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

/r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

tracingwoodgrains.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 566 posts

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#451

Post by cuteboy19 »

dymk wrote: post #276
Jeff_Brown wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. You'd need 4 trillion dollars a year to give 12k to everyone in the US. That would mean doubling US federal expenditures. And some people would stop working, hence stop paying income tax. Some businesses would leave the country. I do expect someday it will be feasible though. Maybe in my lifetime.

Maybe we lower the US military spending budget to "only" be 10% higher than the next highest spender. That should free up some cash. Gotta start somewhere :)

Emphasis on the 'some' in some cash. As bloated as the US military is, it 'only' has a budget of $700B and a good portion of this is veterns welfare programs. This should put into perspective how ludicrously expensive UBI truly is

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#452

Post by wing-_-nuts »

nameisname wrote: post #349
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cut most of our bureaucratic social safety net (food stamps, disability, social security, etc) and replace it with a system where everyone gets enough for the bare basics. If you were smart, you'd fund it with a carbon tax. In all honesty I don't see UBI becoming a thing until we start automating ourselves into unemployment. People say this would increase inflation. Maybe. Let's trial it with 1% of the population…

There will still be those who spend all their UBI on drugs or whatever and have nowhere to stay. Do we just let them die on the street since there's no more social safety nets?

There are those that do so today. Given we have no real mental health facilities, those people simply wind up in jail on drug possession charges. It's inhumane, yeah, but I don't think replacing things with UBI would make it more so. Maybe one of these days we'll actually get our act together to help those that need it most.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#453

Post by Wiseacre »

cherrycherry98 wrote: post #357
zozbot234 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "ultra-wealthy" are not where the money is. Besides, what many leftists actually end up saying by focusing on those is that Gates and Buffett should not be allowed to put their money towards eradicating malaria, giving every African safe drinking water, and countless such high-value causes. Instead that hard-won wealth should be taxed from them and frittered away to fund a one-time super binge of mindless politic…

I agree with you, taxation does nothing but enable the government to work on projects it deems important in the name of helping the public. It's inefficient and obviously open to corruption. If we really think that it is unjust for money to be concentrated in the hands of the rich and should go to the public instead of their heirs or private interests, there should be an option of zeroing out one's bank account. That…

You've always been able to burn all your cash.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#454

Post by fulafel »

gavinray wrote: post #182
JSavageOne wrote: post #156

I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…

>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible

The comments here at the time of my writing don't provide a good explanation of it. There are practical UBI proposals out there that are revenue neutral for various countries that would largely replace income transfers of the existing social safety net, better go look them up. (There is no fundamental reason it needs to be RN but it's a good starting point to understand why it doesn't intrinsically mean more funding).

It's not a panacea, generally it can make current recipients of means tested transfers well off in exchange for eliminating some problems associated with means tested programs.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#455

Post by Wiseacre »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #445
kraftman wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I said "the government needs to fund NASA" or "NASA needs funding", you wouldn't assume that they currently have no money.

But the key difference is that you said "fund NASA", rather than "defund NASA". Fund definitely implies there is not currently enough money, or that a new program is being advocated for. I would likewise think that anyone who wanted to "defund NASA" had the intention of getting rid of the agency, rather than a more nuanced position of "we should stop funding SLS so that we can reallocate the money on high school STEM…

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

You fund something when it has too little money.

You defund something when it has too much money.

If you wanted to abolish or eliminate something you would use those words, not defund.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#456

Post by giantg2 »

totony wrote: post #398
nradov wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually done the math? The reality is that there aren't enough upper class people to generate sufficient tax revenue for a meaningful UBI. While I do support higher taxes at the upper levels, you can only squeeze people so much before they decide to bail out and move to tax havens.

>The reality is that there aren't enough upper class people to generate sufficient tax revenue for a meaningful UBI. What makes you think so? There are a lot of discussion online about the costs/benefits of UBI. This article has an US-centric view on how this could be afforded https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-bas...

Interesting. Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions (which is how the US implements a lot of policy). I'd love a simplified tax code, but unsure of the SS and Medicare removal. I wonder how that would look for people who are currently collecting, paying in at various stages, etc. That would be a massive windfall for most if the money paid-in was returned.

I'm not sure which veteran benefits they want to get rid of specifically, but this could be a bad idea. One of the main ways to increase economic class if one is poor is to serve in the military and have the pay for college after they get out (yes, the payment could cover part of it, assuming they aren't using it for living expenses which would be mostly covered during their enlistment). The VA is under funded and doesn't have a great record, but that's so highly beneficial to many.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#457

Post by CountDrewku »

toyg wrote: post #155
lukev wrote: post #50

I liked the factual analysis and the story of /r/antiwork. But regarding the actual topic of work I think it sets up a false dichotomy; that one is either a sane normal person who thinks productivity is good, or an out-of-touch anarcho-communist. There is actually a very large middle ground which represents the most balanced view towards work; that most work is a necessary evil. It's not that work is good or desirabl…

Technology and automation already allow us to have a 10-hour work week with the same lifestyle. Capitalism, on the other hand...

[dead]

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#458

Post by batshit_beaver »

kraftman wrote: post #438
batshit_beaver wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided. I think people both understate how splintered the US society really is, and overstate the importance of this divide. Imagine a country with a HUGE historical and current influx of immigrants that bring tons of different cultures and ideologies into the mix.…

So it's not broken or fucked up, it just: - is splintered - is divided - is hard to govern - has an economic structure that encourages division - has an increasing dive between the haves and have nots

Correct, but that's just how the country is. If people want cultural changes, they've gotta address the causes of the divides in the US and understand that they'll have massive negative consequences too, not just positive ones.

Or they can move to a country that is already more in line with what they want out of society.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#459

Post by BitwiseFool »

Wiseacre wrote: post #455
BitwiseFool wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the key difference is that you said "fund NASA", rather than "defund NASA". Fund definitely implies there is not currently enough money, or that a new program is being advocated for. I would likewise think that anyone who wanted to "defund NASA" had the intention of getting rid of the agency, rather than a more nuanced position of "we should stop funding SLS so that we can reallocate the money on high school STEM…

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You fund something when it has too little money. You defund something when it has too much money. If you wanted to abolish or eliminate something you would use those words, not defund.

I'm talking about the word "defund" in the vernacular. Which, for many people, absolutely does also imply abolish or eliminate.

As a thought experiment, I'm going to conjure a slogan: "Defund the Humane Society".

What is the first thing that comes to mind? I expect most people would think "you want to get rid of the animal shelter?" And I would reply, "no what I actually want is to re-allocate money from the euthanasia program so that we can have increased adoption rates and make this a no-kill shelter."

Putting aside the vernacular implications of "defund", my slogan is totally ineffective at actually capturing what I am trying to accomplish. And, it has the added downside of giving people a terrible and inaccurate first impression.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#460

Post by 3pt14159 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #173
3pt14159 wrote: post #136

I once discussed one of these eye rolling things with a real life friend of mine over the internet and I finally discovered what "abolish the police" really meant to him. He was knowingly being intellectually dishonest in order to move the goalposts. I've dated someone like that too and it only came out during an argument when I started writing down what she literally was saying and she finally said that her choices…

> This has made my life so much better. When I hear something someone says to me now I have an extra filter to run it through. It's no longer a choice just between the person being dishonest about the facts or being dishonest about the facts. They could mean it in a different way. I'm with you, but to me, this is just operationalized dishonesty, assuming it's not a significant cognitive deficit relative to those who…

This is a great comment. And of course you're aware that I largely agree with it.

So with that proviso, all I will say in response is that I think it would be helpful to consider the opposing view point:

If the goal is to elicit an emotional or political response that one desires through one's actions, why should perfect, literal truth be in the way of achieving those goals?

My answer to that is that it destroys good faith and good faith is never worth sacrificing. Never. I literally can't think of one instance where mutual understanding exists and I would consider sacrificing good faith. So for me that's what the kettle of fish boils down to, and quite frankly it's one of the main reasons I'm happy I no longer date the person I mentioned above, even if she was otherwise wonderful and my ticket into many fancy parties.

I'd rather have someone honest.

Post reply on HN