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

I'm going to work full-time on free software

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 292 posts

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#241

Post by wmf »

nostrademons wrote: post #197
Verdex wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people don't work on anything once they get UBI this isn't really a problem. Currently, there are many many people who already don't do anything. They only do a little as possible to avoid getting fired OR they do periodically get fired from every job they ever hold once their employers realize they're always going to be a drain on productivity. Having these people on UBI would actually allow productivity to rise.…

I'm also worried about inflation. If you give everyone $X/month to spend on essentials but the supply of those essentials doesn't change, then a very likely outcome is that the price of essentials, in aggregate, will go up by $X/month. We already see some of this with student loans. The government decided that education is important, so it created federally-backed student loans that anyone can apply for, and effectiv…

People keep saying that UBI will replace wages at the low end so those people won't have more money to spend. But for the middle class there will be inflation.

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#242

Post by peatmoss »

karandodia wrote: post #103
dplgk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your best argument for the country to get UBI is so people can work on OSS full time?

If I understood correctly that's their personal best argument for UBI. We each have our own intrinsic motivations!

Yes, that’s what I meant. I can’t speak to the universal value or practicability of implementing and sustaining UBI :-)

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#243

Post by dllthomas »

mcguire wrote: post #205
blfr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's the modern version of a minor landed gentleman who can pursue his interests. It's how we got science. Sadly, the best argument against UBI is that vast, vast majority of people will not be working full time on F/OSS or quite possible anything else.

I dunno; I'm ok with that myself. The actual best argument against UBI is that if you used the total of US government Social Security, Other, and Nondefense spending (At least portions of them seem to be UBI-replacable) on it, divided by the population of the United States (326,000,000), you end up with about $7,000 per person, per year. If you take the entire budget ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fede…

Bear in mind that an income can go much further when you can invest significant effort in seeing that it goes further.

And certainly, as Zarel says in a neighboring comment, it wouldn't be affordable everywhere to live on just the BI. It doesn't need to be.

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#244

Post by gpm »

dragonwriter wrote: post #233
gpm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could get away with a UBI which is substantially less than that. $12,000/person/year seems like it should be easily sufficient - since I live on that much excepting tuition in downtown Toronto (not cheap), in CAD (so really a lot less), just fine. Keep in mind that when you are counting per person that means you are allocating that much for people not in the workforce like children too. A 4 person househo…

> Expecting people who are just living on a UBI to move somewhere with a low cost of living also seems reasonable to me Not unless you are providing means-tested relocation assistance (which is against the spirit of UBI), and ignoring that UBI and the associated taxes to fund it will: (1) reduce CoL in high CoL areas and, (2) raise CoL in low CoL areas. And assisted relocation actually magnifies this effect.

No. The cost of relocation is the cost of a bus ticket, suitcase, and a few phone calls, something that $12,000 already easily supports.

The rest of the money people spend is to bring their existing wealth with them, something that society doesn't need to assist with.

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#245

Post by maxxxxx »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #102

Glad to see that! Recently I've been lucky enough to be contracted as a freelancer on GPL projects, or at least projects with LGPL core, with sending improvements to upstream projects being part of the job. It's so fulfilling and liberating that I wish it will stay this way forever :)

Did a company hire you? That's pretty cool. I'd love to do that.

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#246

Post by jfengel »

Verdex wrote: post #181
blfr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's the modern version of a minor landed gentleman who can pursue his interests. It's how we got science. Sadly, the best argument against UBI is that vast, vast majority of people will not be working full time on F/OSS or quite possible anything else.

If people don't work on anything once they get UBI this isn't really a problem. Currently, there are many many people who already don't do anything. They only do a little as possible to avoid getting fired OR they do periodically get fired from every job they ever hold once their employers realize they're always going to be a drain on productivity. Having these people on UBI would actually allow productivity to rise.…

UBI is not so attractive that most people will choose to do nothing with their lives. UBI is intended to keep people from starving, but it's not a very pleasant life, devoid of comforts and aspirations. Sure, there will be people who want that, but there will be many others who don't.

The most important tool there is a good education, which is mandatory for even the children of the laziest and most shiftless. That's where they get exposed to the possibilities of what they could do, and be engaged by. They'll be presented with role models in the form of teachers, who do get up and do work every day, and live better lives because of it.

Maybe they'll create nothing more than pointless forms of art. But even so, what would be wrong with that? Movies and video games are both pointless idleness, but they create genuine joy, and there were lots of mis-steps as people learned what forms of them would be worth doing. Similarly, a lot of the most advanced science seemed like navel-gazing until it turned into transistors and lasers and GPS.

I don't mean to be blandly utopian. There are many ways UBI can fail, and we will probably do all of them in varying experiments. But neither would I be so dystopian about people doing nothing at all with their lives. People enjoy comforts and they enjoy having purpose. Between the way our existing technology creates more than enough food and shelter at little cost, and the desire of many people to improve their lot in ways that also continue to move society forward, I think we can afford to experiment with letting some people live lives of complete (but unenviable) idleness.

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#247

Post by pasabagi »

leppr wrote: post #191
Verdex wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people don't work on anything once they get UBI this isn't really a problem. Currently, there are many many people who already don't do anything. They only do a little as possible to avoid getting fired OR they do periodically get fired from every job they ever hold once their employers realize they're always going to be a drain on productivity. Having these people on UBI would actually allow productivity to rise.…

I'm sorry but 1), 2) and 3) are ridiculous. What are you basing those assumptions on ? I don't see how any of these points relate to UBI. Why would we be obligated to provide welfare to people who spend their allowance on things other than food and healthcare ? 4) is a very good point. We don't actually know what keeps our civilization running. UBI assumes that people have a natural drive to be productive, but we got…

I don't think it's hard to find societies that subsist on income that comes 'for free'. Investors, traditional aristocrats - hell, the ancient spartan citizens. These are all people who had their wealth decoupled from their productive labour.

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#248

Post by linuxftw »

danans wrote: post #225
linuxftw wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone that is a net payer of taxes benefits from a tax cut. > You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme. A redistribution scheme is inherently unfair. > At least with subsidized housing the program is government administered so it can be accounted for when considering UBI. Subsidized housing creates artificial housing demand, raising rents. Without subsidized housing…

> A redistribution scheme is inherently unfair. All systems of tax, benefits, and even property rights are redistribution schemes, including the recent tax cut, which was a redistribution upwards in the income/wealth scale. Redistribution is always relative to the previous state of societal wealth and resource distribution. There is no set point of "fairness". > Subsidized housing creates artificial housing demand Wh…

> including the recent tax cut, which was a redistribution upwards in the income/wealth scale.

The net result of a tax cut, even if applied unevenly, would be less redistribution, by definition, not more.

> What exactly is "artificial housing demand"?

Supply and demand. Everyone obviously can't afford to pay $1 million in rent per month, thus market rents are substantially lower. Government intervention is creating artificial demand at a higher price point than would otherwise be sustainable.

> Agreed. It can only be solved by building more housing.

Why would a city build more housing when the wealthy control the poor with subsidized housing. They always have a steady stream of income thanks to welfare.

> UBI could in some cases, however, give some people the means to move away from high housing cost areas to areas where UBI goes a longer way towards providing housing for them.

The market has an answer for this. It's just going to raise prices in those more desirable areas.

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#249

Post by asark »

linuxftw wrote: post #170
danans wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Many wealthy people who live in rent-controlled or property-tax capped housing benefited handsomely from the huge tax break passed by the previous Congress. Some of them have normal income but large inherited wealthbheld in securities like stocks, which also appreciated due…

Anyone that is a net payer of taxes benefits from a tax cut. > You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme. A redistribution scheme is inherently unfair. > At least with subsidized housing the program is government administered so it can be accounted for when considering UBI. Subsidized housing creates artificial housing demand, raising rents. Without subsidized housing…

>> You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme.

> A redistribution scheme is inherently unfair.

I would love to see what a strong defense of this looks like, that doesn't wind up having all kinds of weird and probably unintended implications. I can't think of one. Best I can do is to define terms such that it becomes tautological.

Re: I'm going to work full-time on free software

#250

Post by badosu »

chrisseaton wrote: post #203
kstenerud wrote: post #201

It would make a lot of sense for larger software houses to donate to open source developers who develop the tools they use. This is win-win since they get the best person to maintain the software, have the developer's ear, and don't have to deal with labor laws or office space or management. They don't even need to be in the same country or time zone. Plus, it's a cheap way to virtue signal, and goodwill is always go…

> to donate to open source developers who develop the tools they use Are those people available to work extra hours for pay though? I help maintain some open source software but if someone offered me money to work on it more then sorry but I don't have magic extra hours in the day to do that - I've got a full-time job and hobbies of my own. I think it's better the companies step forward and put the hours in as well a…

With enough funding the developer can invest in a team, adhering to their standards.
Post reply on HN