Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawa14223 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Sure there is. Just give it back if you don't want it. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...

As a general rule, "if you don't like this rule we're adding, don't take advantage of it" is a pretty terrible argument. It's absolutely fair to say that a rule shouldn't be implemented while also acknowledging that if it is, it is the best strategy to take advantage of it if it is.

For instance, imagine if the NFL decided to give up to two extra points after a touchdown for how stylishly the players celebrated, as voted by a panel of judges in the end zone. This would be a terrible addition in most people's eyes. If it went through anyway, though, you can bet that every team would start dancing their hearts out after each touchdown.

> This would be a terrible addition in most people's eyes.

Implementing UBI nationally in the US would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment, which is going to require overwhelmingly positive sentiment about it from the electorate.

Individuals remaining opposed at that point will have the same fiscal recourses they have to not liking NASA sending probes to Mars.

I used to think “streamers” and “influencers” started the donation farming trend. But it was the US government that started the begging trend in 1843.

Just like donos to bathtub streamers and influencers via patreon, this is also a significant waste of money and time.

Doesn’t look like these gifts would be tax deductible either. Lol

That doesn't solve the whole problem. It requires more interaction with the state instead of just allowing an opt out. It also doesn't allow opting out at the paying in layer.

> It also doesn't allow opting out at the paying in layer.

This is the case for every other program, right?

There's a lot we need to fix in the USA, but adding more mandatory programs will make that more difficult.

Things look pretty dystopian as it stands, and if concentration of wealth continues, we'll speed down that dark road even faster. If not UBI, what other solution is there? Especially as automation sweeps through cognitive work?

What do you see is the fundamental problem with concentration of wealth (by which I assume you mean concentration of relative wealth, which seems to be what most people who discuss this topic are looking at)?

I'd agree that if absolute wealth is being concentrated, that could pose a serious problem, because it would ultimately make large swaths of the population dependent for their livelihoods on a small, centralized set of people who determine the disposition of wealth.

But I'm not sure how UBI -- a program that would make large swaths of the population dependent for their livelihoods on a small, centralized set of people who determine the disposition of wealth -- is a solution to this problem rather than a de jure entrenchment of it.

"We don't have a solution to fix it so let's try the solution that makes it worse" is not a very compelling argument.

That's OP's argument, I don't think UBI is a solution that makes things worse. That said, I'd like to know what the alternative could be, hence my line of questioning.

Have you looked into Georgism?

We need to be radically cutting immigration now along with collapsing birth rates such that worker supply and worker demand reach equilibrium.

Aaaaand there it is.

Is your proposal that the USA needs to import more people we don't have work for so we can put them on UBI?

The more likely scenario if the US implements UBI, is they'll probably need to import a lot more people on various work visas (and who won't get UBI) to do all the jobs people on UBI won't do any more.

I'm not proposing anything. It's just inevitable that when a right wing throwaway account posts about anything, it's just so they can steer around to their favourite topic of The Foreigns.

At some point it has to come down to that. The USA is (mostly) not growing through birth so any proposal to gradually decrease the population has to include immigration. As AI advances I believe having a lower population will be a competitive advantage.

Nothing ever "has to come down to" foreigners unless that's your preassigned agenda that you want to bring everything around to. Pretty much every study ever done has concluded that immigration is a net benefit to a country's GDP and emigration is a net loss.

> The USA is (mostly) not growing through birth so any proposal to gradually decrease the population has to include immigration.

You're going to need to explain how you've managed to bring The Foreigns into this, you've just glued together two unrelated statements. You say that the US population isn't growing through birthrates, and then talk about population decrease and immigration as though that's related. If the US population isn't growing through birthrates, and people continue to die (which is pretty much a given), then you've got your wish without ever needing your racism.

Out of interest, which of the First Nations tribes were you born into?

> You're going to need to explain how you've managed to bring The Foreigns into this, you've just glued together two unrelated statements. You say that the US population isn't growing through birthrates, and then talk about population decrease and immigration as though that's related.

As far as I can tell, population growth in the USA is from people moving here from other places. Not as a result of growth from people having children.[1]

Assuming we live in a world where AI eats jobs, which as far as I can tell is what we are talking about, I would expect population growth, regardless of birth or flowing from another country to stop being beneficial. I agree with you that under current system it is a net benefit.

>Out of interest, which of the First Nations tribes were you born into?

How is that relevant?

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-projections-sh...

> Assuming we live in a world where AI eats jobs, which as far as I can tell is what we are talking about

No, this is a thread about billionaires lobbying against UBI. You brought AI into it so you could have a go about the foreigners.

> How is that relevant?

It's relevant because you're so anti-immigration that surely you must be native to the land you live on, otherwise you're just another racist pulling the ladder up behind you.

> You brought AI into it so you could have a go about the foreigners.

I think you'll find I was answering danielbln about AI and a lack of jobs.

> It's relevant because you're so anti-immigration that surely you must be native to the land you live on, otherwise you're just another racist pulling the ladder up behind you.

Why are you wasting your time with me when you could be winning a James Randi Educational Foundation million dollar prize for showing off your mind reading? Since you're wrong about my internal state I have no use responding to you.

There are more than enough jobs. If your deepest fear is that people with different cultural backgrounds will replace people like you, you don't want have an actual debate about policy. You just want to remain in your safe space.

You are leaving money on the table if you haven't used your mind reading skills to get the James Randi Educational Foundation million dollar prize.

The question was how do we deal with the coming lack of jobs without UBI. The answer is we peacefully reduce our population. This pre-supposes a lack of jobs. If you want to change the conditions of the question and say there will be more than enough jobs then we don't need UBI.

Don't feed the troll, folks, This is a junk comment, probably by a bot.

I think my comment above was made in haste because UBI seems dire to me. But, barring some sort of Cartesian evil demon tricking me I am not a bot.

Then perhaps post under an actual account? That one does not lend itself to much credibility.

I normally don't reply to such accounts at all.

Would have been better had you not. Many people have many reasons not to post under their government names.

Just because yours looks real doesn't make it so. Anyone can make up a real-sounding name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com