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

501–510 of 566 posts

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

#501

Post by tgb »

TraceWoodgrains wrote: post #415
tgb wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s in paragraph five, stated very very clearly.

Author of the article here. The user above you is correct. My claim that Ford is indisputably the best representative of the space has nothing to do with its current user base and everything to do with its history. The user base shifted, but I don’t hold that a place’s present is so extricable from its past that 7 years of history become irrelevant when the space grows.

Then it's odd to call her the "single most accurate representative" then if you agree that Doreen is not representative of the users or the movement anymore. The historical information about the sub was well-researched and interesting, though.

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

#502

Post by totony »

wonderwonder wrote: post #497
Msw242 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The stock market would go to zero as there would be no one capable of buying that stock and pretty much no demand either. People would know that their assets can be seized whenever the government wants. 401k's and retirement accounts would be wiped out. Pension funds would go bankrupt overnight. I feel like this is the scenario that so many overlook when they call for massive wealth taxes or the abolishment of the bi…

This is hyperbole. Removing loopholes and taxing the top 5% more will not destroy society. Just like taxing the middle class didn't make them stop working, or made them work shitty jobs just to not pay taxes.

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

#503

Post by totony »

gruez wrote: post #498
relaxing wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm skeptical you can actually "avoid the bureaucracy" with UBI. At the end of the day there will still be people who need more aid than the standard UBI can provide (eg. people with mental/physical disabilities). We can't realistically let them fend for themselves, so you still need the bureaucracy to manage those people.

In an ideal world you would subsidize mental/physical assistance instead of giving them more money. It's both easier to do and fairer to those affected.

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

#504

Post by totony »

Msw242 wrote: post #486
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…

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.

The chart shows a slight negative for the very poorest (that are eligible for benefits - it doesn't seem to take into account the people that don't pay taxes, aka the very very poorest, who would presumably not see such a loss).

Although this is fixable by taxing more the middle class if that's what we wish to do (aka, not being "budget-neutral")

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

#505

Post by aww_dang »

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…

>...similar to Hacker News in comment quality (which has also lowered significantly). I watched the site devolve...

Imagine if HN could have pro-free market articles in the same volume as submissions like this. Every day there's a submission from Jacobin, The Guardian or something truly partisan (some might say deranged) like this Medium write up. Yet, laissez-faire articles are immediately flagged. The comments fill with drivel about Koch brothers or "the oil companies funded this".

>We need better alternatives to Reddit, or Reddit needs to fix the mess because the post/comment quality there is straight trash there. All the default homepage subreddits are trash.

Yes HN, a site for entrepreneurs. A site for people who like to build stuff, ideally profitable things which can sustain them. A site with only one homepage for both people who would like to build. HN, a site not just for visionaries and entrepreneurs, but also those who demand that work is slavery?

When I say 'not just for', I should clarify. The site's editorial position is to promote these communist diatribes and shadow ban mises.org.

>...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).

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

#506

Post by Msw242 »

totony wrote: post #504
Msw242 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The chart shows a slight negative for the very poorest (that are eligible for benefits - it doesn't seem to take into account the people that don't pay taxes, aka the very very poorest, who would presumably not see such a loss). Although this is fixable by taxing more the middle class if that's what we wish to do (aka, not being "budget-neutral")

"slight negative" is a net loss of what looks like 15k or over 1/3 of the cash value of their current benefits.

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

#507

Post by wonderwonder »

totony wrote: post #502
wonderwonder wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stock market would go to zero as there would be no one capable of buying that stock and pretty much no demand either. People would know that their assets can be seized whenever the government wants. 401k's and retirement accounts would be wiped out. Pension funds would go bankrupt overnight. I feel like this is the scenario that so many overlook when they call for massive wealth taxes or the abolishment of the bi…

This is hyperbole. Removing loopholes and taxing the top 5% more will not destroy society. Just like taxing the middle class didn't make them stop working, or made them work shitty jobs just to not pay taxes.

Sure, but we were specifically talking about a 100% wealth rax scenario. Very likely not a realistic scenario

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

#508

Post by mlyle »

batshit_beaver wrote: post #461
JSavageOne wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I still don't get it. If rich people own land with value X, and you tax it and produce Y amount that gets distributed to everyone, doesn't that Y directly increase the cost of food and shelter or any other thing that the poor people would want to buy? Moreover, what's to stop rich people from selling their land? Or abandoning it and moving to another country? UBI doesn't make any sense to me as CONCEPT. Sure you can…

> I still don't get it. If rich people own land with value X, and you tax it and produce Y amount that gets distributed to everyone, doesn't that Y directly increase the cost of food and shelter or any other thing that the poor people would want to buy?

You seem to be presuming inelastic supply of all of the stuff they'd ever buy. This is relatively true for some stuff (housing supply in the largest urban markets).

But, most of these things are elastic and/or have larger world markets to bid against. Food, consumer goods, housing in other markets, etc. Therefore, while a UBI would be somewhat inflationary, it would still increase the purchasing power of the poor and lower middle class.

> The only things it can buy are things that are subsidized by the government anyway and exists already, such as low income housing and food-stamp-eligible food.

This isn't true, but this is the biggest benefit to UBI: unwind the administrative apparatus involved with entitlements, and remove the lower income regions which have over 100% effective marginal tax rates. A complicated patchwork of programs can be simplified and reduced in scope (SNAP, section 8, EITC, disability insurance, etc..) and we can ensure that people always have a positive marginal incentive to work. Milton Friedman himself proposed a UBI in a form of a "negative income tax" to avoid these economic distortions.

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

#509

Post by nybble41 »

relaxing wrote: post #499
nybble41 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

UBI doesn’t mean every expenditure suddenly becomes out of pocket. The sensible move would be to keep disability, etc. as a form of insurance where costs are spread across the populace.

> The sensible move would be to keep disability, etc. as a form of insurance where costs are spread across the populace.

And now you're back where you started—you haven't eliminated these need-based programs at all, or reduced the bureaucracy. You've just added the UBI as an extra expense.

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

#510

Post by atom_arranger »

enaaem wrote: post #356
bloaf wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you give someone a fish, they starve after a day. Teach someone to fish and they can eat + sell the fish. But if I make a fish-catching machine to catch fish for everyone, does everyone eat, or does everyone starve? UBI is essentially a means of ensuring that in a world where the robots catch all the fish, people can still afford to buy a fish.

You still need a fish catching machine. In the literal sense. Despite all the innovations, we still need fisherman and sailors. Even if we have a fish catching machine who/what will make the fish catching machine? And there are still tons of other automation problems and a fish catching machines isn't even the hardest one. The automation challenge is often conveniently underplayed, while it's an insanely hard problem…

Check the percent of the population involved in agriculture over time, or involved in fishing. From a quick Google search something like 90% in 1800 vs 2% now.

We definitely have machines, not saying there’s no labor involved but it’s certainly less than it has been historically. It really is similar to the village where one person operates a fish catching machine.

Post reply on HN