Hacker News Reader

The Australian government forces you to do unpaid work if you spend more than 12 months on the dole[0]. They've trialled drug testing. Turning up to Centrelink is more degrading than going to the DMV in the US. It's not intended nor commonly used as a UBI, with the exception of youth allowance and austudy for uni students. Once you're at the threshold for the dole your effective marginal tax rate climbs well over 50% because it's not a real UBI, disincentivising recipients from working more hours.

Australia is also incredibly rich in mineral wealth and has profited immensely from digging up ore and selling it to China during their construction boom. These profits haven't been enough to stop it slipping out of the top ten of the happiness index, and Melbourne lost its most liveable city spot to Vienna in 2019 because the embarrassingly high property prices prevent most people from buying a home.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_Dole#Basic_Work...

Good post. Yang provides additional answers in the FAQ he prepared for his POTUS run:

- https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

Aside from COVID-19, we have the 4th industrial revolution in progress now. Just take a look at these truck driver's faces once they realize just how far self driving trucks are:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4

Another similar video - a PBS special on AI, showing Embark's technology in action: https://www.limitstogrowth.org/articles/2019/11/06/pbs-front...

You can do that in the USA on social security. You don't get quite as much but our money goes farther.

OK. Then why not any of those places become the innovation engine of the world? I heard people would become more creative and innovative under those circumstances.

You might now know this if you live in North America because Australia hardly enters our consciousness or our news cycles, but in many parts of the world Australia has a reputation of being a very innovative country, especially in physical engineering and software. Part of it has to do with their anti-authoritarian heritage and survivalist mindset--they don't take hierarchy too seriously. Whether their creativity is helped by a generous welfare society or not, I'm not sure, but you definitely can't say Australians aren't innovative.

My question is "why not any of those places become the innovation engine of the world". I didn't even mention Australia.

Who gives a duck? If people are well taken care of, I'm take less innovation, since usually it's useless customer goods innovation these days.

So none of those great welfare countries gives a duck? Only the despicable USA cares those useless customer goods innovation. Good explanation.

We've banned this account for flamewar posting. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22606977.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

> I heard people would become more creative and innovative under those circumstances.

That could be one of the possible outcomes, yes.

Remember too that Australia only has a population of 25 million - only 7.5% of America. So even if Australia was twice as creative and innovative as America, it can still only innovate and create 15% as much as America can simply because of the size difference.

Another outcome from all this might just be that you create one of the best places to live on the planet... i.e. one of your cities has been voted world's most livable city (or second place) for decades.

Australia is doing pretty damn well. The pay there is fantastic, and it's one of the few countries where you can work any honest job and still get paid well (I can attest that this is not the case in the U.S.). Many foreigners flock there in large part for this reason. 1 month+ vacation, strong healthcare system, good benefits, etc. And remember their population is only 24.6 million.

I'd say having a higher standard of living is more important than being the "innovation engine of the world", however arbitrarily defined that is.

It's literally not a UBI, did you not see the OP spell that out?

Means-tested welfare is misaligned with productivity because the money stops coming once you make more. A UBI is a more pragmatic, efficient approach to reducing wealth inequality.

Have you heard of Jira, perchance

Where have you heard that?

This is a textbook example of a strawman argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

> Yes, there are people that do exactly that, and probably will for all time. Has it ruined the Australian economy? nope. Has there been rampant inflation? nope.

It is besides the point really isn't it? Why should the tax payer pay for someone sitting on their behind?

Why should I pay for someone else doing nothing? I am close to paying 40% of my income to tax at the moment and I've been saving for a property for years (I earn too much to have any help on buying a flat). What the studies say is absolutely irrelevant because I cannot abide the (lack of) principle itself.

> It (inflation) is besides the point really isn't it?

Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those.

> Why should the tax payer pay for someone sitting on their behind?

There are a host of reasons, here's a few off my head:

- We accept there will always be people we will pay to sit on their behind (disabled, elderly, mentally ill, students going to university, veterans, retired government employees, etc.). It's important to recognize we already pay a huge number of people (about 5 million, or 20% of Australians according to one of my links above) to "sit on their behind"

- It gets them off the street and therefore not out committing crimes.

- Because you're happy doing what you're doing (going to work, I presume) and those people are happy doing what they're doing (nothing). So everyone is happy right now. If you force them to go to work you'll be unhappy because you'll spend all your time forcing them, and dealing with other massive societal problems like crime, and they'll be unhappy because you're making them go to work when they don't want to. So you would reduce happiness by forcing them to go to work. Also likely they'll do a terrible job at whatever work you force them to do, which is not good for society.

If you want to rebut that last point by saying "but I'm not happy (going to work)" then there is an extremely simple answer - Quit. Get the free money and do nothing all the time. Of course I already know you won't do that because it won't make you happy, and you don't want to live on $1k a month (it's good enough, but not great). Plenty of people actually do try it for a while (I did)... and then they come back to paid work again because overall for 95% of people (as proved by evidence) life is better.

Everyone is already doing what makes them happy, so leave it alone.

Remember, US tax payers are spending literally trillions of dollars on wars and bailing out banks (again)... would you rather the Australian government spend those tax dollars that way, or spend it on improving the lives of Australians who are in Australia?

America is not spending trillions on their military, and even then it's still barely affordable. To give every American 12k per year would cost about 10 times the military budget (7 trillion versus 780 billion).

And that's before we even discuss shenanigans like debt jubilees and free healthcare.

Even dramatic cuts to the us military barely make a dent to these kinds of spending proposals.

The military budget isn't the entirety of military spending. It doesn't include the VA budget, the DOE budget (maintaining those nukes), the actual cost of wars themselves, etc.

Adding up all the parts, it's pretty close to a trillion a year - about 933 billion.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-ch...

The money paid as UBI doesn't disappear from the economy. People on low incomes spend everything they have and that money supports local shops, bars, restaurants, factories, etc.

> Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those.

You completely missed the point. I am against the principle of me (a tax payer) paying for someone else not working unless they can't work (unable to work). The inflation argument is completely irrelevant.

> If you want to rebut that last point by saying "but I'm not happy (going to work)" then there is an extremely simple answer - Quit.

It is besides the point. The principle is that I earn my way and I stand up on my own two feet. It not about liking work or not liking it. It is entirely besides the point.

> Get the free money and do nothing all the time. Of course I already know you won't do that because it won't make you happy, and you don't want to live on $1k a month (it's good enough, but not great). Plenty of people actually do try it for a while (I did)... and then they come back to paid work again because overall for 95% of people (as proved by evidence) life is better.

This is why it is irritating arguing with people like yourself. It isn't about the facts. It is about the principle. When I am working I don't want to be paying my tax for someone sitting on their behind.

> Remember, US tax payers are spending literally trillions of dollars on wars and bailing out banks (again)... would you rather the Australian government spend those tax dollars that way, or spend it on improving the lives of Australians who are in Australia?

Just because banks got bailed out in the past (which was wrong) doesn't mean it is okay to do something else that isn't ethical.

> It isn't about the facts. It is about the principle.

What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyone work.

Don't you think the world changes and that what worked before isn't necessarily going to work for all time? I mean, read a book about being a good housewife in the '60s if you want to see how far we've come in just 60 years.

I understand you're a bit put off by people getting "money for nothing" but as I said, maybe the facts here are showing you live a better life because you do pay a little for people to get money for nothing. i.e. crime is lower, people are happier, etc.

As I showed with facts, it's only 5% of the Australian population who live that way, and of course some of those would only get it until they do find a job. Certainly not all of them are slackers (of course, some are)

> When I am working I don't want to be paying my tax for someone sitting on their behind.

As I said, you need to keep it very clear in your head you are already paying for millions to do exactly that, and society as we know it would utterly crumble if we didn't. Who would pay for prisons, the elderly or handicapped?

The part I find most fascinating of all about this is how the media has conditioned people to be outraged about real and everyday people getting "money for nothing" and how they're slackers and are ruining the economy. Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

Do you honestly think it's the 5% of people who choose to be slackers to the tune of $1000 a month who are causing a problem? or are you just outraged they are actual people who get to sit and do nothing while you go to work, but you can't feel that same outrage at a faceless corporation?

> What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts.

What uk_programmer's original argument was that even if it worked, even if we could afford it, it would be wrong to make uk_programmer work for $5000/mo. and then take $1000/mo. of their money and give it to someone else.

Having a factual discussion about the implementation may be interesting, and may be worth discussing, but the argument has already been laid out on moral grounds. If you're going to continue answering the "How?" question and ignoring the "Why?" question, you're going to keep finding that you're talking across purposes from the GP.

(BTW, I think your "factual" case is severely flawed as well, but that's a story for another time.)

> What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyone work.

They said back in the 80s and 90s The computer revolution would stop end all the office work. Now there are probably more people in offices than ever. I think automation will just create different jobs. Neither you or I will know what those are likely to be.

> Don't you think the world changes and that what worked before isn't necessarily going to work for all time? I mean, read a book about being a good housewife in the '60s if you want to see how far we've come in just 60 years.

The fact of the matter is that it isn't ethical to rely on the good people in the population to work and pay for people that can't be bothered.

> I understand you're a bit put off by people getting "money for nothing" but as I said,

No I find it to be completely unethical.

> maybe the facts here are showing you live a better life because you do pay a little for people to get money for nothing. i.e. crime is lower, people are happier, etc.

I am not living a better life. Things are largely the same for me. Those unwilling to work are living at the taxpayer's expense.

Also I don't care about happiness. There are other things that are more important than happiness. I don't care about my own happiness. Happiness is for children. This is a deeper philosophical question that I will admit I don't have the tooling for. However you keep on saying happiness like I care about it.

Also if you making arguments about Happiness isn't the best way to go on it. There are accounts of slaves being happier being slaves than being free.

> As I showed with facts, it's only 5% of the Australian population who live that way, and of course some of those would only get it until they do find a job. Certainly not all of them are slackers (of course, some are)

I've told you the "facts" are irrelevant to me (and many others). Even if it was 0.01% of the UK I still think it would be wrong. I don't want to pay for people sitting on their behind. So you are forcing me to pay almost half my income for something I deeply disagree with, because not working isn't an option for me and never will be. It has nothing to do with enjoying work or not enjoying it.

> As I said, you need to keep it very clear in your head you are already paying for millions to do exactly that, and society as we know it would utterly crumble if we didn't. Who would pay for prisons, the elderly or handicapped?

I am fine for paying for those things. Because that is what/who the state should be providing for. I am not okay for people sitting on their backside.

I don't care that theoretically there would be less crime. I couldn't care less. Also not having free money doesn't allow you to break the law.

> The part I find most fascinating of all about this is how the media has conditioned people to be outraged about real and everyday people getting "money for nothing" and how they're slackers and are ruining the economy. Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

I haven't been conditioned by anyone to think this. It is incredible insulting to be told by you that I have a problem with something because I been somehow brainwashed. Please keep on having this attitude though because it won't do you any good.

> Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

I agree they shouldn't have been bailed out.

you are a cog in a economic system, you just ( as many here have ) fit into a spot in the machine that generates wealth at good levels. Your personal principles don't really make any difference. It's a system. There are a number economic principles at play. Worrying about individuals sitting around is not even a factor worthy of consideration, it's a simplistic layman reaction to quite a complex system. Even IF it was a problem, it's a problem to be addressed in other ways. Economically speaking, there are far bigger contesting problems to be dealt with.

> Why should I pay for someone else doing nothing? I am close to 40% tax at the moment and I've been saving for a house for years (I earn too much to have any help on buying a flat). What the studies say is absolutely irrelevant because I cannot abide the principle.

You're gonna pay one way or another... Some costs will be more monetary, some will be more health/crime-related, etc, but very few of us live in countries where there is a general desire and will to force people to work.

What exactly do you suggest as the alternative?

> You're gonna pay one way or another.

Only because nonsense like this is allowed.

> Some costs will be more monetary, some will be more health/crime-related, etc, but very few of us live in countries where there is a general desire and will to force people to work.

You should be looking for work. If you haven't tried looking for a job you get your benefits removed. Obviously the Elderly and Disabled should get help but healthy people should be looking for work if they aren't employed.

> What exactly do you suggest as the alternative?

Get a job.

What if there aren't enough jobs and they've automated everything they can? What's your answer when a hundred million jobs are gone to robots?

They said that computer technology would eliminate boring office jobs back in the 1980s and 1990s (when most unskilled labour was still manual). This didn't happen. In fact 100% the opposite happened.