7 ms·

Incentivizing people to stay home when they can work does not make an economy necessary to allow people to stay home when they can work. As always, socialism /

Incentivizing people to stay home when they can work does not make an economy necessary to allow people to stay home when they can work. As always, socialism / marxism / communism sounds great on paper and in ivory towers but never works as applied.

greesil 6y ago
Could you elaborate on how keeping people from starving is communism, or any other ideology?
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  How are they starving when they’re making more sitting home than they made going to work? Are you implying they were starving before? Are there any starving people in the USA?
  - thebooktocome 6y ago
    https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic... About four percent of households have "very low food security", defined as: “Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.”
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Yes. Food insecurity is an issue. https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/understand-food-insecurity/ https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/understand-food-i... About 1 in 9 people -- in the wealthiest nation that ever existed on earth, which as of 2016 had 540 billionaires living in it with with a combined net worth of about 2.3 trillion (via Forbes from a quick google) -- face food insecurity. Relatedly, access to healthy food (that wont give you diabetes if you eat it all the time, to exaggerate a touch) is also an issue. http://thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/access-to-healthy-food.original.pdf http://thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/access-to-health...
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      OK, but the definition of "food insecurity" used at that first link includes, at the "low food security level" people whose "quantity of food intake and normal eating patterns were not substantially disturbed". I don't think you're doing any favors to the cause of food security by suggesting that people starving in America is a big issue, or implying that anything like 1 in 9 people are in that situation. I think the honest answer to the question "is there anyone starving to death in America?" is "virtually no-one". I'm sure there are cases of parental mistreatment where children have been starved to death but they're not from economic causes. The broader question of "are there people whose health or development is affected because they cannot afford to eat healthily" is different, and important, but let's not pretend people are dying of starvation because primarily because they can't afford to eat.
      - greedo 6y ago
        It's hard to say if people would be starving without food assistance. Hopefully we won't experiment to find out. But just looking at the number of students who get free lunches in the US based upon their income levels is astounding. According to [0], the two main programs feed 32 MILLION free meals a day. The eligibility requirements for a free meal are <130% of the poverty level for the household. That's a household income (for a family of three) of $27500. [0]https://schoolnutrition.org/aboutschoolmeals/schoolmealtrendsstats/#:~:text=National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP,reduced%20price%20(student%20pays%20%240.40) https://schoolnutrition.org/aboutschoolmeals/schoolmealtrend...
      - adamsea 6y ago
        '"The word "hunger," the panel stated in its final report, "...should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."' "One in seven households with children were affected by food insecurity in 2018." "Food insecurity rates are highest for single mother households and households with incomes below poverty line" "In 2018, 88.9 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the year. The remaining 11.1 percent of households were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 4.3 percent (5.6 million households) that had very low food security." https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20of%20food%20insecurity,had%20very%20low%20food%20security https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic.... https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx#:~:text=Food%20insecurity%E2%80%94the%20condition%20assessed,may%20result%20from%20food%20insecurity https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo....
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    If you want statistics on who’s starving in the US look up the counts for free and reduced lunch at schools in the area. They’re typically means tested and free lunch in particular is only granted to kids who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford the fifty cents a day for reduced price lunch. The USDA sets Income Eligibility Guidelines at the national level for these programs.
    - infinite8s 6y ago
      New York City has implemented free lunches for all children up to 18, even through the summer. Sometimes means testing cost more than just providing it universally. Correction - they are providing it for anybody in the city: https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/food/free-meals https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/food/free-meals
      - Jtsummers 6y ago
        Means testing also creates a barrier because you have to apply. Cultural attitudes towards handouts prevent many people from applying, which hurts their children (in this case). At least some programs stopped doing means testing and made it universal because of that.
  - entropea 6y ago
    Can you explain to us how that's communism?
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  It entirely depends on the manner in which it comes about. Forced (ultimately via violence) is not really free (liberty) and volitional compassion (charity) is generally ethical. However, it gets a bit blurry when you're in a democratic society and you voted for politicians who implement taxes.
pjc50 6y ago
In the time of coronavirus, having people stay home was one of the key goals.
andybak 6y ago
This is where the debate usually starts from and then one thinks about it in a bit more depth and uncovers multiple layers of nuance and complexity. Where you end up probably depends on your general outlook and intellectual integrity but you've only just begun the journey.
onetimemanytime 6y ago
whatever value your argument may have, it's not relevant to Covid. Stay at home...OK, but I need to eat, pay rent etc etc. Here's some money from our tax pool to survive this (hopefully) once in a century thing. Not 100% efficient and some benefited more than others but that's a small price to pay for sending cash ASAP to people. That kept the economy from TOTAL collapse and people from starving. That's why we have a government
infinite8s 6y ago
It's funny how everyone always misses the point Marx was making, in that he was thinking about post-capitalism, not a replacement for capitalism. There are 3 components to the economy (simplifying a bit) - labor, capital, and resources. What does society look like when the ongoing cost of labor nears 0 and so requires minimal human participation. He was just a century or two before that would be technologically possible (with automation). Sure, some work will need to be done by humans, but with near 100% automation there's basically two kinds of possible societies (utopia where the means are shared amongst humanity, or dystopia where only a few control all the means). Which way does it look like we are headed?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I'm just not sure the ideas you're reading into Marx are ideas he would have recognized. His visions of post-capitalist life consistently included people performing productive labor - "from each according to his ability" and all that.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > What does society look like when the ongoing cost of labor nears 0 and so requires minimal human participation. Honest question: do you believe that we are anywhere close? And does that belief depend on an AI singularity?
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    That depends... Arguably, we are long past that point, as seen from Marx’ perspective of the 18th century: the entire economy of his time, i. e. agriculture and industrial manufacturing, covering the essentials of life, is today easily accomplished by about 3% of people working in agriculture, and probably a similar number in manufacturing. But so far, we have chosen (and also accomplished) to reinvest capacities that were freed by automation into increased consumption instead of less work. Considering the decreasing marginal utility of increased consumption (your first $1000/mo keep you alive, the tenth $1000 are wasted on a jet ski you will use twice), at some point working less should become the preferred option. Alternatively, we might run out of the opportunity to choose work. This is what people mean when they mention competition by machines and AI. When driving and accounting and phone centers and retail are all automated, will we, yet again, come up with meaningful roles that are accessible to most everyone, but cannot be performed by such technology?
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
This has absolutely nothing to do with communism or socialism. Somehow the US discourse has redefined those terms to encompass any and all charitable policies. Communism and socialism are systems where the means of production are owned either collectively or by the state. At the point where US Republicans (as well other proto-fascists like Hungary) enact a policy it should be pretty obvious that it isn’t, like, textbook Stalinism. If you want to complain about it, „expensive populism“ would seem to be a more fitting and still derogatory term. Or maybe, considering every government with the financial means to do so has enacted such a program, it’s just terribly obvious pragmatism.
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. That leads to total repetition, because these arguments endlessly and shallowly recycle on the internet, and usually turn nasty—as if the mind needs something to amuse itself in the absence of new information. Grand philosophical and ideological questions may be interesting topics, but not in internet forums. This is a medium-is-the-message thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

greesil 6y ago

Could you elaborate on how keeping people from starving is communism, or any other ideology?

eanzenberg 6y ago
How are they starving when they’re making more sitting home than they made going to work? Are you implying they were starving before? Are there any starving people in the USA?
- thebooktocome 6y ago
  https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic... About four percent of households have "very low food security", defined as: “Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.”
- adamsea 6y ago
  Yes. Food insecurity is an issue. https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/understand-food-insecurity/ https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/understand-food-i... About 1 in 9 people -- in the wealthiest nation that ever existed on earth, which as of 2016 had 540 billionaires living in it with with a combined net worth of about 2.3 trillion (via Forbes from a quick google) -- face food insecurity. Relatedly, access to healthy food (that wont give you diabetes if you eat it all the time, to exaggerate a touch) is also an issue. http://thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/access-to-healthy-food.original.pdf http://thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/access-to-health...
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    OK, but the definition of "food insecurity" used at that first link includes, at the "low food security level" people whose "quantity of food intake and normal eating patterns were not substantially disturbed". I don't think you're doing any favors to the cause of food security by suggesting that people starving in America is a big issue, or implying that anything like 1 in 9 people are in that situation. I think the honest answer to the question "is there anyone starving to death in America?" is "virtually no-one". I'm sure there are cases of parental mistreatment where children have been starved to death but they're not from economic causes. The broader question of "are there people whose health or development is affected because they cannot afford to eat healthily" is different, and important, but let's not pretend people are dying of starvation because primarily because they can't afford to eat.
    - greedo 6y ago
      It's hard to say if people would be starving without food assistance. Hopefully we won't experiment to find out. But just looking at the number of students who get free lunches in the US based upon their income levels is astounding. According to [0], the two main programs feed 32 MILLION free meals a day. The eligibility requirements for a free meal are <130% of the poverty level for the household. That's a household income (for a family of three) of $27500. [0]https://schoolnutrition.org/aboutschoolmeals/schoolmealtrendsstats/#:~:text=National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP,reduced%20price%20(student%20pays%20%240.40) https://schoolnutrition.org/aboutschoolmeals/schoolmealtrend...
    - adamsea 6y ago
      '"The word "hunger," the panel stated in its final report, "...should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."' "One in seven households with children were affected by food insecurity in 2018." "Food insecurity rates are highest for single mother households and households with incomes below poverty line" "In 2018, 88.9 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the year. The remaining 11.1 percent of households were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 4.3 percent (5.6 million households) that had very low food security." https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20of%20food%20insecurity,had%20very%20low%20food%20security https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic.... https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx#:~:text=Food%20insecurity%E2%80%94the%20condition%20assessed,may%20result%20from%20food%20insecurity https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo....
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  If you want statistics on who’s starving in the US look up the counts for free and reduced lunch at schools in the area. They’re typically means tested and free lunch in particular is only granted to kids who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford the fifty cents a day for reduced price lunch. The USDA sets Income Eligibility Guidelines at the national level for these programs.
  - infinite8s 6y ago
    New York City has implemented free lunches for all children up to 18, even through the summer. Sometimes means testing cost more than just providing it universally. Correction - they are providing it for anybody in the city: https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/food/free-meals https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/food/free-meals
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      Means testing also creates a barrier because you have to apply. Cultural attitudes towards handouts prevent many people from applying, which hurts their children (in this case). At least some programs stopped doing means testing and made it universal because of that.
- entropea 6y ago
  Can you explain to us how that's communism?
maerF0x0 6y ago
It entirely depends on the manner in which it comes about. Forced (ultimately via violence) is not really free (liberty) and volitional compassion (charity) is generally ethical. However, it gets a bit blurry when you're in a democratic society and you voted for politicians who implement taxes.

pjc50 6y ago

In the time of coronavirus, having people stay home was one of the key goals.

andybak 6y ago

This is where the debate usually starts from and then one thinks about it in a bit more depth and uncovers multiple layers of nuance and complexity. Where you end up probably depends on your general outlook and intellectual integrity but you've only just begun the journey.

onetimemanytime 6y ago

whatever value your argument may have, it's not relevant to Covid. Stay at home...OK, but I need to eat, pay rent etc etc. Here's some money from our tax pool to survive this (hopefully) once in a century thing. Not 100% efficient and some benefited more than others but that's a small price to pay for sending cash ASAP to people. That kept the economy from TOTAL collapse and people from starving. That's why we have a government

infinite8s 6y ago

It's funny how everyone always misses the point Marx was making, in that he was thinking about post-capitalism, not a replacement for capitalism. There are 3 components to the economy (simplifying a bit) - labor, capital, and resources. What does society look like when the ongoing cost of labor nears 0 and so requires minimal human participation. He was just a century or two before that would be technologically possible (with automation). Sure, some work will need to be done by humans, but with near 100% automation there's basically two kinds of possible societies (utopia where the means are shared amongst humanity, or dystopia where only a few control all the means). Which way does it look like we are headed?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm just not sure the ideas you're reading into Marx are ideas he would have recognized. His visions of post-capitalist life consistently included people performing productive labor - "from each according to his ability" and all that.
luckylion 6y ago
> What does society look like when the ongoing cost of labor nears 0 and so requires minimal human participation. Honest question: do you believe that we are anywhere close? And does that belief depend on an AI singularity?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  That depends... Arguably, we are long past that point, as seen from Marx’ perspective of the 18th century: the entire economy of his time, i. e. agriculture and industrial manufacturing, covering the essentials of life, is today easily accomplished by about 3% of people working in agriculture, and probably a similar number in manufacturing. But so far, we have chosen (and also accomplished) to reinvest capacities that were freed by automation into increased consumption instead of less work. Considering the decreasing marginal utility of increased consumption (your first $1000/mo keep you alive, the tenth $1000 are wasted on a jet ski you will use twice), at some point working less should become the preferred option. Alternatively, we might run out of the opportunity to choose work. This is what people mean when they mention competition by machines and AI. When driving and accounting and phone centers and retail are all automated, will we, yet again, come up with meaningful roles that are accessible to most everyone, but cannot be performed by such technology?

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

This has absolutely nothing to do with communism or socialism. Somehow the US discourse has redefined those terms to encompass any and all charitable policies. Communism and socialism are systems where the means of production are owned either collectively or by the state. At the point where US Republicans (as well other proto-fascists like Hungary) enact a policy it should be pretty obvious that it isn’t, like, textbook Stalinism. If you want to complain about it, „expensive populism“ would seem to be a more fitting and still derogatory term. Or maybe, considering every government with the financial means to do so has enacted such a program, it’s just terribly obvious pragmatism.

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. That leads to total repetition, because these arguments endlessly and shallowly recycle on the internet, and usually turn nasty—as if the mind needs something to amuse itself in the absence of new information. Grand philosophical and ideological questions may be interesting topics, but not in internet forums. This is a medium-is-the-message thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html