I'm replying to you since you got the most upvotes :-)
I take issue with your main point: that not having to work and receiving financial aid cause depression. Did anyone receiving the $1400 pandemic check from the government feel down about it? The notion is frankly preposterous.
From this, we can infer that reducing one's labor burden also doesn't cause depression.
So depression might come from elsewhere: maybe boredom, existential angst, who knows. But it's not pertinent to the debate around UBI.
Now, we can talk about the financial toll of paying taxes for UBI, or the risk of inflation (there is none - that comes from increasing the money supply not incomes - although political machinations tend to preserve wealth at the top), or the collapse of various service industries that profit from underemployment. But those are probably best analyzed in simulation, since like with ventures and startups, there is no way to predict the benefits to society if 1% succeed even if 99% fail or are idle.
My personal take is that sentiment for UBI will fall along political lines. We can use other spectrums for reference:
* female vs male
* positive reinforcement vs tough love
* liberal vs conservative
Since HN is mostly composed of tech workers, I'd predict a male-dominated slant with a preference for tough love and conservative values. It would have an inherent bias towards work over caregiving. So the majority of HN might disfavor UBI, regardless of any actual merits it provides.
-
I decided to get an estimate of UBI support on HN based on the sentiments of the replies here:
please analyze the text from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41638103 (the text follows the news.ycombinator.com forum comment structure).
divide the text into a list of replies.
note that any line starting with ">" is a comment from a parent reply.
determine the sentiment of each reply as to whether it favors UBI or disfavors UBI.
count the replies favoring UBI, the replies disfavoring UBI, and the replies that are neutral/defensive/etc about UBI.
* Favors UBI: 12 replies
* Disfavors UBI: 26 replies
* Neutral/Defensive: 12 replies
Unfortunately, it started saying "I currently cannot access external websites, including the one you provided" so I had to stop at that preliminary estimate.
I also tried changing the first line of the prompt and with manually pasting the page between "<< ... >>":
please analyze the text between "<<" and ">>" that I've pasted after this prompt (the text was obtained from a news.ycombinator.com forum and follows the same comment structure).
That returned similar results.
https://chatgpt.com/ has an arbitary length limit that can't separate prompt from context data, which makes it generally useless for this type of work. https://iask.ai has similar limitations which negate its usefulness also.
But going by the first estimate, it looks like about 1/4 of HN users favor UBI, 1/2 disfavor UBI, and 1/4 are neutral.
It would be interesting to see this analysis on a larger sample size.
-
With 50% of HN seemingly disfavoring UBI, since we're essentially thought leaders in tech, it's highly unlikely that society as a whole will vote to adopt UBI.
I think that's ..sad, for lack of a better word.
We're basically saying that even though we know automation better than anyone, we don't believe that it can lead to a decrease in labor, or that its proceeds should be used to benefit everyone.
I think that's an abdication of our role in working to make the world a better place, and why we got started in tech in the first place.
So without a viable plan of action for getting to UBI, it's probably time to form an independent organization outside of public government and private industry. One that's opt-in, with a commitment to contribute a portion of one's future profits to an even payout of UBI, without means testing.
After a lifetime of struggle with countless losses and no big win, despite hard work on a level that most people probably wouldn't believe, I would opt-in in a heartbeat. And I'm going to make it my life's work to focus on manifesting self-actualization for everyone, starting with bringing about UBI. That's how strongly I believe in its potential to change the world for the better, for us and for future generations.
I realized after sleeping on this that without verifying the sentiments manually, I don't have enough evidence to make a prediction about HN users' support of UBI. So my conclusions may not have enough basis in fact.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, what if we imagine that the votes went the other way, with 50% favoring UBI, 25% disfavoring UBI, and 25% neutral? And what if HN were left-leaning, and wished to work towards UBI, convincing others on the left to join? What kind of opposition would they face?
* women who are primary caregivers wouldn't want UBI because?
- they make plenty of money already, earning the same wages as men?
- receiving assistance would diminish the perceived value of the money they earn being away from their children, elderly parents, etc?
- they've seen how depriving people of enough income to meet basic needs builds strong communities?
* parents practicing positive reinforcement wouldn't want UBI because?
- taking that money as a handout sends the wrong message to their children, that societies are stronger than individuals?
- they work enough hours already that they have all the money they need to spend quality time with their family?
- it's better for kids to have their hopes dashed than know their parents have enough money to feed and clothe them, eventually sending them to college?
* liberals in favor of government programs, agencies and social safety nets wouldn't want UBI because?
- it might interfere with existing institutions like the Department of Health and Welfare, known for their efficiency and effectiveness?
- it might undermine unions, the Peace Corps, etc that already promote meaningful work and fair pay?
- it might help conservatives, which could undermine leftist agendas like making sure that everyone has a fair shake?
Do any of these pass the sniff test?
After writing this out, I think I can safely say that even without knowing the sentiment towards UBI, we can make predictions about who will favor or oppose it and why. It has to do with empathy or the lack thereof, and how traditional notions like responsibility, community and patriotism have been coopted during the Information Age by moneyed interests in the status quo.
I've kind of reached the point in life where talking about problems till I'm blue in the face does nothing to fix them. I'm more interested now in joining and forming coalitions that bring about meaningful change and give people alternatives that pay dividends larger than the way things are currently.
At the simplest level, we can ask: does giving people who are already rich even more money at the cost of those struggling without enough resources (Social Darwinism) build a more prosperous society? Or does using excess wealth to provide for those in need (Social Planning) heal society?
In these matters, I tend to think that the opinion of a 5 year old child is generally more in line spiritually with the greater good than whatever serious-sounding adults preach, even academics. So I know where my sentiment stands regarding UBI.
I take issue with your main point: that not having to work and receiving financial aid cause depression. Did anyone receiving the $1400 pandemic check from the government feel down about it? The notion is frankly preposterous.
From this, we can infer that reducing one's labor burden also doesn't cause depression.
So depression might come from elsewhere: maybe boredom, existential angst, who knows. But it's not pertinent to the debate around UBI.
Now, we can talk about the financial toll of paying taxes for UBI, or the risk of inflation (there is none - that comes from increasing the money supply not incomes - although political machinations tend to preserve wealth at the top), or the collapse of various service industries that profit from underemployment. But those are probably best analyzed in simulation, since like with ventures and startups, there is no way to predict the benefits to society if 1% succeed even if 99% fail or are idle.
My personal take is that sentiment for UBI will fall along political lines. We can use other spectrums for reference:
Since HN is mostly composed of tech workers, I'd predict a male-dominated slant with a preference for tough love and conservative values. It would have an inherent bias towards work over caregiving. So the majority of HN might disfavor UBI, regardless of any actual merits it provides.-
I decided to get an estimate of UBI support on HN based on the sentiments of the replies here:
https://deepai.org/chat
Unfortunately, it started saying "I currently cannot access external websites, including the one you provided" so I had to stop at that preliminary estimate.I also tried changing the first line of the prompt and with manually pasting the page between "<< ... >>":
That returned similar results.https://chatgpt.com/ has an arbitary length limit that can't separate prompt from context data, which makes it generally useless for this type of work. https://iask.ai has similar limitations which negate its usefulness also.
But going by the first estimate, it looks like about 1/4 of HN users favor UBI, 1/2 disfavor UBI, and 1/4 are neutral.
It would be interesting to see this analysis on a larger sample size.
-
With 50% of HN seemingly disfavoring UBI, since we're essentially thought leaders in tech, it's highly unlikely that society as a whole will vote to adopt UBI.
I think that's ..sad, for lack of a better word.
We're basically saying that even though we know automation better than anyone, we don't believe that it can lead to a decrease in labor, or that its proceeds should be used to benefit everyone.
I think that's an abdication of our role in working to make the world a better place, and why we got started in tech in the first place.
So without a viable plan of action for getting to UBI, it's probably time to form an independent organization outside of public government and private industry. One that's opt-in, with a commitment to contribute a portion of one's future profits to an even payout of UBI, without means testing.
After a lifetime of struggle with countless losses and no big win, despite hard work on a level that most people probably wouldn't believe, I would opt-in in a heartbeat. And I'm going to make it my life's work to focus on manifesting self-actualization for everyone, starting with bringing about UBI. That's how strongly I believe in its potential to change the world for the better, for us and for future generations.