5 ms·

This opinion is pretty flawed. When will aggregations of individuals making $24k per year get together and build a hydroelectric dam or nuclear power plant, or

This opinion is pretty flawed. When will aggregations of individuals making $24k per year get together and build a hydroelectric dam or nuclear power plant, or assemble themselves to form a genomics research institute or space agency? There are things that individuals, left to their own preferences and entrepreneurial habits, will never create.

itronitron 6y ago
Basic income goes back into the local economy, most likely on housing, utilities, and food. So if an area needs a power generation station they won't have less money post UBI.
- sfj 6y ago
  > So if an area needs a power generation station they won't have less money post UBI. Just less people willing to do the work. Once you get people on the dole, they will continually ask for more while still doing nothing. And because we live in a democracy, they'll vote in whoever will give them more and more money for free. How's that for a bombshell that will totally destroy our GDP, happiness, sense of self worth and ultimately our society?
  - devdas 6y ago
    So working people will get higher salaries, and that is a bad thing?
    - makomk 6y ago
      Which means that the things they're working to produce have to cost more in order to pay those higher salaries, and presumably the endpoint of this is that inflation reduces the value of universal basic income to something more commensurate with what the people on it are actually providing.
    - sfj 6y ago
      Why not pay everyone $1 million a year, why not $1 billion? The issue is that to have stuff, we need people to make it. If everyone is on the dole, who's going to be making the stuff? The other big problem here is that when people do get money for free, the incentive is to vote more money for yourself. When most of the population is working, this isn't a problem, but once you get over 50% of the population who is expecting the government to pay their way, the country will just be a big free for all, everyone trying to grab as much as they can. I could be wrong, but IMO the risk of it playing out this way and destroying the entire country is not insignificant.
      - bavell 6y ago
        This is comically misguided. Do you really think people will be satisfied making barely enough money to survive? Just enough to live at the poverty line? Of course not. We live in a capitalistic society where people want to get ahead and make a better life for themselves. Raising the economic floor from $0 to $12k/yr (~poverty line) is juuust enough for people falling through the cracks to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again. Will some tiny fraction of people be satisfied living in a shithole apartment, eating garbage and trolling on the internet all day? Sure. I'm willing to accept that negligible cost in exchange for the massive social benefits. I think you do have a valid point regarding people voting for more money over time. I don't see this as big of a problem as you do but I acknowledge it's something that needs to be considered.
        sfj 6y ago
        > This is comically misguided. Are you trying to say I'm some sort of clown who unintentionally make people laugh when I speak my beliefs? Can you at least acknowledge that we may both be intelligent people who disagree? This sort of statement really shows your inability to consider opposing viewpoints in an objective way, IMO. > Do you really think people will be satisfied making barely enough money to survive? Just enough to live at the poverty line? > Of course not. We live in a capitalistic society where people want to get ahead and make a better life for themselves. Raising the economic floor from $0 to $12k/yr (~poverty line) is juuust enough for people falling through the cracks to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again. > Will some tiny fraction of people be satisfied living in a shithole apartment, eating garbage and trolling on the internet all day? Sure. I'm willing to accept that negligible cost in exchange for the massive social benefits. This is a straw man, since we've already seen that realistically, this is not how UBI would be implemented. The proposed "Heroes" act already had a (now removed) clause to give people $2000 per month, on top of all the other benefits they are already receiving, which goes to show that politicians who favor this aren't thinking in terms of the bare minimum to meet the poverty line, nor seem to care about how much it costs. > I think you do have a valid point regarding people voting for more money over time. I don't see this as big of a problem as you do but I acknowledge it's something that needs to be considered. What do think happens if you're wrong and doing this would cause a feedback loop of more and more benefits, spending, and money printing? You're going all in with the country at stake, with a vague hand wavy dismissal of the consequences.
friendlybus 6y ago
Weird opinion to see on HN. People who forsee and can execute on building a nuclear power startup can get outside investment. Fusion research is moving to the small and cheap entrepreneurial projects. You prefer to have nuclear physicists digging ditches like parent poster..?
- godelski 6y ago
  There was a story my undergraduate advisor told me about a guy who built a particle accelerator at his home. Got him a job at Fermi. There's plenty of people doing stuff at home, even on crazy projects. Zhang solved the twin prime conjecture while he worked at subway because he couldn't get an academic job[0]. I think many also know Grigori Perelman[1] turning down the Fields Medal. There's the nuclear boy scout. Michio Kaku built an accelerator as a teenager. How many SV startups came out of garages? It is so weird to hear the GP comment on a site where we glorify those that rose from shoestring budgets. In fact, what is more American than that kind of story? Maybe the dream died, but maybe it shouldn't have. [0] https://gizmodo.com/a-former-subway-worker-made-a-breakthrough-discovery-in-508987652 https://gizmodo.com/a-former-subway-worker-made-a-breakthrou... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Laberge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Laberge Michel started a prototype fusion reactor in a shed that turned into General Fusion. Einstein was of course a patent clerk. It all starts somewhere.
Mengkudulangsat 6y ago
Great counterpoint. However I believe when UBI is prevalent, we will have to rethink whether big-centralized-expedited projects are even desirable. Maybe myriad mini-hyrdros as opposed to one big dam, or myriad space startups as opposed to one space agency.
jordanbeiber 6y ago
You’re presenting a potentially flawed argument as well, IMO. No offense - it’s an interesting discussion with many facets. I’m however positive, in the case of essential infrastructure, enough people - engineers, technicians and the like will happily work together despite being provided UBI. Same with health care and other essential professions. They’ll do it no matter governmental or ”private” initiatives. A lot of us would probably direct our effort more in unison to creating a better world once the basics are of no concern. In the end all we need to do is to cooperate. It’s what we’ve evolved to do. UBI is kind of the final step here - realize it’s not a zero sum game. Can you not see a lot of cooperatives and interesting governmental initiatives arising due to UBI? I certainly can.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>When will aggregations of individuals making $24k per year get together and build a hydroelectric dam or nuclear power plant, or assemble themselves to form a genomics research institute or space agency? When their reward is a real stake in the profits generated by the project.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
Having UBI won't make jobs go away, though. It won't make government infrastructure projects go away. I really don't understand folks think that one thing completely decimates the other. It will mean that people won't be wage slaves if they don't want to, and can quit a shitty job or a shitty manager. It means that folks can miss work if the are sick. Or not go broke while getting education, both formal and informal. Folks might not work at a job they hate just to get food on the table and be slightly-over-broke. People can demand vacation time. But it'll still be worth it to go to work to have more money than UBI gives, even if some folks don't participate.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

itronitron 6y ago

Basic income goes back into the local economy, most likely on housing, utilities, and food. So if an area needs a power generation station they won't have less money post UBI.

sfj 6y ago
> So if an area needs a power generation station they won't have less money post UBI. Just less people willing to do the work. Once you get people on the dole, they will continually ask for more while still doing nothing. And because we live in a democracy, they'll vote in whoever will give them more and more money for free. How's that for a bombshell that will totally destroy our GDP, happiness, sense of self worth and ultimately our society?
- devdas 6y ago
  So working people will get higher salaries, and that is a bad thing?
  - makomk 6y ago
    Which means that the things they're working to produce have to cost more in order to pay those higher salaries, and presumably the endpoint of this is that inflation reduces the value of universal basic income to something more commensurate with what the people on it are actually providing.
  - sfj 6y ago
    Why not pay everyone $1 million a year, why not $1 billion? The issue is that to have stuff, we need people to make it. If everyone is on the dole, who's going to be making the stuff? The other big problem here is that when people do get money for free, the incentive is to vote more money for yourself. When most of the population is working, this isn't a problem, but once you get over 50% of the population who is expecting the government to pay their way, the country will just be a big free for all, everyone trying to grab as much as they can. I could be wrong, but IMO the risk of it playing out this way and destroying the entire country is not insignificant.
    - bavell 6y ago
      This is comically misguided. Do you really think people will be satisfied making barely enough money to survive? Just enough to live at the poverty line? Of course not. We live in a capitalistic society where people want to get ahead and make a better life for themselves. Raising the economic floor from $0 to $12k/yr (~poverty line) is juuust enough for people falling through the cracks to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again. Will some tiny fraction of people be satisfied living in a shithole apartment, eating garbage and trolling on the internet all day? Sure. I'm willing to accept that negligible cost in exchange for the massive social benefits. I think you do have a valid point regarding people voting for more money over time. I don't see this as big of a problem as you do but I acknowledge it's something that needs to be considered.
      - sfj 6y ago
        > This is comically misguided. Are you trying to say I'm some sort of clown who unintentionally make people laugh when I speak my beliefs? Can you at least acknowledge that we may both be intelligent people who disagree? This sort of statement really shows your inability to consider opposing viewpoints in an objective way, IMO. > Do you really think people will be satisfied making barely enough money to survive? Just enough to live at the poverty line? > Of course not. We live in a capitalistic society where people want to get ahead and make a better life for themselves. Raising the economic floor from $0 to $12k/yr (~poverty line) is juuust enough for people falling through the cracks to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again. > Will some tiny fraction of people be satisfied living in a shithole apartment, eating garbage and trolling on the internet all day? Sure. I'm willing to accept that negligible cost in exchange for the massive social benefits. This is a straw man, since we've already seen that realistically, this is not how UBI would be implemented. The proposed "Heroes" act already had a (now removed) clause to give people $2000 per month, on top of all the other benefits they are already receiving, which goes to show that politicians who favor this aren't thinking in terms of the bare minimum to meet the poverty line, nor seem to care about how much it costs. > I think you do have a valid point regarding people voting for more money over time. I don't see this as big of a problem as you do but I acknowledge it's something that needs to be considered. What do think happens if you're wrong and doing this would cause a feedback loop of more and more benefits, spending, and money printing? You're going all in with the country at stake, with a vague hand wavy dismissal of the consequences.

friendlybus 6y ago

Weird opinion to see on HN. People who forsee and can execute on building a nuclear power startup can get outside investment. Fusion research is moving to the small and cheap entrepreneurial projects. You prefer to have nuclear physicists digging ditches like parent poster..?

godelski 6y ago
There was a story my undergraduate advisor told me about a guy who built a particle accelerator at his home. Got him a job at Fermi. There's plenty of people doing stuff at home, even on crazy projects. Zhang solved the twin prime conjecture while he worked at subway because he couldn't get an academic job[0]. I think many also know Grigori Perelman[1] turning down the Fields Medal. There's the nuclear boy scout. Michio Kaku built an accelerator as a teenager. How many SV startups came out of garages? It is so weird to hear the GP comment on a site where we glorify those that rose from shoestring budgets. In fact, what is more American than that kind of story? Maybe the dream died, but maybe it shouldn't have. [0] https://gizmodo.com/a-former-subway-worker-made-a-breakthrough-discovery-in-508987652 https://gizmodo.com/a-former-subway-worker-made-a-breakthrou... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
- friendlybus 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Laberge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Laberge Michel started a prototype fusion reactor in a shed that turned into General Fusion. Einstein was of course a patent clerk. It all starts somewhere.

Mengkudulangsat 6y ago

Great counterpoint. However I believe when UBI is prevalent, we will have to rethink whether big-centralized-expedited projects are even desirable. Maybe myriad mini-hyrdros as opposed to one big dam, or myriad space startups as opposed to one space agency.

jordanbeiber 6y ago

You’re presenting a potentially flawed argument as well, IMO. No offense - it’s an interesting discussion with many facets. I’m however positive, in the case of essential infrastructure, enough people - engineers, technicians and the like will happily work together despite being provided UBI. Same with health care and other essential professions. They’ll do it no matter governmental or ”private” initiatives. A lot of us would probably direct our effort more in unison to creating a better world once the basics are of no concern. In the end all we need to do is to cooperate. It’s what we’ve evolved to do. UBI is kind of the final step here - realize it’s not a zero sum game. Can you not see a lot of cooperatives and interesting governmental initiatives arising due to UBI? I certainly can.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>When will aggregations of individuals making $24k per year get together and build a hydroelectric dam or nuclear power plant, or assemble themselves to form a genomics research institute or space agency? When their reward is a real stake in the profits generated by the project.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

Having UBI won't make jobs go away, though. It won't make government infrastructure projects go away. I really don't understand folks think that one thing completely decimates the other. It will mean that people won't be wage slaves if they don't want to, and can quit a shitty job or a shitty manager. It means that folks can miss work if the are sick. Or not go broke while getting education, both formal and informal. Folks might not work at a job they hate just to get food on the table and be slightly-over-broke. People can demand vacation time. But it'll still be worth it to go to work to have more money than UBI gives, even if some folks don't participate.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]