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

The Future of Not Working

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 279 posts

Re: The Future of Not Working

#41

Post by marmot777 »

Clubber wrote: post #6

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage. This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings.…

I have no idea if what you say is true but let's say it is true. So the options are incomes and stability or no income and uprisings and instability. Which world would you rather live in? The uprisings don't put food on the table but are likely to have the opposite effect so I'm in favor of the income and I'm in favor of stability. I have a young son and a stable world is my dream for him, along with breathable air, an intact Amazon Basin, etc. The things that I can think of that would make the world a better place are not impossible.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#42

Post by throwaway2048 »

jimmywanger wrote: post #36

I think that fundamentally, the thing we're going to run up against is population growth. I think history has proven that we can live in extremely wretched conditions. By giving money to people, are we going to be increasing their living standards or just creating more mouths to feed? Note that the basic income only applies to whoever registers at the beginning of the program. Would that amount of basic income cause…

wealth is strongly inversely coorolated with population growth. Keeping people in poverty means they have more children, not the reverse.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#43

Post by marmot777 »

rubicon33 wrote: post #13

> "The research wing of Sam Altman’s start-up incubator, Y Combinator, is planning to pass out money to 1,000 families in California and another yet-to-be-determined state." Oh, really? Where do we sign up? I'd love to be able to build my business(es) without taking investor funds.

That's a pretty cynical attitude. It's obvious the intent of this is to test a program that has the potential to keep people from drowning. I doubt you're now gasping for air as you sink below the waves.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#44

Post by marmot777 »

jimmywanger wrote: post #36

I think that fundamentally, the thing we're going to run up against is population growth. I think history has proven that we can live in extremely wretched conditions. By giving money to people, are we going to be increasing their living standards or just creating more mouths to feed? Note that the basic income only applies to whoever registers at the beginning of the program. Would that amount of basic income cause…

Wealth has the opposite effect as a number of studies have demonstrated. People with a little money in their pocket have fewer kids. I can easily find more citations if you'd like but here's an outline of the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Re: The Future of Not Working

#45

Post by marmot777 »

stagbeetle wrote: post #18

> As automation reduces the need for human labor, some Silicon Valley executives think a universal income will be the answer — and the beta test is happening in Kenya. This is not the situation I think of when I hear "basic income." Why Kenya? > GiveDirectly wants to show the world that a basic income is a cheap, scalable way to aid the poorest people on the planet. Oh. I was under the belief that only the middle cla…

I'm sure that those who tested this in that community would like to test it in all kinds of different communities. It seems obvious to me that they would think that way but who knows. Maybe there's less red tape and people who are near the edge welcome these sorts of things with open arms and their government officials don't get in the way of it.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#46

Post by marmot777 »

Arizhel wrote: post #26
stagbeetle wrote: post #18

> As automation reduces the need for human labor, some Silicon Valley executives think a universal income will be the answer — and the beta test is happening in Kenya. This is not the situation I think of when I hear "basic income." Why Kenya? > GiveDirectly wants to show the world that a basic income is a cheap, scalable way to aid the poorest people on the planet. Oh. I was under the belief that only the middle cla…

>I was under the belief that only the middle class protested for basic income. It would have been more interesting if the "beta test" was done on educated/ first world persons, so we can finally get progress (or a full stop) on this debate. The middle class protests for UBI because the middle class is the one with enough education and free time to think about these problems, and push for solutions, and that also care…

It's an interesting question. I'm trying to imagine how a test of this nature would go over in my town. Would it be welcome or would politicians try to stop it for whatever reason? I have no idea.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#47

Post by jimmywanger »

marmot777 wrote: post #44
jimmywanger wrote: post #36

I think that fundamentally, the thing we're going to run up against is population growth. I think history has proven that we can live in extremely wretched conditions. By giving money to people, are we going to be increasing their living standards or just creating more mouths to feed? Note that the basic income only applies to whoever registers at the beginning of the program. Would that amount of basic income cause…

Wealth has the opposite effect as a number of studies have demonstrated. People with a little money in their pocket have fewer kids. I can easily find more citations if you'd like but here's an outline of the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

"A little money" is relative. They're giving on the order of 250 dollars a year, and the income/fertility chart only really kicks in at about 10k or 20k a year.

I don't know the threshold between living in crushing poverty versus simple poverty, but this amount of money wouldn't greatly affect fertility rates based on the chart, but might encourage people to have more children.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#48

Post by bredren »

marmot777 wrote: post #34
spyckie2 wrote: post #8

The article's title is misleading - it is not about not working, it's about giving money directly to poor villages for 12 years to provide what is similar to basic income but meeting fundamentally different needs in a very different part of the world. That said, I think it is a fascinating anthropological read. We often do not realize how many layers of wealth we had to stand on to possess our current wealth.

As someone who occasionally publishes in minor publications, I know editors pick headlines and don't always do the best job of reflecting the content. I think editor's goal is to get as many people to read it as possible so they might take some liberties.

Def do not blame the writer(s).

Editors don't just change headlines. In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine.

Editors will do anything they think makes a piece more ready for contemporary mass consumption.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#49

Post by jimmywanger »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #42
jimmywanger wrote: post #36

I think that fundamentally, the thing we're going to run up against is population growth. I think history has proven that we can live in extremely wretched conditions. By giving money to people, are we going to be increasing their living standards or just creating more mouths to feed? Note that the basic income only applies to whoever registers at the beginning of the program. Would that amount of basic income cause…

wealth is strongly inversely coorolated with population growth. Keeping people in poverty means they have more children, not the reverse.

As replied to above, the basic income doesn't highly correspond to wealth on the scales involved based on the studies frequently cited.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#50

Post by grzm »

bredren wrote: post #48
marmot777 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who occasionally publishes in minor publications, I know editors pick headlines and don't always do the best job of reflecting the content. I think editor's goal is to get as many people to read it as possible so they might take some liberties.

Def do not blame the writer(s). Editors don't just change headlines. In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine. Editors will do anything they think makes a piece more ready for contemporary mass consumption.

Depending on the publication, editors may also make changes to accommodate house style; for example, AP, or Chicago, or their own.
Post reply on HN