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

The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#61

Post by [deleted] »

brbsix wrote: post #56
throwaway2048 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of UBI is to get rid of 19th century style notions of worthy and unworthy poor people, thats a huge part of the inefficency and waste of the current system.

By unworthy I assume you mean unworthy of our support and sympathy? What differentiates the "19th century style" worthy and unworthy poor is that unworthy poor are thought to have made poor decisions and brought about their circumstances on themselves whereas the worthy poor were seen as suffering through little to no fault of their own. Prior to the welfare state (which makes no such distinction) the "unworthy poor"…

[deleted]

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#62

Post by c22 »

brbsix wrote: post #56
throwaway2048 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of UBI is to get rid of 19th century style notions of worthy and unworthy poor people, thats a huge part of the inefficency and waste of the current system.

By unworthy I assume you mean unworthy of our support and sympathy? What differentiates the "19th century style" worthy and unworthy poor is that unworthy poor are thought to have made poor decisions and brought about their circumstances on themselves whereas the worthy poor were seen as suffering through little to no fault of their own. Prior to the welfare state (which makes no such distinction) the "unworthy poor"…

I think throwaway2048 meant something more along the lines of "worthy to participate in our society" and, unfortunately, whether you deem them worthy or not they are participants of society so reducing the friction of their interaction with society benefits all. (Friction rubs both ways.) The argument is that dropping this "distinction" could help lead to more pragmatically sound policies.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#63

Post by throwaway2048 »

brbsix wrote: post #56
throwaway2048 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of UBI is to get rid of 19th century style notions of worthy and unworthy poor people, thats a huge part of the inefficency and waste of the current system.

By unworthy I assume you mean unworthy of our support and sympathy? What differentiates the "19th century style" worthy and unworthy poor is that unworthy poor are thought to have made poor decisions and brought about their circumstances on themselves whereas the worthy poor were seen as suffering through little to no fault of their own. Prior to the welfare state (which makes no such distinction) the "unworthy poor"…

The arguement is that such distinctions are a (massive) net harm to soceity, and mostly born of fake outrage news cycyle "trailer park welfare queen" bullshit. We would be better off without such nessisarily subjective judgements, and just do a better job of ensuring everyone can meet their basic needs.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#64

Post by golemotron »

ebbv wrote: post #42
golemotron wrote: post #17

UBI seems like a good idea but it is important to recognize that the problem it seeks to solve has a cultural component too. Some people will use free money to build enriching lives. Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning. I'd like to see a UBI conversation that discusses is this point because it is significant and the history of welfare shows that it is real.

Yes and some people will spend their UBI on weapons and murder people. Does that mean we try to figure out who's going to be murders so we don't give them any money? Some people have problems. That doesn't mean you scrap a good thing just because you don't like dealing with problems.

No one said that. Reread my comment. What I said is that the cultural component needs to be addressed too.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#65

Post by TrevorJ »

golemotron wrote: post #17

UBI seems like a good idea but it is important to recognize that the problem it seeks to solve has a cultural component too. Some people will use free money to build enriching lives. Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning. I'd like to see a UBI conversation that discusses is this point because it is significant and the history of welfare shows that it is real.

TO me, they key problem you have to solve is: how do you avoid rent-seeking, and cost of living inflation? I'm not convinced UBI works in a free market.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#66

Post by golemotron »

ones_and_zeros wrote: post #46
golemotron wrote: post #17

UBI seems like a good idea but it is important to recognize that the problem it seeks to solve has a cultural component too. Some people will use free money to build enriching lives. Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning. I'd like to see a UBI conversation that discusses is this point because it is significant and the history of welfare shows that it is real.

For this to be a concern you'd have to believe that there are currently a significant amount of people that would "fall into various addictions" if only they could afford to...

When there's a deficit of meaning in people's lives, that's true.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#67

Post by golemotron »

cmrx64 wrote: post #30
golemotron wrote: post #17

UBI seems like a good idea but it is important to recognize that the problem it seeks to solve has a cultural component too. Some people will use free money to build enriching lives. Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning. I'd like to see a UBI conversation that discusses is this point because it is significant and the history of welfare shows that it is real.

> Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not even sure if the effect would be significantly different than today's situation, in which you can fall into any addiction you want if you have resources.

I don't think it would be too much different either. The problem would be if there were negative externalities. That's likely if people try to shoot for meaning rather than addiction and find it in ways that hurt others. We've seen that throughout history with the young: gangs, terrorism, and revolution.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#68

Post by ones_and_zeros »

golemotron wrote: post #66
ones_and_zeros wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this to be a concern you'd have to believe that there are currently a significant amount of people that would "fall into various addictions" if only they could afford to...

When there's a deficit of meaning in people's lives, that's true.

The idea that addicts don't have meaning in their life is completely false.

But, even if that were true, you'd have to think you are a pretty special snowflake to think that there are currently people that:

a) have "a deficit of meaning" in their life (not sure where you come up with this stuff but keep it coming, I think it's great!)

b) Once the stress of wage slavery is removed, they wouldn't spend time searching for meaning... just like everyone else does. I mean, where do you think friendship, purpose, spirituality, etc come from?

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#69

Post by golemotron »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #63
brbsix wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By unworthy I assume you mean unworthy of our support and sympathy? What differentiates the "19th century style" worthy and unworthy poor is that unworthy poor are thought to have made poor decisions and brought about their circumstances on themselves whereas the worthy poor were seen as suffering through little to no fault of their own. Prior to the welfare state (which makes no such distinction) the "unworthy poor"…

The arguement is that such distinctions are a (massive) net harm to soceity, and mostly born of fake outrage news cycyle "trailer park welfare queen" bullshit. We would be better off without such nessisarily subjective judgements, and just do a better job of ensuring everyone can meet their basic needs.

So the plan is to do UBI rather than get rid of "fake outrage news cycle 'trailer park welfare queen' bullshit"?

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#70

Post by golemotron »

c22 wrote: post #62
brbsix wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By unworthy I assume you mean unworthy of our support and sympathy? What differentiates the "19th century style" worthy and unworthy poor is that unworthy poor are thought to have made poor decisions and brought about their circumstances on themselves whereas the worthy poor were seen as suffering through little to no fault of their own. Prior to the welfare state (which makes no such distinction) the "unworthy poor"…

I think throwaway2048 meant something more along the lines of "worthy to participate in our society" and, unfortunately, whether you deem them worthy or not they are participants of society so reducing the friction of their interaction with society benefits all. (Friction rubs both ways.) The argument is that dropping this "distinction" could help lead to more pragmatically sound policies.

How do you think this can be done when it is not controlled by policy as much as outrage culture in media and social media?
Post reply on HN