Comment by ohgodplsno | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ohgodplsno | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ah, the "leeches" argument.

Lett's start with the obvious: it doesn't matter that some people will do nothing. It doesn't matter that some people will not be working. Not only are the benefits to society great (the yearly costs for society of homeless people, or similar scenarios are much greaterthan a simple $12k.), you're looking to cut off everyone from UBI because what, 5% would not be working? So, kind of like unemployment today then.

We've come far enough as first world societies that we can ensure that everyone gets a liveable amount of money every month. And don't forget that UBI cuts off every other kind of aid. Go live a life with $1000 a month, and you'll realise that you have to be in a very particular mindset to stay at home and do nothing.

In addition, it's also a great thing for the economy, as money is actually being used to pay things, and circulating taxed away from the cash hoarding dragons that are billionaires. That makes Keynes happy.

> you're looking to cut off everyone from UBI because what, 5% would not be working

I don't believe that it would only be 5% but yes, I am.

Living in the UK means we have a welfare system. It's not fair, hopelessly bureaucratic and probably corrupt as hell but we have one.

There is no way that giving everyone (eligible?) £1000 a month will take a whole bunch of people out of poverty because managing finances is a skill that no one is taught in schools.

People who have good jobs and earn good money can't manage it as is. So by giving free money to millions of people they're likely to fritter it away or piss it away thus wasting billions.

> cash hoarding dragons

Your issue is with them. They won't pay for UBI. I will. You will. Everyone else but them will pay for it.

It will not work.[0]

[0] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

What if the percent of the people on UBI doing nothing will get to 60%? What if they vote themselves more money?

In half of my country (in Europe) people would be extremely satisfied to live on $1000 per month, it is triple of what they live on today. I know people in Western Europe that would be quite happy to get $1000 and not have to go to work for that (they earn more, but the difference does not make up for their time and effort).

The debate is simply our age old socialist vs. capitalist. The socialist will say that technology/society has changed to the point where extra safety nets are attainable and will tend to ignore/downplay incentives. Conversely the capitalist will ignore (potentially avoidable) human suffering and focus purely on perfecting incentives.

I tend to align with the capitalist worldview. In a democracy where 'majority' rules, politicians can end up in a precarious situation where welfare blocks feeling marginalized can create an insurmountable opportunity cost perpetuating welfare policies. This could certainly destroy an economy if pushed too far. Strangely, either if non-working individuals couldn't vote or if the government system wasn't majority rule perhaps this trend wouldn't hold true.

All of that being said, we can't turn our backs on all safety nets as responsible policy makers. As for where the line should be drawn? Who knows. Just be wary of giving politicians the authority to decrease voter elasticity (the cost an individual incurs when they vote away a political party).

We've seen that the economy can take a ~30% shock to the headline figures - I'd guess that we would have formerly agreed that was to be considered "destroyed"... and in truth people haven't risked going hungry (any more than they were at risk before).

Political welfare decisions are protecting people (or not) more than capitalist incentives are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com