3 ms·

>Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values What?! That's crazy! Even if I were i

>Provide an argument supporting the notion that people shouldn't be incentivized to produce things that the market values What?! That's crazy! Even if I were intending on debating any of you guys, I could hardly do it being prompted by this intentional strawman. But, of course, you're one of them! By which I mean an arch-capitalist, or whatever, who cares, whose internal value system precludes the understanding of what UBI might accomplish because, of course, people are just going to "do anything they want[ed] without contributing to society" [0] rather than behave differently under a system whose fundamental assumptions have changed. Just because you're absolutely certain that people would stop taking jobs in "construction, plumbing, electrical, farming, etc if they can choose to do nothing instead" [0] doesn't mean it's true, and dropping that slimy ostensible fact instead of an actual argument is hardly adding value to the discussion, either! At least my actions provided some value to those intending on discussing UBI in good faith -- ie, do it somewhere else, these guys don't seem capable. >Hinting that someone's argument is absurd adds no value to the discussion unless you illustrate why I think I'm doing a pretty good job, but just in case, said argument attempted to imply that higher education is a stupid hobby, those seeking higher education without the material means to pay for it in fact desire McDonalds, and for those reasons UBI upsets the natural order of things and deserves throwaway comment mockery. Am I really bound to provide something more substantive? I think I've made the 'response' that 'argument' deserves. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12245629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12245629

hueving 10y ago
No, you haven't provided anything of value beyond personal attacks at people that had the gall to suggest that UBI might not align well with economics. Nobody implied that someone would desire to work at McDonald's instead of attend school. However, there is no evidence that people would attend school if they were free from work. If that were true, colleges would be packed with retired people auditing classes. You are using your assumption that your position is objectively correct as an excuse to not even defend it. Please read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  >No, you haven't provided anything of value beyond personal attacks at people that had the gall to suggest that UBI might not align well with economics Without some evidence that it is true, the claim that started this all, namely that people who would use UBI to "pursue things like further education and the arts [that are much harder when you're working two jobs to put food on the table]" [0] are in fact "hobbies that provide little value to the world" [1], is insane. The things that "others actually want" [1] are implied to be "stuff like McDonalds" [0]. The comment authored by 'yummyfajitas [1] is a direct reply to the comment authored by 'mason55 [0]; the correlation of arguments are clearly outlined above. Unless you take issue with my interpretation, or unless you believe that 'yummyfajitas was just fucking with 'mason55, his reply is hardly a suggestion that "UBI might not align well with economics" and more "the rightful place of poor people is to provide low-pay services like McDonalds; those who couldn't aspire to higher education without UBI will provide little value to the world with their taxpayer-supported hobbies". >Nobody implied that someone would desire to work at McDonald's instead of attend school I never claimed this, but it sure would be handy for you if someone had. Coupled with your apparent belief that casting aspirations on those who can't afford higher education is not only acceptable but self-evident economic theory, the intentional twisting of my words in this way is a pretty clear indicator of what you're trying to do with this reply. >However, there is no evidence that people would attend school if they were free from work. If that were true, colleges would be packed with retired people auditing classes Ah yes, retirees -- the very people who might benefit from release from their low-income McDonalds wage-slavery, and who, with UBI, might aspire to go to college in order to bec-- wait, wait, wait. Why are you talking about retirees? That has little bearing on the discussion at hand, unless, of course, retirees are the people we've been talking about all along and I've missed it somehow. >You are using your assumption that your position is objectively correct as an excuse to not even defend it I'm making no claim to correctness, and I don't think you could actually state my position, because I haven't yet elaborated it; somehow, this didn't stop you. Please read this [2]. I'm ridiculing the sort of person who can, without the slightest twinge of conscience, drop two smug paragraphs detailing how UBI will make us all poorer by stating his hunches about the behaviour of the poor and the uneducated as objectively correct facts. I suppose it's possible that the notion that UBI will lead to a new era of sloth, economic chaos, job loss and plagues of frogs is actually factually correct. But that claim is just as untested as my "claim", which is merely NOT(prevClaim). The illustration of the classist notion that people who couldn't aspire to higher education without UBI will become hobbyists who won't produce value is all the point I'm trying to make -- if you don't immediately see how that's intuitively wrong, our conflicting perspectives probably can't allow us to have a meaningful discussion about UBI and the poor and higher education, either. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12243184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12243184 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12244546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12244546 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

hueving 10y ago

No, you haven't provided anything of value beyond personal attacks at people that had the gall to suggest that UBI might not align well with economics. Nobody implied that someone would desire to work at McDonald's instead of attend school. However, there is no evidence that people would attend school if they were free from work. If that were true, colleges would be packed with retired people auditing classes. You are using your assumption that your position is objectively correct as an excuse to not even defend it. Please read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

justratsinacoat 10y ago
>No, you haven't provided anything of value beyond personal attacks at people that had the gall to suggest that UBI might not align well with economics Without some evidence that it is true, the claim that started this all, namely that people who would use UBI to "pursue things like further education and the arts [that are much harder when you're working two jobs to put food on the table]" [0] are in fact "hobbies that provide little value to the world" [1], is insane. The things that "others actually want" [1] are implied to be "stuff like McDonalds" [0]. The comment authored by 'yummyfajitas [1] is a direct reply to the comment authored by 'mason55 [0]; the correlation of arguments are clearly outlined above. Unless you take issue with my interpretation, or unless you believe that 'yummyfajitas was just fucking with 'mason55, his reply is hardly a suggestion that "UBI might not align well with economics" and more "the rightful place of poor people is to provide low-pay services like McDonalds; those who couldn't aspire to higher education without UBI will provide little value to the world with their taxpayer-supported hobbies". >Nobody implied that someone would desire to work at McDonald's instead of attend school I never claimed this, but it sure would be handy for you if someone had. Coupled with your apparent belief that casting aspirations on those who can't afford higher education is not only acceptable but self-evident economic theory, the intentional twisting of my words in this way is a pretty clear indicator of what you're trying to do with this reply. >However, there is no evidence that people would attend school if they were free from work. If that were true, colleges would be packed with retired people auditing classes Ah yes, retirees -- the very people who might benefit from release from their low-income McDonalds wage-slavery, and who, with UBI, might aspire to go to college in order to bec-- wait, wait, wait. Why are you talking about retirees? That has little bearing on the discussion at hand, unless, of course, retirees are the people we've been talking about all along and I've missed it somehow. >You are using your assumption that your position is objectively correct as an excuse to not even defend it I'm making no claim to correctness, and I don't think you could actually state my position, because I haven't yet elaborated it; somehow, this didn't stop you. Please read this [2]. I'm ridiculing the sort of person who can, without the slightest twinge of conscience, drop two smug paragraphs detailing how UBI will make us all poorer by stating his hunches about the behaviour of the poor and the uneducated as objectively correct facts. I suppose it's possible that the notion that UBI will lead to a new era of sloth, economic chaos, job loss and plagues of frogs is actually factually correct. But that claim is just as untested as my "claim", which is merely NOT(prevClaim). The illustration of the classist notion that people who couldn't aspire to higher education without UBI will become hobbyists who won't produce value is all the point I'm trying to make -- if you don't immediately see how that's intuitively wrong, our conflicting perspectives probably can't allow us to have a meaningful discussion about UBI and the poor and higher education, either. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12243184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12243184 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12244546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12244546 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum