Ask HN: The economical rules that I think make most sense | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: The economical rules that I think make most sense

2 pointslifeplusplus11 comments

First, I'll put the rules, then the reasoning behind them.

Economy/Govt is like a MMROPG game & the rules of the game define the experience for players.

Rules:

1- There should be no minimum wage

2- But everyone below certain salary/wealth should get Universal Income

3- Companies / Individuals with most money should pay for it

4- There should be only one tax, wealth tax.

5- Only state should be able to collect taxes and distribute them up and down stream.

Reasonings:

1- Min-wage makes it very hard for new comers to gain experience as businesses won't hire then teach while paying them significant salary. It is lose-lose.

2- Without UBI a person working at min-wage can't live with dignity. UBI basically subsidizes biz to hire and train workers. Without UBI min-wage is required. With automation on horizon, UBI is required anyways.

3- But why should the govt subsidize workers/biz, esp the mega corporations? well, govt should extract most of the cost from richest. But letting small biz gain from the system is still worth it. Small biz are building pillars that allow bigger companies to exist.

4- Is it efficient to weigh every apple or weigh the entire bag of them? N+ taxes cost billions wasted in unproductive admin work. Wealth tax is a reduced form of an equation: (Sales tax, use, income, tolls, property, capital...) => 1. It just looks at net wealth which is the result of everything else. Also, takes care of many other things: 100k in SF, vs 100k in Utah. 100k income but 2k in bank vs 100k but 30M in bank.

5- A polarized nation is forever stuck in a deadlock. If somehow one side does win it undoes everything other side had managed. The solution is to give more autonomy to states. States as a whole are less polarized. Also if you don't like something then it's easier to change state than a country. Making states the sole authority able to tax, make states govt more relevant and simplifies regulations for business.

I like the idea of a basic income instead of a minimum wage. Though your structure is fine for me from a technical standpoint, I do like a UBI (everyone gets the income) as a signal that society (and the Govt) will treat us all the same.

rule 3 seems a bit fuzzy, your other rules are at least understandable, even if I disagree

rule 3 is basically progressive wealth tax that replaces all other taxes

When it comes to the essentials, we are so post-scarcity that it isn't even funny, yet many people still aren't happy. Even with near-infinite food, clothes, & shelter, there's still only one first-place.

Power is all there is. Money is just how we keep score. Shuffle the money around all you want, the power imbalances will still be there.

Giving up the fight for personal development and economic relevance for a steady check is the first step onto the plantation. Plenty of people are already there -- employed & unemployed alike.

> Giving up the fight for personal development and economic relevance for a steady check is the first step onto the plantation.

Please don't

???

I believe with UBI people will be able to finally do what they are naturally programmed to do, be creative and work on things they'd rather despite how low it pays but could have potentially 100x returns down the line.

So, the people who are flushing the world down the toilet with finance and adtech will finally use their powers for good... if we'd just give them a meager stipend? Ha!

Material isn't the problem. Hasn't been for a long time. Most of us in the west who've been professionally employed for any length of time have enough savings right now to go play gentleman artist/scientist in parts of India, Southeast Asia, or South America, but we don't. I wonder why that is...

in usa most people live paycheck to paycheck. Who are in tech/finance/medical field just can afford few more checks. If you have mortgage then you pretty much in constant need of constant income, or outcome is losing a house. On a scale severe consequences that is pretty detrimental your wellbeing. Also spending $10k to "help" someone in a country where people survive on $80 annually is an oxymoron, just the plane ticket could have supported entire village. They don't lack in man power but resources. In my view, people who go there are mostly self indulgent. Exception being medical professionals.

Open source is testament to people's will to do things that are creative and for greater good. we are after all community oriented creatures it makes sense we would have traits that benefit community as a whole.

The modern answer to what human civilization ought to be is fundamentally anti-human. It's so far removed from how humans have lived for entirety. Humans always have lived as a village not just as family units. Land used to be owned by tribes, if you were born in the tribe, the land was already yours to build. Family (ultra socialism), Tribe, (extreme socialism), Village (mix of socialism), between outsiders (capitalism)

now it's not mutually beneficial and equitable. connection with tribe has been replaced with 'work'. where your efforts are rewarded with least possible amount other party can get away with. And can be 'outcasted' on a whim.

I don't know what's the answer, but first step must be to recognize it.

although we don't know why, but we have all yearned at some point to be sitting around large campfire and listen to stories from mid size group of people and have laughs. because it was given and normal, and then lost. but our nature remembers it.

> in usa most people live paycheck to paycheck

give them more money, and they will still live p2p.

> spending $10k to "help" someone in a country where people...

Never mentioned that. Did mention that many people in the developed world already have enough assets to retire comfortably in a developing country. From there, they would have the time and the money to "do things that are creative and for the greater good," yet very few people avail themselves of this opportunity.

> Family (ultra socialism), Tribe, (extreme socialism), Village (mix of socialism), between outsiders (capitalism)

Socialism/Capitalism are industrial age concepts. Industrial society as a precondition of proper socialism was a major sticking-point in early soviet Russia, being that they wanted socialism, yet had little industry. Family/tribe/village is blood.

> I don't know what's the answer, but first step must be to recognize it.

I know that UBI isn't it. Whether it's socialism or capitalism, competition remains. Socialists jockey for power and position just like the capitalists. In a competition, if you give everyone the same "Universal Basic" leg-up, it stops being a leg-up. It's point-inflation!

Since we are speaking of governments & financial systems rather than games, that leg-up is pernicious. The poor will remain poor, the rich will remain rich, yet it will reduce many people in the middle into dependency -- without the subsidy (& corresponding price inflation), they could cover their necessities without assistance, but with the subsidy, and with the inflation, the transfer payment goes from "nice to have" to necessity. It turns democratic process on its head -- another "third rail" for politicians, corporations, non-profits, NGOs to scare/blackmail voters with.

> we have all yearned at some point to be sitting around large campfire and...

I respect your Uncle Ted vision. Maybe you should read what old Ted wrote about leftists in general?

I agree with points, but wanted to add that it's acceptable to think that some people in natural economic system will become poor due to being sick, mental problems, addictions and so on.

But it's dangerous to claim that all poor and even any significant percentage of poor people are poor due to their traits. It's not that having certain traits could bring them out of poverty but rather for the large majority the only difference between people who are rich and poor is luck, cards they were dealt.

If we assume people spend first on necessities and then on luxury, which is pretty reasonable assumption, then UBI would increase consumption of necessities far more. Which would cause inflation in prices of those things, but over long run the supply chain would adjust bringing the prices back to equilibrium.

Are there people who have no idea how to spend money, yes! Often this is just not poors but can be children of ultra rich, who never saw money as limited resource and by the third generation have squandered all of inherited wealth.

It's valid concern that inflation would destroy the middle class. But assuming inflation is end result isn't the full picture. More money => higher demand => higher prices => more profit => increase in supply => more supply => lower prices.

So over time prices come back down, perhaps not where they were before money supply increased but definitely not at peak.

With that said UBI for bottom 50% is going to become more and more required as digitization, automation, and AI makes it that few people can own entire industries.

There was a point where advances in tech would just mean new types of jobs but always more jobs... lost typewritters but gained more computer clerks. But now tech is at point where advances reduces total amount of jobs. Soon cab drivers, cashiers, pilots, teachers and much more is going to be replaced with technological solutions that scale without humans.

The trend would eventually lead to 60%+ being unemployable and you only need so many people to write code.

So yes i think post industrial society is flawed.

UBI would alleviate some pain and symptoms, even if there are bad actors.

> rich ... poor ... luck, cards they were dealt

For Bill Gates wealth, maybe. For the average case, I would say, no. Our choices are like compound interest. Consistently making 1% better choices than average, over time, leads to extraordinary results. 1% worse choices over time, turn on Maury Povich, or Judge Judy, or go to walmart and look around!

> over long run the supply chain would adjust bringing the prices back to equilibrium

Not everything is a widget. Competence is still in short supply. The machine is nowhere near replacing electricians, mechanics, doctors, salesmen, engineers, teachers, etc. Brain power (esp healthcare & tech) already extracts the largest number of dollars from the average joe. The tribute that it demands will most certainly rise along with the cash in circulation.

> It's valid concern that inflation would destroy the middle class.

Never said it would destroy anyone. I wrote that it would make the people who are currently borderline self-sufficient fall into dependence upon the new government subsidy, and that dependence becomes yet another system of control. Do your own taxes. Look at how much social engineering is already in play.

> With that said UBI for bottom 50% is going to become more and more required as digitization, automation, and AI makes it that few people can own entire industries.

This is silicon valley sales/PR BS, and for several reasons:

1) Moravec's paradox. The hard things are easy, and the easy things are hard. Many jobs that our coastal elite are gunning for are going to be much harder to AI-away than they think -- victims of their own caste bias. Given current ML techniques, and a hundred-mill, I'm sure we could beat the pants off of most radiologists, but if you look at all of the weird houses and buildings out there, AI won't be replacing plumbers and electricians for generations. They've been saying that the self-driving car is right around the corner for 10 years now, but they're still mowing down pedestrians.

2) Moore's law. It's mostly dead. We can get speedups here and there with architectural tweaks and additions, but that's not the same as a doubling every 18 months for almost 40 years. It is unlikely that we'll see the same kind of progress in the next 10 years as we saw in the previous 10.

3) Service economy. Plenty of space outside the bleak world of maximum stuff for minimum dollars. Local bands, yoga instructors, lawn guys, personal trainers, camwhores, writers, hairdressers, etc, etc. The move to the service economy has been under way since at least the 90s. Much of what we can automate has been automated for some time now.

So, long story short, it's an elite fiction. A psyop to turn a chunk of the able-bodied working-age population into scared old ladies worried about what's going to happen to their social security.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com