Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

I think it depends on your perspective and prior experience with people.

There are a lot of people that dont engage in the rat race even when food, health, the material conditions of their children depend on. It seems like most people want a base level of UBI to be better than the conditions they have from working now. It also seems like the expectation for UBI is often even above the average US income of $37K, and that would be if there was no additional salary left to be had from working

Based on this, I empathize with anyone of median income or higher who feels like they are struggling to get what they want, and UBI would be a huge dead weight, likely preventing them from getting all of the things on their lists.

I assume my list would go down the drain to support a UBI policy.

View on HN

There are indeed plenty of people who can't or won't work. These people exist today, with or without UBI. And they will exist tomorrow, with or without UBI.

And so what?

These people are still human beings. They still deserve life: If dogs deserve no-kill shelters[1] then humans also deserve a life. They deserve a chance to live out their days, and to tell stories to their (perhaps prolific) kids and grandkids (who also deserve a healthy life, and that includes having a healthy -- if piss-poor and inept -- family that includes their elders).

Right now, it often works like this: They live in squalor, and have broadly have nothing of merit. Their kids -- if they manage to thrive -- disown them. And the whole time this very real person is still alive (if they make it that far), their grandkids only know of them through photos.

That's no life. Not for the senior, the kid, or the grandkid.

We can do better than that. It will not be cheap, but we can afford it, and we'll have a healthier society as a result. People, and the families they create, are important to the healthy existence of everyone in a society.

[1]: We can certainly talk about assisted suicide for humans or just culling the herd as options that may be superior to leaving folks to die in the gutter, but isn't it easier to just avoid that topic and give all humans a stable and reliable chance to stay alive? How much does that cost, do you suppose?

Who can afford it? It sounds like the expectations are higher than the total funds available. What do you think would be a suitable amount for Ubi?

I can afford it. It will cost me a lot of money because I'm barely on the tall end of that hypothetical situation right now, but I can put my part in.

I can afford it because a healthy society is a productive society, and this will return to me because good economies are built largely upon productive societies, and healthy societies are more productive than unhealthy societies are.

Productivity generates wealth.

Are these not things that we generally understand to be true?

(Unless... Can it instead be shown that it is economically beneficial to have a relatively unhealthy and unproductive society?)

[Shall I make popcorn?]

(edit, can't reply further because of HN thread limits:

My dudes, "free" money from UBI isn't to keep people from working who want to get ahead. Most people can work, and most people do want a lot more than a shitty apartment in their life and are willing to work for that.

Y'all certainly want more than shitty apartment in your own lives, don't you? So why in the fuck would you ever assume that "dur, I have a shitty apartment and some simple food, so I don't have to do anything ever!" is the be-all, end-all human state?

Please re-align yourselves with the people you actually-know in life: I promise you that you'll see that almost none of them will give up on the rat-race if they start getting UBI. They'll generally want to keep making steps that seek to bring them ahead of their peers, and that means that they'll continue to do productive things. A thousand dollars per month (or whatever) isn't enough motivation for them to somehow cease being productive and stop working to get ahead.

There is no proposal for UBI that means the end of the fantastic American dream. UBI doesn't even mean the end of capitalism. UBI just creates a baseline financial safety net onto which anyone may fall without necessarily facing disease and death in the gutter, and it's there for everyone without even a shred of additional paperwork because it exists like clockwork without additional action on the part of the recipient, while also providing a bit of a boost for those at the low-end who do produce something that lets them get ahead of the game a little bit easier.)

Re your edit:

I think we are discussing different magnitudes of Ubi. I would consider leaving a 200k job for 40k Ubi (which I think is a number more in line with what people describe.

First off, my 200k salary would be taxed into effectively a 100k salary.

I could live pretty well off 40k if I never had to work, so quitting my job would be a quality of life upgrade.

I think a lot of my peers would consider the same.

I think 40k is way more than most UBI proponents are aiming for. It's certainly 3 times as much as I have bean mentally considering in UBI discussions.

When I think UBI, I think paying for a shared living space and food. A minimum budget, not necessarily a comfortable budget.

I think that is a fundamental Gap between different people talking about this. The most upvoted response to this article was an argument that this isn't a real test of Ubi because 12K a year is a trivial amount and not enough to see results. Also keep in mind that this 12K was in addition to existing welfare programs, and most Ubi proponents argue that it would replace welfare

Ps, the people want Ubi as a replacement to means tested welfare and Social Services, consider what level of Ubi would be required for an unemployed or disabled mother of two

That's just another assumption you're adding into the ring. I see no reason why UBI would replace disability. It wouldn't even make sense to. They solve different problems.

really? How are they different? I thought the point was the same: make sure people have enough income to survive without working. Why does the reason for them not working change how much they need to live?

if you're in a country where healthcare costs to the individual can be considerable, someone who's disability costs them extra money would need additional funds to get to a baseline of living. Eg I don't need a wheelchair to get around, so my cost of living does not include buying and maintaining a wheelchair. Someone who does would need to pay for that somehow.

People are still expected to work with UBI. Disability is for people whose ability to work is impacted. They don't even have the option to work, or must do so to a lower degree than previously able.

That being said, I can see the argument to reduce disability in the event of UBI.

I dont think money and getting ones needs met without work is an incentive for health or productivity. I think it is an incentive for the exact opposite.

Have you ever met a working dog? They go mad if they're not given something to do.

Yes, and I've had other dogs that won't even go for a walk.

Or retirees who have plenty of money but still choose to work because they're bored.

If getting your needs met was a disincentive for work then why are all the multi-millionaires still working instead of downsizing their lives and playing video games / smoking weed for 40 years?

I don't think that is a very realistic jump.

Most people are not facing that binary.

Would you work 40 hours a week at McDonald's for an extra $20k/year if all your basic needs are met?

OR at that point, would you say screw it and spend your days hiking, reading, and laughing with friends?

I think the "at that point" is the crucial element. An extra 20k to work a physically and mentally taxing job for inconsistent hours, no benefits, and no flexibility -- the calculus is garbage. But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily.

If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at that point. These are "inferior jobs" in an economic sense and it's up to the employer to do better. Make working for you suck less. Even in customer-facing retail jobs it's more than possible.

I'm having a hard time seeing the downside. Employees can afford to take more risks because they're not betting their livelihood anymore, and it provides a natural upward pressure on wages and working conditions at the bottom on the labor market which is sorely needed. Anyone whose desired lifestyle can't be supported on the meager income, which is most people, there's no change.

>If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at that point.

I think that is a major motivation for most work and I question if it is as bad as you think it is? Is it really that unreasonable that someone do something they don't like to get shelter, food, and healthcare?

>But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily.

Would you do it if your take home income was reduced by 50% to pay other people who choose not to work?

How small would the difference between working full time and full retirement have to be before you considered it?

> I question if it is as bad as you think it is

I don't actually think it's that bad but I was trying to steelman your argument. The hypothetical presumes a terrible job with not enough pay to make up for it. The kind of job that someone would only take if they had not better option. If the job isn't that bad, or it pays well enough I think people will take it despite not needing it to make rent.

> you do it if your take home income was reduced by 50%

I don't think that would happen because UBI is supposed to be replacement for all other forms of welfare and I would also expect some small gains in reducing the prison population, and administrative overhead. But to answer your question, yes. Government already takes >30% right now and because of the U I'm getting the benefit as well so that covers a good chunk of mandatory expenses. In a very real sense I need less money under this system.

I'm not really sure how to answer the retirement question because under this system I can't "just retire" because my lifestyle wouldn't permit it.

I dont think that UBI could or would ever be implemented in a tax neutral way, so that is a pretty huge difference right there.

>I'm not really sure how to answer the retirement question because under this system I can't "just retire" because my lifestyle wouldn't permit it.

another way to frame this is how much (if any) of your income would you be willing to give up if it meant 0 work hours. Would you take a 10k pay cut? 50k? or are you completely inflexible when it comes to lifestyle spending, or alternatively, do you like your job enough that you would do it for free.

Why do you think dogs deserve no kill shelters? Euthanizing stray dogs and other critters in urban areas is quite common throughout the world and most definitely a superior choice if you have a limited budget and would need to cut services for humans instead.

It's multifaceted.

If no-kill shelters ever make sense (and some people must think they do, as these are things that do exist), then no-kill humanitarian efforts also must make sense. I find this to be self-evident because I think that humans are more important than domestic animals are.

UBI directly helps with the latter; UBI helps people avoid death.

UBI also indirectly helps with the former: By reducing the burden of taking care of pets when the bottom starts to fall out on folks' lives for whatever reason that happens, the need for dog shelters of any sort is also reduced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com