6 ms·

I think Elon Musk summed up the counter argument to this pretty well on Joe Rogan's podcast: "If you don't make stuff, there's no stuff. Obviously."

WilliamEdward 6y ago
This is so vacuous. Does it imply that UBI money is coming from thin air? That's obviously false. Also the article says a type of UBI is being used to stimulate job creation and work for industries that are rapidly losing in these areas. This is literally on par with what Elon said, how could it be a counter argument? This is the rare Elon quote where I don't even have to attack his behaviour to discredit. It's just not applicable in this context as a counterpoint.
TheDong 6y ago
I would think we, as hackers, on hacker news, would have some unique insight into this. The software world is built on the back of stuff that was made, not for money, but out of a labor of love, or to impress others, or to scratch our own itch. Our servers run linux, but linux was mostly just linus hacking around. The free software community is about helping each other and building cool things. Most programming languages were birthed not for money, but because the person building them cared about it a lot and wanted to solve a problem for themselves. UBI would let people who wanted to make stuff actually make stuff, not have to flip burgers 9-5 just to go home and feel too drained to code or write or do whatever it is they really want to do. There are countless examples throughout history of people building great things and advancing science, not for money, but for recognition or passion.
- youdonthavekids 6y ago
  A small number of people in history have done something useful with their free time so you think we should pay everyone in the hope that more people take up coding and writing? Why does UBI make me want to write novels or create linux? I don't want to live on minimum wage, I want to work and earn lots of money so my family can have nice things. I won't get that on your UBI poverty level wages.
- bt4u2 6y ago
  There's an even larger amount of countless examples of people being bums
- kriro 6y ago
  That's a bit too idealistic. Maybe some of the stuff was started this way but by and large all hobby projects that are now widely used depend on paid people working on it full time/a lot. The Linux kernel is a great example. But I agree with your overall point. Software has a good chance of "leading the way" mostly because of the lack of required starting capital to get first traction for an idea (a person and a laptop) and the theoretical high mobility of the workforce (a lot can be written basically everywhere, local is only required for customer contact).
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Software also has a good chance of being the exception to the rule, not just because of the lack of capital and coordination needed to start writing it but also because the open source software movement is pretty unusual in creating stuff people would happily pay for for fun. Most people's hobbies aren't that useful
hombre_fatal 6y ago
That's a good argument for why we can't stay locked down indefinitely. But it's quite a strong claim that nobody will make anything if they receive a small check from the government that allows them to not worry about becoming homeless. Surely most people want more than the bare minimum in life and will continue to work.
- SubiculumCode 6y ago
  We can argue that those small checks that can keep people from becoming homeless because they live on an economic cliff would be a net increase in productivity...you keep them working, rather than bumming on the street without a home.
enaaem 6y ago
Perhaps we can import a bunch of filipinos to do all the work? Saudi Arabia is an interesting example to study UBI, since their economy pretty much runs on free oil money. Saudi nationals are notorious for having bad work ethics, and they have to import many foreign workers to run the economy. To prepare the country for a post oil world companies are now required to hire a minimum percentage of Saudi nationals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jokoon 6y ago
Except machines make a lot of stuff. Technology makes low skilled labor obsolete, and it becomes difficult to fight unemployment with unskilled labor. It becomes a servant economy. There is little risk to giving free money to 20% of the poorest people. Define "make stuff". I wouldn't listen to a billionaire when it comes to economics.
- sparkie 6y ago
  > Except machines make a lot of stuff. Technology makes low skilled labor obsolete, and it becomes difficult to fight unemployment with unskilled labor. It becomes a servant economy. Ludditism has been proven wrong multiple times. New industries replace the old - more jobs are created. There can be short term pains when people are laid off due to automation, but social security programs can alleviate some of this. The kind that already exist. UBI does not seem like it will provide the incentives for people to learn new skills and get new jobs if they're guaranteed a living wage anyway. > There is little risk to giving free money to 20% of the poorest people. There's no "free money." There is taking money, often from productive people who make use of that money to generate wealth, and allocating it it, often to unproductive people who merely consume. Obviously not true in every case, but you get the idea. If we want to increase the wealth of a nation, the money is more effectively utilized by those who are effective at turning it around to generate more wealth. > Define "make stuff". I'd call it, adding to the national gain. If you're not performing productive work which leads to export of goods, but are continuing to import goods, then you'll build up a deficit, which at some point needs paying off, or those luxuries you've been importing aren't going to be available anymore.
  - WilliamEdward 6y ago
    You realise in this case the money is coming from existing taxes being used on stuff like military anyway? These are also incredibly rich nations with reserves of money that were produced sometimes centuries ago. No one thinks it's coming from thin air.
  - jokoon 6y ago
    I'm not being a luddite. Luddites are against technology. Technology frees people from work, instead of making them work as cashiers, fast food, uber, etc. I'll address your argument with a simple essay, "In Praise of Idleness" by Bertrand Russell. > adding to the national gain > wealth of a nation > to generate more wealth Those notions cannot survive because infinite growth is not possible. Think about climate change. The earth is finite. > There is taking money, often from productive people who make use of that money Money is not a resource. People are not only the ones being productive if they're helped by machines and technology. You only answer is about finance and money. UBI goes beyond that. Also, the notion that work is a necessary evil, in the modern world, is a flawed notion. Work should not be mandatory. I'm tired of arguing those points, again and again.
michaelchisari 6y ago
"If you don't make stuff, there's no stuff." = Supply-Side Economics "If people want stuff and you don't make it, someone else will." = Demand-Side Economics.

WilliamEdward 6y ago

This is so vacuous. Does it imply that UBI money is coming from thin air? That's obviously false. Also the article says a type of UBI is being used to stimulate job creation and work for industries that are rapidly losing in these areas. This is literally on par with what Elon said, how could it be a counter argument? This is the rare Elon quote where I don't even have to attack his behaviour to discredit. It's just not applicable in this context as a counterpoint.

TheDong 6y ago

I would think we, as hackers, on hacker news, would have some unique insight into this. The software world is built on the back of stuff that was made, not for money, but out of a labor of love, or to impress others, or to scratch our own itch. Our servers run linux, but linux was mostly just linus hacking around. The free software community is about helping each other and building cool things. Most programming languages were birthed not for money, but because the person building them cared about it a lot and wanted to solve a problem for themselves. UBI would let people who wanted to make stuff actually make stuff, not have to flip burgers 9-5 just to go home and feel too drained to code or write or do whatever it is they really want to do. There are countless examples throughout history of people building great things and advancing science, not for money, but for recognition or passion.

youdonthavekids 6y ago
A small number of people in history have done something useful with their free time so you think we should pay everyone in the hope that more people take up coding and writing? Why does UBI make me want to write novels or create linux? I don't want to live on minimum wage, I want to work and earn lots of money so my family can have nice things. I won't get that on your UBI poverty level wages.
bt4u2 6y ago
There's an even larger amount of countless examples of people being bums
kriro 6y ago
That's a bit too idealistic. Maybe some of the stuff was started this way but by and large all hobby projects that are now widely used depend on paid people working on it full time/a lot. The Linux kernel is a great example. But I agree with your overall point. Software has a good chance of "leading the way" mostly because of the lack of required starting capital to get first traction for an idea (a person and a laptop) and the theoretical high mobility of the workforce (a lot can be written basically everywhere, local is only required for customer contact).
- notahacker 6y ago
  Software also has a good chance of being the exception to the rule, not just because of the lack of capital and coordination needed to start writing it but also because the open source software movement is pretty unusual in creating stuff people would happily pay for for fun. Most people's hobbies aren't that useful

hombre_fatal 6y ago

That's a good argument for why we can't stay locked down indefinitely. But it's quite a strong claim that nobody will make anything if they receive a small check from the government that allows them to not worry about becoming homeless. Surely most people want more than the bare minimum in life and will continue to work.

SubiculumCode 6y ago
We can argue that those small checks that can keep people from becoming homeless because they live on an economic cliff would be a net increase in productivity...you keep them working, rather than bumming on the street without a home.

enaaem 6y ago

Perhaps we can import a bunch of filipinos to do all the work? Saudi Arabia is an interesting example to study UBI, since their economy pretty much runs on free oil money. Saudi nationals are notorious for having bad work ethics, and they have to import many foreign workers to run the economy. To prepare the country for a post oil world companies are now required to hire a minimum percentage of Saudi nationals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jokoon 6y ago

Except machines make a lot of stuff. Technology makes low skilled labor obsolete, and it becomes difficult to fight unemployment with unskilled labor. It becomes a servant economy. There is little risk to giving free money to 20% of the poorest people. Define "make stuff". I wouldn't listen to a billionaire when it comes to economics.

sparkie 6y ago
> Except machines make a lot of stuff. Technology makes low skilled labor obsolete, and it becomes difficult to fight unemployment with unskilled labor. It becomes a servant economy. Ludditism has been proven wrong multiple times. New industries replace the old - more jobs are created. There can be short term pains when people are laid off due to automation, but social security programs can alleviate some of this. The kind that already exist. UBI does not seem like it will provide the incentives for people to learn new skills and get new jobs if they're guaranteed a living wage anyway. > There is little risk to giving free money to 20% of the poorest people. There's no "free money." There is taking money, often from productive people who make use of that money to generate wealth, and allocating it it, often to unproductive people who merely consume. Obviously not true in every case, but you get the idea. If we want to increase the wealth of a nation, the money is more effectively utilized by those who are effective at turning it around to generate more wealth. > Define "make stuff". I'd call it, adding to the national gain. If you're not performing productive work which leads to export of goods, but are continuing to import goods, then you'll build up a deficit, which at some point needs paying off, or those luxuries you've been importing aren't going to be available anymore.
- WilliamEdward 6y ago
  You realise in this case the money is coming from existing taxes being used on stuff like military anyway? These are also incredibly rich nations with reserves of money that were produced sometimes centuries ago. No one thinks it's coming from thin air.
- jokoon 6y ago
  I'm not being a luddite. Luddites are against technology. Technology frees people from work, instead of making them work as cashiers, fast food, uber, etc. I'll address your argument with a simple essay, "In Praise of Idleness" by Bertrand Russell. > adding to the national gain > wealth of a nation > to generate more wealth Those notions cannot survive because infinite growth is not possible. Think about climate change. The earth is finite. > There is taking money, often from productive people who make use of that money Money is not a resource. People are not only the ones being productive if they're helped by machines and technology. You only answer is about finance and money. UBI goes beyond that. Also, the notion that work is a necessary evil, in the modern world, is a flawed notion. Work should not be mandatory. I'm tired of arguing those points, again and again.

michaelchisari 6y ago

"If you don't make stuff, there's no stuff." = Supply-Side Economics "If people want stuff and you don't make it, someone else will." = Demand-Side Economics.