4 ms·

what can be done to make those at the bottom not be at the bottom?

neon_electro 4y ago
Universal basic income. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income)
- mc32 4y ago
  I think the pandemic proved this was a pipedream. Did people pursue their passions once they had government disbursements? No. They just moped around and became malaised and disinterested. Sure, we got tik-tokers, and YT personalities (all 'bourgeois-capitalist schmaltz'), but if that is what we get from that "investment" I don't want to invest any more. Previously hardworking people more or less got comfortable being freeloaders --taking but not giving back.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    > Did people pursue their passions once they had government disbursements? No. I'd argue that the wage inflation and labor shortages we're seeing in areas like food service indicates the correct answer to that question is "Yes" and that a lot of people spent the time "leetcoding" (or whatever) and landed a significantly better job.
    - mc32 4y ago
      Could be, but I'd like to see some data behind that.
      - thunky 4y ago
        I'd be interested to see the data to back up your claims as well. Regardless, I'm not sure the main point of UBI is to allow people to quit their jobs and pursue thier passions at the government's expense. It's moreso meant as a way to give people on the bottom rung a little bit of room to breath and better their circumstances, and in theory this also benefits the rest of the economy.
        notch656a 4y ago
        America's largest experiment in UBI is probably the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). APF appears to have little to no impact on employment [0], instead having effect of increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs[1]. [0] http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Jones_Marinescu_2019_labor-market-impacts-universal-transfers.pdf http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Jones_Marinescu_... [1] https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/4/678/96772/Universal-Cash-and-Crime https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/4/678/96772...
        thunky 4y ago
        The abstract in [1] says that drug use ticked up, amounting to a small portion of the UBI payment. And property crime ticked down, but overall crime was not affected substantially. Concluding: crime-related concerns of a universal cash transfer program may be unwarranted. So I don't think this makes the point you want it to make.
        notch656a 4y ago
        What point is it that you're saying I want it to make? Please cite my comment so I can understand exactly what you're referring to.
        thunky 4y ago
        You said (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32827491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32827491) that the APF led to: > increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs Which was part of your case that APF is a failed experiment and not worthwhile. But the study you cited does not suggest that UBI created an increased number of drug abusers. It did say that there was an uptick in drug incidents, but it also concluded that UBI payments were not responsible for increasing crime (when considering drug incidents and other crimes in total). It's likely that drug use always ticks up on payday, UBI or not. Same for gambling and other bad habits that require money. I've never heard anyone suggest that the solution to drug abuse is to make people so poor that they can't afford to buy drugs, but in a roundabout way this is kindof what you're saying. Grocery shopping and paying bills and likely tick up on payday as well.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Don't forget the "mostly peaceful protests" which of course were not at all associated with lots of "free" money to be idle along with stay-at-home orders that are not consistent with maintaining mental health of the population.
QuarterReptile 4y ago
Depends which bottom, and by what measurement. If you mean raise people everywhere above a certain wealth or income threshold, the answer is probably lower energy costs (and migration to places with stable governments). If you mean quartile/quintile/decile shuffling without regard for anything else, then aggressive taxation and enforcement will achieve that by some combination of wealth flight, redistribution, and suppression of upper incomes. Western societies appear to prefer a version of distribution shuffling that is accompanied by prosperity, which means moderate taxation and various targeted policies.
sul_tasto 4y ago
it seems to me no one wants to admit that society and the economy are set up in a way that we need people at the bottom. when the lowest classes attain even the smallest increase in purchasing power, demand for goods and services soars and inflation soon follows. it’s pretty sobering. as to what’s to be done? i wish i knew.
- QuarterReptile 4y ago
  An alternative reading is that the lowest classes are pretty stubbornly stuck in the 'scraping by' level of wealth, and inflation results from an increase in money supply, especially to the degree that the elevated money supply goes into circulation on routine spending. Our normal version of inflation is less crazy because it all goes into skyrocketing startup valuations and stock prices, trickles down from there into the real estate around centers of those activities, and so on in a loop with significant lag. Maybe a bit like taking the normally time-released drug of low interest rates, then crushing it and snorting it straight into the entire populace.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  I guess I could move the goalposts and readjust the question to be, how many people do we need at the bottom? Is the answer 80% of society? And even then, I think the answer to that question would neglect the emotions and feelings of what it’s like to live a life at the bottom. How long can we, in a capitalist society, really expect 80% of the population to be OK with living what’s best summarizes a pretty shitty life?

Universal basic income. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income)

mc32 4y ago
I think the pandemic proved this was a pipedream. Did people pursue their passions once they had government disbursements? No. They just moped around and became malaised and disinterested. Sure, we got tik-tokers, and YT personalities (all 'bourgeois-capitalist schmaltz'), but if that is what we get from that "investment" I don't want to invest any more. Previously hardworking people more or less got comfortable being freeloaders --taking but not giving back.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > Did people pursue their passions once they had government disbursements? No. I'd argue that the wage inflation and labor shortages we're seeing in areas like food service indicates the correct answer to that question is "Yes" and that a lot of people spent the time "leetcoding" (or whatever) and landed a significantly better job.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Could be, but I'd like to see some data behind that.
    - thunky 4y ago
      I'd be interested to see the data to back up your claims as well. Regardless, I'm not sure the main point of UBI is to allow people to quit their jobs and pursue thier passions at the government's expense. It's moreso meant as a way to give people on the bottom rung a little bit of room to breath and better their circumstances, and in theory this also benefits the rest of the economy.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        America's largest experiment in UBI is probably the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). APF appears to have little to no impact on employment [0], instead having effect of increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs[1]. [0] http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Jones_Marinescu_2019_labor-market-impacts-universal-transfers.pdf http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Jones_Marinescu_... [1] https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/4/678/96772/Universal-Cash-and-Crime https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/4/678/96772...
        thunky 4y ago
        The abstract in [1] says that drug use ticked up, amounting to a small portion of the UBI payment. And property crime ticked down, but overall crime was not affected substantially. Concluding: crime-related concerns of a universal cash transfer program may be unwarranted. So I don't think this makes the point you want it to make.
        notch656a 4y ago
        What point is it that you're saying I want it to make? Please cite my comment so I can understand exactly what you're referring to.
        thunky 4y ago
        You said (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32827491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32827491) that the APF led to: > increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs Which was part of your case that APF is a failed experiment and not worthwhile. But the study you cited does not suggest that UBI created an increased number of drug abusers. It did say that there was an uptick in drug incidents, but it also concluded that UBI payments were not responsible for increasing crime (when considering drug incidents and other crimes in total). It's likely that drug use always ticks up on payday, UBI or not. Same for gambling and other bad habits that require money. I've never heard anyone suggest that the solution to drug abuse is to make people so poor that they can't afford to buy drugs, but in a roundabout way this is kindof what you're saying. Grocery shopping and paying bills and likely tick up on payday as well.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Don't forget the "mostly peaceful protests" which of course were not at all associated with lots of "free" money to be idle along with stay-at-home orders that are not consistent with maintaining mental health of the population.

QuarterReptile 4y ago

Depends which bottom, and by what measurement. If you mean raise people everywhere above a certain wealth or income threshold, the answer is probably lower energy costs (and migration to places with stable governments). If you mean quartile/quintile/decile shuffling without regard for anything else, then aggressive taxation and enforcement will achieve that by some combination of wealth flight, redistribution, and suppression of upper incomes. Western societies appear to prefer a version of distribution shuffling that is accompanied by prosperity, which means moderate taxation and various targeted policies.

sul_tasto 4y ago

it seems to me no one wants to admit that society and the economy are set up in a way that we need people at the bottom. when the lowest classes attain even the smallest increase in purchasing power, demand for goods and services soars and inflation soon follows. it’s pretty sobering. as to what’s to be done? i wish i knew.

QuarterReptile 4y ago
An alternative reading is that the lowest classes are pretty stubbornly stuck in the 'scraping by' level of wealth, and inflation results from an increase in money supply, especially to the degree that the elevated money supply goes into circulation on routine spending. Our normal version of inflation is less crazy because it all goes into skyrocketing startup valuations and stock prices, trickles down from there into the real estate around centers of those activities, and so on in a loop with significant lag. Maybe a bit like taking the normally time-released drug of low interest rates, then crushing it and snorting it straight into the entire populace.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
I guess I could move the goalposts and readjust the question to be, how many people do we need at the bottom? Is the answer 80% of society? And even then, I think the answer to that question would neglect the emotions and feelings of what it’s like to live a life at the bottom. How long can we, in a capitalist society, really expect 80% of the population to be OK with living what’s best summarizes a pretty shitty life?