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

Trading Time for Money

nicolasbouliane.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 159 posts

Re: Trading Time for Money

#81

Post by [deleted] »

paulpauper wrote: post #76
keiferski wrote: post #18

Analyses like this just make me think Basic Income will radically shake up civilization more than most people realize. In particular, it will help divorce this ubiquitous cultural association between time and money. This reason alone may explain some of the hostility toward implementing even a rudimentary form of UBI. Some of the most rewarding human experiences have zero financial value and subsequently are dismisse…

>Some of the most rewarding human experiences have zero financial value and subsequently are dismissed or ignored as "irrelevant" by a significant amount of people. It would be fantastic if we evaluated the worth of an activity on its beauty, meaning, or another hundred adjectives other than how much money we're losing by doing it. If you like birdwatching , awesome, but where ppl object is having to pay for your hob…

[deleted]

Re: Trading Time for Money

#82

Post by jlokier »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #54
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to make lots of money working on cmbs and advertising for oil mining. I spent my money on many a plastic bullshit. Now I make nothing writing foss and live off donations. I rarely encourage plastic manufacturing. Which is better for our society and the biome? I argue it is the latter.

Well that’s on you brother. I like what I do and I like that I take responsibility for my life and that I am not handed anything.

The person creating FOSS object that other people find so highly-valuable they voluntarily pay for it is performing at least as much a trade as the person working a regular job for pay.

It is not right to characterise that form of making a living as being handed anything. To achieve that is hard work and just as much a form of trade. The voluntary nature of payments for the objects implies they are more valued by others than ordinary trade where payments are mandatory and creators can "coast" with lower quality products.

Arguably the person doing a regular job for pay is being handed more, as almost anyone can work a basic job for pay and gets the fruits of everyone else's labour. It's almost a freebie in modern society: Do some work get vastly more of what you need for a good life given to you while you produce maybe 1% of it yourself.

From this perspective, a job is 99% handout from the collective to you, 1% contribution from you to the collective.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#83

Post by fzzzy »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #69
drevil-v2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that’s on you brother. I like what I do and I like that I take responsibility for my life and that I am not handed anything.

but you ARE handed everything that you have, the idea that you ,,earned it,, is an illusion based on ignoring all the good fortune and gifts which have been rained on you, just like on me. otherwise you wouldn,t be in the position to comment on this board.

Thank you. This is the absolute truth.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#84

Post by [deleted] »

okthenletssee wrote: post #72
keiferski wrote: post #18

Analyses like this just make me think Basic Income will radically shake up civilization more than most people realize. In particular, it will help divorce this ubiquitous cultural association between time and money. This reason alone may explain some of the hostility toward implementing even a rudimentary form of UBI. Some of the most rewarding human experiences have zero financial value and subsequently are dismisse…

What rewarding experience has zero financial value? I think you are very wrong about money.

[deleted]

Re: Trading Time for Money

#85

Post by SubuSS »

keiferski wrote: post #65
robocat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But social acceptability should have little multiplier effect on the other benefits you listed e.g. artistic output (unemployed/beneficiary artists are already socially acceptable, in my circles at least).

Right, but the point is that this will change the whole system. How many talented artists decided to become stockbrokers instead, simply because they wanted financial stability? Or how many parents encourage their children to follow something "practical" and not what they are truly passionate about? Or academics that love their subject, but don't want to bother with the hassle of adjunct positions and constant reloca…

If we are going by numbers, how many talented artists are indeed there? Of this how many are talented enough to be both artists and stock brokers AND are overwhelmed by stock broking so much that they give up on their Picasso like talents? 0.0001% of the general pop? May be if we count every one with massive world class but oppressed talents, will they account for 0.1% of the world pop?

As much as it would liberate the stuck artists et al from the above 0.1%, my theory is that it would only allow the rest 99.9% to focus their time into consumption of various things rather than production of invaluable goods.

Now we could move the goal post and say, ‘hey, they were born as human and by that they have won the lottery! Why shouldn’t everyone be eligible for the basics?’ - but that’s a different argument than saying this will liberate the arts. I don’t buy that line of argument.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#86

Post by eMSF »

xupybd wrote: post #23
pwarner wrote: post #7

I suggest finding something you like, and do it. I like gardening and cleaning so I do those, but don't like changing oil so I outsource that. I would change my oil it I could stand up doing it!

Me too, I've tried explaining this to people. The hard part of an oil change is getting to the oil filter. It's way easier in a pit. You also have to deal with oil disposal and potential spills in the driveway. It makes so much sense to pay someone who is setup to do this. There are specialist oil changers in my town. I drive in an 30 mins later I drive out. Paying about 150% of what it would cost me to do it.

>The hard part of an oil change is getting to the oil filter.

There's no standard oil filter location; in my car it's at the front of the engine and accessible just by popping the hood and removing the engine cover – no tools required (although a wrench is useful for the filter housing).

It's definitely more work to access the oil pan plug, but not so much that I'd rather schedule an appointment somewhere, drive there and wait and drive back (and pay extra for the same oil and filter).

Re: Trading Time for Money

#87

Post by jakehop »

keiferski wrote: post #65
robocat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But social acceptability should have little multiplier effect on the other benefits you listed e.g. artistic output (unemployed/beneficiary artists are already socially acceptable, in my circles at least).

Right, but the point is that this will change the whole system. How many talented artists decided to become stockbrokers instead, simply because they wanted financial stability? Or how many parents encourage their children to follow something "practical" and not what they are truly passionate about? Or academics that love their subject, but don't want to bother with the hassle of adjunct positions and constant reloca…

It seems like you are missing an important aspect of UBI: What level of income will it provide?

If a (perhaps more fulfilling or “fitting”) life on UBI is to rival that of say a stockbroker, UBI must provide more freedom than one can get by working in that position, while perhaps saving up for early retirement.

The income level will have to be moderate at the very least, to rival that. Since it is supported by tax revenue, it must be part of a balanced budget. This can quite easily be matched by a reasonable income, where a good amount is put into savings each month.

I agree, that this is not an option for a lot of people, as their monthly expenses won’t allow to save like that. But then that isn’t something that UBI will fix - given its “basic” nature. If all else equal, the higher the level of UBI, the higher the price level as demand increases.

I do support some models of UBI. It could help in replacing the myriad of different welfare programmes that are only about money here in Denmark, where billions of USD are either wasted or swallowed by bureaucracy each year.

However, I find it almost fraudulent how UBI is being misused as a “Trojan Horse” by some people and especially by politicians.

UBI, like most other insurance schemes, will only work if most people are net-positive contributors. This makes UBI mostly into a welfare programme - something that’s limited in its use.

But if the idea is that it’s something for everyone, most of the time, I’m hard pressed to answer how it will work on a societal basis, without the use of force.

I don’t believe that is what you argue for, so please don’t take this as a straw man argument against your point.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#88

Post by robocat »

keiferski wrote: post #65
robocat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But social acceptability should have little multiplier effect on the other benefits you listed e.g. artistic output (unemployed/beneficiary artists are already socially acceptable, in my circles at least).

Right, but the point is that this will change the whole system. How many talented artists decided to become stockbrokers instead, simply because they wanted financial stability? Or how many parents encourage their children to follow something "practical" and not what they are truly passionate about? Or academics that love their subject, but don't want to bother with the hassle of adjunct positions and constant reloca…

If you believe in UBI, and you have an average US income, you can already do your own UBI scheme by donating some portion of your income to a group of people in a poor country.

Have you done that?

If not, why not?

Re: Trading Time for Money

#89

Post by throwaway2245 »

nicbou wrote: post #66
keiferski wrote: post #18

Analyses like this just make me think Basic Income will radically shake up civilization more than most people realize. In particular, it will help divorce this ubiquitous cultural association between time and money. This reason alone may explain some of the hostility toward implementing even a rudimentary form of UBI. Some of the most rewarding human experiences have zero financial value and subsequently are dismisse…

I sincerely doubt that basic income will make us all Victorian-era gentleman scientists and patrons of the arts. I agree with the premise that culture comes from leisure, but realistically, if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? Instead of giving people free money, wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics? Is there any indication that UBI would…

> if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly?

> wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics?

Breaking this down a little:

Industries with monopolist practices can be expected to raise their prices to capture more of this new income. I agree, that seems likely.

In my mind, this would likely include housing/land ownership.

By proposing to subsidise housing instead, you're proposing to effectively give this money directly to landlords instead of to everyone to have their own negotiating power and make their own decision.

But, won't the cost still just rise accordingly, by your theory - won't landlords just pocket that money and demand even more?

It seems more effective to trust people with their own money.

Re: Trading Time for Money

#90

Post by balfirevic »

taneq wrote: post #78
nicbou wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely doubt that basic income will make us all Victorian-era gentleman scientists and patrons of the arts. I agree with the premise that culture comes from leisure, but realistically, if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? Instead of giving people free money, wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics? Is there any indication that UBI would…

> if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? I hear this argument a lot but I don't think it necessarily follows: - The supply of low end goods (the sort which you can afford with your UBI) is highly automated and will increase rapidly for any small price increase, making their pricing fairly inelastic. - The demand for these goods won't rise greatly (except for low…

That's probably true, except for one important category of goods that has a tendency to suck as much income from people as they can bear - housing.

It is true that with UBI people have the option to move somewhere where housing is inexpensive, but I don't think it's desirable to have people already dependent on UBI move to places with lower economic opportunity - cementing their dependence on it.

That being said, expensive housing is a problem that exists with or without UBI, even if it would interact with it in an unfortunate ways.

Post reply on HN