve? Does society want a permanent underclass that are treated miserably?

There's also a lot of overlap between these jobs and ones that were essential to keep society running during various lockdowns, so the value these jobs provide doesn't seem to be reflected in the remuneration. What I don't understand is why many see it as acceptable for any business to pay less than a living wage under any circumstance, it's just a roundabout way of making taxpayers pay for a businesses labour force

>so the value these jobs provide doesn't seem to be reflected in the remuneration.

that's because remuneration isn't based on value, it's based on market conditions. value merely provides an upper bound. as an extreme example, clean water provides near infinite value to you (you need water to survive, so you're willing to pay infinite dollars for it), yet you can get it from your tap at less than a penny per gallon.

>What I don't understand is why many see it as acceptable for any business to pay less than a living wage under any circumstance, it's just a roundabout way of making taxpayers pay for a businesses labour force

But those people on welfare would receive welfare regardless of whether they're hired or not? I don't see how that's "making taxpayers pay for a businesses labour force".

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#233

Post by dymk » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #201

dymk wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tax a couple dozen ultra rich billionaires and a couple dozen ultra profitable companies. There's plenty of money. We don't need to print more. And each doesn't need the spare $20B anyways.

I'm not sure this is true. Asset valuation is a bit tricky when you're an outlier. It's not terribly liquid.

Lucky, tricky problems get solved when there's a trillion dollars on the line. For the most part, this idea that taxing the rich is in-theory difficult is just an illusion created by them, to dissuade people from even thinking about it.

And yet I have 22% of my equity sold and sent straight to the IRS every year. This is behind the scenes a complex multi-step process, and yet it happens like clockwork, easy as pie.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#234

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #156

I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…

> technological advancement and automation should enable greater freedom for individuals to spend their time how they choose

I work in ML. Antiwork seems like it takes its understanding of automation’s present capabilities from fiction, imagining that we could automate people’s basic needs today. We can’t. It’s as simple as that. People are working hard (the irony) on advancing the tech, but we can’t do that today.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#235

Post by achenet » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

StriverGuy wrote: post #77

the_snooze wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, but I don't consider it plausible at my current level of understanding. My null hypothesis is that there are some really loud people on the internet who like to talk loudly about their unpopular ideas. And they're unaware of how deeply unpopular those ideas are until their little corner of the internet suddenly gets mainstream public attention.

So my thinking is the origin story of the sub is definitely organic. However, it is an easy win for a bad actor to push the narrative that a handful of loud voices are shouting about for their own interests.

Occam's razor. The parent comment is very likely right, it's probably just angry people posting on the internet.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#236

Post by diogenesjunior » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #179

diogenesjunior wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i hate how americans always assume we are from there and understand everything they say

| i hate how americans always assume we are from there and understand everything they say | It's a forum where everyone was typing in English, so my first assumption was that English was your fist language. I didn't say anything about American. And I tried to fix my mistake =/

Oh, I wasn't talking about you. You were helpful.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#237

Post by chiffre01 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #156

I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…

Completely agree, the comment quality is generally low and has decreased over time. Ironically, sorting comments by "Controversial" often leads to the most insightful ones, it's still hit and miss and depends on the discussion topic.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#238

Post by dymk » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

optimiz3 wrote: post #225

dymk wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tax a couple dozen ultra rich billionaires and a couple dozen ultra profitable companies. There's plenty of money. We don't need to print more. And each doesn't need the spare $20B anyways.

> You tax a couple dozen ultra rich billionaires and a couple dozen ultra profitable companies. There's plenty of money. The federal deficit is 2.8T for 1 year. If we confiscated the 100% assets of the top 10 US billionaires we don't even get close to half of 1 year of federal spending. It's not plausible that a massive increase in taxes would pay for UBI. https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.statista.com/statist…

The public holds over $22 trillion of the national debt. Bonds.

Somehow we still get away with funding other welfare programs, even though we have a rising debt ceiling.

Anyways, this is why you increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy, in order to pay for UBI. It doesn't mean more debt.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#239

Post by danenania » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

gavinray wrote: post #182

JSavageOne wrote: post #156

I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…

>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible

One way to think about it: we already have a basic income in the US.

Nobody starves to death in the US. Nobody is denied medical care in the emergency room. In many places (though not everywhere), there are shelters where a person can sleep inside. There are food stamps and a patchwork of welfare programs.

However meager they may seem, things like this amount to a form of universal basic income. Does it prevent people from working?

In some cases, you could say it does--there are populations in every city that survive off this safety net, though they don't live well.

But in most cases, it doesn't prevent people from working. The vast majority of people are willing to work for a better life than what the US "basic income" can provide.

What makes you think this would be any less true if the basic income was, say, $30k per year instead of whatever the equivalent is now to provide the meager safety net we have?

It's certainly possible to survive on a $30k basic income in many places in the US, but for most, it won't be an easy or especially pleasant life. Most people will want better.

With a basic income that's a bit more substantial (and has no strings or stigma attached), people will have more freedom to make choices that can truly improve their circumstances, rather than being stuck on a treadmill of barely making ends meet with no space to come up for air and consider education or career changes.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#240

Post by rcpt » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #219

gavinray wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible

The ideal way would be to pass a national Land Value Tax, and use the proceeds to fund UBI. The country has plenty of money, but it's all accumulating to landlords. An LVT is the most effective way to both moderate the excesses of the wealthy and continuously fund a social safety net. It would also let you eliminate most other forms of social safety and taxation, since Land/Natural Resources are the greatest stores o…

This really is the only way to make it work. Only problem is that once you eliminate poverty the no-longer-impoverished have a tendency to pull the ladder up behind them