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

Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 271 posts

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#161

Post by dnautics »

pinaceae wrote: post #60

As a European we are bit further down that path than the US. I assume most of the readers here are "wealthy", would not need basic guaranteed income. So let me explain why this is a good idea from a rich man's perspective. You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. That's it. Behind all the nice language this is what it boils down to. It is paying off poor…

You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep.

You don't think that this is a poor model of crime? There are plenty of empirical counterexamples. During the great depression in the US, crime rates went to an all-time low. The gap between the rich and the poor in the US is at an all-time high; yet the crime rate is again at a low.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#162

Post by pinaceae »

ctdonath wrote: post #156
pinaceae wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and looking at stats like murder rates, incarceration numbers, etc. the US system is clearly working and superior. I can walk any street at 2am in Vienna without looking over my shoulder. Oakland? Philly? A personal gun doesn't stop anyone. Fantasy from lala land.

Oakland & Philly, for most practical purposes, ban carry of guns outright. Outside of official "gun-free zones", where armed citizens are legal, crime is very low.

so, in Vienna I can walk around unarmed, with zero risk of getting into a firefight and being hurt/killed. walk around as in drunk, with earbuds in, at 2am.

in your gun-zones i need to carry concealed, know how to properly shoot and kill and have the risk of hurting/killing innocents. everyone loses in a real firefight. plus if i am drunk and carry stupid things happen.

but the US model is clearly better. i need to arm myself to not get robbed.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#163

Post by dnautics »

nimble wrote: post #138
pinaceae wrote: post #60

As a European we are bit further down that path than the US. I assume most of the readers here are "wealthy", would not need basic guaranteed income. So let me explain why this is a good idea from a rich man's perspective. You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. That's it. Behind all the nice language this is what it boils down to. It is paying off poor…

Basic income is a good idea but you have the rationale wrong. The right theory for a basic income should be that all people deserve a stake in the accumulated knowledge and technology of mankind, just as they deserve equal stake in the land and other natural resources. As general advancement accelerates and allows for greater production with less labor, a greater percentage of that wealth ought to be shared with ever…

The right theory for a basic income should be that all people deserve a stake in the accumulated knowledge and technology of mankind

This is, actually, the argument for why we shouldn't have an inflationary monetary system. Normally technological improvement is deflationary (witness lowering prices for tech goods in spite of inflation - healthcare is different because it's highly regulated). Yet what we do by inflating the currency "to keep prices stable" is to steal the marginal improvement in livelihood created by technology and throw it at the financial sector.... At best. In reality we steal more than the marginal value; hence increasing income inequality, overenriched financial sector, decreased real wages in spite of increased productivity...

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#164

Post by rjohnk »

barrkel wrote: post #129
ctdonath wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. Once you've established a "protection money" system, establishing their "right" to your money & property, they are now incentivized to demand - and take - more. Panem et circenses is the last stage of polite society; the cost eventually becomes unbearable as fewer work and more expect comfort & leisure for nothing…

Ideological response: Police are the thugs that rich people buy to defend themselves from the poor. Actually, basic income / negative income tax is a very good idea, much better than welfare schemes of almost all kinds - it has almost no administration overhead. Charity, like you advocate, has huge amounts of overhead. Milton Friedman was an advocate, for example, and he was hardly a socialist. And the idea that char…

Exhibit A negating your last statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6805699

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#165

Post by Aloha »

ctdonath wrote: post #156
pinaceae wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and looking at stats like murder rates, incarceration numbers, etc. the US system is clearly working and superior. I can walk any street at 2am in Vienna without looking over my shoulder. Oakland? Philly? A personal gun doesn't stop anyone. Fantasy from lala land.

Oakland & Philly, for most practical purposes, ban carry of guns outright. Outside of official "gun-free zones", where armed citizens are legal, crime is very low.

More guns is not the solution to stop crime. It's jobs, it's income, it's opportunity. People commit these petty crimes, join gangs, and so on - simply because there are no other options open to them - there are no jobs they can get to - beyond that our broken education system didn't give them the skills to hold a job.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#166

Post by carbocation »

maaku wrote: post #98
carbocation wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies that they're not talking about scrapping the welfare state. That's fine, but it implies that they are not speaking plainly, and it also eliminates the basis for my question.

Most people in the world don't count universal healthcare as part of the welfare state.

Healthcare is one of the most universally agreed upon components of the welfare state.

Or are you are using "welfare state" as a pejorative? Because it is a real phrase with a non-pejorative meaning.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#167

Post by valtron »

jasonlfunk wrote: post #115
carbocation wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the optimist's view, think how many people whose lives are being spent working at Walmart or McDonald's who could instead be at home developing skills they are actually interested in (which school does a poor job of teaching), such as programming or sculpture, etc. Imagine the entrepreneurs who might feel freed to give business a chance, rather than feeling that they can't quit their day jobs? It would be a gran…

From the pessimistic point of view, why would anyone choose to work a crappy job at Walmart or McDonalds when the government would give them the same money without having to do anything. Walmart and McDonalds (and everyone else) would therefore either go out of business or raise their wages. Raising their wages would increase the price of their goods. Increasing prices of goods would increase the cost of living which…

The central idea behind basic income is that everyone gets it. Having employment income wouldn't reduce it. So anyone who would have previously worked at McDonalds would still work there if they wanted more money than they already get from BI.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#168

Post by Symmetry »

brockers wrote: post #94

The author is a little confused about the history of Libertarian thought on this issue. A minimum basic income (MBI) is NOT a social progressive concept first thought up by western social democrats but was originally a fundamental tenant of a flat tax system. Something Libertarian's have been arguing in favor of for a long time. The basic design is simple. You give every person a single dollar amount as a MBI and the…

Another effect that's probably more relevant for Hacker News readers, it doesn't dis-incentivize having your income be higher some years and lower on others. Very important for people considering founding startups, but also for people thinking about pursuing more education.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#169

Post by mcherm »

cobrausn wrote: post #50
nanidin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally the income level is below "Owns 42" flatscreen, can go to anything more expensive than McDonald's, owns latest xbox, owns other luxury goods" such that people are no longer living in poverty, but still have motivation to excel beyond their current situation. Unfortunately, if you hand someone with poor money management skills a bunch of cash, they may end up with all of those luxury items & no food on the tab…

Considering how cheap consumer electronics and entertainment are these days, I'm genuinely concerned that this 'minimum income' would be high enough to permit many to live in perpetual 'childhood' - cheap food, cheap entertainment.

Why does this concern you?

To me, that sounds like hearing someone saying "I'm genuinely concerned that people will start giving their kids strange-sounding names." Sure, it's a bit odd, but so what... it's not affecting you.

Maybe you are concerned that they will fail to contribute to the economy, thus dragging it down, but if so then I wonder what you think of our current economic system which leaves a noticeable percentage of people unemployed. Maybe you are motivated by the classic Protestant work ethic and think failing to work hard is a sin, but if so I'm not sure why THIS sin is one you need to worry about in others rather than in yourself.

And at this point I should stop knocking down straw men, and wait to hear why this actually concerns you.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#170

Post by strlen »

ctdonath wrote: post #99
pinaceae wrote: post #60

As a European we are bit further down that path than the US. I assume most of the readers here are "wealthy", would not need basic guaranteed income. So let me explain why this is a good idea from a rich man's perspective. You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. That's it. Behind all the nice language this is what it boils down to. It is paying off poor…

You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. Once you've established a "protection money" system, establishing their "right" to your money & property, they are now incentivized to demand - and take - more. Panem et circenses is the last stage of polite society; the cost eventually becomes unbearable as fewer work and more expect comfort & leisure for nothing…

The Latin American states where the elites lives on hill-side housing, protected by guards and fences, all have fairly strict gun laws. They aren't going to let the poor arm themselves! While European gun laws are usually stricter than those in the "red states" of US, there are many places that have more lax laws than New York, Connecticut, and California (Czech Republic and Italy two examples that popped to my head; New Zealand and some Canadian provinces -- while not in Europe -- are also more lax than NY/CT/CA/MD afaik).

The reason you have the firepower is because those left behind by the knowledge work revolution and living in the inland US still have sufficient political power to counter the Manhattanites and San Franciscans eager to take that firepower away ("oh no, we can't let the peons be seen carrying their icky icky AR-15s, ewww!").

The biggest pusher of gun control in the United States is Mike Bloomberg -- he also happens to be a fairly enthusiastic defender of Wall Street. In his mind it makes perfect sense: why would the elites arm themselves directly, if they can just isolate themselves in Manhattan and Pacific Heights, protected by an armed police state. His gun control support (which seems to be back firing so far) is a great way for him to score brownie points many liberals (who would otherwise be diametrically opposed to most of his positions) without actually proposing any laws that would inconvenience the top 1-0.1% of the population.

I'd imagine the Swiss voters (who are voting for this) are laughing extra hard; upon completion of their militia service, they're able buy their service rifle (SIG 552) for $35 (the cost of converting it to a semi-automatic) -- the US-export equivalent (SIG 556) costs in excess of $1800 and cannot be purchased by those in New York or CT (and without significant alterations, in California), the states where quasi-technocratic elites dominate politics: they "know" what's best for the lowest classes (hence support of paternalistic programs like SNAP as well as individual mandates like social security and ACA), they also "know" what's the best for you to defend yourself.

Post reply on HN