Comment by newjersey | Hacker News Reader

Comment by newjersey | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> You have to fill in many papers, prove that you don’t have sufficient income or any valuable property, go through many humiliating and intrusive controls. If you want to earn (a small amount of) money without working, then you must endure it all. In most cases it is necessary to seek the help of a social worker to carry out the procedure in its entirety.

This is exactly the reason I want basic income. I want nobody to feel like someone else is cheating the system. I hear a bunch of people (even old people who are on medicare and social security!) who will talk trash about "welfare queens".

It is not like we can't afford it. There will be short term pain, of course but I think we will have greater solidarity. This is good for the 0.01% as well because if you are doing really well, you want to keep the ship steady. (Well to be cynical, you could try to keep everyone else fighting amongst themselves but any arsonist will tell you that a fire once started won't spare the people who started it.)

And what happens in the very long term? What happens when kids are raised with the attitude that they are guaranteed to survive on basic income? What happens when their number grows? What happens when that large group feels that bare survival doesn't cut it any more and want more? What happens if the numbers actually don't pan out but scared politicians doon't want to give up power and cook the books for decades? Remember that after similar initiatives short and mid-term gains were huge, but in the long-term they lead to apathy, corruption and very uncompetitive economy.

There are two states in nature. You either grow or you shrink. You remove the incentive to grow and guess what happens next.

Or if you want to really start thinking hard, maybe you should ask yourself what happens when everybody has X in money and businesses raise their prices accordingly?

> What happens when kids are raised with the attitude that they are guaranteed to survive on basic income?

When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving? They'll stand a better chance of flourishing and reaching their full potential, like many of us here on HN who have an affluent background.

> When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving?

Having to contribute to society by keeping a job, and using the income of said job to finance your cost of living is far from being a life-risking enterprise.

You're trying to avoid the point by inventing absurd emotional examples.

You're ignoring the seemingly obvious threat of less job opportunities over time that provide a living, thriving wage. There's many people who have "a job" now who are barely getting by, enough to live but not thrive by any means. As efficiency increases over time because of tech, in combination with increasing reliance on cheap global labor and further stagnating wages locally, there will need to be some way to keep the local economy flowing beyond people just "keeping a job".

> You're ignoring the seemingly obvious threat of less job opportunities over time that provide a living, thriving wage.

That's your assumption, and a baseless one at that.

Back in reality, we're experiencing unprecedented economic development which includes the inception of a whole new economic sector.

You're essentially complaining that buggy whip artisans have less job opportunities in a world that's creating whole new jobs such as forum moderators, social media experts, and data scientists.

Today's economy even creates jobs playing video games, surfing, and talking about gourmet food.

The world's most developed economies are enjoying structural unemployment rates.

And you're here talking about "less job opportunities over time".

You need to separate facts from fiction, including your own baseless beliefs.

Violence is generally not a good motivator. Positive reinforcement is much better.

Your comment made me a bit sad because I read it as "What happens when those who struggle everyday to survive no longer have to?" - I understand your fear of entitlement etc... but I don't think things could get much worse than where we are now. For instance, "affluenza" is an acceptable excuse for killing a person in the US.

Hey glenda,

I wanted to congratulate you on your enduring politeness and civility while enduring exactly the opposite. I thank you for your tone and your contribution. While I may not agree with you, I applaud the manner in which you communicate.

It's people like you that really make HN a different place.

Thank you! This means a lot to me.

What happens when kids have rich parents?

What happens when kids know they don't have to steal or rob to survive?

What happens when kids know living for the good cause will never starve them to death?

What happens when kids know they can pursue their best interest without worrying about being starved?

> What happens when kids know living for the good cause will never starve them to death?

Can you point out exactly how many people starved to death in any western country? Because I vividly remember that there isn't any universal basic income program in effect, and somehow people manage to feed themselves just fine.

You can't expect to be taken seriously if all you can come up with are absurd emotional works of fiction.

>people manage to feed themselves just fine

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hu...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/12/teens-americ...

>There are two states in nature. You either grow or you shrink.

There is also homeostasis. Perpetual growth is cancer.

>> It is not like we can't afford it.

Have you looked at the US Economy lately?

(Jan 2016) Why 2016 keeps getting uglier for US economy - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier...

(April 2016) Americans' confidence in economy at 2016 low - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-con...

(June 2016) The next recession is already here—and there isn't much the Fed can do - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already...

I'm all for a basic income for lower income families, but I'm not sure how routinely volatile our economy is, we really afford this long term. What happens when you put something like this in place, and then can't afford it? There's a long list of government programs already awash in waste and mismanagement. I'm not sure another program (which would have to take the place of other programs - WIC, TEFAP, HUD, etc) is really going to solve the problem.

The whole point of UBI is universal.

If it's just moving some bits into everyone's account monthly, entire layers of bureacracy, with their buildings, staff, forms, and fraud checking departments, can be removed. It should make it remarkably cheap to run, comparatively.

Make it lower income only and you have to bring all that back.

> It should make it remarkably cheap to run, comparatively.

You're assuming that it would be possible to simply eliminate government and state services and institutions, both politically and practically.

Instead, everyone working within an organization works to serve their own personal interests. This means that it's practically impossible for an elected official to eliminate all this state cruft, as every single person within the organization would fight tooth and nail to sabotage the project.

You're further reinforcing his point, that people in SV have no clue about politics and government. Ronald Reagan is supposed to have said that a government program is the closest thing to eternal life that we’ve ever seen on Earth. Government programs never die. Period.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/government-p...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-an-era-of-bu...

I'm all for a basic income for lower income families

Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now.

> Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now.

Economists will undoubtedly turn up their noses when not so well learned people like me start explaining our position because it is clearly too stupid for them. If we have $100 available and three people: one who doesn't need any money, one who needs $20, and one who needs $50 to survive, clearly it is best to give nothing to the first person, #20 to the second person, and $50 to the third person. Look, we were economically efficient and now $30 can go towards maintaining the system! What I propose is that the $100 should be divided more like $33 each with just $1 going towards maintaining the project itself.

This came up before when talking about college education and whether the government should subsidize college education for the wealthy. My answer is yes! Of course, the government should pay for college for everyone, even if that person is Bill Gates' son. Similarly, should the government pay for Bill Gates' health care expenses under a single payer universal health care system? I say again Yes! We should not discriminate against the wealthy. Sure, it might result is less care for the poor but at the end of the day, I think it is better for everyone.

The US economy is certainly looking pretty dire, but it's not for a lack of resources: there's enough food, land, etc to support everyone. That's probably part of the problem. The economy is founded on an expectation of growth forever and there's nowhere left to grow within the US. The current output is likely enough to supply everyone with all the food, water and consumer gadgets they care to consume.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com