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

Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

roy.marples.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 233 posts

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#181

Post by luckylion »

michaelmrose wrote: post #150
winfred wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people would prosper under such a system. Free health care, yes, free education, yes. Retirement for all, take care of the disabled, yes. But in my opinion, in today's society, if you take away the need for people to struggle (which UBI will do) they often end up in a worse mental and physical shape than if you make them suffer a bit. Just the way natural selection programmed us. "All basic needs are me…

>But in my opinion, in today's society, if you take away the need for people to struggle (which UBI will do) they often end up in a worse mental and physical shape than if you make them suffer a bit. This is exactly the opposite of how people actually work people excel when given support and opportunity to grow. Adversity especially insofar as fear of basic needs being met isn't inspiring it's stunting. Anything else…

> people excel when given support and opportunity to grow.

Some people do. Many don't, they'll take that support and rest on it. Plenty of European Countries have UBI for all intents and purposes (free health care, housing, utilities, enough cash money for everything else including entertainment and communication). People don't excel, and plenty don't bother to contribute, because it's not necessary.

> We can find sufficient challenge and adversity as we need to move us in our own selves, relationships, and field of endeavor.

You're looking at a tiny subset of people that wouldn't stop working (but maybe work on different things) if they won the lottery, and extrapolate from them on to the general population. Not everybody is like that. Any solutions that pretend that they are will fail.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#182

Post by Frondo »

michaelmrose wrote: post #168
fastball wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument is "we don't live in a post-scarcity society, not even close". This is objectively true. There is nothing hypothetical about it.

We are objectively wealthy enough that everyone could have a place to live, enough food to eat, free medical care even to the point of expensive cancer treatment, free education if so much of our resources weren't directed towards enriching so few without sacrificing essential items. Even calculations about what is and isn't a reasonable expenditure are inherently polluted with the presumption that the current cost s…

For one of those -- homelessness -- the costs to society for not housing everyone exceed what it'd take to simply give everyone some fixed shelter. We still give medical care to homeless people, we jail them (at costs far greater than housing would be), we offer a variety of social programs that aren't housing, and it all adds up to much more than they had a stable place to live. We'd be jailing fewer of them, and their health care needs would be less if they weren't exposed to the elements through rough sleeping night after night.

Why don't we? Because of so many people who point out the unfairness of someone who's not working at all getting housing for free from the government, when so many working people are struggling to house themselves.

So there's perhaps other unfairness at work there that people are unwilling to look at how solve (why is housing so expensive, relative to wages? why do we expect people to work 2-3 jobs and have no leisure time, no time to relax, just to satisfy the basic needs of survival?), and that alone seems to have boxed people into a system where we're jailing people and leaving them out in the elements, even though it costs us all more in the long run.

Where health care is concerned, what bothers me most is how outrageously expensive US care is for its outcomes, compared to every other western nation. That doesn't seem right, and doesn't seem like a good use of our society's money or human effort, expending so much money on systems that could easily be made unnecessary -- like medical billing and the mass of health care insurers.

(And then I had an ex whose father is a doctor, a GP, who lived a very nice life, and insisted that he deserved that...when I asked him what he thought about how doctors in other countries aren't so richly compensated, he only responded, "hey I went to med school, I deserve this," and he too couldn't conceive of a different ordering of things, because...I'm guessing here...his mind went to the couple of new cars in the driveway of his massive house in a tony suburb of an expensive east coast city, and how, had he had less, he might have just one new car instead of two...but that's a speculation on my part. I wasn't inside his head.)

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#183

Post by Frondo »

souprock wrote: post #109
chrisbennet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to insurance companies determining who would die?

It really is different. The existence of unlimited pay-as-you-go care means that you could possibly raise the funds. In systems where all care is state-administered and an attempt to pay for more care would be criminalized as bribery, you'll die of a treatable disease if some bureaucrat decides that the treatment isn't cost effective for a person like you. The details of choices vary, but go something like this: "tre…

If we have a health care system that's effectively only available to the very well-off, that's not a good health-care system -- it doesn't even deserve to be called one.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#184

Post by kortilla »

the-smug-one wrote: post #177
kortilla wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter evidence is simple, it costs $300 billion a month to provide 300 million adults with $1,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. That’s the entire federal tax revenue consumed by UBI. So you need to double everyone’s income tax to get back to even. Of course there is evidence giving people free stuff improves their lives. The problem is that’s an insane amount of money that has to come from somewhere. To…

The GDP per capita in the US is over $60000USD. 20% of that is a rather large chunk to directly redistribute to the workers, but is it an impossible amount? The effects of UBI on how we live our lives would probably be quite enormous and it's (to me, as a comp sci person) difficult to ascertain what its effects would be.

Yes, that’s enormous and you’re forgetting that a huge chunk of that already is income. You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size. That’s every transaction for a good or service. That means to pay for this, not only would there be an extra 20% on income tax for everyone, but there would be a 20% federal sales tax on everything (including homes, surgeries, tuition, etc).

“Redistribute from workers” is a cutesy way to make it sound like it’s just coming from some excess cache reserve. No such reserve exists. For the numbers to work out, this needs to come from the middle class’s income as well as the rich. There isn’t enough wealth, let alone income, at the 1% level to even scratch the surface on these proposals.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#186

Post by eulenteufel »

luckylion wrote: post #179
jimkleiber wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this! This thread got me thinking that nurturing/feeding/raising a child could be seen as something a parent does not just for their family but for society, and if it were for society, is it now a paid job that requires minimum wage? And all of the other things that are "volunteer labor" but for corporations, which technically in the US one can't very legally volunteer for a for-profit company without compensa…

Remember that, if you make it a job, you're no longer free to decide how you want to raise your children, what values to teach them etc, you're now just a caretaker that produces a labor source for their employer. I'm not sure that's such an attractive thought.

There are a lot of self employed that have freedom on how to do their work. We could see it as self-employed contribution to the future of society. Also raising new citizens with a diverse set of values & beliefs is exactly what I would want to see. It would be horrible if their was some kind of institution that would dictate the same kind of upbringing for every child. However, in the end parenting is really not a job even though it provides value to society. That doesn't mean it doesn't have to be financially supported just because it is not like the kind of work that typically gets paid.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#188

Post by DanBC »

souprock wrote: post #109
chrisbennet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to insurance companies determining who would die?

It really is different. The existence of unlimited pay-as-you-go care means that you could possibly raise the funds. In systems where all care is state-administered and an attempt to pay for more care would be criminalized as bribery, you'll die of a treatable disease if some bureaucrat decides that the treatment isn't cost effective for a person like you. The details of choices vary, but go something like this: "tre…

The UK has public and private provision of healthcare, and adults are free to leave the UK and buy healthcare from other countries if they can afford to do so.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#189

Post by FractalHQ »

kortilla wrote: post #174
path411 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just too indoctrinated by reddit at this point, but someone would really have to give me a lot of real world evidence counter to not only the examples where UBI and other programs targeted towards the poor have benefited the economy. But even just to counter the pretty basic logic that more productive members of society helps the economy, and more money in the hands of people spending money, not hoarding mo…

The counter evidence is simple, it costs $300 billion a month to provide 300 million adults with $1,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. That’s the entire federal tax revenue consumed by UBI. So you need to double everyone’s income tax to get back to even. Of course there is evidence giving people free stuff improves their lives. The problem is that’s an insane amount of money that has to come from somewhere. To…

The money doesn’t disappear, it goes back into the economy. People use it to buy things they need. Most sane people outside of the 1% don’t just pathologically hoard wealth and jerk off to it.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#190

Post by kortilla »

ceejayoz wrote: post #47
kortilla wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely. If you expect something different you’re missing the point of open source. Roy didn’t have to fix anything if he didn’t want to.

I mean, it's not a legal obligation, but it might be a nicer world if we considered it an ethical one.

No, that defeats the fucking point of open source. Nowhere did I say it was a legal obligation. I’m saying it’s not an obligation at all because that’s the entire reason it’s open source to begin with.

I write open source software. I don’t want my users means tested by the moral brigade to determine they should have coughed up money. I put it out there to literally prevent people from wasting humanity re-inventing the wheel.

It’s right in the damn license. If you want to create an obligation, stay the fuck out of the open source community.

Post reply on HN