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

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

tracingwoodgrains.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 566 posts

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

#371

Post by thinkingemote »

The mistake is thinking politics on Reddit changes things. "Optics is everything" is how NFTs and cryptocoins work, it's hype and attention, and it's the media and the net. Optics is literally the media. Even mainstream movements do protests to get on the media primarily, to get attention. Politics as marketing.

But it's not really how life works. Any real political movement should realise that playing the optics game is doomed, and explicitly avoid such things.

"The revolution will not be televised" was a good slogan for example...

This Reddit story gives me some sympathy to the moderator. I think they were being honest, but they were glamoured with fame and media. And it revealed how the vast majority of redditors are just live action role playing with no actual change in themselves or their world. The drama around it and the new subreddits are all just another scenario in their online roleplay.

The idea that 4chan used cartoon frogs to meme a president into office is something that is seriously believed because it enforces belief in the media, in spectacle, in attention, in optics itself. 4chan doesn't take it seriously however, and I find it both funny and a good example that those who believe in optics should believe that optics works.

Optics is everything to optics.

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

#372

Post by dragonwriter »

wonderwonder wrote: post #270
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…

How does UBI work if everyone just decided not to work anymore? How would it work if everyone involved in say medicine decided not to work anymore of if everyone involved in the military or border patrol said 'nope, I'm done'? Would we just print more money to give to the people that streamed over the border? What if the people that print the money or send the checks decided to quit?

> How does UBI work if everyone just decided not to work anymore?

If too many (which with any reasonable near-future level of productive capacity, and any level of UBI, is a lot short of “everyone”) people don't work with fixed nominal or dedicated-revenue-stream-based UBI, inflation erodes the value of UBI decreasing the lifestyle sustainable on UBI alone until enough fewer people opt out of work to stabilize things.

With inflation-indexed UBI you get a positive feedback UBI -> price feedback loop, so don't do UBI that way.

But mostly “what happens if too many people don’t work” is irrelevant to real-world UBI proposals: these tend to target a poverty-level income, replace existing means-tested poverty-support programs, and remove barriers to outside income that come with existing means-tested programs.

As such, they structurally incentivize more people choosing to work than under the status quo system (and a move from under-the-table to above-board work.)

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

#373

Post by prepend »

gruez wrote: post #90
BitwiseFool wrote: post #40

This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. Like AntiWork, It seems to have been started by those who genuinely wanted to abolish the police. But as time went on people joined who instead wanted to reform the police by dramatically cutting back what they were meant to respond to. But the slogan stayed, and was very mislea…

> 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…

I’m thinking the latter as it seems so crazy to use a specific word and then argue against its understood meaning. Why would I want to bother with that confusion when I could just call it “reform police” or whatever.

Gaslighting is very mainstream and seems so commonplace in even banal, insubstantial things like debating whether “defund police” means to remove funding from the police or something else.

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

#374

Post by JSavageOne »

batshit_beaver wrote: post #348
nradov wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology isn't advanced enough to be able to afford this. Have you ever actually worked in a factory or on a farm? Have you done the math to calculate how much taxes would have to raise in order to give everyone a UBI at even the US federal poverty level? This is magical thinking disconnected from the reality of how the economy works.

Related to this, but is there ANY explanation out there from proponents of UBI that would clarify how UBI can be done sustainably and perpetually, without causing runaway inflation where UBI is always below poverty level anyway? I'm obviously too retarded for such an advanced concept, but in my head there's no scenario where a utopian UBI-based society is possible, even with more advanced tech. To allow everyone to h…

Personally if I were in charge, I'd start by slowly phasing it in via distributing it from the proceeds of a land value tax (the most efficient tax, Henry George called this a citizen's dividend). Then the UBI amount is anchored and there's no possibility of runaway inflation.

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

#375

Post by rootusrootus »

prepend wrote: post #283
rootusrootus wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I'm not a committed supporter of UBI, so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt (or more) but I assume the whole point is to promote wealth redistribution. Not print money. So you give everyone some amount, say 12K/year, and then support it with taxes. It sounds infeasible with the current budg…

> Not print money. So you give everyone some amount, say 12K/year, and then support it with taxes. I’m trying to say this with utmost respect. But $12k x 330M is $4T/year. In 2021, the US collected about $4T [0]. The US spent about $7T [1]. So it would take lots of iterations to figure this out. I think there are some efficiencies so you can reduce some of this budget but introducing a UBI like this would up the spen…

> I’m trying to say this with utmost respect. But $12k x 330M is $4T/year.

I don't disagree, it sounds infeasible. But it's such a massive stimulus that I think it's really hard to model the real outcome. I just think it's probably not accurate to try and model it using a single iteration of the current budget.

Ultimately I think we have to collectively decide whether or not our society can support a basic level of civilized existence for all members, or if there is a core requirement that some people are going to need to suffer so that a plurality will be able to live comfortably. Same for health care -- can we simply not afford for everyone to have a basic level of health care? Must someone else suffer so that I can get adequate care for myself and family?

UBI and things like it are just a means to that end.

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

#376

Post by totony »

wonderwonder wrote: post #328
quirino wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be solved by a Negative Income Tax [1]: > In economics, a negative income tax (NIT) is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for incomes below a certain level; in other words, earners above that level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Edit: I'm not economically literate enough to say I fully support this,…

So we are going to raise taxes on the middle class to give free money to people that choose not to work? Every single family would then do a calculation to see if its worth the second earner working or if they make more just staying home and getting a UBI. I would not be ok going to work to pay people that have decided that they are fine living on the UBI and don't want to work anymore. Seems like a pretty antagonist…

>So we are going to raise taxes on the middle class to give free money to people that choose not to work?

1. UBI aims to streamline redistribution of wealth and remove a lot of bureaucracy around it, reducing a lot of the cost of the current system

2. Why the middle class specifically? Upper class could shoulder most of the costs (if there are) easily

>I would not be ok going to work to pay people that have decided that they are fine living on the UBI and don't want to work anymore.

Then don't work. We already have taxes for things which are way less useful for society. You could choose not to work and live on with the bare minimum. That's the freedom UBI brings. Now probably you'd do something or another out of boredom which would end up being useful to society anyway. You'd just do it for free instead of having to convince someone to pay for it.

EDIT: A better way to put it is to see UBI as an investment into people instead of as a cost. You give them what they need to live so that, in aggregate, they can innovate more and worry less about making ends meet. Notwithstanding the fact that this is something we can do, for somewhat cheap and would help a lot of people.

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

#377

Post by anon_d »

xtracto wrote: post #281
jdkjs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, 4chan is vehemently against the current neoliberal wars. They laughed their asses off at the US abandoning Afghanistan and are questioning why the NATO has to be in Ukraine at all. Perhaps I misunderstood your tone.

I am not familiar at all with 4chan and its functioning, but if I remember correctly there is no "they" in 4chan, similar to the "Anonymous" group... everyone can go into 4chan, sometimes a radical leftist will go there, next day a radical rightist will post. Is there actually a "cultural leaning" in that site?

Of course there are a cultural leanings at every "place". What kind of people frequent that place?

HN is no different. Anyone can come here and make any argument.

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

#378

Post by prepend »

Valgrim wrote: post #163
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…

I think it was always pretty clear that the movement as a whole advocated redistribution of resources toward less violent and more efficient alternatives to police, like better social programs and mental health resources. Relying on the police to prevent crime is like relying on firefighters to prevent fires or paramedics to prevent injuries. Sure they have a role to play, but logically they should only be the last r…

When a criminal is arrested their future crimes are prevented.

I think there’s an assumption that crime is random and that people randomly commit them. In that case it doesn’t matter if you arrest because what’s the point, it’s random.

But people usually commit crimes intentionally. And they commit multiple crimes.

Fire is different than crime in that it’s not conscious.

I don’t think police are alone in preventing crime but they aren’t a last resort. I also think we spend too much on police. And we spend on the wrong things. I want to reform the police to make them more effective.

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

#379

Post by spiderice »

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…

So if landlords now have to pay for everyone's UBI, why aren't the Landlords just going to raise rent to get that money right back?

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

#380

Post by quirino »

wonderwonder wrote: post #328
quirino wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be solved by a Negative Income Tax [1]: > In economics, a negative income tax (NIT) is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for incomes below a certain level; in other words, earners above that level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Edit: I'm not economically literate enough to say I fully support this,…

So we are going to raise taxes on the middle class to give free money to people that choose not to work? Every single family would then do a calculation to see if its worth the second earner working or if they make more just staying home and getting a UBI. I would not be ok going to work to pay people that have decided that they are fine living on the UBI and don't want to work anymore. Seems like a pretty antagonist…

Taxes wouldn't necessarily be raised. The idea would be to replace many (possibly all) of the usual government social services by these payments.

You already pay taxes, and they are already used to fund other people. The idea would be to allow people to choose individually how to spend this money. The goal is efficiency, fair distribution of benefits and elimination of bureaucracy and administrative overhead.

Post reply on HN