6 ms·

Glad to see someone acknowledging the myopic view of most intellectuals. During my time in academia (PhD), I'll admit now I had very little idea of what life w

Glad to see someone acknowledging the myopic view of most intellectuals. During my time in academia (PhD), I'll admit now I had very little idea of what life was like for the majority of people. Since then I've been living among many working class and poverty-level folks. Average household income in my neighborhood is <$22K (U.S.). As a result, my thinking has changed to unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish, and ramping up education investment is pretty minimal in its returns. Creating real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best solution... it's just really hard to do!

yarrel 10y ago
Why do you regard UBI as foolish given that real-world context? I'm interested as opinions for and against it do tend to be from 30,000 feet.
- hahooooo 10y ago
  The danger I see with UBI, is (in addition to possible inflation, etc.) is that commentators on HN tend to be of higher education, curious, and simply "hackers". Most people here would love to be payed money so they could sit and program some cool OSS, start a new company or simply change the world. For them, UBI is fantastic. How many more Googles/GNUs/Apples would there be if engineers could quit existing companies and form, all while guaranteed basic sustenance. The problem is that there are a lot of people who don't care for that. You pay them money, they'll sit playing Video games, sports, or simply bum around. And then you start having issues convincing people to go for higher education (even assuming its free). Wait, what about lower education? Go to school, get good grades, or else you'll ... get a livable wage anyways? Why should I write essays when I can play video games instead? Then, until everything is automatable, you still need to get people to work under the hot sun, picking potatoes. If you have a livable wage without it, why would you go? And how much will the farmer need to pay workers to go?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The problem you point to is self-limiting. Regardless of the nominal level of UBI, it won't provide a satisfactory income unless a sufficient number of people remain working to provide the goods and services required to provide a satisfying style of life for the UBI-only recipients and sufficient additional value to workers for them to continue working. Prices will adjust to make this the case. As the quality of life provided on UBI-only declines, the incentive for additional productive work will increase. (of course, lots of people now continue to expend additional effort beyond what is necessary for a minimally livable existence, so I don't see this as likely to be a great problem.)
    - hahooooo 10y ago
      In other words, the tragedy of the commons. My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI (such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century), for every Newton or Voltaire were many more unknown nobles who spent their life grooming their mustaches. I don't believe our society is that much better now.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > In other words, the tragedy of the commons. In a sense, but in this particularly case it operates as a negative feedback control mechanism which prevents the actual feared problem from occurring, so is hardly a "tragedy". > My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI There are no societies with UBI to look back on. > such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century A benefit restricted to a particular social class is not a UBI (or, at least, not much like what modern UBI proposals target, and not likely to serve as a guide as to what one can expect from them), nor, even ignoring that aspect, did the upper class of Europe through any of that time have anything remotely resembling a UBI, which is a flat, equal, unconditional grant to all members of a society. Now, in much of that period, individual nobles had (either by definition or just disproportionately, depending on the particular time and place) either claims to income from substantial properties or family connections to those who did and who would support junior family members with, often quite conditional, support, but that's more the position of a wealthy capitalist or their associates in the modern era than that of a UBI beneficiary.
  - carapace 10y ago
    A thought experiment: Assume a near-future world where automation can provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Further assume there is a part of the population that just slacks off. Would you be in favor of some sort of punishment to make those folks conform to your standard of not wasting their lives?
    - hahooooo 10y ago
      My main point is that people tend to view everyone as themselves. So intellectuals tend to view everyone as intellectuals. So we think that if only I'd have guaranteed income, I'd finally get around to fixing Firefox, or making an Open Source Google, or whatever. Therefore, it would be better for society if people would be free to leave "useless work" and innovate instead. But once you see the "real world," you realize that it's not going to happen. Most people would just sit at home playing CS or chatting on FB. Now once humanity is retired, and of no more use (singularity), then sure, why not. It'll be the AIs innovating everything, running everything, and no one will be doing anything useful anyways. But until that point, I don't know if we can realistically afford three quarters of the population to just go into early retirement.
      - carapace 10y ago
        Heh, cool, I agree with you. :-) I'm one of those who views UBI as a way of dealing with productivity explosion implied by (some models of) the singularity (as opposed to a form of welfare.) It seems a realistic option, and more desirable than e.g. slavery or genocide, once things are getting closer to the limit, eh?
  - yarrel 10y ago
    Thank you, this is a great conversation.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - noonespecial 10y ago
    >The problem is that there are a lot of people who don't care for that. You pay them money, they'll sit playing Video games, sports, or simply bum around. Which is cheaper than housing even a small number of them in prisons. One of the hopes is that by eliminating much of the desperateness from poverty, we'll save a bundle from the accompanying reduction in crime.
  - robocat 10y ago
    People over a certain age get a UBI (in many countries). Maybe extrapolate from what they do...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > People over a certain age get a UBI (in many countries). > Maybe extrapolate from what they do... People over the age for drawing public pensions (whether or not those are UBI-like; most I'm familiar with are not) are probably not representative of the broader population in their decisions with regard to engagement in the labor market, entrepreneurship, etc., and how those decisions are impacted by changes in available resources.
  - jpindar 10y ago
    In other words, "those proles are so lazy that as long as they don't starve, they'd PREFER being poor"? People living on only UBI will still be relatively poor. Look at all the lengths people throughout the ages have gone to to make money. People LIKE money. They like it so much they are willing to work for more of it, even when they already have enough to barely survive.
ryukafalz 10y ago
>As a result, my thinking has changed to ... UBI is foolish Could you elaborate on what made you change your mind regarding UBI? It'd be interesting to hear your perspective on this.
- cylinder 10y ago
  Working class wants to work.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    "But robots," someone said, apparently distracted by futurism from noticing the existence of manual trades.
  - sillyarg 10y ago
    That's one of the benefits of UBI over many welfare programs. Because it's universal, it's not cash for not working; it's cash.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Working class wants to work. One of the principal selling points for UBI as a replacement for existing means tested social benefit programs is that it eliminates the perverse incentives created by means tested programs in which benefits are reduced by outside income (especially from work), at a rate that, in aggregate across the programs a person may be eligible for, may even exceed the after-tax income from work. A selling point it has as a replacement for minimum wage is that it provides a quality-of-life safety net without preventing work that people would willingly do, and which would be economically valuable for employers, by setting a floor on minimum hourly pay. UBI is, arguably, more in line with "working class wants to work" than the status quo it is offered to replace.
    - justinpombrio 10y ago
      Translation: Currently, many social benefit programs give people less money the more they work. If a person is eligible for enough of these programs, they can even make less money by working than they would by not working. UBI (universal basic income) doesn't have this problem because it pays people the same amount regardless of weather they work. Thus, it is arguably more in line with "working class wants to work" than the status quo is. EDIT: Made translation more precise.
klank 10y ago
> ramping up education investment is pretty minimal in its returns. Creating real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best solution I'm confused about your stance on education. At first blush you seem to be diminishing it's impact while promoting it. Care to elaborate?
- eitland 10y ago
  If by education GP means higher education then I can possibly add something: IIRC there already seems to be a shortage of craftsmen (carpenters, welders, plumbers etc) and a surplus of people with various higher educations.
  - endzone 10y ago
    a shortage that's not reflected in the wages for skilled jobs (outside of powerful unions)
    - petra 10y ago
      I know that in Israel there's shortage in those professions, but the pay isn't good. So maybe it's more complex that simple supply vs demand ?
      - endzone 10y ago
        i can't think of any reason why basic economic principles wouldn't apply.
        petra 10y ago
        Say you have a small factory ,employing 50 older welders doing a risky job at relatively little pay. Say you need 10 more welders - but those guys really don't like risk so they would need a big increase in the salary, maybe 50%-100%. But you know that than the word will get out and the older workers will demand similar salaries. So it's a big jump in total labor-costs per work-unit. And let's not forget - revenue per employee can be quite limited in many places. So maybe paying low is the better state for the business.
humanrebar 10y ago
> Creating real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best solution... it's just really hard to do! Especially since we've largely abandoned previous institutions that provided this: regular neighborhood hangout spots, social clubs, adult recreational leagues, and especially churches. > unions are overall good ideas Maybe. Depends. I frequently see union demands oriented around last decade's operational patterns instead of next decade's. Like requiring specific outdated jobs be filled (like toll booth workers) when it would be more value-added to have the same person clean or provide general customer service. A union looking out for its members would embrace that some jobs would fade away and provide (or demand) retraining for its workers so they're qualified for new jobs, even in other industries if need be.
- idrios 10y ago
  > Especially since we've largely abandoned previous institutions True, though I think new institutions will come back. Things like Meetup groups seem to be gaining more traction--The groups are just slow to adoption because they're so new that nobody can be grandfathered in yet by friends or family who have been long-term members. > Unions are overall good ideas -- Maybe. Depends. I see unions as just another corporation - they're satisfying a need of "workers should not be exploited", their revenue model is "members pay X% and in return get our strength in numbers", and their activity streams are "fight for favorable legislation" and "Threaten uncompliant businesses". The problem with unions is they are not treated as corporations in their own right, so unions have become monopolistic, heavily involved in lobbying and partaking in generally corrupt behavior--responding more strongly to incentives to survive and make money than incentives to keep its members happy. Unions are still powerfully beneficial, but I'd wish there were multiple unions for any industry that competed with each other, some with stricter requirements to get in, each offering different freedoms and protections to its workers
  - mbostleman 10y ago
    Unions are monopolies by their nature - it's not something they become. They only exist due to a statutory exemption of anti-trust law. I personally have not been able find a justification for a monopoly of any kind in a free society.
unabridged 10y ago
>unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish UBI would be much better than unionizing the entire country (the IWW is the only union I know of that would accept all people regardless of skill). Everyone would be guaranteed unlimited strike pay that can sustain them. The effect on employee-employer relationships would be amazing, every degrading/dangerous job would instantly have to 2x or 3x its salary to keep workers. Every worker would be able to negotiate from a position of safety knowing they effectively have 'fuck you money'.
mindslight 10y ago
The article is a swing and a miss. The problem is much deeper than the bias of being more educated and intellectual. It's that they believe singular "policy" can be made and then dictated top-down - that effects will be quickly visible and easily understandable. They're up against a hard problem in the computational complexity sense, yet it is in none of their interests to be honest and admit their limits. Most of their ideas lack intellectual rigor and merely follow the fashions of power. BI in particular is a simplistic continuation of printing money to overstimulate the economy.

yarrel 10y ago

Why do you regard UBI as foolish given that real-world context? I'm interested as opinions for and against it do tend to be from 30,000 feet.

hahooooo 10y ago
The danger I see with UBI, is (in addition to possible inflation, etc.) is that commentators on HN tend to be of higher education, curious, and simply "hackers". Most people here would love to be payed money so they could sit and program some cool OSS, start a new company or simply change the world. For them, UBI is fantastic. How many more Googles/GNUs/Apples would there be if engineers could quit existing companies and form, all while guaranteed basic sustenance. The problem is that there are a lot of people who don't care for that. You pay them money, they'll sit playing Video games, sports, or simply bum around. And then you start having issues convincing people to go for higher education (even assuming its free). Wait, what about lower education? Go to school, get good grades, or else you'll ... get a livable wage anyways? Why should I write essays when I can play video games instead? Then, until everything is automatable, you still need to get people to work under the hot sun, picking potatoes. If you have a livable wage without it, why would you go? And how much will the farmer need to pay workers to go?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The problem you point to is self-limiting. Regardless of the nominal level of UBI, it won't provide a satisfactory income unless a sufficient number of people remain working to provide the goods and services required to provide a satisfying style of life for the UBI-only recipients and sufficient additional value to workers for them to continue working. Prices will adjust to make this the case. As the quality of life provided on UBI-only declines, the incentive for additional productive work will increase. (of course, lots of people now continue to expend additional effort beyond what is necessary for a minimally livable existence, so I don't see this as likely to be a great problem.)
  - hahooooo 10y ago
    In other words, the tragedy of the commons. My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI (such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century), for every Newton or Voltaire were many more unknown nobles who spent their life grooming their mustaches. I don't believe our society is that much better now.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > In other words, the tragedy of the commons. In a sense, but in this particularly case it operates as a negative feedback control mechanism which prevents the actual feared problem from occurring, so is hardly a "tragedy". > My biggest concern with the UBI is that looking back at societies with UBI There are no societies with UBI to look back on. > such as the upper class Europe of the Middle Ages through the 19th century A benefit restricted to a particular social class is not a UBI (or, at least, not much like what modern UBI proposals target, and not likely to serve as a guide as to what one can expect from them), nor, even ignoring that aspect, did the upper class of Europe through any of that time have anything remotely resembling a UBI, which is a flat, equal, unconditional grant to all members of a society. Now, in much of that period, individual nobles had (either by definition or just disproportionately, depending on the particular time and place) either claims to income from substantial properties or family connections to those who did and who would support junior family members with, often quite conditional, support, but that's more the position of a wealthy capitalist or their associates in the modern era than that of a UBI beneficiary.
- carapace 10y ago
  A thought experiment: Assume a near-future world where automation can provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Further assume there is a part of the population that just slacks off. Would you be in favor of some sort of punishment to make those folks conform to your standard of not wasting their lives?
  - hahooooo 10y ago
    My main point is that people tend to view everyone as themselves. So intellectuals tend to view everyone as intellectuals. So we think that if only I'd have guaranteed income, I'd finally get around to fixing Firefox, or making an Open Source Google, or whatever. Therefore, it would be better for society if people would be free to leave "useless work" and innovate instead. But once you see the "real world," you realize that it's not going to happen. Most people would just sit at home playing CS or chatting on FB. Now once humanity is retired, and of no more use (singularity), then sure, why not. It'll be the AIs innovating everything, running everything, and no one will be doing anything useful anyways. But until that point, I don't know if we can realistically afford three quarters of the population to just go into early retirement.
    - carapace 10y ago
      Heh, cool, I agree with you. :-) I'm one of those who views UBI as a way of dealing with productivity explosion implied by (some models of) the singularity (as opposed to a form of welfare.) It seems a realistic option, and more desirable than e.g. slavery or genocide, once things are getting closer to the limit, eh?
- yarrel 10y ago
  Thank you, this is a great conversation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- noonespecial 10y ago
  >The problem is that there are a lot of people who don't care for that. You pay them money, they'll sit playing Video games, sports, or simply bum around. Which is cheaper than housing even a small number of them in prisons. One of the hopes is that by eliminating much of the desperateness from poverty, we'll save a bundle from the accompanying reduction in crime.
- robocat 10y ago
  People over a certain age get a UBI (in many countries). Maybe extrapolate from what they do...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > People over a certain age get a UBI (in many countries). > Maybe extrapolate from what they do... People over the age for drawing public pensions (whether or not those are UBI-like; most I'm familiar with are not) are probably not representative of the broader population in their decisions with regard to engagement in the labor market, entrepreneurship, etc., and how those decisions are impacted by changes in available resources.
- jpindar 10y ago
  In other words, "those proles are so lazy that as long as they don't starve, they'd PREFER being poor"? People living on only UBI will still be relatively poor. Look at all the lengths people throughout the ages have gone to to make money. People LIKE money. They like it so much they are willing to work for more of it, even when they already have enough to barely survive.

ryukafalz 10y ago

>As a result, my thinking has changed to ... UBI is foolish Could you elaborate on what made you change your mind regarding UBI? It'd be interesting to hear your perspective on this.

cylinder 10y ago
Working class wants to work.
- throwanem 10y ago
  "But robots," someone said, apparently distracted by futurism from noticing the existence of manual trades.
- sillyarg 10y ago
  That's one of the benefits of UBI over many welfare programs. Because it's universal, it's not cash for not working; it's cash.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Working class wants to work. One of the principal selling points for UBI as a replacement for existing means tested social benefit programs is that it eliminates the perverse incentives created by means tested programs in which benefits are reduced by outside income (especially from work), at a rate that, in aggregate across the programs a person may be eligible for, may even exceed the after-tax income from work. A selling point it has as a replacement for minimum wage is that it provides a quality-of-life safety net without preventing work that people would willingly do, and which would be economically valuable for employers, by setting a floor on minimum hourly pay. UBI is, arguably, more in line with "working class wants to work" than the status quo it is offered to replace.
  - justinpombrio 10y ago
    Translation: Currently, many social benefit programs give people less money the more they work. If a person is eligible for enough of these programs, they can even make less money by working than they would by not working. UBI (universal basic income) doesn't have this problem because it pays people the same amount regardless of weather they work. Thus, it is arguably more in line with "working class wants to work" than the status quo is. EDIT: Made translation more precise.

klank 10y ago

> ramping up education investment is pretty minimal in its returns. Creating real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best solution I'm confused about your stance on education. At first blush you seem to be diminishing it's impact while promoting it. Care to elaborate?

eitland 10y ago
If by education GP means higher education then I can possibly add something: IIRC there already seems to be a shortage of craftsmen (carpenters, welders, plumbers etc) and a surplus of people with various higher educations.
- endzone 10y ago
  a shortage that's not reflected in the wages for skilled jobs (outside of powerful unions)
  - petra 10y ago
    I know that in Israel there's shortage in those professions, but the pay isn't good. So maybe it's more complex that simple supply vs demand ?
    - endzone 10y ago
      i can't think of any reason why basic economic principles wouldn't apply.
      - petra 10y ago
        Say you have a small factory ,employing 50 older welders doing a risky job at relatively little pay. Say you need 10 more welders - but those guys really don't like risk so they would need a big increase in the salary, maybe 50%-100%. But you know that than the word will get out and the older workers will demand similar salaries. So it's a big jump in total labor-costs per work-unit. And let's not forget - revenue per employee can be quite limited in many places. So maybe paying low is the better state for the business.

humanrebar 10y ago

> Creating real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best solution... it's just really hard to do! Especially since we've largely abandoned previous institutions that provided this: regular neighborhood hangout spots, social clubs, adult recreational leagues, and especially churches. > unions are overall good ideas Maybe. Depends. I frequently see union demands oriented around last decade's operational patterns instead of next decade's. Like requiring specific outdated jobs be filled (like toll booth workers) when it would be more value-added to have the same person clean or provide general customer service. A union looking out for its members would embrace that some jobs would fade away and provide (or demand) retraining for its workers so they're qualified for new jobs, even in other industries if need be.

idrios 10y ago
> Especially since we've largely abandoned previous institutions True, though I think new institutions will come back. Things like Meetup groups seem to be gaining more traction--The groups are just slow to adoption because they're so new that nobody can be grandfathered in yet by friends or family who have been long-term members. > Unions are overall good ideas -- Maybe. Depends. I see unions as just another corporation - they're satisfying a need of "workers should not be exploited", their revenue model is "members pay X% and in return get our strength in numbers", and their activity streams are "fight for favorable legislation" and "Threaten uncompliant businesses". The problem with unions is they are not treated as corporations in their own right, so unions have become monopolistic, heavily involved in lobbying and partaking in generally corrupt behavior--responding more strongly to incentives to survive and make money than incentives to keep its members happy. Unions are still powerfully beneficial, but I'd wish there were multiple unions for any industry that competed with each other, some with stricter requirements to get in, each offering different freedoms and protections to its workers
- mbostleman 10y ago
  Unions are monopolies by their nature - it's not something they become. They only exist due to a statutory exemption of anti-trust law. I personally have not been able find a justification for a monopoly of any kind in a free society.

unabridged 10y ago

>unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish UBI would be much better than unionizing the entire country (the IWW is the only union I know of that would accept all people regardless of skill). Everyone would be guaranteed unlimited strike pay that can sustain them. The effect on employee-employer relationships would be amazing, every degrading/dangerous job would instantly have to 2x or 3x its salary to keep workers. Every worker would be able to negotiate from a position of safety knowing they effectively have 'fuck you money'.

mindslight 10y ago

The article is a swing and a miss. The problem is much deeper than the bias of being more educated and intellectual. It's that they believe singular "policy" can be made and then dictated top-down - that effects will be quickly visible and easily understandable. They're up against a hard problem in the computational complexity sense, yet it is in none of their interests to be honest and admit their limits. Most of their ideas lack intellectual rigor and merely follow the fashions of power. BI in particular is a simplistic continuation of printing money to overstimulate the economy.