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

521–530 of 566 posts

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

#521

Post by dustymcp »

TuringNYC wrote: post #241
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

>> How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I grew up around a lot of poor people. One issue in the US is healthcare. If you make The solution here is obvious to me -- if you provide some of the benefits without means-testing (i.e., the "U" in "UBI") then people are incentivized to work even bits without risking losting healthcare/foodstamps. An…

It Works like this in Denmark

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

#522

Post by giantg2 »

totony wrote: post #503
gruez wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah... letting the companies that provide those services, making a profit from them, determine who qualifies is probably going to rife with fraud and abuse. At best, you end up with inflated costs due to there being little incentivize keeping costs down, like we see with student loans and college.

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

#523

Post by giantg2 »

relaxing wrote: post #519
nybble41 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It’s not at all or nothing proposition. Your employer probably pays you a salary and offers you disability insurance too.

That's literally what the proposition in the link is - remove these existing programs and tax deductions to pay for the UBI.

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

#524

Post by giantg2 »

relaxing wrote: post #500
giantg2 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but it will be vastly preferable" To whom? The government, sure. The individuals using those programs, probably not. Healthcare costs alone would likely wipe that out (for the demographics using Medicare). Rent in many areas would eat more than half.

Rent is expensive in big cities? Wow, the poor are gonna be so pissed when they find out. /s Affordable housing is a separate issue and point of concern no matter who is paying.

That's not a separate issue. One of the programs they would cut is housing assistance. So that directly affects it.

You could say that housing costs are a larger issue. However that issue is largely a non-issue for the demographic we are talking about currently since they qualify for stuff like HUD assistance (which would be removed under the plan).

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

#525

Post by sleepingadmin »

zozbot234 wrote: post #447
sleepingadmin wrote: post #436

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? Given the tremendous inflation occurring because of non-universal benefits, UBI pretty well died as a subject. Everything the anti-UBI people have said would happen, is happening. So if it were universal, it would be worse than this. Trying to discuss UBI is complex because every single attempt at it has…

> Given the tremendous inflation occurring because of non-universal benefits The amount of inflation is not especially high, it would've been quite normal back in the 1980s (post Volcker, even). That's why the Fed is slow at addressing it. And of course, the global pandemic had much to do with it. In the latter part of your comment, you're talking about two versions of the same thing. Calling budget constraints 'MMT'…

>The amount of inflation is not especially high

From a historical point of view sure. The thing about WW1 boomers retiring in the 80s and causing major inflation. Sure it was a huge problem. This time it's the WW2 boomers retiring that will cause major inflation. But that effect hasnt quite kicked in. The inflation stems from benefits and low rates. Which low rates can be just called benefits as well.

> it would've been quite normal back in the 1980s (post Volcker, even). That's why the Fed is slow at addressing it. And of course, the global pandemic had much to do with it.

So here we sit post-benefits. You and I can both agree people who couldn't work because of the pandemic shouldn't be left to starve.

The consequence is extreme inflation, but worse. The USA has entered another recession. Nearby recessions means they are connected and therefore this is a depression. Which we can verify by the high correlation with psychological depression. What do you think, do you find more and more people around you are getting depressed?

>In the latter part of your comment, you're talking about two versions of the same thing. Calling budget constraints 'MMT' does not change how they work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment

The countries like Germany and Switzerland that have implemented this are brilliant. Though to be fair countries which dont even need the amendment are that much smarter.

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

#526

Post by Msw242 »

dopidopHN wrote: post #516
wonderwonder wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It actually happened not that long ago, in the US. And the country did not collapsed. It actually entered a era or unparalleled prosperity ( but that had little to do with taxes ) In 1945 tax rate was around 90% IIRC Honest question : you do understand that a 100% tax rate means that 100% of revenu are taxed correct. ( as opposed to 100% are taken by the state ). Of those 100% only a percentage of it is actually “los…

Holy crap how are your comments not greyed out?

Marginal income tax rate of 90% != Wealth tax (for which we haven't even tested constitutionality)

Also, nobody paid close to 90% thanks to generous loop holes and strategic tax avoidance: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-...

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

#527

Post by wonderwonder »

dopidopHN wrote: post #516
wonderwonder wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It actually happened not that long ago, in the US. And the country did not collapsed. It actually entered a era or unparalleled prosperity ( but that had little to do with taxes ) In 1945 tax rate was around 90% IIRC Honest question : you do understand that a 100% tax rate means that 100% of revenu are taxed correct. ( as opposed to 100% are taken by the state ). Of those 100% only a percentage of it is actually “los…

lol, we are on the same page. I am not suggesting it as an real option I am stating it to describe the insanity of the people who think that just taxing the rich will supply all the money we need. I am using the example of a 100% wealth tax to show there is just not enough money to do everything that is desired. That regardless of taxation we would have to print money.

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

#528

Post by JSavageOne »

monkeynotes wrote: post #305
JSavageOne wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already many countries with generous welfare states where one does not have to work and could theoretically live off the government, yet they manage just fine. Even if universal basic income was a pipe dream (which I vehemently disagree with, and again point to the examples above as evidence that not needing to work does not lead to societal collapse), I don't see why enabling everyone the freedom to work o…

Communism has never worked because the people in power who decide exactly how to divide the wealth fairly are humans and humans are greedy, selfish assholes. Who evaluates your land value? Also, if we all do what we want to do who is gonna pick up the garbage, who is going to slaughter cows for your burger that no one wants to flip? I mean, these are the easy things I can think of. Additionally any of the welfare sta…

Who said anything about communism? UBI is just capitalism with an income floor. People can still work jobs for money and start businesses.

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

#529

Post by JSavageOne »

prepend wrote: post #364
JSavageOne wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already many countries with generous welfare states where one does not have to work and could theoretically live off the government, yet they manage just fine. Even if universal basic income was a pipe dream (which I vehemently disagree with, and again point to the examples above as evidence that not needing to work does not lead to societal collapse), I don't see why enabling everyone the freedom to work o…

> There are already many countries with generous welfare states where one does not have to work and could theoretically live off the government, yet they manage just fine. I didn’t know there were any countries like this? Would you please link to a few?

I'm not deeply familiar with welfare policies, but anecdotally it sounds like much of Europe - the Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, along with others like Germany - have very generous welfare states, where I believe (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) one could basically live off of welfare indefinitely if they wanted to.

In Switzerland, apparently it's possible to work for 2 years, quit your job, then keep something like 60% of your old salary for 2 years until you find your next job. Yet this isn't something that many people actually do.

In Denmark, university students get paid a UBI.

Someone else mentioned taxation. Taxing land value would be the fairest tax and reduce the tax burden on labor, yet none of these countries really do that.

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

#530

Post by mantas »

LegitShady wrote: post #428
JSavageOne wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are tons of jobs no one wants to do, but everyone needs done. If these jobs truly are necessary, then wages would rise to the point where people would be attracted to do them. If truck driving paid as much as FAANG software engineering, I assure you there'd be no shortage of truck drivers (even if it required grinding a trucker Leetcode). Higher wages further incentivize automation, or alternative means of co…

Why would the cost of those unpopular jobs go up? If a company can't find anyone at "market rates" they can just get temporary foreign workers and never raise the wage. As long as everyone is cashing in on the cheaper tfws the price never goes up and they never need to hire anyone at a riser wage. All these market conditions for wages don't work with all the policies set in place to depress worker wage increase.

Depressing wages by importing modern strike-breakers is another issue.
Post reply on HN