UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift • Hacker News Board

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#71

Post by jraph » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 1:50 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #22

Apreche wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We want to guarantee for every human on the planet the right to food, water, shelter, health care, and education. Giving everyone enough money to buy all those things themselves is one way to do it. Raising funds (taxes) and then providing those services for free is another way. It doesn’t really matter which way. What matters is that we agree on that goal and find some way to achieve it. Right now we have a system w…

We want to guarantee for every human on the planet the right to food, water, shelter, health care, and education. ... What matters is that we agree on that goal and find some way to achieve it. Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. Second, the value, even to the end recipient, of vast majority of educati…

> I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage

You aren't, individually, but shouldn't we, collectively?

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#72

Post by _heimdall » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 1:51 PM UTC

diffeomorphism wrote: post #56

_heimdall wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI equates to an assumption that the government can predict and control markets completely, effectively destroying markets that resemble anything like a free market. Even considering an alternative to UBI like forcing all prices lower, i.e. price deflation, requires first taking that assumption as true. The government never could allow prices to lower anyway though. Price deflation would make our national debt that…

It sounds like you are talking about some very different thing also abbreviated "UBI"? Here it stands for universal basic income.

No that's also what I'm talking about. If implemented, a UBI will subsidize every single market in the economy with federal dollars. For every dollar a consumer spends on any product, a portion of that money is directly from the government.

For a government to build and maintain a UBI program they will have to be able to predict where prices will be and how much money everyone needs or deserves to cover the basics. Assuming the country runs on a fiat currency and partskes in monetary policies meant to control the cost of money, a UBI adds another complex layer onto that puzzle making it even more challenging to predict and control markets.

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#73

Post by Joeboy » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 1:52 PM UTC

UweSchmidt wrote: post #15

"The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." There won't be the big UBI day, where we make the big switch globally. It's a creeping expansion of social benefits and transfer payments and an easing of work conditions. Some people will somehow stay in the unpleasant jobs, by inertia or the unfairness of a class system or, increasingly, by wages that compensate for the trouble. People will drop out o…

> There won't be the big UBI day, where we make the big switch globally. It's a creeping expansion of social benefits and transfer payments and an easing of work conditions

I agree, in the sense that I think UBI proponents would do better to lobby for that than a big, deus-ex-machina version of UBI. But I don't see it happening "naturally", without a lot of political effort.

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#74

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 1:53 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #7

The world is increasingly complex making it seem to many people that their work is unproductive (bullshit/make-work jobs). This and lack of agency in many jobs is what leads to massive frustration with work* but it's not actually an incisive observation about the economy as a whole. it’s not possible to pilot a UBI. Giving cash to a small subset of the population is not UBI. UBI goes to everyone. It changes the econo…

[deleted]

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#75

Post by _heimdall » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 1:53 PM UTC

Jochim wrote: post #67

_heimdall wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the core of so many problems in western governments today. Governments should be there to coordinate complex problems that society doesn't have a better way to handle. Governments should not be there to be a responsible parent to everyone, whether they want it or not.

What do you think happens to the wealthy when the government does not ensure the majority of people are well fed and secure? Does the mob respect property rights?

Sorry, I'm not quite sure how that ties in. What's your point here with regards to a UBI and whether a government should work for or be parent to its constituents?

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#76

Post by _heimdall » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 1:54 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #51

simoncion wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. That's fair and totally 1000% reasonable. However: What if (whether through sudden injury or the accumulated injuries of aging) you become utterly unable to work, you've burned through your savings, all your family is dead, and you're an unlikable cunt [0] so those around you are supremely disinclined to provide assi…

That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI.

Is it not reasonable to consider a UBI as a universal welfare program?

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#77

Post by dxbydt » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 1:58 PM UTC

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #16

I think people are beginning to see work as a sucker's game. The assets you hold are much more important. You can bust your ass and get a nice little startup exit -- and then look around at what real estate this massive windfall will buy you, only to realize that it's all gone up in price by the same amount. It would have been better to have bought a house, kept the easy job, and gone home at 4:30 each day. People se…

Sir, you write so well! I read it twice and then I had to literally put the phone away and walk around, letting your thoughts bounce around in my little brain. Just felt I needed to thank you for taking the time. Thanks.

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#78

Post by _heimdall » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 1:59 PM UTC

wavemode wrote: post #17

> When we create jobs for a purpose other than the product of the labor, we’re paying people to waste their time unproductively. This is what happens under full-employment policy. This is what happens when we use expansionary monetary policy to boost consumer demand. Does the author (or anyone) have a source that establishes and quantifies this assumption that "we're paying people to waste their time unproductively"?…

I believe it's the bullshit jobs argument. You could point to Twitter though, or really any sizeable corporate layoff that isn't driven by entirely getting rid of departments or products.

Sick days, vacation, and parental leave are also good examples at a small scale. It definitely doesn't hold for every jobs, but if a person can be out of the job for days or weeks without a huge impact on the team it may very well be a mostly bullshit job.

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#79

Post by Retric » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 2:06 PM UTC

HPsquared wrote: post #60

Retric wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you arguing that a UBI is wealth redistribution specifically? I’m saying social safety nets are already wealth redistribution. Changing the form of that safety net to UBI is an allocation of resources based on individual decisions and thus free markets where Food Stamps/Housing Subsidies/etc is allocating money based on bureaucratic decisions. Basically nothing says UBI needs to cost more than existing social s…

If the current spending on safety nets is spread evenly over the whole society, won't the current recipients not have enough to live?

Only if you ignore the tax code. US example for single people:

SNAP for a single person is $291/month - total income * 0.3 so they get nothing at 11,640 per year of annual income and 291$/month at 0$ annual income.

2024 income brackets for single people are: 10% $0 to $11,600, 12% $11,600 to $47,150, 22% $47,151 to $100,525, ... Maximum tax bracket is 37%.

Hand everyone 260$ per month, but change things so the highest tax bracket 37% applies $0 to $11,600 and everyone making 12,000+$/ year sees zero change in their take home pay. And people making 0$/year get 260$/month.

Those numbers aren’t quite identical, but it’s surprising how close it ends up. At 30%, $0 to $11,640 it’s off by less than 1$/year.

Re: UBI and the Anti-Work Vibe Shift

#80

Post by _heimdall » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 2:06 PM UTC

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #16

I think people are beginning to see work as a sucker's game. The assets you hold are much more important. You can bust your ass and get a nice little startup exit -- and then look around at what real estate this massive windfall will buy you, only to realize that it's all gone up in price by the same amount. It would have been better to have bought a house, kept the easy job, and gone home at 4:30 each day. People se…

The only tweak I would make is to disregard financial assets as assets in this context. Holding money isn't really that different than holding IOUs for a share of stock that you'll never actually own.

If a person is really does view money as smoke and mirrors, and is concerned that it can be printed whenever it's needed, tangible assets like land or tools at least useful if you no longer see value on money.

That said, I'm not advocating for that view necessarily and very much agree with your take here. People do seem to be losing faith in money, at least a bit, and that can be very dangerous if the faith continues to erode.