6 ms·
I’ll leave Naval Ravikant’s reasoning why UBI is a terrible idea since he should have much more clout here on HN than me. I am honestly dumbfounded that HN alw
by nodesocket 6y ago
I’ll leave Naval Ravikant’s reasoning why UBI is a terrible idea since he should have much more clout here on HN than me. I am honestly dumbfounded that HN always seems to be so absolutely pro-UBI, like it’s a magic bullet that will end poverty and all of human suffering. People want to earn their money. It feels better, it promotes self-confidence and also is part of the ethos of America.
“The moment you start having a direct transfer mechanism like that in democracy, you're basically doing away with capitalism which is the engine of economic growth. You're also forcing the entrepreneur out, or telling them not to come here."
"People who are down on their luck, they're not looking for handouts. It's not just about money, it's also about status and meaning. The moment I start giving money to you, I've lowered your status and made you a second class citizen.”
- JeremyReimer 6y agoI think the idea is that a UBI would provide only enough money for subsistence, and the human drive for greater wealth and status would continue unabated. Status and meaning are certainly important, and people would continue to seek those out. It's possible that many more people would want to become entrepreneurs, given that there would be a social safety net if they failed. Right now, most entrepreneurs come from an upper middle-class background, often with financial assistance and cushioning from their parents.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago$1000 a month is not going to reduce anybody's drive to work. It'll pay for food and rent if you have a roomie, but nothing else. If you want a new phone, you need to work. If you can't stand having a roomie, more work. Et cetera. And the thing about UBI is that everybody gets money, even Bill Gates. So nobody's a second class citizen.