Hacker News Reader

Comment by rectang | Hacker News Reader

A scheme that benefits all, such as guaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad.

> Why aren’t we giving everyone a fair chance at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness by providing them the fundamentals they need to get there?

Because for a lot of Americans, relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity: it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.

View on HN

Modern automation has also taken a dark turn— we already got laundry and dishes sorted out decades ago, and the only real developments on the domestic front since the roomba have been lights that change color when you talk at them. Meanwhile, AI is increasingly threatening to upend creative, high value professions, stuff like law, medicine, communications, journalism, and even software.

But at the low end, AI is never going to be the janitor or your garbage guy, or your barista (ordering kiosks aside) or your instacart dude. AI won't unclog your toilet or service your car or make your basement not smell funny. It won't tend the garden or cut the grass or install a new air conditioner or re-shingle a roof.

I think the prospect of a world where everyone has their basic needs covered and has to choose to work is scary to people who are used to looking down on certain professions and assuming that no one would do <thing> if they didn't absolutely have to.

There already are lawn mowing robots.

>AI won't unclog your toilet or service your car or make your basement not smell funny. It won't tend the garden or cut the grass or install a new air conditioner or re-shingle a roof.

There are labs training AI robots for these very tasks right now. There are robots that fold laundry and spread peanut butter, right now.

We're maximum 1-2 years away from a general all-around robot the way chatgpt is an all around digital assistant.

Willow Garage envisioned in the early 2010s that a successor to the PR2 would be a mass-market bi-manual manipulator able to complete a wide range of household tasks. They folded in 2014.

Ten years later, I don't think the state of the art in general purpose robotics is that much further along. Even top tier research robots would struggle to climb the stairs or navigate around my kids' messy bedrooms, much less complete the wide array of tasks that my amazing housekeeper cheerfully and proactively handles for a bit over minimum wage.

I'm aware of the 1x Neo, but that has a lot of unknowns— the videos are full of cuts and have significant evidence of teleoperation and no indication of things like lift strength or battery life. What they're purporting to show is simply not aligned with what the state of the art is in perception and manipulation/grasping. They're a long ways from having even the hardware solved, much less the software.

>AI is never going to be the janitor or ...

Have you seen the recent side-flipping robot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29xLWhqME2Q

Combine that with Project Astra https://youtu.be/hIIlJt8JERI?t=39

and you are kind of close.

> because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers

This is lazy dismissal. “Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” isn’t an argument.

I believe in UBI. But writing off the arguments against it like this deserves inaction.

I don't see zero-sum thinkers as "idiots". Rather, the prevalence of such attitudes is a fundamental aspect of human nature that we have to reckon with.

> the prevalence of such attitudes is a fundamental aspect of human nature that we have to reckon with

If a proposal requires changing human nature, it’s safe to dismiss. I’m saying that your argument for why UBI is dismissed is itself an argument for dismissing it.

If the robots really are coming to take every single job, then human nature is gonna change one way or the other.

There are plenty of areas of human interest where resources are zero-sum, especially in the short term.

Using that term without nuance is about as helpful as shouting "SuPpLy and DeManD!!" in every economic discussion because you saw an Econ 101 book one time in a library.

Well, I agree that we can't have a productive discussion if that's how you see my commentary, but I happen to think that designing social programs which take into account baser human resentments is a worthwhile endeavor, e.g. "Social Security isn't a tax" and all that.

I disagree that it's an aspect of human nature. It's primarily cultural and that's why we can observe significant differences in the level of individualism in different societies.

Another adjacent example is justice system and reform. American system is punitive and even barbaric in many ways, while most European countries have a system that's heavily centered around reform and reintegration. This is all cultural.

Hostility towards the ethnic/cultural "other" exists in all societies. The emphasis on a "fairness" which preserves structural advantage over the "other" is also universal.

There's nothing unique about Americans who believe that those "others" (Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, LGBTQ, etc in the contemporary US case) are undeserving and who reject universally beneficial programs because they benefit the "other" equally.

"Zero-sum thinker" does not in any way suggest idiocy. It's a term from game theory, for a game where one cannot win without another losing. Neither UBI nor this discussion need to be like that. You're getting outraged over something you made up (and apparently ran away from two posts later). Maybe you should try engaging with actual arguments instead of dismissing them because of (what you incorrectly think are) Bad Words. GP is correct that zero-sum thinking is one source of resistance to UBI (though I'd say it's not the only one) and that we must overcome that for UBI to be implemented.

> If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.

-- Lyndon B. Johnson

They’re not idiots, they just value fairness over absolutely prosperity.

The reason is because of the US’ individualistic attitudes. It’s been around since the formation of our country.

> A scheme that benefits all, such as uaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad.

I've only heard objections within the context of people being worried that giving money will reduce productivity and raise prices.

> Because relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity. It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.

This is the "inequality" discussion. It's true that a lot of people are worried about relative order, and I agree that absolute prosperity is far more important, but I doubt those people are against UBI.

Yes, that does describe the current thinking (and behavior) of many US citizens.

So the key question is this: how do we go about CHANGING those attitudes?

The steps Jeff takes in this announcement seems like an excellent "lead by example" step toward doing that.

It takes 2 generations of concerted effort. Your great grand children will have a different attitude if you start now.

Evidence : untouchability is virtually gone in India (at least the urban part). I remember my great grand parents still had those mindsets when I was very young. It is an alien concept to our children.

Good news! It doesn't have to be implemented at the federal level. We could do it at the state or local level.

Please: show us the way. I'll be the first to congratulate you on a long-term sustainable UBI implementation.

It kind of does. States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. They don’t have expansionary options to fund it.

How does Alaska do it then?

Alaska has basically free money from oil.

It's funded by the giant firehose of money from oil

It's closer to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund than anything else

by not being limited to taking debt in fiscal policy

states can balance their budget, its not controversial, just ignore the person that suggests otherwise

But if it doesn't work on a state level, why would it work on a national level or a global level?

> States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy.

Because this doesn't apply to countries, only states.

Don't let the Eurozone hear that

Those programs were all established prior to the EuroZone. A single European country would find it much harder to do today for the reasons stated.

Internally the US has free movement of both labor and capital, so any single state trying broad social programs without federal support will run into free rider and arbitrage problems pretty quickly. Since the US can control its border and currency, it’s less likely to be a problem if it’s a national program.

> any single state trying broad social programs without federal support will run into free rider and arbitrage problems pretty quickly

Internationally, capital and labour are also mobile. If the argument for UBI is basically North Korea, I’m not seeing it.

Put simply, if a UBI scheme doesn’t work at the state level, it won’t federally in the long run.

> Isn’t the argument UBI will promote growth?

Some types of growth, yea that's the theory. But I don't think there's any theory of UBI with freedom of movement between borders where UBI isn't present. If every single person who doesn't want to work shows up to your state, you won't be able to keep UBI running.

> Internationally, capital and labour are also mobile.

Capital yes. Labor ... not really? Even historically immigrating to the US is kinda difficult. Immigrating into any developed country is hard.

> If the argument for UBI is basically North Korea, I’m not seeing it.

No it's not even NK. It's socialism but no central planning. NK (and really any prior long running example of socialism in US history) doesn't do free market do decide e.g. who picks up the trash.

So it could well be that UBI works, but a lot of grunge jobs just don't get done. Maybe people are happier and have more free time, but there's fewer janitors so things are dirtier, and a much higher percentage of money goes towards paying people to farm so good is way more expensive.

Things definitely wouldn't be the same as they are now, even if it did hypothetically work.

> Put simply, if a UBI scheme doesn’t work at the state level, it won’t federally in the long run.

There could easily be things that break it at the state level (especially, freedom of movement of people), that don't apply federally.

It might also fail at a federal level, but you can't claim there aren't major differences between a single state UBI and a federal UBI

> don't think there's any theory of UBI with freedom of movement between borders where UBI isn't present

Then you need to define categories of good and bad people. And explain why the former will stay (or continue to immigrate). In the long run, borders are porous. If it doesn’t work at the state level, and it doesn’t cause inflation, I’m deeply sceptical about the claim that it doesn’t require categorising by productivity.

It's definitely more porous going out. So yeah, UBI needs to be not so bad that people can do better elsewhere that's easy enough to immigrate into. The same is true of basically any policy though, that's not really a unique thing to UBI.

That's true, although there's a pretty strong overlap of UBI proponents and supporters of pro-immigration policies.

If you want to say, "Of course UBI can't work if we allow whoever wants it to move here and receive it," I agree, but that's often not a qualifier made by proponents.

Libertarians (the biggest pure open borders as their actual platform people) are pro UBI now?

The fed does have the ability to control monetary policy.

This is akin to why some problems in the EU - individual countries gave up monetary policy rights, which means they have to do what Germany wants w.r.t. the euro. They can't control interest rates like the US Fed can, can't expand or contract money supply, and have fewer tools to deal with problems that arise.

Imagine if NYC couldn't build buildings over 1 story because of a state law. That would complicate adding new residents. It might work for awhile and they could get creative, but eventually it would become untenable.

---

This is not all to say that there aren't any problems with UBI specifically. We haven't really tested that level of socialism anywhere with still trying to also do free market and no planned economy.

It could well be that a lot of stuff wouldn't get done, or at least not done as much. There's a lot of shit jobs that are done for cheaper now because people gotta eat & put a roof over their head.

Unless you do a U"B"I solution which isn't actually covering the basics, but is lower than necessary.

> States don’t have monetary policy

This is basically saying you need inflation to make the scheme work.

It’s much easier to go that route, but you could also ask the uberwealthy to pony up instead. Social insurance is cheaper than revolutions, after all.

> you could also ask the uberwealthy to pony up instead

Then you don’t need monetary policy. Saying it cannot happen at the state or local level is basically admitting it isn’t solvent or requires a population filter to keep the wasteful people out.

Define wasteful people? For example, is it wasteful to joyride into space when rural hospitals are shutting down for a lack of funding?

> Define wasteful people?

I don’t need to. The point is if free movement of people is a problem, there is clearly a category you need to keep out (or in).

You say that, but I admit as much below, and you even found a way to argue with me there. There's no pleasing some people.

> I admit as much below

Then why do you ask the question?!

If the argument is trivially refuted, it’s obviously not worth making.

I was curious what your answer was? What argument was refuted? I explained clearly why the program needed to be national and not at the state level. Good grief.

Your argument rests on mobility of capital and people being less federally than statewise. At both levels, that becomes less true as income goes up. And it virtually disappears in the long run. If the argument for UBI is that it must be federal because of monetary or mobility reasons, it’s either reliant on causing inflation or locking down the population à la North Korea.

Ah, ok, finally! You made an argument clear enough to respond to. I think your point is ridiculous! There is an entire range of possibilities between total global freedom for capital and North Korea.

First, North Korea is a bad example, because I'm certain that Kim Jong-Un and his key cogs are able to stash their cash in London, New York and Geneva like all good autocrats and oligarchs do. The average North Korean lives in poverty by western standards, why would they need capital mobility?

Second, the US had capital controls in place throughout the New Deal Era, surely you aren't comparing regulated capitalism with socialist qualities with a statist monarchy that impoverishes its' people?

> the US had capital controls in place throughout the New Deal Era, surely you aren't comparing regulated capitalism with socialist qualities with a statist monarchy that impoverishes its' people?

Sure, if you say we need capital controls and exit visas to implement UBI, that is consistent with breaking continuity between state and local experiments and the federal proposal. But I’m not sure how much buy in there is for those policies.

> North Korea is a bad example, because I'm certain that Kim Jong-Un and his key cogs are able to stash their cash in London, New York and Geneva

And American oligarchs wouldn’t?

> You made an argument clear enough to respond to

Isn’t it presumptive to use one’s own ignorance as an argument?

> It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.

I think the distinction between those who belive it and those who don't is much more important than the distinction between the left and the right.

>* Because for a lot of Americans, relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity: it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.*

That's humanity 101. And it's not something to be shunned: it means that the wealth that matters more is social not material.

Don't you think the people who are more zero sum, are the ones who are very focused on inequality (rich getting richer means poor getting poorer), who are also the ones who are most likely to support stuff like this? Direct payments, minimum wage, guaranteed income, welfare, etc?

> rich getting richer means poor getting poorer

If the rich getting richer drives up inflation then that does indeed mean that the poor get poorer.

> If the rich getting richer drives up inflation

Big if! (Inflation drives both price levels and wages.)

We're talking about the poor here, not the middle class. A lot of states haven't raised their minimum wage above the federal minimum wage, which hasn't been raised since 2009.

Also even if wages go up inflation still reduces the wealth owned by the middle class. Especially given that interest rates on savings hasn't kept pace with inflation for decades. So unless you own a house or a stock portfolio even the middle class gets poorer due to inflation.

We have zero evidence inequality drives inflation.

Sure that's an if, but the effects of inflation certainly exacerbates that inequality. Thus the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's just a question of cause and effect.

> It's just a question of cause and effect

Yes. That’s a pretty critical question.

High inflation drives inequality. (Moderate depends on the savings rate.) We have zero evidence inequality drives inflation.

To add on what the other person said, the rich getting rich can indeed directly lead to the poor getting poorer. Money is influence, and especially in the US, a sufficient amount of money can buy anything. As the ultra-rich category of people accumulate more wealth, together they become the most important bloc to serve. Hell, you guys just directly cut taxes from the rich and raised on the poorest - what's that but not 'poor getting poorer'?

> rich getting richer means poor getting poorer

That is not how the saying goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_rich_get_richer_and_the_...

It’s said as a statement on policies that benefit the rich and hurt the poor, not on fixed money supply.

Any flow of money will be attacked and diverted over time, as much as it can be, by those with the power to pursue it. The first thing that generally happens is some source of rent-seeking. GMI needs a lot of protections from those kinds of systems.

How does it benefit me if it's not what I want? The idea that a third party can decide for me what I should want, and because this thing or that thing is something I should want means that it benefits me... it's a little circular. "But it's good for you!" they scream, and the word good is, in their head, something they've decided meets a goal or end result that I should be pursuing. And so the circle spins round and round.

This scheme does not benefit me. It is not a goal I want to pursue. There are costs associated with it. This isn't for free.

>It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.

Well, that's the least generous interpretation. What if I'd rather starve as a deer, than be well-fed cattle? What if, no matter how hard I try, it's nearly impossible to imagine myself being so stupid or passive that I would prefer otherwise?

You benefit substantially from living in a stable, high-trust society where customers have money and employees are educated.

you dont get high trust society by increasing welfare state. The argument that by handing out money we will get stable high trust society does not hold at all.

European countries that are unable to assimilate migrants are a living proof, for example Sweden Denmark, etc.

Counterpoint to your argument is El Salvador: by enforcing laws they are able to achieve high trust society, so what we actually need is maximimum law enforcement and isolation of people who dont want to maintain the high trust society.

China/Singapore is another example: they just execute drug dealers and solve the drug trafficking problem. It may be perceived as inhumane to drug traffickers, but it is very humane for the victims(current and possible) of drug addiction.

USA has a giant surplus of people with net negative contribution to the society and is unable to solve it in order to propel society forward

Your first argument makes no sense. People from totally different cultures don't suddenly integrate. In the US, Jews originally ran the mafia when they came over, then Irish/Italians. Was that an indicator that America's model failed? And that jews/irish/italians would never integrate into it and never have high trust neighborhoods? Or that integration is a process (that you aren't allowing for in your argument)?

Not having moms working multiple zero hour jobs to try and barely survive would be a huge plus for high trust society. They would better socialize their children (which would reinforce a high trust society). They would better account for their children because they would be present (a plus to high trust). Under your current system they aren't home to instill high trust, when they are around they are too tired, and they have way less time/ability to engage in socializing activities with their children resulting in a non-parented, non-socialized society.

The majority of high trust societies are ones where peoples' basic needs are met. El Salvador has a very short history of some improvement from militarized policing but hardly enough data to start extrapolating from other than high enforcement police states are police states.

>You benefit substantially from living in a stable, high-trust society where

You have decided what I should want and what I should pursue, for me, against my wishes, and say "because I want these things, he should want them too". I don't want the same things as you. I'd try explaining, but I don't think you'd get it.

>where customers have money

I don't have anything I wish to sell you and you have nothing to trade that I want.

>and employees are educated.

I've seen the education system. I'm well past the "maybe if we just do the education a little more intensely, things will improve" phase.

> "But it's good for you!" they scream, and the word good is, in their head, something they've decided meets a goal or end result that I should be pursuing.

That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position?

The way minimum guaranteed income would benefit you is twofold. One way is similar to how any other tax payments that don't benefit you directly provide a safety margin - I've never had a house fire, but I pay for services that cover my fire department because I know that if I'm ever in that situation, they will help me. I'm not in poverty, but my money subsidizes poverty benefits, and if I ever get in that situation, it will help me too.

The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty and contribute far more than they otherwise would. Being poor is insanely expensive, and once you have more liabilities than assets, they tend to explode and become completely unsustainable. Poor people can't relocate (or even live anywhere) for better opportunities; they can't get education and will often remain low-wage, unprofessional workers; they can't afford healthcare (in the US) and will leave illnesses untreated until they can barely do anything at all, or die. Fixing any of these three leads to more income for businesses and more tax money for the government.

For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love portraying any form of welfare as letting people live in luxury for nothing. Minimum income, as it is proposed, doesn't come anywhere close to being something you can live your whole life off of. It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily - it's money you pay debts off, money to educate yourself, money to cure yourself - not what you live off. That's why it's so infuriating to hear people double down time and time again about how America's most hated class are all just lazy, bloated slobs, because in this hypothetical world, they have the audacity to receive a couple thousand dollars in benefits.

>That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position?

It is not. Not even a little. I'm pointing out that you and I have wildly different value systems, alien to each other in ways so profound that you could be forgiven for thinking I'm exaggerating. I get that your values are different than mine and that you want different things.

You don't even seem to be aware that I want different things. "But but but! How could you not want wonderful European-style welfare" I just don't. Saying "but you should want them because you're like me and I want them"... I'm not like you. I couldn't be like you if I tried, and I'm not inclined to try. You saying that I "benefit" from these things indicates you think I "receive good things" from them... but I don't receive any benefit or good thing, those are not things I want. Benefits aren't objective. They are subjective. Absolutely, undeniably subjective.

When you make it sound like they are objective, you are lying to yourself. Lying so badly to yourself that when you lose elections, you are confused and angry about it. "How are they brainwashed into going against their own self-interests?!?!?!" you oxymoron about. No, other people just have different interest than you. It's impossible to go against your own self-interests (short of coercion... even then, one might argue that you're still doing so, to avoid the blackmail/torture/whatever).

>The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty

I grew up on foodstamps. I would have preferred starving. I want nothing from you. Your charity, however well-intentioned you believe it to be, is toxic and demeaning, and you refuse the evidence of your own eyes when you see it fail to work as you believe it would. I do not wish to pay for anyone else's foodstamps... they're better off figuring out how to survive for themselves.

>For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love

It should at least occur to you that when someone like me can't explain things to you such that you're able to see our point of view, that other more regrettable (for both of us) futures await.

>It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily

Safety is illusory. Chasing it is futile and even shameful.

>That's why it's so infuriating

The fury of people who want safety nets is pathetic. You should use the word "frustrating", you don't sound capable of true fury.

> It is not. Not even a little. I'm pointing out that you and I have wildly different value systems, alien to each other in ways so profound that you could be forgiven for thinking I'm exaggerating. I get that your values are different than mine and that you want different things.

No, you weren't pointing that out. Disagreeing with a value system doesn't mean you're incapable of understanding or representing it fairly. If the best you took away from the discourse is that 'the ominous they are telling you it's good because that's what they're saying', you were never arguing in good faith. You never had to agree with the points I'm making, but if you want to make an argument against them, you have to make targeted attacks against those arguments, not indefensible caricatures.

The rest of your comment looks big, it looks content-rich, it looks like there's so much to say. In reality, you said basically nothing. You're not putting up arguments or logical reasoning, just a chain of assertions and accusations. The fact that you went down to argue semantics ("true fury") or trying to bring me personally into this while letting the direct, accusatory points I made fly right over shows that you never had the intention of arguing them. It's not just about value systems - these systems have to be defensible. They have to rely on fact. People can disagree in interpreting the facts, but objective reality comes first before subjective feelings. You don't have any of that, you just try to quickly dismiss it at the beginning as being just inherently irreconcilable and impossible to address, without saying why or even trying.

There's a side that can look at actual data of what happens to the wellbeing of people and communities, or the objective benefits and drawbacks of welfare, and make a conclusion out of it - right or wrong, but at least well-intentioned. And then there's a side that has already decided on what's right and will never yield, like in a religion. Where I live, the first side had set up a small-scale, limited UBI trial to conduct research and see if it's a worthy investment or a waste of money. Then, the other side got elected and shut it down immediately - they had already known which is the 'right' option from their ideology, they didn't need no pesky science or research to tell them what was right.

>No, you weren't pointing that out.

Suppose it'd be meaningless to quote my comment above, for the reasons I've outlined and for that matter, just because anyone else can scroll a few inches and see for themselves. You're oblivious.

>Disagreeing with a value system doesn't mean you're incapable of understanding or representing it fairly.

It means that I do not care. If my values are secondary to your own, then I no longer wish to participate, and I will vote with those who promise to stop this nonsense. And guess what? Those people are winning elections and your nonsense will never be implemented.

>There's a side that can look at actual data of what happens to the wellbeing of people

You're already functionally dead, your entire civilization. Your well-being is irrelevant.

>or the objective benefits

There is no such thing as "objective benefit". Either you want something, or you don't. I don't want this.

> it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.

Pretty reductionist

US already is a giant welfare state with too large entitlements for its budget

Reply on news.ycombinator.com