4 ms·

Did shutting down huge swaths of the economy "improve society"? Even if one agrees that is has been necessary in the short term (most seem to agree it has been

Did shutting down huge swaths of the economy "improve society"? Even if one agrees that is has been necessary in the short term (most seem to agree it has been needed), if we're still mired in this even mere months from now, we've probably got far bigger problems with which to contend than pushing projects like UBI.

grecy 6y ago
> Did shutting down huge swaths of the economy "improve society"? Just to name a few off the top of my head: There is vastly less pollution, people are spending much more time with their loved ones, people are spending much less time in vehicles and commuting, and people have much more time to explore their passions and hobbies like instruments and drawing. > pushing projects like UBI Calm down. I'm not "pushing" anything, certainly not UBI. I simply said it's a great time to have discussions about the pros and cons of out current system, and any possible improvements. Are you against discussions?
- noarchy 6y ago
  >There is vastly less pollution, people are spending much more time with their loved ones, people are spending much less time in vehicles and commuting, and people have much more time to explore their passions and hobbies like instruments and drawing. Some people. We have to be careful not to frame the discussion exclusively from our own, respective positions. I'm very fortunate, for instance, to be able to work from home very easily. This is not the case at all for many. Some have seen their hours increase if they're in the "essential" (a word I hate, but it has become the norm) job category, and/or have taken on risks to their health. Many have lost their jobs entirely. The reduction in pollution is good. Don't get too used to it. >Calm down. That wasn't necessary. >I'm not "pushing" anything, certainly not UBI. You may not be, but there is no question that there are many who are, and that's why this thread exists. >Are you against discussions? You've assumed something else about me, I guess?
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Not sure why you were flagged - times of discontinuity seem like the best time to discuss how we'd like the next equilibrium to look. Maybe people are just reflexively opposed to contemplating the possibility that the next 'business as usual' won't be familiar. It is scary to contemplate revising a lot models I have of the world, if I'm honest.
  - cultus 6y ago
    >Not sure why you were flagged - times of discontinuity seem like the best time to discuss how we'd like the next equilibrium to look. "Free speech" for me, not for thee with these types.
    - noarchy 6y ago
      It's a bit of a tangent, but is downvoting or flagging on a site like HN a threat to free speech? Maybe it restricts speech on HN, specifically, but then we would be separating the more traditional understanding of "free speech" (linked specifically with government intervention) from another one (like the happenings in a private forum such as HN).
      - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
        I do downvote people I disagree with on HN, that seems like simply a low-effort way of registering one's opinion. Flagging I think of as being intended more for abusive, as opposed to just unintelligent, statements. Certainly, if someone abused the tool to flag everyone who expressed a certain opinion, that would be suppressing free speech. Whether the government would be obligated to intervene would likely depend on whether the owners of HN would like the suppression to stop.
- nybble41 6y ago
  > people are spending much more time with their loved ones Some people, maybe. I live by myself. The rest of my family lives two states away. I normally drive to visit them several times each year. I've already been forced to cancel one planned visit and it's difficult to say when the next one will be. My parents at least have each other, but they miss spending time with their grandchildren (my nephews). Likewise for my grandparents. The occasional group video calls are nice but just not the same. I hardly think my case is unique. People are spending more time with people they live with, because they're forced to stay at home. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the situation. I'm sure it's caused problems for people suffering from domestic abuse, for example. One's loved ones need not live in the same house—and the people you live with may not be your loved ones. > people have much more time to explore their passions and hobbies like instruments and drawing Not if they're working remotely—you don't necessarily have more free time just because you're at home all day. For the rest, they could have had that time before just by quitting their jobs. Certainly the extra free time and lower pollution are something of a silver lining, but let's not pretend that this is a net improvement compared to the way things were before. Being forced to stay home is not something people would have chosen out of preference.
redbeard0x0a 6y ago
something is going to give somewhere, either we get something like temp/perm UBI, contact tracing, pervasive testing. Each of these things has their pros/cons and the last 2 have "slippery slope" implications with privacy and/or bodily autonomy. The first has the "slippery slope" implications the right complains about, but I don't believe a UBI would lead to a massive outbreak of lazy. It _would_ lead to a massive outbreak of people leaving BS jobs - especially if we get healthcare fixed.
- noarchy 6y ago
  What you call "BS jobs" are necessary to someone out there right now. That said, if they cannot fill those jobs because UBI is more attractive than the wages for said jobs, indeed one might find those jobs to be automated in the future - ironically (or not?) leading to more "need" for UBI?
  - grecy 6y ago
    In Australia the minimum wage is $19.49/hr and it has the world's most liberal welfare where it's perfectly easy for anyone to get $1130/mo (more if you have kids, more for rent assistance.) even university students can get paid to go to school. Those things have been true and in place for decades, and they have not destroyed the economy. There are not jobs that are unfilled because people don't want to do them. In fact Australia's economy survived the 2008 crash as well as the best in the world, and continues to be very strong. You don't need to make guesses about what will happen if free money from the government is available to the masses, you can look at places that are almost doing it already.
    - noarchy 6y ago
      It sounds like wages are higher than the welfare number you quoted, so I wouldn't expect people to necessarily drop out of the workforce en masse.
perl4ever 6y ago
"Did shutting down huge swaths of the economy "improve society" Well, how many lives does the lack of pollution save? People talk about suffering from being unemployed, but if that can be dealt with by temporary wealth redistribution...

grecy 6y ago

> Did shutting down huge swaths of the economy "improve society"? Just to name a few off the top of my head: There is vastly less pollution, people are spending much more time with their loved ones, people are spending much less time in vehicles and commuting, and people have much more time to explore their passions and hobbies like instruments and drawing. > pushing projects like UBI Calm down. I'm not "pushing" anything, certainly not UBI. I simply said it's a great time to have discussions about the pros and cons of out current system, and any possible improvements. Are you against discussions?

noarchy 6y ago
>There is vastly less pollution, people are spending much more time with their loved ones, people are spending much less time in vehicles and commuting, and people have much more time to explore their passions and hobbies like instruments and drawing. Some people. We have to be careful not to frame the discussion exclusively from our own, respective positions. I'm very fortunate, for instance, to be able to work from home very easily. This is not the case at all for many. Some have seen their hours increase if they're in the "essential" (a word I hate, but it has become the norm) job category, and/or have taken on risks to their health. Many have lost their jobs entirely. The reduction in pollution is good. Don't get too used to it. >Calm down. That wasn't necessary. >I'm not "pushing" anything, certainly not UBI. You may not be, but there is no question that there are many who are, and that's why this thread exists. >Are you against discussions? You've assumed something else about me, I guess?
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Not sure why you were flagged - times of discontinuity seem like the best time to discuss how we'd like the next equilibrium to look. Maybe people are just reflexively opposed to contemplating the possibility that the next 'business as usual' won't be familiar. It is scary to contemplate revising a lot models I have of the world, if I'm honest.
- cultus 6y ago
  >Not sure why you were flagged - times of discontinuity seem like the best time to discuss how we'd like the next equilibrium to look. "Free speech" for me, not for thee with these types.
  - noarchy 6y ago
    It's a bit of a tangent, but is downvoting or flagging on a site like HN a threat to free speech? Maybe it restricts speech on HN, specifically, but then we would be separating the more traditional understanding of "free speech" (linked specifically with government intervention) from another one (like the happenings in a private forum such as HN).
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      I do downvote people I disagree with on HN, that seems like simply a low-effort way of registering one's opinion. Flagging I think of as being intended more for abusive, as opposed to just unintelligent, statements. Certainly, if someone abused the tool to flag everyone who expressed a certain opinion, that would be suppressing free speech. Whether the government would be obligated to intervene would likely depend on whether the owners of HN would like the suppression to stop.
nybble41 6y ago
> people are spending much more time with their loved ones Some people, maybe. I live by myself. The rest of my family lives two states away. I normally drive to visit them several times each year. I've already been forced to cancel one planned visit and it's difficult to say when the next one will be. My parents at least have each other, but they miss spending time with their grandchildren (my nephews). Likewise for my grandparents. The occasional group video calls are nice but just not the same. I hardly think my case is unique. People are spending more time with people they live with, because they're forced to stay at home. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the situation. I'm sure it's caused problems for people suffering from domestic abuse, for example. One's loved ones need not live in the same house—and the people you live with may not be your loved ones. > people have much more time to explore their passions and hobbies like instruments and drawing Not if they're working remotely—you don't necessarily have more free time just because you're at home all day. For the rest, they could have had that time before just by quitting their jobs. Certainly the extra free time and lower pollution are something of a silver lining, but let's not pretend that this is a net improvement compared to the way things were before. Being forced to stay home is not something people would have chosen out of preference.

redbeard0x0a 6y ago

something is going to give somewhere, either we get something like temp/perm UBI, contact tracing, pervasive testing. Each of these things has their pros/cons and the last 2 have "slippery slope" implications with privacy and/or bodily autonomy. The first has the "slippery slope" implications the right complains about, but I don't believe a UBI would lead to a massive outbreak of lazy. It _would_ lead to a massive outbreak of people leaving BS jobs - especially if we get healthcare fixed.

noarchy 6y ago
What you call "BS jobs" are necessary to someone out there right now. That said, if they cannot fill those jobs because UBI is more attractive than the wages for said jobs, indeed one might find those jobs to be automated in the future - ironically (or not?) leading to more "need" for UBI?
- grecy 6y ago
  In Australia the minimum wage is $19.49/hr and it has the world's most liberal welfare where it's perfectly easy for anyone to get $1130/mo (more if you have kids, more for rent assistance.) even university students can get paid to go to school. Those things have been true and in place for decades, and they have not destroyed the economy. There are not jobs that are unfilled because people don't want to do them. In fact Australia's economy survived the 2008 crash as well as the best in the world, and continues to be very strong. You don't need to make guesses about what will happen if free money from the government is available to the masses, you can look at places that are almost doing it already.
  - noarchy 6y ago
    It sounds like wages are higher than the welfare number you quoted, so I wouldn't expect people to necessarily drop out of the workforce en masse.

perl4ever 6y ago

"Did shutting down huge swaths of the economy "improve society" Well, how many lives does the lack of pollution save? People talk about suffering from being unemployed, but if that can be dealt with by temporary wealth redistribution...