Enough with Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#211

Post by erikpukinskis » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 3:11 AM UTC

geezerjay wrote: post #128

ntaenta wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens when kids are raised with the attitude that they are guaranteed to survive on basic income? When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving? They'll stand a better chance of flourishing and reaching their full potential, like many of us here on HN who have an affluent background.

> When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving? Having to contribute to society by keeping a job, and using the income of said job to finance your cost of living is far from being a life-risking enterprise. You're trying to avoid the point by inventing absurd emotional examples.

Violence is generally not a good motivator. Positive reinforcement is much better.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#212

Post by andyewilliams » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 9:44 AM UTC

I completely agree with many of the authors points. Unfortunately they make assumptions that might change dramatically. The right technology can dramatically improve matching individuals with open jobs. And since human beings are still the most cost effective source of flexibility for tasks that are not high value or high volume enough to justify automation the right technology can not only search for places where people can add value but also create them. Furthermore, in the information economy where there is no physical scarcity of materials the number of jobs that can be created is infinite. Using these facts technology can actually increase the number of jobs and the certainty of getting one ... to virtually guarantee a basic income without politically imposing one. Download "The Technology Gravity Well" free until it's September 15, 2016 launch date. http://bit.ly/2cqXU79

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#213

Post by Nicolas_Colin » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 11:15 PM UTC

Double_Cast wrote: post #206

Nicolas_Colin wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it as a conciliatory opening... What I meant is that if you care for economic security and lesser inequalities, then you have to fight for the whole liberal agenda (improving the coverage of all risks), not just one issue, otherwise the bad guys win this time, and the next, and the next. I you think UBI's worth fighting (I don't), your only chance to succeed is in the context of advancing that liberal agenda…

> you're only chance is to advance the liberal agenda. How convenient for you. The reason why you believe UHC is a useful stepping stone is probably because making UHC a reality will pull UBI within the Overton Window. But perhaps there are other ways to improve UBI's legitimacy. Like... discussing ramifications. Or performing an experiment. Allow me to reiterate: "Voters' power over a coalition varies directly with…

Erm but I'm not a candidate, so I don't really care for your vote. And I definitely agree with the idea that political engagement is both voice and exit.

That being said, what I suggest is not throwing away the UBI concept for the greater good. Mostly I regret the lack of participation in the discussion over social risks and economic security in general, which I don't think can be reduced to UBI and the problems it (supposedly) solves.

For lack of that participation, UBI ends up resembling a solution looking for a problem (a very bad starting point as you know if you're in the startup world). And those who support it so enthusiastically look like they're single-issue voters.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-unethical-to-be-a-single-issue-v...

Workers engaged in the labor movement didn't fight for social insurance because it was a good idea. Rather they fought for it because some of them felt ill and couldn't afford proper care and then they died in misery.

Another way to put it: if I was aiming at building a giant tech company with a mission to provide economic security, I wouldn't start by promoting UBI but rather by solving my future customers' most pressing social problems—and those are (surprise) unaffordable housing and lack of health insurance, two issues that UBI doesn't address (or am I missing something?).

Maybe 10 years later, when you serve 1.7 billion users with a very large pool of risks, sophisticated financial tools and advanced machine learning, you'll end up with something vaguely resembling UBI. But UBI as a starting point seems like a failed startup to me.

Do something people want :-)

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#214

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 3:03 AM UTC

aminok wrote: post #69

specialist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government stimulates the demand for money with taxes. No taxes, no economy.

I hope this is really skillful trolling and not an actual belief you have about how economies work.

It's similar to concepts from modern monetary theory (MMT). Which I'll add isn't without its critics.

Money introduces the question of "how do you ensure that people want your currency?" A problem Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies or blockchain currencies) face.

In the case of dollars specifically, demand is derived from:

1. The obligation to pay US taxes in dollars.

2. The status of the dollar as the international reserve currency.

3. The status of the dollar as the currency for all petroleum commerce.

(Consider what would have happened to Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Russia/USSR, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran, had their national currencies been the basis of their own oil trade.)

There's also the economic output of the US itself, of course. But there's a tremendous intrinsic demand for US dollars as a consequence of this mandated trade. And yes, taxes are an element of this.

Other national currencies have other bases, though not as broad a demand foundation as the US dollar.