Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student • Hacker News Board

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#261

Post by bruce511 » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 4:32 AM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #26

bruce511 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music is a commodity. There's already more music available to let my playlist run for years without repeats. Plus it's never been easier for folk to create, and publish, new music. With endless supply comes diminishing unit value. So, not to be brutal, but playing music is not an especially valuable thing, and so people really don't need to pay much for it. Ditto for writing books, making ceramics, pretty much anythi…

And TayTay's where she's at because her father supported her in it.

Parental support is useful, but not sufficient. If parental support was sufficient a lot of people would be s lot richer now.

Taylor is where she is because of an extraordinary amount of hard work (not sufficient by itself) an extraordinary amount of writing skill (not sufficient by itself), supporting parents who moved etc to maximise those skills (not suffcient by itself), an understanding of her audience (not sufficient by itself), some element of luck (persistence) and so on. Its not one thing that makes you stand out in music, its everything.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#262

Post by npteljes » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 6:38 AM UTC

lotsoweiners wrote: post #234

npteljes wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. "How so?" UBI doesn't mean you can't earn more, this is not communism. 2. "what would be the motivating factor" They don't, UBI is not communism. And what you say is already true at many places, and the world is still turning. The motivating factor, with UBI, is the same without it: to achieve more. UBI would just let you not fall into homelessness and / or under the poverty threshold.

> UBI would just let you not fall into homelessness and / or under the poverty threshold. How do you figure? Why wouldn’t landlords, businesses, etc just adjust their prices based on the UBI amount. They’ll be happy to collect more money courtesy of the taxpayers.

Yeah, I don't think straight-up UBI would work in our current systems, because the market for the basic goods would absorb it, as you say (and as we experienced many times in history). I do think that it would have no negative effect of motivation though.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#263

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 6:54 AM UTC

lotsoweiners wrote: post #234

npteljes wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. "How so?" UBI doesn't mean you can't earn more, this is not communism. 2. "what would be the motivating factor" They don't, UBI is not communism. And what you say is already true at many places, and the world is still turning. The motivating factor, with UBI, is the same without it: to achieve more. UBI would just let you not fall into homelessness and / or under the poverty threshold.

> UBI would just let you not fall into homelessness and / or under the poverty threshold. How do you figure? Why wouldn’t landlords, businesses, etc just adjust their prices based on the UBI amount. They’ll be happy to collect more money courtesy of the taxpayers.

> Why wouldn’t landlords, businesses, etc just adjust their prices based on the UBI amount.

The same reason why they don’t capture all income now: “landlords, businesses, etc.” aren’t one single monopolistic entity, there is price competition in markets for necessities that aren't regulated public utilities. There may at times be (natural or artificial) supply constraints in one or anothet market, but those are (1) separate issues from UBI, and (2) natural poison points which create political pressure for resolution.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#264

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 6:59 AM UTC

boring_twenties wrote: post #228

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "U" part means everyone would get it, so you don't have to opt for it, and everyone would still pay taxes Another way to think of it is as a negative income tax - as a simple example the equation could be ((income * 0.2) - 20000), so if you make no money you get 20k, if you make 100k you pay no taxes and get nothing, if you make 200k you owe 20. This is using a flat tax rate for simplicity but then everyone get t…

The question is how many people making 200k will, given the option, take the free 20k and not work, therefore paying no taxes.

> The question is how many people making 200k will, given the option, take the free 20k and not work, therefore paying no taxes.

Almost certainly the same number as are making 200k now that cease additional effort beyond what is necessary to make 20k, i.e., 0.

Probably even at lower levels more people would work (at least in the open economy paying full taxes) than dobcurrently, since pushing any clawback of benefits from the low levels and high marginal rates that they kick in with means tested benefit programs to somewhere higher on the income spectrum at a lower marginal additional rate reduces the disincentive to additional work compared to the status quo.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#265

Post by wude935 » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 7:32 AM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #4

wude935 wrote: post #2

I wonder if there is any artistic benefit by marrying the arts with a deeply capitalist system. Obviously as this article mentions its not great for the artists themselves, but perhaps the cutthroat nature of the industry makes it so that only the best of the best rise to the top, even if it means it comes from an independently wealthy musician.

Music is a commodity. There's already more music available to let my playlist run for years without repeats. Plus it's never been easier for folk to create, and publish, new music. With endless supply comes diminishing unit value. So, not to be brutal, but playing music is not an especially valuable thing, and so people really don't need to pay much for it. Ditto for writing books, making ceramics, pretty much anythi…

Yes, but your favorite type of music may not be my favorite type of music. “Good enough” music might be a commodity, and with the commodification of “good enough” music, the more niche genres will start to disappear.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#266

Post by JPws_Prntr_Fngr » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 11:38 AM UTC

bagacrap wrote: post #254

JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the blogger's point, which is that NYC is in the process of locking out the entire class of artists to which the young musician belongs. A one in a million musician with superior networking skill, or unbelievable good looks, or luck, or whatever, may start making bank and secure his place in the city. That's not the point. The blogger's point is that the game is rigged to the point where if yo…

No, you are missing the point of this comment thread, which is that this Billy has no more right to live this dream than Billy from Orlando.

No, again, you are speaking orthogonal to the blogger's point, which was to help Billy feel less depressed about being pushed out by understanding the bigger picture. Interesting that you and some other commenters seem so determined to obtusely miss it.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#267

Post by boring_twenties » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #264

boring_twenties wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is how many people making 200k will, given the option, take the free 20k and not work, therefore paying no taxes.

> The question is how many people making 200k will, given the option, take the free 20k and not work, therefore paying no taxes. Almost certainly the same number as are making 200k now that cease additional effort beyond what is necessary to make 20k, i.e., 0. Probably even at lower levels more people would work (at least in the open economy paying full taxes) than dobcurrently, since pushing any clawback of benefits…

> Almost certainly the same number as are making 200k now that cease additional effort beyond what is necessary to make 20k, i.e., 0.

I don't think so, because making $20k usually requires much more than 10% of the time and effort needed to make $200k.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#268

Post by boring_twenties » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 2:10 PM UTC

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #238

boring_twenties wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is how many people making 200k will, given the option, take the free 20k and not work, therefore paying no taxes.

Agreed - I'm betting that it's a small percentage of people, because anyone making that much is motivated more by the societal recognition than the money - at that point even in the US all your basic needs are met and you're just looking for brownie points, and you'll still be looking for that with an extra 20k. As another way to think about it - do bonuses disincentivize workers? At least personally that just makes…

What societal recognition? Most people I know that much are in big tech, finance and corporate law. None of us pretend to be of any value to society (thankfully -- that would be insufferable!)

$20k is not quite enough, but I can tell you that I lived the life of my dreams on $25k a year from 2016-2018. If I could guarantee that lifestyle forever I would take it over my current $300k+ job in a microsecond.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#269

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

boring_twenties wrote: post #268

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed - I'm betting that it's a small percentage of people, because anyone making that much is motivated more by the societal recognition than the money - at that point even in the US all your basic needs are met and you're just looking for brownie points, and you'll still be looking for that with an extra 20k. As another way to think about it - do bonuses disincentivize workers? At least personally that just makes…

What societal recognition? Most people I know that much are in big tech, finance and corporate law. None of us pretend to be of any value to society (thankfully -- that would be insufferable!) $20k is not quite enough, but I can tell you that I lived the life of my dreams on $25k a year from 2016-2018. If I could guarantee that lifestyle forever I would take it over my current $300k+ job in a microsecond.

> $20k is not quite enough, but I can tell you that I lived the life of my dreams on $25k a year from 2016-2018. If I could guarantee that lifestyle forever I would take it over my current $300k+ job in a microsecond.

But government policy (even that notionally of a Constitutional character, which most UBI proposals wouldn’t be) isn’t a permanent guarantee (see abortion rights for a recent example), and if that was really true, it doesn’t take long living a $25k lifestyle on a $300k income to be able to save and make yourself a firmer guarantee of a $25k lifestyle forever than government policy would ever do.

Approximately no one does it, because as much as people making lots of money might rhetorically appeal to the attractiveness of such an idea, no one actually making that money now feels it enough to act on it.

The people who would be content to rely on minimal poverty support are, largely, doing that already, since we have such programs now and they have a much stronger disincentive to additional income than would exist with UBI due to means testing, which takes benefits away rapidly (sometimes more than 1:1) with additional income.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#270

Post by boring_twenties » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 9:00 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #269

boring_twenties wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What societal recognition? Most people I know that much are in big tech, finance and corporate law. None of us pretend to be of any value to society (thankfully -- that would be insufferable!) $20k is not quite enough, but I can tell you that I lived the life of my dreams on $25k a year from 2016-2018. If I could guarantee that lifestyle forever I would take it over my current $300k+ job in a microsecond.

> $20k is not quite enough, but I can tell you that I lived the life of my dreams on $25k a year from 2016-2018. If I could guarantee that lifestyle forever I would take it over my current $300k+ job in a microsecond. But government policy (even that notionally of a Constitutional character, which most UBI proposals wouldn’t be) isn’t a permanent guarantee (see abortion rights for a recent example), and if that was r…

> it doesn’t take long living a $25k lifestyle on a $300k income to be able to save

It's much harder to live a $25k lifestyle while working a demanding full-time job than it is while having all your time free, though.

- You can choose a low cost of living area.

- You have plenty of time to cook all your own meals.

- You can fix your own car.

- You can travel during off-times when prices are lower.

And so on.