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

Why we should all have a basic income

weforum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 492 posts

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#391

Post by AnthonyMouse »

prostoalex wrote: post #384
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Higher structures require deeper and more complex foundations, more reinforced concrete and steel, extra precautions for strong winds and earthquakes. Setting up proper elevator systems, plumbing, air venting, noise isolation, electrical wiring and natural gas hookups is also subject to more restrictive building code (and for a good reason). This is before we get into the costs of underground/overground parking, wh…

We can take turns naming even more expensive high rises, but the goal is to show that increase in high rises leads to drastic overall decrease in cost of living. Manhattan, in theory, should be dirt cheap as far as $/sq.ft. due to massive supply, and it's not. Neither is Singapore or Shanghai. There's a natural price floor for such buildings, and it's not yet competitive with pricing on cheaper options, such as subur…

> Manhattan, in theory, should be dirt cheap as far as $/sq.ft. due to massive supply, and it's not.

Because it's supply and demand. The demand is very high in Manhattan. What we would expect is that anywhere there is such high demand that the price is higher than the construction cost, there would be new construction (increase in supply) until prices fall to meet the construction cost. In other words the cost of an apartment in any city should have the same floor (unless every inch of the city is already covered in high rises) because new apartments would be built until the rent falls below the construction cost of building more apartments.

But we don't see that because of zoning regulations that prohibit it. (And in part because of property taxes that discourage construction; land value tax is better in cities.)

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#392

Post by mixedCase »

barnacs wrote: post #365
mixedCase wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. As someone living in a small third world welfare state, I can't help but laugh at the naiveté that can lead someone to believe something like that…

Are you suggesting the majority of those people are completely, utterly useless? Useful contributions don't necessarily have to be intellectual. They may be able and happy to provide art, joyful company, social skills, physical assistance (eg. getting groceries, moving equipment) or other support to those in need.

That moves the goalposts. Sure, I can't think of a human being that can be categorized as completely useless, that doesn't mean that an UBI program is sustainable for society just because "no one is absolutely, completely useless".

In fact there is no shortage of individuals who, despite being outside of the category of "useless" by technicalities, dedicate their state-funded free time in making society worse.

A couple examples just from my last 2-day visit to a relative in a neighborhood with a high number of welfare recipients: People with houses crumbling down, but with huge sound systems running at full volume at any time of day or night; or those in the same conditions getting stolen motorcycles (buying with taxpayer money from thieves or stealing themselves) and racing in the streets or parading around with their silencers removed.

Doesn't stop there either, when our welfare system was first established, there were plenty of cases of people quitting a productive job to slob around. What for many in first world countries sound like "conservative scaremongering" is reality for us.

Mind you, despite all this I'm not against having a social safety net (albeit the one we have I believe to be an absolute disaster), but UBI is a terrible option that cannot work outside of carefully selected groups of people.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#393

Post by mixedCase »

3131s wrote: post #381
mixedCase wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. As someone living in a small third world welfare state, I can't help but laugh at the naiveté that can lead someone to believe something like that…

Mind sharing where you live?

Uruguay.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#394

Post by ridgeguy »

mixedCase wrote: post #346
barnacs wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. Mentally and/or physically exhausted after a long day of performing a meaningless job, or unable to get one and living off welfare, despised by the…

>I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. As someone living in a small third world welfare state, I can't help but laugh at the naiveté that can lead someone to believe something like that…

"The few who do look into self-improvement are the same ones that have done it regardless of the economic condition of the lower class of their time..."

Citation needed. Otherwise, it's not even anecdata. If your perspective from "...a small third world welfare state..." is to be informative, please expand and explain.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#395

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

wolfgke wrote: post #335
ycmbntrthrwaway wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing useless, maybe even harmful, work.

> Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing useless, maybe even harmful, work. If these people really have such a large earning potential if they were just learning something new, why not let coworkers get together and finance a fund: The worker (let's call him John Doe) will get his existing income for…

How is this different to a student loan, in any meaningful sense.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#396

Post by n_ »

kazagistar wrote: post #160
thephyber wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard convincing arguments[1] from economists that we should convert our existing "safety net" and "welfare" programs to simple UBI (aka BIG). The argument tends to circle around the fact that the existing programs dis-incentivize getting off disability or Section 8 because the recipient is penalized in a step-function way (as soon as they get a job, they may become ineligible or could be charged with a crime).…

I worry that you just made it even more politically untenable. "You are taking away my retirement I earned and giving it to everyone?" "Don't touch my medicaid!" "They are trying to kill the soup kitchens; look at these children we feed." Or whatever. There is such aggressive fighting for scraps that no one wants to make a big-picture shift that might have unknown societal repercussions.

This.

This is the biggest challenge to UBI becoming a serious mainstream topic in the United States IMHO. It takes me hours of conversation explaining UBI to any of my southern/conservative family members to get to a point where they at least acknowledge that it isn't just a fancy word for socialism... and even then they still don't like it.

Granted, I'm their left coast liberal silicon valley nephew so they aren't really interested in anything I have to say anyway.. but maybe thats the point. To a lot of Americans it just sounds like free liberal hand outs, no matter how much data/math/science/economics go into it.

Hopefully smarter people than I can figure out how to message UBI to that part of America.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#397

Post by frio »

jakeogh wrote: post #267
dasil003 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would not have been in a position to earn any of the money you have without public infrastructure paid for by taxes. Maybe you would have been successful under an anarchy, but I doubt that is the case for the majority of HN'ers, and my best guess is that your ideological position would crumble pretty quickly if you were forced to live in the world which you ostensibly desire. Fortunately for everyone I can't see…

I'm not advocating Anarchy. That's never going to work. We need laws, and I would love to change the laws regarding the income tax.

Who enforces the law? How does their labour get paid for?

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#398

Post by AnthonyMouse »

crdoconnor wrote: post #325
ako wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating jobs is one thing, but creating meaningful jobs is something completely different. In communistic days in eastern europe, everyone was employed, but most people had a lousy job, that involved very little effort. The first time i came to the US, i got the same feeling, lots of meaningless jobs (lift boy, parking lot attendant, grocery store bag filler) that i didn't see in the Netherlands. Are these meaningle…

>Creating jobs is one thing, but creating meaningful jobs is something completely different. * Hoover Dam * Lincoln Tunnel * LAX * LaGuardia Airport Just a few examples of things created by jobs created primarily to give people work. >Are these meaningless jobs really better than universal basic income? Would you rather pay somebody to build the next Lincoln Tunnel or pay for them to write some poetry and start an em…

> Would you rather pay somebody to build the next Lincoln Tunnel or pay for them to write some poetry and start an emo band?

Would you rather pay somebody to build the next Bridge to Nowhere or pay them to start the next Apple?

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#399

Post by jakeogh »

frio wrote: post #397
jakeogh wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not advocating Anarchy. That's never going to work. We need laws, and I would love to change the laws regarding the income tax.

Who enforces the law? How does their labour get paid for?

Why would you think a tax on personal income is the only way to do that?

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#400

Post by mixedCase »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #383
mixedCase wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. As someone living in a small third world welfare state, I can't help but laugh at the naiveté that can lead someone to believe something like that…

>In here, and I don't believe the rest of the world can be that much different, the overwhelming majority of people with their basic needs covered by the state dedicate themselves to a routine of TV, social media and other social rituals of all kinds, all devoid of intellectual pursuit. So what? Why is the purpose of other people's lives to serve your idea of nobility?

Wow. That's a huge straw man if ever I've seen one.

I will entertain you, however:

We aren't talking about anyone's "life purpose", whatever the hell that means.

We are talking about having the state (and for a quick reminder, that means citizens producing value, not a magical entity that pulls money with value out of hat) fund people with no desire to create value. Not just people going through a rough time, not people unable to give back, but people who will take, yet willingly not give back. They're free to do live their lives as they see fit within the law, but no one can expect for the rest of society to fund their chosen lifestyle.

If you feel like they deserve income, you can gather like-minded people and open a charity that does just that.

EDIT: Those chiming in with a downvote, I'd appreciate if you explain where I'm so wrong.

Post reply on HN