Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by axiosgunnar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

axiosgunnar

The answer is it doesn't :-)

View on HN

A lazy answer if so, and a disappointing take on organizing society if that’s considered acceptable.

Maybe because "organizing society" according to some grand central plan isn't actually a very effective strategy.

Ok, let's not use waterfall then.

Labor laws, entitlements, taxes, and other public policy are “organizing society”, and based on quality of life metrics most of Europe is crushing it. Sounds effective to me. I am an American living in a third world country in a first world suit, so I am admittedly biased.

Taxes are less destructive than radically restructuring the entire economy, which most UBI advocates seem to want to do.

Median household income in the US is significantly higher than any EU country except Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. I think most Americans who complain incessantly about how "third world" America is view Europe through rose-colored glasses. Any third-world aspects of the US (which do exist) are not caused by our economic policies.

The real idea behind the UBI is to "radically restructure" the economy in a freedom-promoting direction, closer to something like the US today than current policy in the EU.

Adding the state as a middleman for a huge fraction of all production does not promote freedom, unless your definition of “freedom” is “the unfettered ability to smoke weed and watch cartoons all day”. In reality, if UBI passes, it will be used as an excuse to un-person political undesirables while keeping people with no intrinsic ambition satiated.

How much economic and employment freedom does one have when health care is tied to the current employer?

The EU doesn't have that particular dysfunction.

My point entirely. The EU already has more freedom than the US, in sense. UBI would only increase that difference, and would by no means make the EU more like the US. And again, the EU is made up of independent nations, so these EU/US comparisons are already wrong.

Fine, but what's the argument that this proposal will restructure the economy in a freedom-promoting direction? What's the argument that this is a move in the US direction, instead of away?

If you really want to rebut his comment, tell us how it would work ( including where the money would come from ). Your comment is as lazy.

The money comes from taxing citizens, assets, and corporations, colloquially known as “productivity and wealth”. I’m not European, so it would be rude of me to speak authoritatively on the quality of life Europeans want for each other, but I’ll take a crack at it. A UBI should be an inflation indexed amount that allows for enough food, clothing, and shelter for a dignified life. Not extravagant, but not USSR communist quality. Americans might think of it as a “LeanFIRE” quality of life, or how the elderly live on Social Security.

If we encounter any entitlements susceptible to inflation or supply constraints, we use automation and technology to solve for that (medicine, energy come to mind).

Sam Altman proposed something similar to a UBI with American Equity [1], so I don’t think it’s too crazy of an idea to move towards implementation and experimentation. If you’re a central bank, buying up securities and distribute the dividends into citizen deposit accounts also held at the central bank is another path.

[1] https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity

Sam Altman used to "predict" that it is inevitable that 80 percent permanent unemployment is coming and this is why we need a UBI. He's changed his tune a lot about the details and I have no reason to believe he's got any kind of special expertise that qualifies him to speak on this topic. It's just a pet subject of his and he's very rich, so he can get eyeballs on his ideas. And then people imagine that means he must have good ideas on the topic when it means no such thing.

There are people in the US on Social Security who are homeless. UBI doesn't solve one of the key issues in the US: The high cost of housing rooted in broken housing policies and broken city planning.

I don’t disagree that housing and healthcare policy are intertwined with UBI policy and implementation. An unregulated free market is unsustainable, and therefore UBI alone isn’t going to solve the welfare problem.

I would love your take, as someone who has a lot of experience with homelessness and life challenges, what you envision as impactful public policy to help set a firm quality of life floor for everyone.

And how much would that cost? Be sure to include inflationary effects in your calculation.

It would cost whatever citizens collectively are willing to shave off of wealth and productivity with taxes. You wouldn’t set a monthly amount and then throw your hands up and say it’s unaffordable. You’d start with the max amount you could reasonably convince a majority of citizens (who vote) to support and work backwards.

I’m not an expert, by any means, but to say it’s impossible seems flippant and intellectually dishonest. A better way to approach it would be with caution and the understanding that a lot of research and effort is going to be required if it’s to be implemented soundly (or determined to be untenable).

It is dishonest not to set a minimum amount : you said it yourself, it needs to cover the Basic stuff. So there is a minimum.

For the EU, this is in the ballpark € 1000 - € 1500 - € 2000 ( we already have people on 'benefits' in NL, so there is consensus about this 'living minimum' ).

If you would really care so much as you claim you do, you could have easily provided a basic budget for this grand plan.

But you can't.

I appreciate the snark, but there’s a reason policy is made in real life and not on “Hacker News.”

Exactly. In real life you run the numbers and that is why we don't have UBI.

Because something has not yet been done, does not mean it cannot be done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com