Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid • Hacker News Board

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#21

Post by eru » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 11:43 AM UTC

Sammi wrote: post #17

mason55 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes This is the idea behind a basic income. Some experiments are also finding it cheaper to just give people houses than to continue to run homeless outreach programs.

I like the idea of basic income, but this does not necessarily need to be basic income. Basic income is a small regular payment to every adult no matter if they have a job or not. A system where you just pay those that don't have a job a minor income would be enough to stop desperate people from doing desperate things. The reason it makes sense is because the consequences of these desperate acts are more expensive th…

Oh, but you need to think a bit further about incentives. Ideally, you don't want people to lose the small but regular employment the moment they pick up a (possibly unsteady!) job.

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#22

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 12:01 PM UTC

wslh wrote: post #19

swombat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the popu…

I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution . Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".

Not working and not having your basic needs met is probably worse though.

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#23

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 12:22 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #20

wslh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution . Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".

How about basic income and abolishing any minimum wage? (And other barriers to low income employment.)

Basic income creates a de facto minimum wage by setting a wage for a complete lack of labor. I'd think any other minimum wage would be redundant.

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#24

Post by polymatter » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 12:35 PM UTC

wslh wrote: post #19

swombat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the popu…

I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution . Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".

I'd be interested to hear any other potential solutions. Seems to me the choice is either:

a) basic income, or

b) all the unemployed who can not get a job in the new economy are given a government job. The work in the job doesn't matter, as long as it provides a fig leaf to allow the government to give them the money they desperately need to live.

If its not entirely clear, I think that these non-jobs are are an unfair and incredibly expensive way of giving out benefits. The richer would be better off with a basic income (free money! smaller more efficient government meaning taxing the rich less!). The poor would be better off with a basic income (no social workers or benefit admins judging you! future is predictable so able to start investing for the future!). Its only annoying for those of us in the middle, those who will not benefit much from a basic income (because it won't be a huge amount of money, our taxes are unlikely to decrease) but will also not see much benefit from it (I probably already had a safety net in terms of friends and family, and the basic income will be too small to support the lifestyle I am used to anyway).

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#25

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

polymatter wrote: post #24

wslh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution . Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".

I'd be interested to hear any other potential solutions. Seems to me the choice is either: a) basic income, or b) all the unemployed who can not get a job in the new economy are given a government job. The work in the job doesn't matter, as long as it provides a fig leaf to allow the government to give them the money they desperately need to live. If its not entirely clear, I think that these non-jobs are are an unfa…

But until we reach the new economy where robots completely replace everyone, we don't need "fig leaf" jobs. There is actual, useful, work that can be done. For example, people can be put to work repairing our "crumbling infrastructure" or building new infrastructure (c.f. FDR). Some of them can provide day care for working mothers. Etc.

Basically, take all those cool programs that the left seems to like and make folks who claim to be unable to find a job be the ones to actually do the work.

Once robots take over, eliminating these basic jobs will be so cheap that no one will object. Until then, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves.

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#26

Post by heedspin » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 2:06 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #16

mason55 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes This is the idea behind a basic income. Some experiments are also finding it cheaper to just give people houses than to continue to run homeless outreach programs.

It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the popu…

Instead of basic income, what if "basic needs" were all free: Food, shelter, healthcare, and recreation. Money would only be free for people who work. Money gives the freedom to do consume goods that are not free.

Sigh. And now to tear down my own thought. Maybe "free basic needs" works (psychologically) for everyone reading HN. But I'm afraid it could destroy a percentage of the population. If someone has no fundamental drive to work, what happens to him/her when work is unnecessary? Hunger is a pretty good motivator. Maybe working any job is better than not working at all (i.e., better for our our mental state). I guess what I'm saying is this: once we meet everyone's basic needs and remove desperation, we still have the problems inherent to idleness.

Crap, let's move to Switzerland...

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#27

Post by lukeschlather » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 3:05 PM UTC

polymatter wrote: post #24

wslh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution . Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".

I'd be interested to hear any other potential solutions. Seems to me the choice is either: a) basic income, or b) all the unemployed who can not get a job in the new economy are given a government job. The work in the job doesn't matter, as long as it provides a fig leaf to allow the government to give them the money they desperately need to live. If its not entirely clear, I think that these non-jobs are are an unfa…

We should pay people to study and provide higher compensation for better grades. (However, failing can't be allowed to compromise basic shelter/food needs.)

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#28

Post by mangamadaiyan » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 3:32 PM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #27

polymatter wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested to hear any other potential solutions. Seems to me the choice is either: a) basic income, or b) all the unemployed who can not get a job in the new economy are given a government job. The work in the job doesn't matter, as long as it provides a fig leaf to allow the government to give them the money they desperately need to live. If its not entirely clear, I think that these non-jobs are are an unfa…

We should pay people to study and provide higher compensation for better grades. (However, failing can't be allowed to compromise basic shelter/food needs.)

Ouch. What if the grading system is unfair and allows students to game the system by memorizing facts instead of actually understanding what they're studying? (Not quite a rhetorical question, this is pretty much how the educational system in many parts of the world works)

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#29

Post by Sideloader » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

wslh wrote: post #19

swombat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the popu…

I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution . Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".

That's what you, and many others, imagine but what does the research say? For links and references to a variety of studies that have attempted to get some data on this issue check out the Basic Income and MINCOME entries in Wikipedia.

And what if there simply isn't enough work, in the traditional sense, to go around? This is a very real issue as automation increases and this time around the newly jobless can't go work on Ford's assembly line or take stenography classes. The fact is there are going to be far more people without jobs than there are jobs available.

It's kind of ironic that in 2015 work is fetishized to a degree that would make Karl Marx blush. This is a worrying trend. As another contributor has already pointed out, if we don't update our, quite literally, outdated attitude towards work and employment we are potentially facing some very serious social unrest.

Re: Impulsive Rich Kid, Impulsive Poor Kid

#30

Post by catbird » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 4:17 PM UTC

heedspin wrote: post #26

swombat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the popu…

Instead of basic income, what if "basic needs" were all free: Food, shelter, healthcare, and recreation. Money would only be free for people who work. Money gives the freedom to do consume goods that are not free. Sigh. And now to tear down my own thought. Maybe "free basic needs" works (psychologically) for everyone reading HN. But I'm afraid it could destroy a percentage of the population. If someone has no fundame…

I don't understand all these posts worrying about "What would a person do without a job." What do retired people do? What do kids do during summer vacation? They live a relaxing and enjoyable life, spending time with friends and family, and pursuing their interests. Sounds good to me!