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

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

#481

Post by aeternum » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:24 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #420

aeternum wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it need price-fixing? We basically provided a UBI of 5k as part of the pandemic and it seems to have worked relatively well. If a position is critical enough it should probably be a higher paid position.

Inflation and the national debt are way up. It might feel nice to have an extra $5K today but we increased the burden on our descendants and have nothing of lasting value to show for it. Shame on us. No one is going to raise wages for a particular position just because it was arbitrarily classified as "critical".

The benefit of a market economy is that if people really do consider something critical, they will pay more for it.

The increase profit margins will attract competitive companies or existing companies will be forced to pay workers more for overtime to satisfy the demand.

The negative of this is that the poor or unemployed have very few dollars with which to vote. A UBI solves this by giving them at least some small percentage of the vote.

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

#482

Post by arrosenberg » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:26 PM UTC

spiderice wrote: post #379

arrosenberg wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Land Value Tax is tied to the assessment of the value of the land. If the landlord raised the rent 20%, sans improvements (which are not taxed), the assessed value of the land itself would go up 20% as a reflection and nullify the incentive to raise rent in the first place.

The only way you can raise rents (in a way that nets a profit) under a LVT is to improve the property or provide services. If you own a 4 unit complex and you want a higher return, you need to build more units, a gym or provide on-site dry cleaning. This also means more efficient land-use in areas of high land value (i.e. densely built town/city centers). Since no more land can be produced, and speculation cannot produce profit, the incentivized usage is a productive one (building more housing where it's in high demand).

Philosophically, a person who supports this concept wouldn't view it as the landlords paying everyone's UBI. We can respect every American's right to enjoy private property, while also holding the value of that property as a public trust. The LVT payments represent the capture of that value, and the UBI is the mechanism by which the public share is distributed.

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

#483

Post by jerska » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:27 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #395

jerska wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to disagree here. Otherwise, you’d have looked at other comparable economic powers worldwide that provide a more socialist alternative and see that they are nowhere near the inflation rate you’re describing, e.g. France. Granted, it’s not $30K a year, but $7.5K for a single person, with free healthcare & education that could be considered a form of income. Doing the same maths as you did, round it $10K…

Again, where does the 30% of gdp come from? Frances tax brackets seem to run ~10 - 15% higher than the comparable US ones. Now if I could get free health care and college for my kids I may be open to paying an extra 10% assuming the quality was good. Using round numbers though, we are taxing everyone an extra 10 - 15% but need to raise an extra 30% of gdp, we are still short. France has a VAT of 20% on goods sold, li…

I’ve computed the 30% of GDP using the same maths as you did before, by taking 10K per capita over 34K of GDP per capita.

Yes taxes are higher in France. Yes some budgets and jobs might need a pay cut to apply a similar model in the US. That doesn’t sound like an impossible task.

All I’m saying is that dismissing the whole idea of your parent comment by saying that a basic income representing a high portion of GDP would imply absurdly high inflation rates is not true, as there are at least a few counter-examples. Maybe the amount is too high. But the idea is not as unreasonable as you made it sound.

Note regarding population decline: France is reaching its peak of aged population / younger blood to infuse the economy following WW2’s baby boom. It will likely not have a higher impact than it currently has today in the upcoming years.

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

#484

Post by JasonFruit » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:42 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #29

JasonFruit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see 50 hours a week as work, nothing more. "Haven't seen him in two months" sounds, in that context, like dramatic hyperbole. Dismissing someone's hard work to support a family with an age-related slur doesn't breed sympathy for a position, either.

I'm pretty sure the issue was more "I'm visiting my dad for the first time in months so my kids can play with their similarly aged uncles, and he's skipping our planned trip to do overtime" that he's reacting to, not the 50 hours a week regularly part. Although his siblings are being raised by a single dad, so maybe he needs to not work on saturdays?

That reading makes a lot more sense than how I initially took it.

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

#485

Post by nybble41 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:43 PM UTC

arc619 wrote: post #409

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

UBI is added on top of work so work will always mean you're better off. Would you give up your job just to spend all day doing nothing, or would you end up doing something productive? If you had infinite money, would you do nothing? What do uber rich people do all day? Why do they work?

> What do uber rich people do all day? Why do they work?

For the most part they are the "uber rich" precisely because they prioritize earning, saving, and investing much more than average individuals, who for the most part put in just enough effort to fund what they deem an acceptable lifestyle comparable to their peers. If you want to know what UBI would look like for the average person, don't look at the handful of exceptionally successful entrepreneurs—instead, look at lottery winners, ordinary people with ordinary priorities who are suddenly given enough money to guarantee them a basic (or more than basic) income for life. It doesn't usually end well.

> If you had infinite money, would you do nothing?

Not "nothing", no. But I probably wouldn't care much about whether the things I choose to do have any value to other people, since I don't need to worry about whether they'll pay me to do them. Therein lies the core economic problem with eliminating the need to work or otherwise offer something of value (like access to capital) to earn a living: People will do things, sure—but most of what they'll choose to do in the absence of meaningful economic incentives will be unproductive.

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

#486

Post by Msw242 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:45 PM UTC

nybble41 wrote: post #472

giantg2 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions (which is how the US implements a lot of policy). I'd love a simplified tax code, but unsure of the SS and Medicare removal. I wonder how that would look for people who are currently collecting, paying in at various stages, etc. That would be a massive windfall for most if the money paid-in was returned. I'm not sure which veteran ben…

> Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions… … as well various special-purpose programs including housing benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, veteran's benefits, WIC, Medicaid, SS Disability, and disaster relief. I'm sure those currently receiving these benefits will be thrilled to find out that they're being replaced by a flat UBI payment of $15k/yr (minus taxes) with no allowance for special cir…

The article has a chart.

This is a transfer from the very poorest to the middle and upper middle class (how much revenue does a tax on millionaires really accomplish?)

I'll take it because it would benefit me, but that doesn't make it great policy. Also most UBI supporters aren't usually on the same side of an issue as AEI.

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

#487

Post by relaxing » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:48 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #395

jerska wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to disagree here. Otherwise, you’d have looked at other comparable economic powers worldwide that provide a more socialist alternative and see that they are nowhere near the inflation rate you’re describing, e.g. France. Granted, it’s not $30K a year, but $7.5K for a single person, with free healthcare & education that could be considered a form of income. Doing the same maths as you did, round it $10K…

Again, where does the 30% of gdp come from? Frances tax brackets seem to run ~10 - 15% higher than the comparable US ones. Now if I could get free health care and college for my kids I may be open to paying an extra 10% assuming the quality was good. Using round numbers though, we are taxing everyone an extra 10 - 15% but need to raise an extra 30% of gdp, we are still short. France has a VAT of 20% on goods sold, li…

The US DOD employs something like 1MM soldiers and 1MM civilian staff (actual numbers slanted more towards military personnel.) There are huge savings there before you start cutting into contracts (which TBF also need cuts.)

Then the important part is to not think of those jobs as disappearing. Think of those bodies - educated, professionally trained bodies - that can now alleviate the hiring shortage faced by industry.

Think of the boost to GDP when that effort is applied to productive enterprise.

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

#488

Post by nybble41 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:49 PM UTC

CodeGlitch wrote: post #331

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I was going to say the same thing. Let's say your toilet breaks, who's going to come over and fix it? You're not going to automate a plumber in the next 50 years...

You're not going to automate a plumber, but we can design plumbing systems which are less likely to have issues and/or are easier to repair for non-specialists, and thus reduce the demand for plumbers. You'll still need some for the exceptional cases, of course.

Not that I disagree with the core point: There are jobs which are both necessary and very unlikely to be automated any time soon.

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

#489

Post by Msw242 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:51 PM UTC

totony wrote: post #412

wonderwonder wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets say we instituted a 100% wealth tax on the 1%, that's 45 trillion if somehow we could get the cash value for their stocks at a normal valuation(which someone would have to buy). How many years does that fund the UBI for until we run out of that money?

See this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30248741

That says wiping out all social programs and raising taxes on those over 1m/yr in income would cover 15k/yr.

It seems like 45tn in asset seizures would cover the additional 15k/yr for around 10 years.

But I would be very worried about the impact on capital markets and company formation.

I would immediately leave the US if this kind of seizure got through the House and looked like it might pass the Senate.

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

#490

Post by nybble41 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 11:59 PM UTC

relaxing wrote: post #476

nybble41 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions… … as well various special-purpose programs including housing benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, veteran's benefits, WIC, Medicaid, SS Disability, and disaster relief. I'm sure those currently receiving these benefits will be thrilled to find out that they're being replaced by a flat UBI payment of $15k/yr (minus taxes) with no allowance for special cir…

It sounds like you’re being sarcastic, but it will be vastly preferable to avoid the bureaucracy that comes with all those programs. Not to mention the cognitive burden that comes from constantly being means tested.

Average Medicaid expenditures (per year) for persons with disabilities (age 0-64) was $19.7k in 2016[0]. It's probably higher by now. So by cutting Medicaid and replacing it with a flat $15k/year you're reducing benefits to persons with disabilities, on average, by almost $5k/year. Since that's an average, I'm sure there are some who will see much larger cuts and quite a few who will find themselves unable to afford necessary treatments or other costs relating to their disability.

That's just Medicaid; it gets worse when you consider all the other programs being cut.

Even allowing for realistic reductions in bureaucratic overhead, you can't just cut narrowly targeted programs and spread the same amount of money evenly across the entire population without significantly reducing the money available, on average, to the original beneficiaries.

[0] https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicaid-facts-and-...