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

Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#121

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

gruez wrote: post #76
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché?

>I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? >Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché? 1. if you look carefully I'm not t…

I'm not sure how you appease you other than to have simply not bothered with my comment; perhaps that would have been better. Still, seeing the mistake -- as I see it -- and ignoring it to move on to something else doesn't seem necessarily better.

> And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is?

In this case, an honest attempt at raising general discussion quality, even if it happens to lower it in the immediacy.

> 1. if you look carefully I'm not the person that you originally accused of using "thought-terminating cliché"

Yes, but you did use such a cliché in your response which seemed to have demanded that I argue against said cliché ("... but rather than trying to argue for why we should, you drop a link to some fallacy on wikipedia and call it a day.")

> 2. You really haven't really presented any arguments for the original argument was a "thought-terminating cliché".

Indeed, and I am still not even sure specifically what point they intended to argue. I don't know what a coherent response would look like other than to point out why I can't seem to form a more coherent response.

--------------

Anyway, back to the initial statement.

> I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others.

It seems to be commonly decried that "people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should [not] be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others" and rarely asserted that "people with less fortunate life circumstances should be allowed the opportunity to take risks with their productive time rather than being forced into employment as soon as they reach adulthood".

Your point is that I could start with this explanation or otherwise include it in my initial comment -- which is fair enough! I suppose I might subscribe a bit too much to a "Socratic" method of teasing out another person's thoughts rather than supplying my own.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#122

Post by tenebrisalietum »

gruez wrote: post #49
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others. This is a good example of a "thought-terminating cliché"[0]. In this case, the statement assumes its own veracity, which makes it difficult to respond to in a discussion. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3…

Ironically by invoking "thought-terminating cliché", you are partaking in the very offense you accuse the parent of. Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? There's plausible arguments for both sides, but rather than trying to argue for why we should, you drop a link to some fallacy on wikipedia and call it a day.

Working parents transfer (some) wealth to non-working children so they can survive. Is that unfair?

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#123

Post by lambertsimnel »

mypastself wrote: post #56
lambertsimnel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t it be the case that a universal basic income that gives low-wage workers more choice would increase competition among their employers, resulting in low-wage work becoming more enticing?

For whom would this type of work become more enticing? I don’t follow.

Those who already do it and others who might consider this type of work. If they didn't depend so much on it, maybe (for example) employers, customers, etc would have to treat them with more respect.

Even if it isn't viable to increase the pay, the work could be made more pleasant if people took more persuading to take it.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#124

Post by hellojesus »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #118
hellojesus wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison. Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Though to be fair there was extended unemployment benefits, so those would have to be considered in each person…

> Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Expecting common workers to SUE THE GOVERNMENT for lost wages is patently fucking absurd. > I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when th…

> Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason.

I disagree. The gov forced businesses to shut down (1). That is not the same as preventing potential revenue (2).

(1) requires just compensation. (2) doesn't.

> If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth?

If the code is in place prior to your business' operation, then no. If a new law forces a new code that renders an existing contract of yours void, I would see a case for compensation as the gov passed the law for the benefit of the public.

> If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also?

This is an example of (2) above. The gov isn't forcing your business shut. A policy has prevented customers from reaching you, but your business is still free to operate.

> If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that?

No private property was seized. No compensation owed.

> Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened.

Quite literally we're in record inflation times. Some of that is due to supply side constraints, but a whole bunch of it was due to the three trillion pumped into the economy to prevent an economic contraction.

> You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater

You do. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

> We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale.

We have laws in place to restrict freedoms. We cannot ignore these same laws when they prescribe a remedy for seizure of non state property by the state.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#125

Post by tenebrisalietum »

hellojesus wrote: post #35
mypastself wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t it be the case that it’s much harder for poor people to find employment they enjoy as much as CEOs enjoy theirs? Or that ultra-rich CEOs are able to reach that status in part because their work ethics is an extreme outlier?

Of course. The only reason people work is because the expected value of their work maximizes their utility curve when compared to the opportunity costs. I go to work because I need money to live. I find employment by maximizing the pay I'm able to get conditional om my skillset and preferred job functions. But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activ…

> But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others.

Therefore inheritance should be illegal, because it potentially allows for the capability of spending stored productive capacity on a full life of leisure.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#126

Post by hellojesus »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #122
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically by invoking "thought-terminating cliché", you are partaking in the very offense you accuse the parent of. Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? There's plausible arguments for both sides, but rather than trying to argue for why we should, you drop a link to some fallacy on wikipedia and call it a day.

Working parents transfer (some) wealth to non-working children so they can survive. Is that unfair?

Not unfair. That is a voluntary transaction.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#127

Post by hellojesus »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #121
gruez wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? >Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché? 1. if you look carefully I'm not t…

I'm not sure how you appease you other than to have simply not bothered with my comment; perhaps that would have been better. Still, seeing the mistake -- as I see it -- and ignoring it to move on to something else doesn't seem necessarily better. > And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? In this case, an honest attempt at raising general discussion quality, even i…

> and rarely asserted that "people with less fortunate life circumstances should be allowed the opportunity to take risks with their productive time rather than being forced into employment as soon as they reach adulthood".

I don't deny this assertion. I deny the method of achieving this outcome whereby private property is stolen/taxed involuntarily from others to achieve it.

People with worse initital conditions are absolutely free the opportunity to take risks with their productive time. I believe that the risk should be funded voluntarily by either charity or lrivate capital. Involuntary funding necessarily leads to less efficient economic outcomes.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#128

Post by tenebrisalietum »

hellojesus wrote: post #108
gruez wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? >Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché? 1. if you look carefully I'm not t…

I am the original commentor. My intention was to form an assertion that could be disproved via a counterexample. Let me try again: Why should citizen A have to involuntarily transfer their private property gained through voluntary economic transactions to citizen B?

Why should citizen B defend citizen's A extreme wealth in a state of war? Citizen A's property ceases to be private without a maintained defense.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#129

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

hellojesus wrote: post #127
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how you appease you other than to have simply not bothered with my comment; perhaps that would have been better. Still, seeing the mistake -- as I see it -- and ignoring it to move on to something else doesn't seem necessarily better. > And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? In this case, an honest attempt at raising general discussion quality, even i…

> and rarely asserted that "people with less fortunate life circumstances should be allowed the opportunity to take risks with their productive time rather than being forced into employment as soon as they reach adulthood". I don't deny this assertion. I deny the method of achieving this outcome whereby private property is stolen/taxed involuntarily from others to achieve it. People with worse initital conditions are…

(Thanks for clarifying!)

> I don't deny this assertion.

For what it’s worth, I don’t mean to say that your comment specifically denies this idea. More lamenting the assumptions that are made.

> People with worse initital conditions are absolutely free the opportunity to take risks with their productive time.

I agree but the risk is much less for a person who can get by on an allowance from their parents or are afforded a place to stay rent-free; failure can be effectively punitive with life-long consequences without such a safety net.

> Involuntary funding necessarily leads to less efficient economic outcomes.

Why do you believe this? Not that I mean to deny it outright but I often see this claim and I cannot recall seeing strong evidence of it. From an epistemology perspective, I don’t see how people “know” this such that they feel comfortable stating it so brazenly.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#130

Post by tharmas »

lapcat wrote: post #100
tharmas wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it was the Boomers who voted him in. I suppose I should've made that more obvious as many readers where quite young at the time of Reagan or weren't even born then at all. And to be clear I was referring to Boomers voted for Clinton. My bad.

"The generation is often defined as people born from 1946 to 1964" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers In the 1980 Presidential election, won by Reagan with 51% of the vote, the oldest Boomers were 34 years old, the youngest 16, and thus not even eligible to vote. According to the linked document, Carter slightly won voters under 30, whereas Reagan won voters 30+ with 55%. It's unclear how exactly 30-44 broke…

I know that Clinton watered down the anti-monopoly laws but wasn't sure if Reagan had watered down them considerably more than Clinton.

Why the confrontational tone? If you think I'm wrong couldn't you have stated so in a more gracious tone? Does all discourse on the internet where you don't like what the person is saying have to be hostile sounding in tone?

Post reply on HN