Hacker News Reader

Comment by chermi | Hacker News Reader

Which is precisely while UBI will never happen - it takes power away from the government. Replacing the vast majority of welfare with NIT/UBI just makes too much sense. It's too efficient. Less government jobs, less government power. So it will never happen.

View on HN

In what way does it take power from the government, when everyone's dependent on the state?

The more discretion, the more rules you have over who gets how much money, the more power you have.

The fundamental problem with UBI is that if it is enough to live on (even if it's a crummy life), then who is going to pick the strawberries? The ugly truth is our society is built on top of people doing absolute shit jobs for insulting pay.

If someone needs that money to eat they'll do the job, but if you're asking them to wreck their body in inhumane conditions in order to have slightly more spending money then they're going to say no. Even if their living conditions are lousy it's better than bending over in the mud under the boiling sun while a slave driver yells at them all day long.

I'll bet with a UBI we will learn real quick which jobs are actually essential to society functioning and which are busy work.

> The ugly truth is our society is built on top of people doing absolute shit jobs for insulting pay.

Perhaps you could try paying them more?

Don't forget your competition is people in third world countries who have access to effectively slave labor, but do have higher shipping costs.

Is there some reason that you are bound to do business with literal slavemasters? Are you incapable of resisting doing business with the lowest bidder?

Ask the people shopping in grocery stores. Or the grocery store owners themselves. The farmer doesn't get a say.

Is there some reason we can't refuse to import their goods or offset their lower cost of goods due to slavery by imposing tariffs?

Seriously, I can do this all day.

One reason import restrictions and tariffs won't work is that the problem is inside the (US) house: https://www.fairr.org/news-events/press-releases/meat-compan...

To address your question as why this is allowed to continue, you'd have to ask those within the US and countries that allow it to happen.

Australia addressed this in 1907 or so with the Harvester decision and other related law cases that became foundation to working conditions.

https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/history/waltzing-matilda-and...

The stats don’t agree that government jobs only ever increase. In 1990 there were 1 million more federal workers for a population 100 million smaller. I assume it’s a popular belief because the oligarchs gain power as the federal government loses it, and they have better PR.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com