Hacker News Reader

Comment by superchroma | Hacker News Reader

Because until we cook up an acceptable UBI and solve scarcity of basics, you are competing with (increasingly) everyone on earth (as international borders decrease in relevance), and there's always someone willing to debase themselves for a wage lower than yours.

Automation isn't cheap either. We see very real divides today where it is still a lot cheaper to have people in a sweatshop do things for basically no pay rather than get a multi-million dollar robot to do the same.

In societies like America which fetishize hard work and hustle culture, and where tremendous struggle is still present or a vivid recent memory in the minds of people, UBI and guaranteed basic quality of life are a tough sell.

View on HN

Unpopular opinion I know, but instead of UBI, I would rather see the state create fulfilling jobs for unemployed or underemployed. Many people need meaning, purpose, and the need to feel productive. UBI doesn't address any of that.

Like the CCC?

https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/great-depression/civilia...

I didn’t realize this occurred at this scale.

Honest question: why aren’t the USA and Canada continuing to do this? If we are still enjoying the fruits of that effort today, was it not well worth the investment? Would it not serve the economy in the short term as well?

Or perhaps this does still happen, more or less, and I just don’t understand government programs well enough.

It seems we have countless environmental initiatives worth throwing people at for living wages. Is the problem maybe that these initiatives require labour that’s too sophisticated today?

I like the idea. There is plenty of opportunity to give more care and attention to babies/children, the sick, and the very elderly, to start with. And that work can’t be automated.

No it doesn't but the theory is that people will be inclined to work all the same. Something we have to hash out going forward.

Work house's dont provide meaningful or fulfilling jobs either, there are many branded work houses already doing this in the economy, some are even listed on stock markets.

Isn't that just the Victorian workhouse all over again?

I wasn't envisioning work-houses, although thanks for mentioning that because I wasn't aware of the concept. I am talking about meaningful jobs like as mentioned before, taking care of children/elderly. Public works, art, beautifying areas of a city or town, additional teachers and staff at schools (which seem to always be short-staffed)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com