6 ms·

You have been arguing against basic income for years now, and with some really good points[1], but I think you consistently miss the main attraction of the idea

by blfr 11y ago

You have been arguing against basic income for years now, and with some really good points[1], but I think you consistently miss the main attraction of the idea to the HN crowd. Many here believe that if people weren't forced to work for income, they would be doing things that are more valuable but also more difficult to monetize (at least initially but perhaps generally), like open source development. There is an underlying belief that vast creative talents are untapped or wasted because of the need to work for money. It's the intellectual's dream lifestyle. One that used to be possible for writers and academics. Other reasons are largely an afterthought. That's why basic job for example is not a convincing counterargument despite the numbers. This is not really about helping the poor, that would be an auxiliary benefit at best. [1] https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/basic_income_vs_basic_job.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/basic_income_vs_basi...

robk 11y ago
Why would anyone clean toilets when they could write/paint/sleep all day?
- lazypenguin 11y ago
  Because you don't really need a creative outlet, the toilet cleaning job now pays double what it used to and combined with your UBI you can save enough money every few weeks to hit up Vegas, buy a new sports car or fund your wild consumption.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  Because doing those activities in what is still poverty isn't fun or fulfilling.
- Guvante 11y ago
  It depends on what it pays, remember even though your basic needs are met that doesn't mean you have zero aspirations.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  You're basically asking why would anyone want to make more than the minimum; if you think about that for 10 seconds, the answer would be obvious to you.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Can you do a back of the envelope calculation to figure out how large those "more valuable but also more difficult to monetize" effects would be? As I noted in the blog post you cited, most of this discussion is just meaningless verbiage. No one even attempts to quantify the the effects they claim are so important. (In the HN comments on that post, many people suggested such effects; the minute you crunch numbers they turn out to be tiny.) It's the intellectual's dream lifestyle. One that used to be possible for writers and academics. It still is possible - go live in a rural area, consume very little, and survive with bad internet (still vastly better than the no internet of previous eras). People just don't like to do it because of the low status it entails, and because they've grown used to modern consumption that they'd need to give up.
- blfr 11y ago
  No one even attempts to quantify the the effects they claim are so important. Perhaps I didn't phrase that strongly enough but growing the economy or making it more efficient is not the point. It's at most a rationalization. go live in a rural area, consume very little, and survive with bad internet That's not a realistic advice. It's extremely difficult, puts having a family largely out of reach, and places you away from potential collaborators. Even Joey Hess[1][2] has to resort to crowd funding and grants. [1] https://joeyh.name/ https://joeyh.name/ [2] https://usesthis.com/interviews/joey.hess/ https://usesthis.com/interviews/joey.hess/
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    That's not "realistic advice", but that's what people did back in the day. Also, the only reason it "puts having a family largely out of reach" is due to women's sexual choices - most women prefer a man who lives a higher status lifestyle. Sorry, but you aren't entitled to a wife; if women prefer a different lifestyle, that's their choice. And again, what fraction of people who stop working in the for-profit economy will actually be as productive as Joey Hess?
    - blfr 11y ago
      No, that's not what people did back in the day. Those who managed lived off advances from their publishers, inheritance, sponsors, or Church sinecures. It's not possible nowadays. You need to promote your works and it became much less socially acceptable. It's a weird observation that going off the grid would price you out of the dating market. Plenty of "starving artists" and outright bums have more success with women than salarymen. And again, what fraction of people who stop working in the for-profit economy will actually be as productive as Joey Hess? That's the direct counterargument to most BI hopes. Of course, it's very difficult to verify empirically and mostly depends on what you already believe about human nature. We don't even know if Joey Hess is more or less productive than he would be otherwise.

by blfr 11y ago

robk 11y ago

Why would anyone clean toilets when they could write/paint/sleep all day?

lazypenguin 11y ago
Because you don't really need a creative outlet, the toilet cleaning job now pays double what it used to and combined with your UBI you can save enough money every few weeks to hit up Vegas, buy a new sports car or fund your wild consumption.
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
Because doing those activities in what is still poverty isn't fun or fulfilling.
Guvante 11y ago
It depends on what it pays, remember even though your basic needs are met that doesn't mean you have zero aspirations.
gnaritas 11y ago
You're basically asking why would anyone want to make more than the minimum; if you think about that for 10 seconds, the answer would be obvious to you.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Can you do a back of the envelope calculation to figure out how large those "more valuable but also more difficult to monetize" effects would be? As I noted in the blog post you cited, most of this discussion is just meaningless verbiage. No one even attempts to quantify the the effects they claim are so important. (In the HN comments on that post, many people suggested such effects; the minute you crunch numbers they turn out to be tiny.) It's the intellectual's dream lifestyle. One that used to be possible for writers and academics. It still is possible - go live in a rural area, consume very little, and survive with bad internet (still vastly better than the no internet of previous eras). People just don't like to do it because of the low status it entails, and because they've grown used to modern consumption that they'd need to give up.

blfr 11y ago
No one even attempts to quantify the the effects they claim are so important. Perhaps I didn't phrase that strongly enough but growing the economy or making it more efficient is not the point. It's at most a rationalization. go live in a rural area, consume very little, and survive with bad internet That's not a realistic advice. It's extremely difficult, puts having a family largely out of reach, and places you away from potential collaborators. Even Joey Hess[1][2] has to resort to crowd funding and grants. [1] https://joeyh.name/ https://joeyh.name/ [2] https://usesthis.com/interviews/joey.hess/ https://usesthis.com/interviews/joey.hess/
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  That's not "realistic advice", but that's what people did back in the day. Also, the only reason it "puts having a family largely out of reach" is due to women's sexual choices - most women prefer a man who lives a higher status lifestyle. Sorry, but you aren't entitled to a wife; if women prefer a different lifestyle, that's their choice. And again, what fraction of people who stop working in the for-profit economy will actually be as productive as Joey Hess?
  - blfr 11y ago
    No, that's not what people did back in the day. Those who managed lived off advances from their publishers, inheritance, sponsors, or Church sinecures. It's not possible nowadays. You need to promote your works and it became much less socially acceptable. It's a weird observation that going off the grid would price you out of the dating market. Plenty of "starving artists" and outright bums have more success with women than salarymen. And again, what fraction of people who stop working in the for-profit economy will actually be as productive as Joey Hess? That's the direct counterargument to most BI hopes. Of course, it's very difficult to verify empirically and mostly depends on what you already believe about human nature. We don't even know if Joey Hess is more or less productive than he would be otherwise.