Comment by clairity | Hacker News Reader

Comment by clairity | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

it's not anger so much as dismay (for me, at least). the hearts of UBI proponents are often in the right place, but the solution is grossly ignorant and shortsighted. it won't lead to any meaningful long-term change, but rather a new equilibrium where the struggling have even less leverage and opportunity.

and many proponents are really only trying to solve for "i don't want to experience poor people" rather than "i don't want people to be poor (especially if caused by automation i created)". you see this position a lot in comments here about homelessness in SF, for example.

UBI tries to solve a complicated problem (inequity) with a simple solution (the simplicitiy of which is irresistably attractive to makers of all sorts). inequity needs to be solved by healing the thousand cuts we've endured over the last 50 years, not with the tiny little band-aid that is UBI.

we need to fix the ways that plutocrats have tilted the economy in their favor. just around taxation: income tax rates, employment taxes, capital gains tax, depreciation, corporate loss-shifting, interest deduction, nearly every deductions actually, etc. moreso, lending (student loans, mortgages), insurance (healthcare), and real estate (literal rents) have become de facto ways of extracting rents out of the many for the few.

I completely agree that one of the core problems we need to fix is the unbalanced influence of wealthy individuals and corporations on policy and lawmaking.

However, potentially UBI does more than you imagine. There are measurable differences in both behavior and development when meeting basic needs is a struggle. Rutger Bregman did a great job touching on some of the basics in this TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lac...

By giving low income people extra cushion (even a small one) you can improve their cognition and decision making, giving them a platform from which to improve their lives, pursue education, even innovate. All without complicated, difficult to implement and expensive social programs designed to achieve the same goals. Poverty squanders potential.

And then, of course, there is the oft talked about, and in my opinion self evidently valid, concern about an increasing number of white collar jobs being replaced by automation. At some point we'll have no choice but to come up with a solution for a shrinking pool of unskilled or semi-skilled jobs.

Conveniently the same process that will remove those jobs, will also make the production of the goods and services they relate to dramatically cheaper. UBI gives some of that surplus to the lower and middle classes, which is important given the danger that it would otherwise be absorbed by the rich.

Another benefit that needs to be mentioned is it provides an unconditional safety blanket for anyone who has a job. People who now feel they are stuck in a job for fear of being broke wouldn't feel as stuck under a UBI. This is a huge benefit for the majority of people. Many workplaces would improve, especially the worst ones, as people wouldn't feel as stuck in them, this severely limits the degree that employers can treat their employees badly. For the self employed it gives them freedom to leave their occupation and do something else when things get bad for whatever reason. Even people who are financially secure and have their own wealth as a safety net are likely to benefit from workplace improvements, even if the money from a UBI itself is a lot less important to them.

In short, the benefits to the already employed should not be left out.

This is an underappreciated benefit. That whole, enduring feeling of being "stuck where you wouldn't want to be" is also a huge drain on productivity and a leading cause of a host of workplace issues, as well as stress or burnout in the longer run. The improvement in 'low-wage' employees' way of working might easily be as large as the one in actual workplace conditions.

Absolutely! Building on one of your points, if everyone had more freedom to pursue their passion, as a result of the cushion to take risks, the potential benefits to society and culture at large are huge. Science, art, technology, etc..

It's no doubt overly idealistic but I envision it as a new renaissance.

One thing is certain: as technology continues to make providing basic needs cheaper and cheaper, we need to come up with some way to give a significant part of that surplus to the masses.

The current system will allocate it to the 1% and we can look to science fiction for what happens after that.

What I find frustrating personally, living in the US, is the irrationally vehement opposition to the idea. Like universal healthcare, accessible higher education, affordable child care, sane vacation time, reasonable parental leave and etc.. the US will no doubt be decades behind the rest of the world here too.

> "Poverty squanders potential."

having seen this in practice, i generally buy-in to this idea but disagree that UBI is the solution (i might buy that it could be a small, targeted part of a larger solution). fix systemic inequity. give disadvantaged folks dignity and fairness. they'll do the rest.

poverty may not even be the principal problem. don't try to step in to solve their "problem" for them, especially if you have no experience. let them do it. allow opportunities, listen, but don't just give solutions.

> "...in my opinion self evidently valid, concern about an increasing number of white collar jobs being replaced by automation."

entirely not self-evident and an overblown concern, given history. humans are infinitely creative. we'll do other stuff, or even change the system, in the pursuit of esteem.

You seem to labor under the delusion that inequity and the lack of dignity and fairness are easier systemic issues to solve than handing out a check. They are virtually impossible by comparison.

My thinking is that all those things would be easier to address politically if doing so meant giving back that rent to the people

but the lock, stock and barrel shouldn't have been given away to rentiers in the first place. giving a token of it back to the poor just saps political will out of making the structural changes needed.

inventing and making and doing is what should unlock profits, not simply just owning property (rents).

I fully agree actually. It just happens that my suggested remedy is to extract that rent back by reshaping private property rights into leasing from the commons. Right now there is no political movement near any legislative assembly I’m aware with a geoliberal base though, so my hope is that if at least a practical policy from its book was part of the policy debate among the incumbents there would also be room for an actual geoliberal group to take place and shape it.

gotcha. in the US at least, there's little chance of that because property ownership is so tied to identity. i'd support some form of land value tax because it would nudge development toward the "highest and best use" of real property, but even that's an uphill battle here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com