Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

[flagged]


Curious, what is your solution to this situation? Imagine all labor has been automated - virtually all facets of life have been commoditized, how does the average person survive in such a society?

I would go further and ask how does a person who is unable to work survive in our current society? Should we let them die of hunger? Send them to Equador? Of course not, only nazis would propose such a solution.

Isn't this the premise of some sci-fi books and such?

(We in some way, in the developed world, are already mostly here in that the lifestyle of even a well-off person of a thousand years ago is almost entirely supported by machines and such; less than 10% of labor is in farming. What did we do? Created more work (and some would say much busy-work).)


No, it's not and we don't. The numbers we do have suggest that it's great in developing societies and terrible in developed.

Perhaps then the person you are responding to is focusing on developed societies.

Stop saying we like all of your schizophrenic identities are posting at once.

I'm suspicious of UBI as well. I guess I don't believe it brings about the best in human nature—nor does Capitalism in many regards.

Trials show that UBI is fantastic and does bring the best in people, lifting them from poverty and addiction, making them happier, healthier and better educated.

It is awful for the extractive economy as employees are no longer desperate.

Here’s a discussion with a historian who has done a lot of research on the topic https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8de9u2/i_am_a_histori...


This is not true. Don't ask a historian, ask an economist:

https://knowledge.insead.edu/economics-finance/universal-bas...

With some exceptions, UBI generally doesn't seem to work.


Maybe I'm misreading this article, but where does it actually say that anything UBI-related failed? The titular "failure" of the experiment is apparently:

> While the Ontario’s Basic Income experiment was hardly the only one of its kind, it was the largest government-run experiment. It was also one of the few to be originally designed as a randomised clinical trial. Using administrative records, interviews and measures collected directly from participants, the pilot evaluation team was mandated to consider changes in participants’ food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, as well as employment and labour market participation. The results of the experiment were to be made public in 2020.

> However, in July 2018, the incoming government announced the cancellation of the pilot programme, with final payments to be made in March 2019. The newly elected legislators said that the programme was “a disincentive to get people back on track” and that they had heard from ministry staff that it did not help people become “independent contributors to the economy”. The move was decried by others as premature. Programme recipients asked the court to overturn the cancellation but were unsuccessful.

So according to the article, a new government decided to stop the experiment not based on the collected data, but on their political position and vibes. Is there any further failure described in the article?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: