6 ms·

>it will help divorce this ubiquitous cultural association between time and money I think this is naïve at best, and horribly misguided at worst. Time is money

by valvar 6y ago

>it will help divorce this ubiquitous cultural association between time and money I think this is naïve at best, and horribly misguided at worst. Time is money is not just a saying. The fundamental currency, the one thing that ever person needs and wants, is time. That's why it's so tightly coupled with other valuable things such as money. Time and money are essentially the same thing, though of course time is less fungible. And different people with different circumstances are able to expedite their actions with varying efficiency. Time is a more fundamental economic concept than money. UBI is essentially just socialist redistribution policy in a different guise, and all it will do is obscure (but of course not erase) existing incentive structures.

keiferski 6y ago
I don’t think you’ve quite understood my comment. I am saying that if a significant portion of the population becomes able to survive without needing a job, the overall culture will shift and things that aren’t immediately lucrative will become more popular. Many of these things are fundamentally important but are brushed aside because they fulfill no role in an economically-oriented society.
- drevil-v2 6y ago
  Someone has to produce the goods that we all need. If "a significant portion of the population" is off doing leisure activities how would we survive? What about game theory in that situation, tit-for-tat prisoners dilemma? Why should I produce when almost all of it will get taken as tax to support the folks not working? Am I not better off sucking the UBI tit?
  - keiferski 6y ago
    The whole concept of UBI presupposes that most jobs are fundamentally unnecessary / will be automated away by robots. Your concerns are covered in pretty much every article on the topic and I can’t really address them all in a HN comment.
    - drevil-v2 6y ago
      Ok well that is science fiction at the moment. The way you are talking about it and sections of the internet talk about it, like it just around the corner. Alright fine, in the world where we have infinite energy and resources yeah sure everyone can go off and do whatever the hell they want.
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        But it,s true, most jobs involve wasting our resources on pointless shit we don,t need.
        drevil-v2 6y ago
        Why do you get to decide what’s on the approved list of the things that we need? I ate 2 extra toast with dark chocolate peanut butter today. Certainly didn’t need it but eh it’s the holidays. Where does that fall on your morality chart? Is it the re-education gulag for me?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        i,m just saying that majority of jobs are non-essential, and if your extra toast didnt exist, and all the people and animals and plants who brought it into existence were doing something else instead, we,d be bettet off, not worse.
        SubuSS 6y ago
        That leads to the angle where the animals wouldn’t have existed at all. Think horses in the 1900s (ubiquitous) vs now (rare pets mostly, may be used for some farm work). The utility as dairy or meat producer gives them life. Are you sure that they’d be better off not living at all? And what do you suppose those people would be doing that’ll be better off than being a productive member of the society making dark chocolate? I am sure you meet a ton of people like me every day - even kids. I am surprised you’re coming away with the assumption that they’re are all full of drive to do something worthwhile and are being oppressed by the world into a day to day job: I think the job provides a lot of structure and purpose for many. If your assertion is we’d be better off leisuring away our lives like wall-E people rather than working towards a productive albeit excess world, I wouldn’t consider it better off. Tying this back to my first argument, In asking for a life of leisure + no excess, ironically and contradictorily - you are denying chicken et al the life you seem to want for the people :). Just live it out pottering around until death come.
  - ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
    You are still better off working. You will still get ubi
    - drevil-v2 6y ago
      Haha why not just increase the threshold at which you get taxed? Same end result except no one gets money for doing nothing. Those on low incomes get to keep all their earnings.
      - jlokier 6y ago
        The point is that a lot of valuable work is incorrectly classified as "doing nothing" in the monetary economy. For example caring for people who need caring for (elderly, children, disabled) is essential work that is mostly done for free. This is a lot of work collectively. In a system that properly values essential work it would be paid, but it isn't paid because those needing care cannot pay for it, and other people and "the system" are not willing to. But even if "the system" started targeting all forms of care work, there are countless other things which are valuable but unpaid. It seems utterly implausible that we would ever devise a system that pays for all work that is valuable, if only because people disagree about what is valuable and all the power dynamics that result in the emergent properties we see as capitalism, "the economy", etc. In your idea, increasing the tax threshold does not solve this problem or even begin to address it. So it's not an equivalent result. UBI does address it, by removing the power dynamics and gate-keeping for basic resources, letting people figure out themselves what is the best use of their time in each individual circumstance. The very concept of "what is valuable" gets a refresh, away from the systematic biases that emerge from centralised rule-making, power-law power structures, and the error of conflating money-value with human value when humans do not have evenly distributed access to money with which to signal what they value. The fact a very large number of people put so much time into tiring unpaid work (such as caring), often on top of their paid jobs (if they have any time left for paid jobs, some don't and it sucks), shows that the "UBI fear" that everyone people would sit around idling their whole lives is very unlikely. It's likely some people would still call it "doing nothing", as they do currently, but they would be wrong.
  - lukeschlather 6y ago
    They didn't say "leisure" they said "fundamentally important activities." Activities that are currently, for the most part, not compensated. Examples include all sorts of things involving childcare or education. Stuff which has almost incalculable value to society but the purchaser and the beneficiary are two different people, if there is any money changing hands at all. Somewhere out there there are hundreds of thousands of people who could be force-multipliers working as mentors to students. Instead they're working for $20/hour doing rote work that has only marginal or even negative utility.
    - drevil-v2 6y ago
      That’s a lot of hand waving. Being a worthy mentor to students is an admirable life’s calling for sure but there is no reason to leap to the conclusion that are hundreds of thousands of people who would be perfect for this if only they weren’t flipping burgers at McDonald’s or manning the toll booth.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    I used to make lots of money working on cmbs and advertising for oil mining. I spent my money on many a plastic bullshit. Now I make nothing writing foss and live off donations. I rarely encourage plastic manufacturing. Which is better for our society and the biome? I argue it is the latter.
    - drevil-v2 6y ago
      Well that’s on you brother. I like what I do and I like that I take responsibility for my life and that I am not handed anything.
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        but you ARE handed everything that you have, the idea that you ,,earned it,, is an illusion based on ignoring all the good fortune and gifts which have been rained on you, just like on me. otherwise you wouldn,t be in the position to comment on this board.
        fzzzy 6y ago
        Thank you. This is the absolute truth.
        drevil-v2 6y ago
        You don't know me and there is no way you infer that about me from the 3-4 online message exchanges we have had in this thread. And then you seem to go all in and level the same baseless accusation about everyone(?) on this planet. That is pretty egotistical don't you think? Perhaps you should try for some humility and perspective before you start demanding that everyone should switch to your values and distorted ethics. The meme that springs to mind is Cartman screaming "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITIE"
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        but I do know you... you were handed knowledge and opportunity early in your life. you were gifted opportunity to compute and to learn how to program, and probably some priceless mentorship along the way. from that, with your own hard work and perserverence, standing on the shoulders of giants, you built yourself a nice little career, and now make a good living putting digital cogs together. based on a limited viewpoint of a 1x1 gameboard square, ignoring the bigger picture, like a child who just learned to put the A block on top of the B block, you cry out, "all by myself! it was all me!" and, of course, ignoring all the other contributions to the picture, that statement true. but from the perspective of someone who grew up without any of those opportunities, without someone else to provide the building and the carpet, and the A and B blocks themselves, it would seem privileged and ignorant of others' lack of opportunity. of course, maybe i'm just projecting? i've certainly been there.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    >Someone has to produce the goods that we all need. If "a significant portion of the population" is off doing leisure activities how would we survive? We already live in a version of this world, minus the leisure. An enormous portion of economic activity is redistributive, shifting wealth from one person to another but not creating it.
- okthenletssee 6y ago
  Leisure time/spare time has value already. People work so that they can afford to have spare time and go on holidays. You have severe misconceptions about economics. People not having to work to survive will just lead to people having kids (or migrating to places where they get free money) until society can not support them all anymore, then we will be back to zero again.
toiletfuneral 6y ago
By ‘existing incentive structures’ you mean like ‘fear of not being to have a home’ or ‘access to necessary medical attention’ which I think are barbaric conditions just to make people do meaningless shit for capital like process insurance forms. But yeah keep spreading the fear of socialism, HN loves boomer red scare comments.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
Time and money are hardly the same thing. One can easily be stripped away from you in any number of schemes, the other is always with you for as long as you live.
- _4570 6y ago
  You might want to ask someone imprisoned for a long time about that.
rubidium 6y ago
I disagree with the UBI suggestion in the grandparent (and so would pieper if he heard it :)... but your post also has a fatal flaw. “ The fundamental currency, the one thing that ever person needs and wants, is time.” This is not true of those unfraid of death and at peace with their life choices. Some people reach this at age 18, others 85, and others never. Being at the bedside of someone who is dying and at peace with it helps one realize time is not the most important thing.

by valvar 6y ago

keiferski 6y ago

I don’t think you’ve quite understood my comment. I am saying that if a significant portion of the population becomes able to survive without needing a job, the overall culture will shift and things that aren’t immediately lucrative will become more popular. Many of these things are fundamentally important but are brushed aside because they fulfill no role in an economically-oriented society.

drevil-v2 6y ago
Someone has to produce the goods that we all need. If "a significant portion of the population" is off doing leisure activities how would we survive? What about game theory in that situation, tit-for-tat prisoners dilemma? Why should I produce when almost all of it will get taken as tax to support the folks not working? Am I not better off sucking the UBI tit?
- keiferski 6y ago
  The whole concept of UBI presupposes that most jobs are fundamentally unnecessary / will be automated away by robots. Your concerns are covered in pretty much every article on the topic and I can’t really address them all in a HN comment.
  - drevil-v2 6y ago
    Ok well that is science fiction at the moment. The way you are talking about it and sections of the internet talk about it, like it just around the corner. Alright fine, in the world where we have infinite energy and resources yeah sure everyone can go off and do whatever the hell they want.
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      But it,s true, most jobs involve wasting our resources on pointless shit we don,t need.
      - drevil-v2 6y ago
        Why do you get to decide what’s on the approved list of the things that we need? I ate 2 extra toast with dark chocolate peanut butter today. Certainly didn’t need it but eh it’s the holidays. Where does that fall on your morality chart? Is it the re-education gulag for me?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        i,m just saying that majority of jobs are non-essential, and if your extra toast didnt exist, and all the people and animals and plants who brought it into existence were doing something else instead, we,d be bettet off, not worse.
        SubuSS 6y ago
        That leads to the angle where the animals wouldn’t have existed at all. Think horses in the 1900s (ubiquitous) vs now (rare pets mostly, may be used for some farm work). The utility as dairy or meat producer gives them life. Are you sure that they’d be better off not living at all? And what do you suppose those people would be doing that’ll be better off than being a productive member of the society making dark chocolate? I am sure you meet a ton of people like me every day - even kids. I am surprised you’re coming away with the assumption that they’re are all full of drive to do something worthwhile and are being oppressed by the world into a day to day job: I think the job provides a lot of structure and purpose for many. If your assertion is we’d be better off leisuring away our lives like wall-E people rather than working towards a productive albeit excess world, I wouldn’t consider it better off. Tying this back to my first argument, In asking for a life of leisure + no excess, ironically and contradictorily - you are denying chicken et al the life you seem to want for the people :). Just live it out pottering around until death come.
- ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
  You are still better off working. You will still get ubi
  - drevil-v2 6y ago
    Haha why not just increase the threshold at which you get taxed? Same end result except no one gets money for doing nothing. Those on low incomes get to keep all their earnings.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      The point is that a lot of valuable work is incorrectly classified as "doing nothing" in the monetary economy. For example caring for people who need caring for (elderly, children, disabled) is essential work that is mostly done for free. This is a lot of work collectively. In a system that properly values essential work it would be paid, but it isn't paid because those needing care cannot pay for it, and other people and "the system" are not willing to. But even if "the system" started targeting all forms of care work, there are countless other things which are valuable but unpaid. It seems utterly implausible that we would ever devise a system that pays for all work that is valuable, if only because people disagree about what is valuable and all the power dynamics that result in the emergent properties we see as capitalism, "the economy", etc. In your idea, increasing the tax threshold does not solve this problem or even begin to address it. So it's not an equivalent result. UBI does address it, by removing the power dynamics and gate-keeping for basic resources, letting people figure out themselves what is the best use of their time in each individual circumstance. The very concept of "what is valuable" gets a refresh, away from the systematic biases that emerge from centralised rule-making, power-law power structures, and the error of conflating money-value with human value when humans do not have evenly distributed access to money with which to signal what they value. The fact a very large number of people put so much time into tiring unpaid work (such as caring), often on top of their paid jobs (if they have any time left for paid jobs, some don't and it sucks), shows that the "UBI fear" that everyone people would sit around idling their whole lives is very unlikely. It's likely some people would still call it "doing nothing", as they do currently, but they would be wrong.
- lukeschlather 6y ago
  They didn't say "leisure" they said "fundamentally important activities." Activities that are currently, for the most part, not compensated. Examples include all sorts of things involving childcare or education. Stuff which has almost incalculable value to society but the purchaser and the beneficiary are two different people, if there is any money changing hands at all. Somewhere out there there are hundreds of thousands of people who could be force-multipliers working as mentors to students. Instead they're working for $20/hour doing rote work that has only marginal or even negative utility.
  - drevil-v2 6y ago
    That’s a lot of hand waving. Being a worthy mentor to students is an admirable life’s calling for sure but there is no reason to leap to the conclusion that are hundreds of thousands of people who would be perfect for this if only they weren’t flipping burgers at McDonald’s or manning the toll booth.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I used to make lots of money working on cmbs and advertising for oil mining. I spent my money on many a plastic bullshit. Now I make nothing writing foss and live off donations. I rarely encourage plastic manufacturing. Which is better for our society and the biome? I argue it is the latter.
  - drevil-v2 6y ago
    Well that’s on you brother. I like what I do and I like that I take responsibility for my life and that I am not handed anything.
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      but you ARE handed everything that you have, the idea that you ,,earned it,, is an illusion based on ignoring all the good fortune and gifts which have been rained on you, just like on me. otherwise you wouldn,t be in the position to comment on this board.
      - fzzzy 6y ago
        Thank you. This is the absolute truth.
      - drevil-v2 6y ago
        You don't know me and there is no way you infer that about me from the 3-4 online message exchanges we have had in this thread. And then you seem to go all in and level the same baseless accusation about everyone(?) on this planet. That is pretty egotistical don't you think? Perhaps you should try for some humility and perspective before you start demanding that everyone should switch to your values and distorted ethics. The meme that springs to mind is Cartman screaming "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITIE"
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        but I do know you... you were handed knowledge and opportunity early in your life. you were gifted opportunity to compute and to learn how to program, and probably some priceless mentorship along the way. from that, with your own hard work and perserverence, standing on the shoulders of giants, you built yourself a nice little career, and now make a good living putting digital cogs together. based on a limited viewpoint of a 1x1 gameboard square, ignoring the bigger picture, like a child who just learned to put the A block on top of the B block, you cry out, "all by myself! it was all me!" and, of course, ignoring all the other contributions to the picture, that statement true. but from the perspective of someone who grew up without any of those opportunities, without someone else to provide the building and the carpet, and the A and B blocks themselves, it would seem privileged and ignorant of others' lack of opportunity. of course, maybe i'm just projecting? i've certainly been there.
- Bakary 6y ago
  >Someone has to produce the goods that we all need. If "a significant portion of the population" is off doing leisure activities how would we survive? We already live in a version of this world, minus the leisure. An enormous portion of economic activity is redistributive, shifting wealth from one person to another but not creating it.
okthenletssee 6y ago
Leisure time/spare time has value already. People work so that they can afford to have spare time and go on holidays. You have severe misconceptions about economics. People not having to work to survive will just lead to people having kids (or migrating to places where they get free money) until society can not support them all anymore, then we will be back to zero again.

toiletfuneral 6y ago

By ‘existing incentive structures’ you mean like ‘fear of not being to have a home’ or ‘access to necessary medical attention’ which I think are barbaric conditions just to make people do meaningless shit for capital like process insurance forms. But yeah keep spreading the fear of socialism, HN loves boomer red scare comments.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

Time and money are hardly the same thing. One can easily be stripped away from you in any number of schemes, the other is always with you for as long as you live.

_4570 6y ago
You might want to ask someone imprisoned for a long time about that.

rubidium 6y ago

I disagree with the UBI suggestion in the grandparent (and so would pieper if he heard it :)... but your post also has a fatal flaw. “ The fundamental currency, the one thing that ever person needs and wants, is time.” This is not true of those unfraid of death and at peace with their life choices. Some people reach this at age 18, others 85, and others never. Being at the bedside of someone who is dying and at peace with it helps one realize time is not the most important thing.