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

Are we the baddies?

geohot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 554 posts

Re: Are we the baddies?

#281

Post by AstroBen »

cortesoft wrote: post #81
ggm wrote: post #2

For some people, paying the premium to jump the queue is the point. What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again. This is mostly Australian frequent flyers, when it was a high barrier to entry it conferred advantages and now Fly in Fly out work has commoditised club status, there is next to no boarding advantage, and no points flight availa…

> What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again Wouldn't the market purist argue that this just means the good is mispriced, and tickets should actually be what the price is with the premium added? What you really need is to just raise the prices of the tickets and the price to jump the queue?

People don't make buying decisions from a purely rational headspace, though. Charge too much for the upfront ticket and people will go to someone advertising it for lower (but with additional back-end services that are must-have)

My guess is the hidden fees end up making businesses more money

Re: Are we the baddies?

#282

Post by tossandthrow »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #270
tossandthrow wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A class of people would have a larger spending power. Naturally, implementing UBI would require the entire financial sector to adjust. We would likely need to significantly raise interest rates (Which, IMHO would be great) and have a period to manage inflation. But beside the initial recalibration phase, I have not seen any convincing arguments for why prices on non-positional goods would increase. Even with the incr…

> A class of people would have a larger spending power. Spending power with no real alternatives (i.e. in monopoly/oligopoly conditions) isn't actually very useful IMO. It's mostly just more guaranteed money for the current monopoly/oligopoly -- you're just guaranteeing revenue streams. In a pre-UBI world, you can at least assume that companies can't completely shaft employees because then no one can buy anything. If…

> In a pre-UBI world, you can at least assume that companies can't completely shaft employees because then no one can buy anything. If the government steps in to make sure people can still buy stuff, that has almost the opposite effect.

In my first comment I referred the Scandinavian countries. Read up on the flexicurity model of Denmark.

> OK, so then how about we do this without the UBI bit and just raise interest rates?

You cannot within the confines of the responsibility of the monetary systems (Eg. The FED). What you are seeing now is that the FED "prints" money that accumulate at the top because the fiscal powers (Eg. the government) are p*sies who do not dare to redistribute - this is called the velocity of money. And there is a higher velocity of money when they are in the hands of the people than in the pockets of the rich.

Regardless, proposing UBI on American forums is generally like setting fire to a wasp nest. Americans have been conditioned to support the oligarchy in quite some decades now.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#283

Post by pydry »

tossandthrow wrote: post #247
pydry wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the depression this was done with a job guarantee. Instead of paying people to sit on their ass they paid people to build stuff like the Lincoln tunnel, which was preferable for them (and even for us, we still use that stuff). UBI is more like the grain dole which Roman Emperors used to temper mass unrest and "prove" their benevolence. It seems to be in vogue among tech moguls who cant distinguish between abje…

This would sound like a good solution. The main difference from then, however, is that it is difficult to give each man a showel to dig and each woman a kid to care for this time. People need qualifications to operate heavy machinery, know regulations, etc. - we are not in 1934 anymore. As such we also don't need 30% og the population in the farming sector.

In 1934 people were trained on the job. This was as true in the WPA as it was outside.

What changed is not the newfound impossibility of doing that, just the reluctance of employers to pay for it and the willingness of the government to indulge their insatiable demand for cheap, pretrained labor.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#284

Post by immibis »

cedws wrote: post #98
immibis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business model of Match Group, by the way, for those unaware, is to buy every dating app (yes, they own all of them; Bumble was once the lone hold-out but not any more) and then do everything they can to make you pay money for premium. They do not care if you get a date.

It’s genius really. They’ve inserted themselves into the social fabric, hijacked it, and then used cartel tactics to take control of competition. And nobody cares enough to start an antitrust suit.

You described social media first, before dating apps.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#285

Post by jen20 »

Y-bar wrote: post #280
cainxinth wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber and Lyft are expensive but anyone who says they are worse than what they replaced doesn’t remember well the heydays of taxis. Sure, people in big towns like NYC could always get one fairly easily, but everyone else was stuck dealing with whatever potentially shady operation they could dig out of a phonebook, and even then getting a car wasn’t guaranteed. Now, anyone anywhere can get a ride, often quickly. I’m no…

I remember the time before Uber arrived here, where ”here” obviously is not USA. I don’t mind the old ways. Taxis had apps before Uber arrived here, they had geolocation with ETA, contactless payment, up-front pricing, and never refused service (because they were required by law to offer service to anyone anywhere). The problem probably never was incumbent taxis, it was how they were regulated (or not).

Taxis in the US are one of the most regulated services around, and they were still utterly atrocious.

Sure, they’re mandated to not refuse service, but you try getting picked up in Manhattan with a suitcase mid afternoon (when it’s obvious you’ll be taking the fixed fare to JFK in heavy traffic). To this day, the meter being “broken” is a tactic used in taxi strongholds like Las Vegas, even with this regulation.

The sweet spot for taxis was London, but I will go out of my way to avoid taking one lest I get forced to listen to the drivers views on Brexit for the entire ride.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#286

Post by jen20 »

specproc wrote: post #273
cainxinth wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber and Lyft are expensive but anyone who says they are worse than what they replaced doesn’t remember well the heydays of taxis. Sure, people in big towns like NYC could always get one fairly easily, but everyone else was stuck dealing with whatever potentially shady operation they could dig out of a phonebook, and even then getting a car wasn’t guaranteed. Now, anyone anywhere can get a ride, often quickly. I’m no…

I'm really not sure old school taxis are actually that bad. I had two incidents in the UK recently where my app of choice failed me and I was quickly bailed out cheaper by googling "taxi $TOWN" and having a one minute conversation with an operator.

They are better than they used to be because of the competition. I remember a time not that long ago where getting a minicab was nigh on impossible, and one miraculously did show up, it would be primary so the driver could try to scam you.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#287

Post by Ygg2 »

jasode wrote: post #185
surgical_fire wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For some people, paying the premium to jump the queue is the point. What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again There's a freedom that comes with not caring and just accepting I am last in the line. I don't pay the premium and I can sit and relax in the lobby while the sheep that paid wait in line. Only when the queue is nearly depleted…

>while the sheep that paid wait in line. The supposed "sheep" that want to get on the plane first are people that want to get that precious overhead bin space to avoid checking a carry-on bag at the gate. Boarding last means there's no more bin space and the gate agent will put the bag in the belly of the plane. This adds extra hassles of waiting an extra 30+ minutes at the arrival terminal to wait for the bag on the…

> The supposed "sheep" that want to get on the plane first are people that want to get that precious overhead bin space to avoid checking a carry-on bag at the gate.

They are still sheep. Fighting for better spot on the butcher's table.

So let me get this straight. Rather than fighting airlines for better flying conditions, they fight each other for earlier boarding time.

Not sure who said it, but consumerism truly is slavery perfected.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#288

Post by tossandthrow »

pydry wrote: post #283
tossandthrow wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would sound like a good solution. The main difference from then, however, is that it is difficult to give each man a showel to dig and each woman a kid to care for this time. People need qualifications to operate heavy machinery, know regulations, etc. - we are not in 1934 anymore. As such we also don't need 30% og the population in the farming sector.

In 1934 people were trained on the job. This was as true in the WPA as it was outside. What changed is not the newfound impossibility of doing that, just the reluctance of employers to pay for it and the willingness of the government to indulge their insatiable demand for cheap, pretrained labor.

I find it difficult to believe that the price of training has not gone up.

I am not as convinced as you. When training is 7 year degree to achieve some specialization it simply is not for everyone.

Also, ubi is not anti work - it is merely the acknowledgement that not everyone have salary worthy things to do.

The alternative it havy financialization as in you receive a tip when you bring down you neighbors garbage.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#289

Post by hardwaresofton »

tossandthrow wrote: post #282
hardwaresofton wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A class of people would have a larger spending power. Spending power with no real alternatives (i.e. in monopoly/oligopoly conditions) isn't actually very useful IMO. It's mostly just more guaranteed money for the current monopoly/oligopoly -- you're just guaranteeing revenue streams. In a pre-UBI world, you can at least assume that companies can't completely shaft employees because then no one can buy anything. If…

> In a pre-UBI world, you can at least assume that companies can't completely shaft employees because then no one can buy anything. If the government steps in to make sure people can still buy stuff, that has almost the opposite effect. In my first comment I referred the Scandinavian countries. Read up on the flexicurity model of Denmark. > OK, so then how about we do this without the UBI bit and just raise interest…

> In my first comment I referred the Scandinavian countries. Read up on the flexicurity model of Denmark.

Denmark does not have UBI. They "just" have a good welfare system, good income redistribution policies, and strong labor policy.

They do not make the case for UBI, they make the opposite case -- that the problems of present can be solved without UBI.

> You cannot within the confines of the responsibility of the monetary systems (Eg. The FED). What you are seeing now is that the FED "prints" money that accumulate at the top because the fiscal powers (Eg. the government) are psies who do not dare to redistribute - this is called the velocity of money. And there is a higher velocity of money when they are in the hands of the people than in the pockets of the rich.

You can, and they have. In fact, much of the US wants the FED to lower rates right now, but they have not.

I agree with you that people lack the wherewithal to redistribute more effectively, or at least as a stated goal.

Trying to make sure I'm hitting the points you're noting here but the FED is not "printing" tons of money right now, they have tightened monetary policy, especially relative to the last ~6 years.

It's unclear if the use of "velocity of money" is right here -- I think you're referring to propensity to spend, which would increase velocity of money. Yes, poor people spend more of their income than rich people, and that is stimulative to the economy, and so arguably policies should be crafted that encourage productive work for pay rather than rent seeking or pure accumulation of capital. I'm not sure if that's your point, but that's what I take away from it.

> Regardless, proposing UBI on American forums is generally like setting fire to a wasp nest. Americans have been conditioned to support the oligarchy in quite some decades now.

Welp, that's kind of an unproductive way to end, but sure. Conditioned or not (I'm American), I'm still looking for a good argument for UBI and haven't found one.

Good arguments for better redistribution are easy to make, good argument for higher taxes are good to make, good arguments for better social safety nets are easy to make -- but still can't really find one for UBI specifically above the other options.

Post reply on HN