The indignity of no work • Hacker News Board

Re: The indignity of no work

#241

Post by loup-vaillant » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 9:32 AM UTC

ronaldx wrote: post #208

whatevsbro wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did list printing as one of the three way a government acquires money, and as "smsm42" explained, it's not a sustainable way to fund anything, let alone the massive expenditures required for UBI. > But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour. Money is a representation of value - you've had to earn it…

> it's not a sustainable way to fund anything, let alone the massive expenditures required for UBI. I'm open-minded but not convinced that printing money for UBI is an awful idea. Printing money and sharing it out equally results in inflation, very likely, which affects people with existing wealth/savings more. The result is that money is very effectively redistributed, in a way which the existing income-based taxati…

It is, but you have to be careful not to overdo it.

Also, I wasn't only advocating printing money by the state. I was also suggesting we stop banks from printing money as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-reserve_banking Monetary policy is too important to let private special interests control it.

Also, the current way of dealing with money, even for a state, is to think in terms of budget, deficits… while it should instead think in terms of money supply. The state would then increase the money supply through various spending, and decrease through taxes. Deficit would be zero by definition. Only inflation would remain. (My guess: inflation should probably be kept between 3% and 10% per year. It should definitely not be null.)

Monetary policy influences all other policies, because you do need a budget to do anything. (A budget in resources and manpower, but money is too convenient to do away with.)

My point is, money is too important to let a few powerful, not-even-elected entities control it.

Re: The indignity of no work

#242

Post by whatevsbro » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 11:39 AM UTC

ahomescu1 wrote: post #229

whatevsbro wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that. If it were genuinely voluntary, they could just stop any time they wanted to, without any negative consequences. We all know they can't - they'll be forcefully hauled into jail, and their property will be confiscated.

Sure, but my point was that that's not the main reason; they genuinely want to pay for some of the stuff that comes out of taxes (like police, firefighters, public schools and roads). The point is this: if you don't want to stop paying taxes, why does it matter that you can't? (to some people it matters, but to many it doesn't)

>> Many people do pay taxes voluntarily

You claimed people pay taxes voluntarily, but that is incorrect. Even if some people don't mind paying them now, they can't stop either. Your willingness to pay them is separate from whether you have a choice.

Re: The indignity of no work

#243

Post by dantheman » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 12:42 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #231

harryh wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social Security pays the retired 10s of Ks per year so they can live comfortably after paying into the system for their entire career. You think we should get rid of that in favor of a basic income of ~10k for everyone? That's going to suck pretty bad for the retired. You're certainly entitled to your opinion if you do think that but the vast vast vast majority of Americans are going to disagree with you.

Do you have a source for that? According to the social security administration, the average monthly payout is about 1100/mo. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/ Even if social security was completely removed for a basic income of 10k (I'll clarify again that I'm not endorsing that figure as a blanket basic income), it would be a cut of a couple thousand a year, not a cut of more than 10k as you c…

In addition to SS there is medicare which costs a fortune and many other programs such ones that fund community centers, affordable housing, etc.

Re: The indignity of no work

#244

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 2:42 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #234

dllthomas wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem is that money is fungible - if you give people money instead of free housing, they'd just by some crap on it and then will come back to you and complain they have nowhere to live, and you're back to square one." That's the fear that leads to all the specific help, but the experiments with unconditional cash show that is not what happens.

So far I've seen all the experiments conducted in remote places with extremely poor people having no experience with welfare state. What I'd like is to see something like that somewhere in Chicago. I.e. remove all fringe benefits, monetize them and convert to cash payments, and see how that goes. I suspect the result would be much different.

You've missed several relevant studies.

First, the Mincome experiment in Manitoba (confusingly, while "Minimum Income" is something different than "Basic Income", the experiment did test "Basic Income"), which ran for five years in the 1970s and found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

Second, there was a case in London recently where a large lump sum was given to each of 13 long-term homeless men.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-t...

Third, unconditional income on an Indian reservation (derived from Casino profits) showed a substantial improvement in the welfare of children from poor families:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/what-happens...

You can absolutely find nits to pick about all of these, but they are not "remote places with extremely poor people having no experience with the welfare state". I'd love to see an experiment conducted in Chicago or wherever else, but if people in all of the above, diverse situations (some of whom certainly have experience with a welfare state) behave one way it starts to be perverse to expect something different for an arbitrary new group of people (which isn't to say we couldn't be surprised or shouldn't do more research, to a point).

Re: The indignity of no work

#245

Post by Amezarak » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 2:50 PM UTC

whatevsbro wrote: post #227

dllthomas wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now." If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? At some point you may resort to violence (or have someone else do it on your behalf), so, that's extortion right? I would s…

> If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property. But if I tell you I'm going to hurt you if you don't give me your laptop, that is extortion. > Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations. "We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all ind…

Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that murder is wrong and should be punished. Does that mean the remaining one has to accept that murder is wrong, because they have "collectively decided" that murder is wrong, or does he have the right to commit murder?

Of course, the 9 people in the room have a sound and reasonable argument that murder is wrong (perhaps their argument is "it infringes the rights of others"), just as, we may presume, the nine chili-eaters have a sound and reasonable argument they must all eat the five hottest chilis. But in each instance, the tenth individual began from different premises and did not arrive at their conclusion (maybe he is an Incan time traveler and human sacrifice is part of his religious beliefs, and he does not see that there is any objective basis for human rights.)

Enforced collective agreement and societal norms are necessary for society to exists whether you like and agree to it or not. If that makes you a slave, then all of mankind has been enslaved from the dawn of time save the loners in the wilderness.

One of the libertarian's "collective agreements" is that every individual has certain rights.

Re: The indignity of no work

#246

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 2:58 PM UTC

whatevsbro wrote: post #227

dllthomas wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now." If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? At some point you may resort to violence (or have someone else do it on your behalf), so, that's extortion right? I would s…

> If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property. But if I tell you I'm going to hurt you if you don't give me your laptop, that is extortion. > Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations. "We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all ind…

"Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property."

Yes, that's my point. But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.

'"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).'

I disagree. Yes, we are all individuals. Yes, we all have the same rights. But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.

Re: The indignity of no work

#247

Post by harryh » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 4:00 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #231

harryh wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social Security pays the retired 10s of Ks per year so they can live comfortably after paying into the system for their entire career. You think we should get rid of that in favor of a basic income of ~10k for everyone? That's going to suck pretty bad for the retired. You're certainly entitled to your opinion if you do think that but the vast vast vast majority of Americans are going to disagree with you.

Do you have a source for that? According to the social security administration, the average monthly payout is about 1100/mo. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/ Even if social security was completely removed for a basic income of 10k (I'll clarify again that I'm not endorsing that figure as a blanket basic income), it would be a cut of a couple thousand a year, not a cut of more than 10k as you c…

> That was like, one third of one fourth of my post.

The importance of different pieces of your post shouldn't be measured in word count, but in dollars. I picked the part that matters the most (by far) from this perspective.

Re: The indignity of no work

#248

Post by dantheman » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

1stop wrote: post #221

e1g wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An Australian here - there is absolutely no universal basic income in Australia. We have a nurturing social safety net and it provides some minimal payments for those who are experiencing hardship. These payments are temporary and a meant to help individuals survive while they get up on their feet again. The selection criteria is quite forgiving because the system is setup to err on the side of overpayments rather th…

I think you misunderstand australian system. It is identical to a universal basic income, but it has been built with efficiency in mind (much like ALL of Australia's welfare systems). A basic income of ~$10k/year is provided to everyone (who needs it, i.e the unemployed). Depending on what kind of other needs (rent, children, school, etc) other benefits are available as well. It is not temporary, and you can live on…

UBI is that everyone gets it, it's not unemployment money. It's every person (with the caveat that maybe only people over 18 or whatever) will get the money.

Re: The indignity of no work

#249

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 6:07 PM UTC

1stop wrote: post #221

e1g wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An Australian here - there is absolutely no universal basic income in Australia. We have a nurturing social safety net and it provides some minimal payments for those who are experiencing hardship. These payments are temporary and a meant to help individuals survive while they get up on their feet again. The selection criteria is quite forgiving because the system is setup to err on the side of overpayments rather th…

I think you misunderstand australian system. It is identical to a universal basic income, but it has been built with efficiency in mind (much like ALL of Australia's welfare systems). A basic income of ~$10k/year is provided to everyone (who needs it, i.e the unemployed). Depending on what kind of other needs (rent, children, school, etc) other benefits are available as well. It is not temporary, and you can live on…

> Tell me, if it isn't a universal basic income, then who is not 'eligible' for it? (Excluding people who already earn more than the basic income of course).

A UBI means everyone gets it, regardless of their other income. What you describe sounds is a means-tested minimum income support, not an unconditional basic income. UBI proponents oppose income-based means-testing for a number of reasons, including both additional administrative complexity and the fact that income-based means-testing reduces the incentive to productive work by creating an range in which additional outside income has reduced or no impact on total income, whereas with UBI no such range exists.

Re: The indignity of no work

#250

Post by scotty79 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 6:19 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #123

scotty79 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washing dishes is so incredibly dumb. What should have been done long ago is standardising plates, cups and cutlery and creating integrated dish cabinet/washer that can wash those standardised items and store them. The fact that in 2014 we still rely on manual work to wash the dishes is a disgrace perpetrated by oversupply of cheap human work.

You can't standardize consumer goods. Non-standardized goods will instantly acquire a prestige premium and all your hard work on all that labor-saving tooling will go out the window in a matter of years.

You can still have prestige mount for you flat screen tv but bulk of the market will go with standardised one. It's hard to standardise things that don't interoperate with anything else but when there is some interface with other object there's trend toward standardisation.

Plates to large to fit in a dishwasher or that can't be washed or microwaved didn't acquire prestige premium as far as I know.