The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#101

Post by c22 » Fri, May 06, 2016, 4:16 AM UTC

golemotron wrote: post #97

c22 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying policy is controlled by the media?

Whether a distinction exists in the minds of the public or not is not something that can be controlled by policy. Especially in a world where people can communicate freely on social media, and where mainstream media has a financial incentive to to amplify outrage.

> Whether a distinction exists in the minds of the public or not is not something that can be controlled by policy.

I disagree with this, I think the interplay between policy, public opinion, and the media is more nuanced than that. I believe they can all have effects on eachother.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#102

Post by ThomPete » Fri, May 06, 2016, 11:55 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #100

ThomPete wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you and others get wrong in that analysis is that you don't take into account that just one algorithm have to learn something then all the others can do the same. Point machine learning towards a problem and things that normally was cumbersome and took several people to do is suddenly done in the fraction of a second. It's like claiming that if an alien race landed on planet earth with superior skills and superi…

Machine learning is still far from automating most services. If anything, machine learning will create as many jobs as it will destroy.

You must be able to provide some examples of jobs that will be created.

So when machine learning will remove the need for radiologist and many surgeons as it's already well underway to. What areas is it that these doctors will then be able to work in thats going to be of value?

It's ironic how steadfast many of you are in this idea that more jobs will be created when there is no evidence it's the case and the new jobs that are created require much less than whatever it replaced.

You are also confusing globalization with actual job creation in the west.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#103

Post by ThomPete » Fri, May 06, 2016, 12:03 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #96

dragonwriter wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Automating away the human in the order process removes a way to speed up the process. Modern registers are complex enough to require training. Untrained, possibly illiterate customers using them while decision-making? That's bad news. A number of fast-food and similar outlets have order-ahead mobile apps, which include payment through the app. These take humans out of the order process, but do not require customers…

I use them sometimes. They're a pain in the ass, way more work for me than simply ordering at a counter while a human types my order in. The only advantage is not having to wait for my food when I get there. The real win on that front isn't fast food, it's the ability to order from local restaurants for pickup. We do that a lot.

You are using anecdotes to counter a general trend.

Who cares what you think. The point is that the majority don't consider it a pain in the ass.

If you want to debate this issue based on your personal preference it becomes pointless.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#104

Post by TrevorJ » Fri, May 06, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #85

TrevorJ wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TO me, they key problem you have to solve is: how do you avoid rent-seeking, and cost of living inflation? I'm not convinced UBI works in a free market.

> TO me, they key problem you have to solve is: how do you avoid rent-seeking, and cost of living inflation? You avoid rent-seeking by avoiding monopolies; competitive markets prevent rent-seeking. > and cost of living inflation? Monetary policy, the same way inflation is managed now. That aside, before considering any corrective changes in monetary policy, any UBI is likely to produce some level of upward pressure o…

Where has this broken down with higher education then? Costs are rising in lock step with the availability of loans.

Monopolies are not the reason that prices rise according to what the market will bear.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#105

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, May 07, 2016, 2:43 AM UTC

TrevorJ wrote: post #104

dragonwriter wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TO me, they key problem you have to solve is: how do you avoid rent-seeking, and cost of living inflation? You avoid rent-seeking by avoiding monopolies; competitive markets prevent rent-seeking. > and cost of living inflation? Monetary policy, the same way inflation is managed now. That aside, before considering any corrective changes in monetary policy, any UBI is likely to produce some level of upward pressure o…

Where has this broken down with higher education then? Costs are rising in lock step with the availability of loans. Monopolies are not the reason that prices rise according to what the market will bear.

For a number of reasons, higher ed supply is slow to react to increased demand (for any given student cohort; scaling out to serve different kinds of students with different demands is a slightly different story), which means you've got a low price elasticity of demand in ay least the short run.

And, in fact, part of this is that largely higher education is monopolistic. Except at the very bottom tier, degrees from established institutions are not, in the market, as having equivalent substitutes when a new entrant comes into the market. The established reputation of institutions is a big part of what people are paying for.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#106

Post by TrevorJ » Tue, May 10, 2016, 10:00 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #105

TrevorJ wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where has this broken down with higher education then? Costs are rising in lock step with the availability of loans. Monopolies are not the reason that prices rise according to what the market will bear.

For a number of reasons, higher ed supply is slow to react to increased demand (for any given student cohort; scaling out to serve different kinds of students with different demands is a slightly different story), which means you've got a low price elasticity of demand in ay least the short run. And, in fact, part of this is that largely higher education is monopolistic. Except at the very bottom tier, degrees from e…

Those factors have nearly always been the case though, and do not explain the massive price inflations that have occurred in lock step with loan availability. The increases have also not been confined to top tier universities so the monopoly argument doesn't explain them.