The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats | Hacker News Reader

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats

politico.com

33 points_kcn815 comments

I think it is voluntarily self-depreciating, and exaggerated, but it is impressive that the author acknowledges that his success is only due to the fact that he knew Jeff Bezos at the right time (and some insight).

Nice to hear it from someone that actually worked their way to wealth (and got lucky) rather than inherited it.

It sounds like he did inherit some wealth, which is what allowed him to invest in Amazon. Of course he and his family did also work hard to build those businesses in the first place.

The real question that leftism of any kind should be tackling is: What Ate All the Jobs and Money?

The basic answer is that Silicon Valley and China Ate All The Jobs. This is half true.

This however wouldn't be such a problem (and historically was a net positive) except that Government and Wars Ate All The Money as well.

See we live in a world where you require capital to complete the transition from destruction of old jobs to the creation of new ones. We managed the first and are failing the last.

This is a crisis of a lack of capital caused by redistribution and wars. Capitalism requires capital and we don't have any to work with. That is why we have the affects of a world war without actually having one.

Not only have past generations not planted trees to provide shade for future generations, they have burnt the tree to a cinder and sowed the surrounding soil with salt.

Democracy is finished and good riddance. People who write articles like this will probably wind up eating each other or getting blown up by robots.

This proposal does make a lot of sense when you think about it, unlike the basic income schemes that sometimes get posted here on HN.

The general effect of basic income and a living minimal wage is fairly similar, and not incompatible with each other (figuring out the 'right' mix between the two is an interesting problem, and I am surprised more work hasn't been done on it).

With a sufficient basic income, zero is a living wage, and forcing a higher needlessly prevents some instances of cooperation. As far as I am concerned, it remains an open question whether the ideal level of basic income, all things factored in, is "sufficient" to that end (and, for that matter, what that ideal level of basic income is).

See my reply to derivagral explaining why they are not similar.

It does make more sense when you stop to consider that more money in people's pockets stimulate the economy. It's why tax holidays generate so much revenue and economic activity. And the example the author used involving Henry Ford is great. Ford gave his workers enough money to buy his own cars and in this way increased business. And it's money changing hands among private individuals, instead of the government giving everyone money.

Why do you think those schemes don't make a lot of sense?

Because there is a reduced incentive to work whenever you don't have to work to make a basic living. Who, therefore, is going to pick up the trash, clean the toilets, etc.? With a high minimum wage, on the other hand, there is actually an increased incentive to work, and you will probably draw many people off the dole and back into the workplace.

You treat "reduced incentive to work" as if it means "zero incentive to work." More incentive to work is not always better. We could increase incentive to work even more: Eliminate all charity and welfare programs. Or heck, death penalty for failure to hold a job!

When we have more people trying to work than we have work available (as exhibited by a high unemployment rate), reducing incentive to work is a feature not a bug - provided we don't reduce incentive to work too much.

Who is going to pick up the trash and clean the toilets? People who want the extra money more than they want to avoid doing those jobs. And yes, those jobs will have to pay more, but there's nothing wrong with that - that's obviously part of the outcome of a minimum wage too.

Moreover, "draw many people off the dole" points at another huge issue - with needs-based assistance that goes away when you start working (or working for enough), the change in my situation when I start working is the wage offered minus the assistance I'm losing, substantially lowering the effective wage at the low end. A basic income does not have that problem.

Yes, that makes sense. I guess it all depends on the level of the basic income. It should be enough to live on, but not enough to live very comfortably.

"It should be enough to live on, but not enough to live very comfortably."

That is more or less my guess, yeah.

Wouldn't it be great if the people who did the crappy jobs like picking up the rubbish and cleaning the toilets got paid a decent amount of money! There's your incentive

Reply on news.ycombinator.com