Hacker News Reader

> My argument against communism has always been "who works?".

Robots.

Wasn't that always the point of automation and robotics in the science fiction past? "This will be great! We won't have to do as much work!"

Now we're finally getting there, and the reaction is "woah woah woah, you can't stop working just because a machine does it now."

Thats distant future. Farming, mining, wars, police, government, cleaning... Robots arent doing everything. Additionally, these robots are being paid for by companies. If the companies want to give a life to everyone, fantastic! However, Im not comfident that better profit margins translates directly to post-scarcity.

Eminent domain on robotics tech if necessary.

I highly doubt that will happen. There is no politicsl party that currently supports overriding the patent system inorder to provide for the general welfare. And hypothetically if it happens, I now know that any tech I build cant be too useful in case it just becomes a public survice.

China. Which, if it were to happen, as a US citizens I'd move there in a heartbeat.

Con: money is taken from people who earned it and given to those who didn't

this is the main problem. if the tax rate gets too high, high earners will find creative ways to avoid taxes and/or be less motivated to work hard. either way it's a downward spiral.

> Pros and Cons to universal income

Some criticism: > Pros

> - homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime

Unless health insurance is included and we change how we treat mental illnesses, homelessness will still be a problem(albeit smaller)

> - small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.

But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks

> Cons

> - it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.

Well, it will be hard to find cheap employees. Force of the market right?

> - the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income

We don't know this, if you can survive just on the income in some rural areas, whereas the remaining jobs will be left in the cities you will still have different markets, some of which might have above and some of which might have below ui prizes

> - cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them

This is a bad thing? There will still be a market for stingy bastards...just like McDonalds has a market with stingy students

> - the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage

...good?

> - may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs

As opposed to the current government trend which is the epitome of freedom and privacy

> My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.

Those who want more money. This is not communism. This is finally decoupling humanistic society("we don't let people starve") from capitalistic free market economy("the government shouldn't control the economy"). An unconditional income means that you no longer need minimum wages, and even a staunch leftist like me would ease up on labour protection laws(where reasonable...health and safety still apply, but e.g. severance pay?gtfo) After all, it will truly be your choice to work there or not.

> If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job

Unless there is another guy who does that already.

> Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.

I don't understand this one

> Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer

Not the whole one, and not the last one but I think like our current system it will be good for 50-100ish years I think

> But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks

Part of the purpose of a union is to negotiate the costs for hard labor. Unions can still exist and arguably have more negotiation power through the threat of not working forever. I think unions are an important step for our species in that the working force can negotiate with the leader force rather than pray for a peice of cheese with their bread. Part of me worries that participating will be considered unnecessary or even undesirable since "Big Gov is here to protect you from the evil cooperations"

> costs of us manufactured goods goes up

Chyna, chyna, chyna. But really, globalization effectively allows companies to exploit other countries if the us citizens dont want to play ball. Perhaps slave like conditions for other people is a side effect of refusing to do shit work for shit pay

> realestate/rental prices will rise to just below universal income

Perhaps Im cynical but I view all landlords as "how much can I take from you before you leave?" If a landlord knows they can get $1000 out if someone. Why not? Doesnt matter if its a poor neughborhood or college students. As demand for n

> "Those who want more money [work]"

So basically we have inflation and on top of that if you dont have a job your screwed. Prices dont stay the same as more money is available. They go up. And knowing that people can make even more makes prices go even higher

> local community jobs dont exist if no one leaves them

This is an interesting concept. How many people does it take to work a job 24/7? More importantly, how many people can be serviced per 6 hr shift? And how many hours can a job be worked? What industries are necessary for a community to survive without over dependence on a centralized manufacturer or capital? Must a community exist that exports an important good or city that connected communities are dependent on?

Im not a fan at "throwing money at problems". Much more intetested in finding long lasting and realistic solutions that are in line with how we got here. If free money can get us even further, so be it!

> time for innovation comes from imbalance of jobs and who controls them

If company A has a near monopoly on jobs in the area all people wantjng a job must go to company A. Company A now can say "we omly select people willing to work 16 hour days 6 days a weak for $1 an hour". Obvious issue

If building wingdings takes 4 years of education and puts indivuduals in severe debt (because colleges charge absurd sums), they certainly want more money. Company B is the only multi billion dollar company that is capable of paying a 10 man workforce an above average wage, company B can now say "you must work 16 hour days, 6 days a weak but you will make $101 dollars an hour!". Debt payment is $90, but at least your making $10 more than company A

The claim that "less work produces better results" is simply a hypothesis that doesnt account for fear as a driving motivator.

As more companies are able to provide for their employees in the way the employee needs financially, the more relaxed each company must become to get the employees they are looking for.

If company C offers only $80 an hour but you only work 5 hour days 5 days a week and they hire more people. This allows 3 people a day to have 5 hours > of free time and a livable wage. But can only exist through negotiation power and competition.

The reason why most successful companies run people into the ground is because it works. Amazon and walmart are great examples of this. Google only offers utopia in order to attract the greatest minds. But that is because they believe the value of a great mind on your team is worth more than what they spend.

I certainly support free transportation. A place like Flint can only exist because there is no escspe.

Lots of talk in absolutes. Prices will go up - but not exactly as much as income goes up, because (lots of other economic pressures).

Its easy to play a game of FUD (fear; uncertainty; doubt) but the answer is None of the Above. A BI will change things sure. But so did pensions, and insurance, and retirement plans. They didn't bring the economy down in flames; neither will a BI.

Remember the spending of the poorest among us does not drive the entire economy. Wages will change, a little. Prices will change, a little.

The reason the poorest amoung us doesnt drive the economy is because they have no money to spend. Why would a business pwner accomadate for an individual that would cause sognificantly less profit margins.

However, when the value of USD is considered the same. But I know that _every single_ person in american can buy muy product at current price and higher. I will certainly bump it up. High until I hit a maximum where profit margins dip then settle.

Health insurance is caused the Skrelli fiasco and epipen fiasco. Probably more to come.

Universal Income sounds like a great idea from a naive perspective. But the real issue is there arent other solutions for it to compete with.

Supply and demand determine price for many consumables. Neither changes when folks have more money in their pockets. It doesn't even begin to make sense.