Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbb555 | Hacker News Reader

I don't see how this can possibly work.

I'm reasonably well paid, and pay a lot of tax. I can save quite a bit. I could afford to live for 5 years from my savings without working. But not forever, so I still work.

But if someone was to give me 800 euro a month then I could live of my saving for maybe 20 years instead. Certainly long enough to get to retirement....

So why would I work? I wouldn't. So not only would this cost 800 euro a month directly but also the 4000 euro a month in taxes I would have paid.

It doesn't take many people to do the obvious thing...

View on HN

If that's what you actually want to do, why don't you negotiate with your employer to work 1 day a week for 1,600 euros a month? You'd have twice what this basic income pays and you'd have 80% of the free time you want. That has to be a good deal, right.

The fact is, there are very few people in your position, and fewer still who'd give up their considerable income in order to not work. Very few of us work just to live; we all want more than that. The number of high earners who'd quit their jobs is minimal. However... The number of low earners who'd quit is much bigger. That's the problem that society will need to deal with - the cost of things like retail and domestic services like cleaning will go up considerably because people won't do the work unless it pays relatively well.

not entirely, market will find its way around in long run, ie immigration (legal or illegal), illegal employment etc. all net loss for state.

people want to pay as little as possible to get as much as possible, that's natural to all of us.

people want to pay as little as possible to get as much as possible, that's natural to all of us.

I'm not sure about that. There are plenty of businesses that do very well selling less at a higher price - there is perceived value in buying an ethical, artisan or luxury good. Perhaps people wouldn't mind paying a bit more if it meant society was better off if they could actually afford to. The notion of doing things for the "maximum possible happiness", even if it means you're worse off yourself, isn't new. Jeremy Bentham was writing about "felicific calculus" more than 200 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus

Why don't you take a part time job at flipping burgers or at bartending? I've no idea what you do but I'm assuming there are plenty of part-time, low wage jobs you could take right now that are less stressful than whatever you do now and, because they're part-time, would give you a lot more free time.

Why don't you do that? They'd pay enough for you to be able to live off your savings until retirement age, by your account.

>So why would I work? I wouldn't

But most people would. It's not that I buy into the "people don't just work for money". I could be creative, do interesting things and meet people without a job.

What I do believe is that most people are greedy and lust for stuff. Most people want a new car, a bigger house, a bigger TV and a new phone every year.

Basic income would cover my needs and your needs. For most people it won't be enough to get the level of comfort and luxury they want.

Most people don't pay 4000 euros a month in taxes and can't live for 5 years from their savings.

Your personal situation is far from representative and can't be used to assess the usefulness of universal basic income.

4000 euros is a lot; most people who make enough to pay that have had their tax advisor 'restructure' things so they pay less. If you are paying that after restructure I would think you can save enough to add 3 years per year (you might have to live slightly more frugal than you do now).

Not everyone works for money. In fact most people I personally know (no, I'm not sure that's a good representation) don't. What is quite common though among large groups of people is that they get extremely bored and lonely without their jobs. It is frightening to talk with people and find out that they would have nothing at all to do if they would not have their jobs; their hobbies (if they have them) don't give them enough satisfaction to do them longer than a few hours a week.

I don't have to work but I find myself working more as I enjoy it even though I have hobbies to keep me busy.

most people around me work exactly for money. even when they like their job (ie I do), there are roughly 1 gazillion other activities that are just better, and life is too short. also, if you have children, you want to spend as much time with them as possible, there is no upper limit on that.

You would think that, but most people who retire early get really board in around 6-12 months.

Often your friends are working so they just don't have a lot of time to have fun on week days. TV is much worse in the middle of the day. Sure, it seems like adding 40 hours a week of free time would not change much, but it often feels like 4x as much free time due to all the unnecessary activity's around work that suck up time.

Finally, many things are fun while your tired at the end of the day / week to unwind, but get boring when your wide awake and full of energy.

I have had 5 people die shortly after retiring (early); stress (was this all?), depression (suicide) and general boredom which leads to depression. I do not think you realise how much time you really have on your hands when you are not in the ratrace and how few people deal with that well.

I'm sure it wouldn't take long to find someone willing to work for that salary so you wouldn't pay income tax but someone else would (and that someone else would also take another step on the social mobility ladder, etc). If you were to quit, you would have some money invested, you would continue helping the economy by buying things, and someone else would take your job and eventually be better off. Sounds like a win-win for the society/economy.

I think both of you are wrong -- he wouldn't quit his well paying job just because he got a basic income of 800 euros, BUT, SHOULD he quit, it would not be so easy to replace him. Sure there would be people willing to work for that salary, but would they be able to? If he would be so easily replaceable, would he still earn a high salary?

We are not talking about Cristiano Ronaldo here. This person does seem to have a very good salary but it doesn't mean he isn't replaceable. About it being easy, I'd say it depends on a lot of different things but based on his salary, I would say there are more people qualified for those tasks.

People don't work just for money. The idea is to free people up so that they can use their natural human creativity to grow as individuals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com