Hacker News Reader

Comment by JDiculous | Hacker News Reader

> but the risk for people in power to use it against the people.

As opposed to what, private undemocratic unaccountable authoritarian institutions controlling peoples' lives?

> nce UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival.

Anybody who's dependent on their employers' paycheck is dependent on their employer for survival. How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation?

We already have UBI, but only old people can qualify for it, and the dividend amount is proportional to how much money you made in your lifetime. It's called social security.

Extending this dividend to the rest of the population is the next logical extension of this.

View on HN

Exactly. This is akin to the argument that we shouldn't further nationalize healthcare because "do you really want some government beaurocrat making healthcare decisions for you?"

Compared to the current system where some combination of the numbers in your bank account and am insurance company beaurocrat are making the decision? Yes.

> How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation?

Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

Employers in the U.S. can fire anyone at any time for practically any reason, cutting off one's livelihood. That feels more likely than a government doing the equivalent of cutting off someone's social security. A company's goal is to maximize profits, not provide charity to people it no longer deems useful to its bottom line.

> Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

Making changes at your place of employment is often impossible. We get direct chances to change our government every X years. And changing to a different employer often isn't that easy for many folks.

Changing your employment is individual and allows different offerings from different employers, matching the wants and needs of different people. Changing your government needs a majority consensus and at least some people will be in the minority who doesn't get what they want.

I don't think tying employment to healthcare is a good thing, but I don't think your argument gives a good reason, either.

Changing your employment is as simple as irritating your manager or missing some KPI, and getting fired in all these 'right to work' states. UBI would keep people who would otherwise live on the brink of utter chaos enough to sever their dependence on minimum wage slavery.

Your picture of people picking and choosing from enticing opportunities isn't remotely true for people at the bottom where this would help.

So fix your employment, minimum wage, etc. laws, too. UBI is a huge undertaking in terms of legal and social changes, we shouldn't consider it "either this change or no change".

Changing your government (at least in a democracy) is way easier than changing your employer, which are generally run with no input from employees (although some employee-run businesses do get to vote for their management).

A few points to unpack here.

1. "private undemocratic unaccountable authoritarian institutions" are a lot of buzzwords, which don't accurately describe your local businesses. If every company was google, we could go there, but in the current reality, you're presenting a false dichotomy. The balance of power between people and their local institutions is wildly different than people and the federal government and megacorps.

2. A person can freely look for work at any time. They can upskill and seek more gainful employment, transfer into a better paying position in another company, or find employment that is more suitable to their immediate needs (part-time work for those studying as example.) You can't do that with government - unless you compete directly against the megacorps who use their power and influencer to affect elections and legislation.

Example: We got rid of net neutrality despite it being enormously popular. That's massively undemocratic and demonstrates that large institutions, government or not, don't always act in the best interests of the people.

3. Social Security is its own creature and requires a more thorough discussion. What I can say is based on my own experience - my family didn't benefit from Social Security. By the time my father was eligible for benefits, he was already on his death bed. Spousal benefits are "up to" half, meaning my father worked his entire life and my mother only got to benefit from half the 'savings.' If he had just put that money away like he did all his regular earnings my mother would be much better off.

I can't imagine my family was the only one in such a situation.

> As opposed to what, private undemocratic unaccountable authoritarian institutions controlling peoples' lives?

Which is more authoritarian: 50%+1 of the people with the legal authority to imprison or kill you, or hundreds of competing firms bidding for your business or labour?

I can easily see a government abusing UBI, just like the U.S. federal government has abused highway funding e.g. to extort the states into raising the drinking age.

folks keep getting pulled into the false dichotomy of government vs corporation. the powerful and moneyed love this, as it obfuscates the real danger to liberty and freedom, which is themselves.

the truer, and more useful, dichotomy is the people vs unwieldy and overgrown institutions.

small institutions are great: your local government, your local bank, your local community center, etc. because the power disparity isn't so large that they can be kept in check and directed to do the will of the people.

large institutions, on the other hand, are irresistable to the power-hungry, and have no foolproof defense against corruption to their aims. they view people as resource to extract power from, not customers/constituents to serve.

UBI falls on the side of subjugating the people to the whims of government, reducing liberty and freedom, not extending it, as some like to argue.

(this is also why we should be against corporatism, and the favoring of capital over labor in general)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com