Show HN: Remote Jobs pivots, following HN suggestions, now free - <AUTHOR> http://remote-jobs.com/

<comment><USER2> Good job guys and thanks a lot to you and HN. By using Remote Jobs we filled a position which we couldn't fill via websites such as Stack Overflow Careers (for the last ~6 months)

<comment><AUTHOR> W00T! Thanks! That's a feel good!

Now did you remove your completed job req or do we need to? ;-)

<comment><USER2> I removed it, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wish I could vote this up more. Sadly some one already fills the space well. StackOverflow. Too bad they charge to post...

<comment><USER4> Yeah, there are definitely a lot of job boards out there. We just wanted to see if we could help the niche of remote workers by de-cluttering jobs that don't support them.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for making this (and pivoting, which I believe is a great idea too).

As someone who lives in the middle of nowhere currently, I will definitely follow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very slick visually. How do you plan to support the site later? Feeds/reminders for new posts that fit your criteria would be nice too.

PS: The Drupal developer job doesn't appear to exist anymore.

</comment><comment><USER7> I might just be looking at this wrong... Is there a way to list the jobs? I'm only seeing about 7 total.

<comment><USER8> they _just_ made it free, give people a little time to post some jobs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Could I get some backstory? Why is the site based on HN suggestions (which I can't say I agree with).

<comment><USER8> you didn't see the link at the top? ("the story behind . . .")

<comment><USER9> I did, but in the HN link on that page I didn't see where there was an overwhelming suggestion to make it free.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was based on our initial Show HN here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2250526>

<comment><USER9> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The position/payment options for submitting a job should be check boxes rather than radio buttons.

<comment><USER4> Is that because you'd like to specify a job as being for design and development (as an example)? I ask because check boxes are used when multiple options are selectable, but we went with radio buttons to keep job types separated.

<comment><USER8> I agree on design/dev, but for freelance/full-time, hourly/salary - both could be options.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Smart move. Clicky: <http://remote-jobs.com/>

</comment><comment><USER11> Handsome, usable, and useful. I love the color coded attributes on the grid, especially.

<comment><USER4> Thanks =), glad you like the design. I had working on it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is a Doctorate Worth it? - <AUTHOR>

I am a Jr in college at the moment, set up to double up my senior year with the 1st year of my graduate school. If I play my cards right I am looking at a doctorate 5 years from now.
First, why do I want a doctorate? At this point in my life I am nearing the end of My computer science bachelor's and I have learned enough to know I have so much left to learn. I love learning, I feel like I can learn so much in the process of getting this degree.
My goal in life right now is to be as educated as I can and have a stable income large enough to support a family. My worry is that the two might be mutually exclusive.
I see myself teaching while in graduate school, but I do not want to make it my long term profession. I want to work in software engineering and I have a big interest in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning and right now university seems the place to work on such things right now.
This all boils down to, what is the job market for a 25 year old with a PhD in Computer Science and no work experience? <comment><USER2> Do what you love. Everything else will follow.

edit: realize this reads as "not very helpful". But you seem to know what you want to do. Job opportunities will be what they are in 5 years. Who knows. But if you try to change your natural trajectory, I think you'll be less happy, and ultimately less successful as a result.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know how long it takes to finish a doctorate in machine learning, but if you claim to be able to finish in 5 years, I'll just wish you luck. Took me 5 1/2 to finish a doctorate in Algorithms and Data Structures (Theory), and I was very lucky with my problems and papers.

If you go to grad school, you are going to need to TA or teach, this will be good for you. You'll probably also need to grade homework, tests, etc. This will also be good for you.

If you pay attention, work hard, and have fun, grad school can be even better than undergrad. Depending on your workload, you may even have time to do contracting work to help pay for school, and/or earn some experience along the way. Be careful though, I knew a lot of people who dropped out to join companies, and who will never finish.

Most of the advice I've been giving out over the years I've written out here: <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jcarlson/gradschool.html>

Good luck, whatever you decide.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! The 5 years estimate is on the hopeful side. I have been told my current course-load is insane by a few of my professors but it does not seem that bad yet (I am doing my bachelors in 3 years (currently on year 2), and hopefully overlapping with grad school on the last year (A honor student option here at Georgia State!)) I might be changing schools for my masters/PhD so there is a potential wrench to be thrown in gears there, a PhD might actually be harder work then I arrogantly expect it to be and take more then 4 more years. Either way, it looks like fun. On the flip-side it does have a cost, one I asked this question to help evaluate.

<comment><USER3> If you've not taken the GRE subject test for CS, then unless your program doesn't require it for entrance, it's going to be difficult or impossible to get into any of the top-tier schools (I don't know if that's your intent or not).

Unless your expectation of grad school is 16 hour days work every day for 4 years, then it will be harder than you expect it to be :P In all seriousness, work will ebb and flow. Some weeks/months you will be inspired and working whenever you're not sleeping or eating. Some weeks/months/years, you'll be uninspired, spending a few hours checking email, news sites, then sit down and play video games or watch TV.

Really though, those days intermix, and the sum total of the work that I did for my degree (aside from coursework for the masters degree) could have been completed in 6-9 months. The rest of that time was spent (in order of most to least time) relaxing, trying to figure out what to work on, campus politics, working on things that didn't make it into any paper (but which expanded my knowledge in other directions), and waiting on other people.

Edit: forgot the requisite infographic <http://matt.might.net/articles/phd- school-in-pictures/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're interested in machine learning, it's hard to imagine how you will get beyond tinkering without an advanced degree. A PhD brings a depth and maturity when thinking about how to frame machine learning (statistics) problems, which I rarely have seen in people who haven't studied to literature at the PhD level.

If you do decide, look for the right advisor (<http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jordan/>) and try to go to a top program.

</comment><comment><USER5> The usual caveats: This is just one man's experience.

I have a PhD in Comp Sci. It took me 4.5 years after my BS to get it. (2 for MS, 2.5 more for PhD.)

I rather suspect that I don't make any more than I would have if I'd just started work 4.5 years earlier, but I do believe that the work I've done is much more interesting than what I would've found with just a BS.

OTOH, times were different then (mid-90's) than they are now. Arguably you could learn more about AI/ML if you went to work for Google or a startup right now than you would in school.

I guess my advice would be: Apply to grad school, but look for an interesting job at the same time. If you find one, take it.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you get a PhD doing research in machine learning, I'd be absolutely shocked if Google doesn't offer you a Research Scientist position.

<comment><USER3> I knew a half-dozen people with doctorates in machine learning at Google. None of them were research scientists.

<comment><USER6> I know lots of PhDs at Google who aren't doing research, but it's because they don't want to be doing research.

<comment><USER3> For a lot of PhDs that I knew, the problem was that they were already spending 100-200% of their time on their main work, which made it impossible to spend any 20% time working on an entrance into what they really wanted to do (typically research, not uncommonly tools that would have made theirs and others' work easier, faster, etc.).

I (and various other former Googlers) can attest to it being very difficult to do what you want to do within an organization. But that's the way it is in any company. Google just gives you access to a lot of other great people, resources, and perks that would otherwise be effectively unavailable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> No, at least not immediately. You can always go back to school, try and take a stab at work experience. My first real job was at a startup between my junior and senior year of high school. I loved it, and now I'm asking myself if my Bachelors is worth it.

Unless your pursuing something that you absolutely need the PhD for, don't worry about it for now. You might enjoy yourself more in industry.

</comment><comment><USER8> 25 is young. Many 25 year olds dont have much work experience. Just make sure when you do go for the PhD, you finish it and dont end up spending 4 years and no degree. 25 + PhD in CS = very employable.

</comment><comment><USER9> Learn, machine, learn!</comment>


Test your browser's safety (according to Microsoft) - <AUTHOR> http://yourbrowsermatters.org/

<comment><USER2> What a load of garbage

"Does the browser benefit from Windows Operating System features that protect against arbitrary data execution?

Does the browser benefit from Windows Operating System features that randomize the memory layout to make it harder for attackers to find their target?"

I got a checkmark on both those. Yet I'm running Mac.

I also got an "X" on "Does the browser help protect you from websites that are known to distribute socially engineered malware?" yet I'm running Chrome, and little do Microsoft know but Google keeps an entire db of "socially engineered malware" and disallows you to access it.

Good old Microsoft trash browser stats, just like the old IE is the safest browser one.

<comment><USER3> I think the site is about browsers running on Microsoft's OS. Microsoft doesn't need to worry or evaluate browsers on other operating systems. They only want people who are already running windows to evaluate if they are running a safe browser thats it.

<comment><USER4> Shows that their test is either shit, or misnamed. If their test is shit that means that this is looking for flags, badly. If it is misnamed that means that they are trying to see if they can execute a specific attack, which fails in osx good i guess...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So Firefox 3.6 scores 1.5, Firefox 7.01 scores 2, Chrome Win (14.0.835) scores 2.5, while IE 8 gets a 3?

Safari for Windows isn't even recognized.

<comment><USER6> Your scores aren't necessarily representative for the browsers you mentioned, as the outcome of some of those tests depend on your browser/system settings.

<comment><USER7> The scores are predetermined, according to <http://yourbrowsermatters.org/docs/methodology.pdf>

_Most of the security features that were included in the score are publically documented by the browser manufacturers and the presence can be verified directly through the browser itself. Additionally, tools like the Sys Internals process expirer were used to verify the use of DEP, Protected Mode, and ASLR._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Funny how I get the annoying hit-backbutton-twice effect ... Always the hallmark of a good website ...

</comment><comment><USER9> "We do not have any data for your browser, so we can't give your browser a score."

Chrome 16.0.904.0

</comment><comment><USER10> tl;dr: Firefox is 2, Chrome is 2.5, IE is 4. (Out of 4, of course. And assuming latest versions.)

</comment><comment><USER11> Site doesn't even render in IE6 on XP. Not sure if that's a good thing or not.

IE7 on XP scores 1. That's something, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER12> Doesn't recognize firefox nightly (10) on arch - so it gives me Xs for everything. Excellently done.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't particularly care about the spin that this website puts on various browsers. What I do like about it is that it may convince some users to upgrade their browser. Everyone wins when users pick modern browsers, regardless of which one they choose.

</comment><comment><USER14> HA! The most ironic thing is that this tool has Facebook like buttons all over it. Give the state of Facebook privacy and not actually being able to log out. The Facebook buttons are the biggest privacy and security concern, not your browser.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is it just me, or are the icons in the "old browser" distinctly Chrome-like?

</comment><comment><USER16> Only supports firefox, chrome, and IE it seems.

</comment><comment><USER17> Google chrome on GNU/Linux, 2.5. Do tell...

</comment><comment><USER18> No love if you're running linux :/

<comment><USER8> yeah man, that OS is so unsafe. Better get some Windows!

<comment><USER3> Thats not the point. Its Microsoft. Why do you think they care if you run any operating system other than theirs? The point of the website. is: If you are running windows, see how safe your browser is.

<comment><USER19> The point of the website. is: If you are running Windows, see how safe our browser is and ignore the other browsers because they're obviously of a lesser value with lower levels of security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I cheated. By changing the user agent of Firefox to IE 8 I got 3 (otherwise 2 for FF).

</comment><comment><USER21> Doesn't recognize Firefox 8.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is essentially a measure of how much turd polishing has been applied to your browser. To people who think that furious effort mummifying design faults with a flurry of band-aids is a good substitute for fundamental design quality and objective, external results this is fantastic. To people who think otherwise this is decidedly underwhelming.</comment>


Launching the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab - <AUTHOR> http://googleresearch.blogspot.de/2013/05/launching-quantum-artificial.html <comment><USER2> I'd be interested in Google/NASA's take on "Quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits" from Boixo et al. <http://bit.ly/12eANRI>

This preprint showed no speed advantages for D-Wave's computer. Specifically, it showed quantum annealing isn't faster than classical simulated annealing.</comment>


I'm a To-do list for your Videos, and I'm Awesome - <AUTHOR> http://mustwatch.it/

<comment><AUTHOR> I made this service/app to scratch my own itch, I hope others find it useful. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.</comment>


UK Ordnance Survey Opens Up Detailed Map Data, API - <AUTHOR> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/

<comment><USER2> I posted this (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236781>) with a link to The Guardian article ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/02/ordnance...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/02/ordnance- survey-open-data)). The Guardian have long run a campaign to get the UK to open their data, and the OS is a really big win. Prior to this, post-office data was very expensive to license (despite the information having been gathered with UK tax payer money)

You can browse the data available and download the CSVs directly here: <http://data.gov.uk/data/publicbody/Ordnance%2520Survey>

Data includes full postcode lookup:

<http://data.gov.uk/dataset/os-code-point-open>

And all transit (bus stops, train stations):

<http://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan>

<comment><USER3> Am I right in thinking that this is post code <-> lat/long, and not post code <-> address which Royal Mail still keep under wraps?

<comment><USER4> Yes. There's info on exactly what everything is here:

[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#...](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Code- Point_Open)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They're using Amazon EC2 to host it which is pretty notable for a government agency.</comment>


The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/983019795208695808 <comment><USER2> I'm Steven Black and these are the hosts files some diligent friends and I continuously curate for you. Try the variant with the social media blocking if you really want to go cold turkey. [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

<comment><USER3> Thanks to you and your friends! I've been using this HOSTS file _for years_ on every device that allows me to edit it. Occasionally something otherwise missed by uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger will be caught by HOSTS and I'll see a nice "Can't connect to web server" message.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the problem with wikileaks. This has nothing to do with protecting people, or informing them of shady goings on. Wikileaks doesn't like The Guardian's reporting. So they're trying to claim that they're doing something wrong. In reality every single ad-supported website will do the same thing- including practically every website in existence from Breitbart to WashPo.

So next time wikileaks sends out leaked info about bombs in Syria or intelligence gathering in the US ask yourself this question:

Are they telling you everything, or are they serving their own political agenda?

<comment><USER5> While I completely agree with you about Wikileaks, and I _do_ like the Guardian's reporting in general, (some of, depending on what and how you count) this tracking is a fact, and it's worth pointing out. On this particular issue, the Guardian is weaker than it could and should be. Especially because it keeps asking you (in a friendly and absoutely tolerable way!) for paid subscriptions. Would they keep tracking me if I paid? I'm fairly sure they would. In which case, meh.

<comment><USER6> I pay and, as I mentioned before, when I open the Guardian main site, Ghostery only picks up 4 trackers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I co-run a network of websites that are ad supported. We'd consider our network to be quite optimized in terms of maximizing ad value. If you're unfamiliar with online advertising, 58 tracking services sounds like a lot. To me that just sounds like "optimized" header bidding -- ensuring you're (the publisher) getting the best value for the ads you're displaying. Google does a ton of work ensuring malicious content is not being served, but of course the transfer of user data (which could be considered malicious) is fundamental to their business model, as well as the business models of every company that serves ads to their users. And it's the wild west where that's concerned -- whoever can make the "best" use of the data will pay the highest price.

This is why GDPR is catastrophic for ad-based EU business.

Realistically, if 58 tracking services watching what you're doing is scary to you, you'd better be prepared to either: a.) pay your worth or b.) see many of the sites you use go out of business or have their ability to operate severely diminished.

<comment><USER8> I just use uBlock. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on a website.

<comment><USER9> How do you think it all plays out if everyone decides to block ads and not pay for content?

<comment><USER10> The best content - done by passionate individuals for no monetary reasons - will stay. The good content will be kept afloat by donations. The usual corporate content will be written off as "marketing expense". The ad-supported worthless crap will disappear.

The Internet would become leaner, but I can't see how it would not also become better.

<comment><USER7> > The best content - done by passionate individuals for no monetary reasons - > will stay.

That's assuming these people have other jobs (which will have to somehow be funded by something other than ads or selling data -- bye bye 90% of Silicon Valley.) Having other jobs means they won't be able to spend as much time on it and quality will suffer.

> The good content will be kept afloat by donations.

Donations often don't stretch beyond what's required to do the work that's been done before (people don't often donate once the donation goal has been reached.) This stifles growth.

> The usual corporate content will be written off as "marketing expense".

So companies that derive their value from the content they produce and sell ads on have to write off their entire business model as a "marketing expense". Good idea. Say goodbye to virtually all online publishing that isn't paywalled already.

> The ad-supported worthless crap will disappear. You mean like Google, > YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter...?

<comment><USER11> > You mean like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter...?

Three of those provide paid-for tiers. The other two that do not, well...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Another axe to grind against a publication that doesn't like one individual that runs the twitter feed. Of course it isn't pointed out for anyone else.

<comment><USER13> That would be a great website to set up.

"How many trackers" and report on media sites.

<comment><USER12> Definitely agree. I'm not defending a clusterbomb of advertisement trackers but its disingenuous to call out only one.

I feel ashamed I once respected them/him as an outlet of truth but in reality serves only to push a single person's agenda.

<comment><USER14> In recent weeks the Guardian has been running a series of articles about privacy online. The articles have been good and rare in that they included original journalism.

I think that calling the newspaper out for the number of trackers is fair since it shows a mismatch between the behaviour of the company and the tone of the articles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> According to my Ublock Origin, NoScript, Privacy Badger, and Cookie AutoDelete plugins, it's doing no such thing.

<comment><USER16> It's about time browsers started including UBlock Origin by default. Mozilla anyway, I can't see google doing it any time soon.

<comment><USER17> Mozilla have rolled out built-in tracking protection in private browsing mode, at least.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yep... I understand that they aren't doing it for the primary purpose of "surveillance" or "tracking" \-- the primary intention is advertising and analytics, of course -- but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical.

Hell, my blog has Google Analytics and such on it and so I feel like I'm a hypocritic since I use uBlock Origin (with quite restrictive settings). I do intend to remove the analytics/trackers at some point (actually, I plan to move to a completely static site and "redo" the whole thing -- I haven't even turned on HTTPS yet!), but I've been neglecting the site for years so there's a lot of work to do and, TBH, it really isn't very high on my priority list.

I agree with the general premise of this tweet, though. If you're going to call out others for doing something (i.e. tracking users), you should first make sure that you aren't doing it the same thing. At the least, don't be a part of the very thing that you're bitching about.

<comment><USER19> _but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical_

Wait 'til you find out where the Graun is based for tax purposes...

Left-wing-ness is just a product that they sell. They don't believe in it anymore than everyone in McDonald's head office eats Big Macs every day...

<comment><USER20> They're centre-left, like the european social democractic mainstream, not against market economy. You should look elsewhere if you want a paper that doesn't bow to commercial interests.

<comment><USER19> Centre-left as in bleat about "our NHS" while dodging the taxes that pay for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That's not covert if the blocker can see them. The headline had me imagining the Guardian site was proxying tracking data to these 58 other trackers from their own client-side tracking that goes back to their origin.

But nope, just the usual tracking script/cookie/beacon nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER22> What do you guys think of this solution? I've considered it in the past but never tried it. [https://matomo.org/](https://matomo.org/)

This way you get data analytics without dispensing user data to third parties.

<comment><USER23> Self-hosted analytics like Matomo tell you who visited your site for how long and from what IP address and what country, etc. But is this the only reason that people run trackers? I thought people ran trackers for the following reasons (in addition to analytics):

(1) To get targeted ads, and thereby money because you showed a targeted ad. So if the Doubleclick tracker you embedded on your site sees that your visitors are watching lots of dog videos, they can serve you ads for dog food. I suppose (in theory) you could not embed the Doubleclick tracker and instead send Doubleclick the info you collected with your own self-hosted analytics, and get Doubleclick to send you the dog food ad which you insert into your site yourself.

(2) To improve ranking on Google search. I've read that running Google Analytics improves your search ranking as opposed to letting Google simply crawl your site.

And other reasons too?

I welcome any corrections if I'm gravely misunderstanding the technology and motivations.

<comment><USER17> Google and Facebook also have personal information about users which a self- hosted / privacy respecting solution inherently doesn't, such as gender, age, "likes", etc. I haven't used these analytics platforms myself, so I don't know how much of such data they reveal to customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just tried opening the Guardian site and Ghostery reports only 4 trackers. One of which is Facebook.

<comment><USER24> Just did the same. With uBlock and Ghostery on I get 3 trackers. With them off I get 22 trackers. I think maybe if you let one's script run it then loads a bunch of others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> At least the Guardian isn't a Putin operation.

</comment><comment><USER26> Yeah, sorry Wikileaks: absolutely nothing you say is worth trusting anymore, and this comparison of data exfiltration from Facebook with common ad network data collection is disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading by my estimation.</comment>


The smart diaper is coming. Who wants it? - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/5/2/18525487/smart-diaper-huggies-monit-pampers-alert-poop-pee <comment><AUTHOR> How did they miss the opportunity to put this information on a blockchain?</comment>


Birthday Paradox - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox

<comment><USER2> Important both for heavy-duty persistence and security.

<comment><USER3> I understand the security implications, but how is it important for persistence?

<comment><USER4> Because if you use a hash on your content the chances of a collision are actually much higher than you'd intuitively think they would be and the problem of determining just how likely that is is very closely related to the birthday paradox.</comment></comment></comment>


Uber Is Using AI to Charge People as Much as Possible for a Ride - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/uber-is-using-ai-to-charge-people-as-much-as-possible-for-a-ride <comment><USER3> Granted, "charging people as much as possible" is a basic tenet of microeconomics (another related one being pricing things according to the customer's willingness-to-pay). It's not even AI, just a first-derivative maximization.

Profit maximization is not inherently _evil_ unless it's monopolistic. Which in the case of ride sharing, it isn't.

<comment><USER4> "not inherently evil"

The concept of the consumer surplus is the reason why capitalism is preferred over other economic systems such as feudalism or communism.

One price for all is a cornerstone of our social contract. Discarding it will place that contract in danger.

If all the profit in a trade goes to the robber barons, such trades will be rightly seen as unfair and calls for the revolution will become loud.

<comment><USER4> Previous attempts at price discrimination have been transparent: senior's discounts, time or capacity based pricing, et cetera.

This is considerably different, being opaque. Once this gets out, everybody taking an Uber will have that nagging feeling in the back of their head, "was I ripped off this time?" And it'll make them think twice the next time they go to order one.

<comment><USER5> If someone gets the service they wanted/needed at a price they were willing to and agreed to pay, they weren't ripped off.

<comment><USER6> Really? So you wouldn't think it was unfair that they charged you more because they guessed that your workplace or your rent price based on your trips? Or because your phone battery was almost dead in a location you're not normally at?

Think about it this way: You would probably pay a hospital your net worth if you had a child and he/she was seriously hurt and taken to a hospital. B would you think leveraging this information to take more money from you be "fair?"

<comment><USER5> No, I wouldn't think it was unfair if they presented a price that was more because of <insert some reason here>, and then I decided not to pay it because I didn't think their service was was worth that price.

If you don't like what Uber is charging you, then don't take Uber. You can consider whatever constraints you like when determining the price you're willing to pay: convenience, time, cost, cleanliness, location, whathaveyou. Maybe you value your time less than the cost of an Uber, so you can then walk to your destination. You ripped off Uber then by using your two perfectly good feet, and showed those capitalist fatcats by not even using their service!

The comparison to a serious hurt child is not an appropriate comparison (also, "think of the children!"), because the service is not fungible in that case.

Is someone going to show up and make the same arguments for why people with higher incomes shouldn't pay higher taxes? If there's nothing wrong with progressive taxation, then there's nothing wrong with progressive pricing, and the only difference is that you're forced the pay taxes while you're not forced to purchase services from any given vendor.

<comment><USER6> First, you're basing your argument on a mistaken premise that progressive taxation is okay. Second, it's relatively clear that you're going to be paying a certain rate in taxes, whereas your Uber prices can now have a huge, unforeseen jump in pricing because <insert personal reason here>. It's the difference between knowing you have to pay a higher rate because you're not a "Shopper's club member" vs. having an arbitrary fee added to your grocery at checkout because you're carrying a Louis Vuitton bag.

And I'm not arguing this from a purely economics perspective. Yes, I know discriminatory pricing has its place in our society today and yes, I know it's profit maximizing, "fair," etc. But what's different here is that unlike airlines that have an algorithm deciding the same price for anyone buying that seat at that particular time, Uber can discriminate against you for very personal reasons, or general reasons that can discriminate against the racial makeup of a neighborhood, the disabled, etc.

Hats off to your sense of duty to capitalism that'd make Milton Friedman proud, but the world doesn't work like an Econ 101 textbook. If Uber's profit maximizing algorithm is discriminatory against protected classes, it's illegal. If it's profit maximizing by overcharging people lulled into usage due to habit, dying phones, etc. it's still predatory.

P.S. regarding your "think of the children" critique, I'm simply offering a direct counterexample to your "whatever price you pay and agree to == not getting ripped off." According to you, it does seem like you can be ripped off after all, even at a price you were willing to pay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Your airlines and hotels are already doing this along with the travel industry in general (and they've been doing it for a long time). Amazon will almost definitely do this more broadly one day (they do some version of this now already). Physical retail will definitely do this once the in-store tech to manage the pricing complexity catches up. Sure, the degree and granularity to which each of these industries implement something like this may vary but I think that at the end of the day, it just makes sense from a business perspective.

So while the word "Uber" might trigger some people, I think there's a broader, more interesting conversation to be had here outside of the Uber context.

<comment><USER8> I read that Amazon in fact already does it, too. They price high-volume goods competitively, but niche products, not so much.

<comment><USER9> Nearly any cleaning supplies from my experience are much more expensive in Amazon than in a local store.

For example: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00J5HK3MY](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00J5HK3MY) one can of Ajax (same size) costs $0.99 in Rite Aid.

Perhaps people who are buying cleaning supplies from Amazon are so used to it that they never visit local stores?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >> What guarantee do users have that they won't be individually selected to receive a higher price?

As long as Uber is not the only means of transport, this issue should take care of itself. Besides, as another comment points out, isn't this pretty much standard across industries?

Not sure what this has to do with Uber in particular which doesn't apply to any other company.

<comment><USER11> > Not sure what this has to do with Uber in particular which doesn't apply to > any other company.

How would you fell if prices on amazon were higher for you than for others because of your income, residence or historical purchase data? With all the margins going to amazon instead of the sellers.

<comment><USER12> This happens _all the time_ , but it depends on user ignorance or apathy.

Just shop using different browsers or devices. Use incognito modes for everything. Use multiple entry points. Use multiple loyalty cards (and don't intermix credit cards amongst them.

For a real-world example, I use 4 different Starbucks cards. Each gets very different reward offers, every time. Y

<comment><USER10> I don't disagree. If you have done this much research though, you could actually set up a little case study on this, write an eBook with nothing more than screenshots on how the price changes, and put it up for sale as something which will save people atleast $x per month. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ok? That makes perfect sense. They're not a charity.

People like to use this as an excuse to attack capitalism in general, a la "if _corporations_ didn't run things, we would charge as little as possible instead of as much as possible". However, this is entirely missing the point; it's _critically important_ that businesses charge as much as they can get away with. Why? Because prices are how market information is communicated, and high profit margins indicate an imbalance between supply and demand. If Uber charged the bare minimum they could get away with and still survive, there would be no incentive for competitors to come in and attempt to undercut them, leaving the supply/demand mismatch as it is. In a zero-overhead idealized market, competitors would keep coming in until profit margins were within epsilon of zero; obviously we can't do exactly that in real life, but we want to get as close to that as possible.

<comment><USER14> > If Uber charged the bare minimum they could get away with and still survive, > there would be no incentive for competitors to come in and attempt to > undercut them, leaving the supply/demand mismatch as it is.

Why? If supply/demand is mismatched in such a way that a competitor is necessary, then some potential Uber customers are not being served. Then either the customer can't even afford the minimal price, in which case competition doesn't help, or Uber's service is unavailable for some reason, which provides incentive for a competitor to come in and capture the market segment.

It is not absolutely necessary that everyone charge as much as they can; it just happens to be the case that money tends to be controlled by people who would like increase its amount.

In the hypothetical case of Uber turning into a charity that charges as little as possible, the price would simply include the market information that someone is willing to use their money to subsidize everyone's fares.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Every company with lots of consumer data is trying to use it to increase purchases and purchase prices. The interesting thing is they can put some classic psychology theories to the test and find how closely the hypothetical matches reality or try things out to see what consumers do. [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/how- onl...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/how-online- shopping-makes-suckers-of-us-all/521448/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Price discrimination in moderation can be a good thing for business health and society. If a business can detect that a person can afford to pay more for the service, then that additional inflow effectively subsidizes the service for people who can only afford using the service at the cheapest rates.

<comment><USER17> That only works if:

1\. Profits are capped.

2\. The company cannot gauge or drop service to non-profitable customers.

Neither applies.

<comment><USER18> 1\. Profits are inherently capped. I choose an upper bound of the value of everything on Earth.

2\. Every private entity, in free market capitalism, has the right to refuse service to a customer if providing that service is not beneficial to said entity (bar some race, age, etc. issue). Are you making an argument to remove that right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This blows a hole in Uber's claim that they're just a booking service that takes a cut. They're clearly a reseller, which makes drivers their employees.

<comment><USER20> Can you explain how reselling makes them employees?

<comment><USER21> Uber's not just "taking a cut" anymore. They're dictating the price to the customers, and the amount they pay the drivers, and those two values apparently aren't actually related to each other.

<comment><USER20> Are authors employees of publishing companies?

<comment><USER22> Authors can negotiate how much they get paid per word, Uber drivers can't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Uber is trying to outdo the U.S. healthcare system. You can't know the price until you need to leave. They have your calendar. Sure would be a shame to be late to your meeting/date, better pay up. They know where you live. They will happily take you from your home into the city for cheap. Need to get home somehow? Train shut down for the night and you have no alternative? Add $30 because fuck you. Oh by the way, if you try to make any software that compares our prices with anyone else's, we'll sue you. It's like having to do battle against HFT bots by reading the stock prices in the back of the newspaper. No thanks, I'll just drive and avoid all of this hassle.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Charging as much as possible" is not evil. "Charging based on information acquired by your phone spying on you or your social account tracking" is evil.

</comment><comment><USER25> You've found market price when buyers complain but still pay. - Paul Graham.

If this is true, it's obviously different for everyone. And as long as Uber doesn't have a monopoly, this sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

</comment><comment><USER26> I do not have a problem with this. Whatever makes sense to make a profit. The only thing i detest about Uber is its aggressiveness and willingness to exploit every loophole they can find.

</comment><comment><USER27> It's perverse that this article is talking about AI figuring out price discrimination and somehow manages to turn that into "and this will be terrible for the poor".

Price discrimination is _wonderful_ for the poor. Extract tons of money from the rich who don't give a shit, but still sell the service to poorer people at a price they can afford, with almost all the same benefits.

</comment><comment><USER28> For everyone defending this practice, how do you feel about an employer paying you less for doing the same work as your peers?

<comment><USER29> >> Thanks to complaints from Uber drivers, who were beginning to suspect that the ridesharing company was charging customers more with "upfront pricing" but not paying drivers more in turn

It sounds like they aren't paying "my peers" more. They're just charging more and taking a bigger cut.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> What's with the bad press about Uber lately ? Doesn't seem "organic" to me, more of a concerted effort by some org that want them down.

Not saying they don't deserve it, but somehow they have a scandal in the news every other week since a few months.

<comment><USER31> Predatory business practices, user tracking, operating in a grey area of local laws and other antisocial behaviour will almost always lead to bad press. Just take a look at Monsanto.

<comment><USER30> Yeah but I see much more of Uber in the press than Monsanto.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So, it's essentially the same as haggling with a regular taxi driver. (FYI, just in case: not every taxi in the world is officially registered and is using a meter). But because it's Uber, this common practice becomes evil.

</comment><comment><USER33> > Uber isn't looking at individual customers' circumstances, the company > claims, but group statistics

Given the reputation of this company, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear this change at some point in the future.

</comment><comment><USER34> Two words: disparate impact.

I'd be very concerned that they're somehow charging more to a protected class. Yeah, pricing is a bit of a black box, but that isn't a defense against "blacks end up getting charged $1.2 for every $1 whites get charged for equivalent rides". There's enough protected classes that you can basically do p-fishing. "Uber price discriminates against black people" not statistically significant? Run the numbers again with Asian instead, and see if it comes up. Or women. Or religion (rides to church service more expensive? Whoops.)

<comment><USER35> lol! any proof?

<comment><USER36> I think parent means to search it in reverse: split the pricing by class enough and eventually you'll find something that correlates. That's a quest for a modern ambulance chaser to be sure, but I can see some merit in it.

<comment><USER34> Yeah, it'd be something that could possibly be dug up. Many location-based systems for price discrimination can run into similar issues - <USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining)

Note that being purely profit-driven through your pricing scheme isn't a good defense. There could easily be a "taxis are racist and won't go into certain areas, therefore Uber has less competition serving black neighborhoods, therefore Uber can increase their prices there."</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Operate a Trade Show Booth - <AUTHOR> http://calacanis.com/2009/09/08/22-tips-on-how-to-operate-a-trade-show-booth/ <comment><USER2> #2 is crucial. I've exhibited at events where almost no one was buying technology. Worse, many of the people who stopped by and seemed interested were not people who would make software decisions for their organization.

You have to do your homework. Go beyond reading the event's website and literature. Just because it seems like the right crowd for your product doesn't mean it is. Or maybe it is, but the tradeshow floor is in a weird spot or only open during lunch or a keynote making it difficult to sell. Ask others who may have exhibited or attended before you buy a booth.

</comment><comment><USER3> Mini Ask-HN: What's the coolest piece of swag/kitsch that you've ever gotten from a booth (or a company in general)?

<comment><USER4> Coffee mug. Man, I need to go to better trade shows.

Oh wait - I once had my photo taken at a trade booth with a mermaid. But it wasn't a real mermaid, so that probably doesn't count.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1) Hire Ceren Ercen

<comment><USER6> Well, last I heard from her (which was earlier today), she's still looking for a job, but she's more looking for a sysadmin position than a booth babe gig.</comment></comment>


When does peer review make no sense? - <AUTHOR> http://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/01/peer-review-make-no-damn-sense/ <comment><USER2> When did p < 0.05 become acceptable? I remember in astronomy/astrophysics where 5sigma (3x10^-7 probability) was always the minimum required to publish.

<comment><USER3> 0.05 was first proposed by Fisher himself, which is 2 sigma if you look at a normal distribution (95% falls within 2 standard deviations[1]). Indeed, physics (generally particle physics, such as the Higgs Boson) goes for 5 or 6 sigma.

In biology, 0.05 is used because, well, it's hard otherwise. The cost, time, effort required for plants, animals, and even cells get exorbitant quickly, and are subject to many, many variations (animals generally have additional IACUC limits on procedures and numbers).

I could make arguments about how particles obey laws while biology is at least a few levels abstracted over that fundamental behavior, but xkcd has already done that. I personally feel that p<0.05 is absurd, and the entire biological field NEEDS to move to p<0.01. There's a movement toward that end, and it's about damn time.[3]

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule)

2: [https://xkcd.com/435/](https://xkcd.com/435/) & [https://xkcd.com/1052/](https://xkcd.com/1052/) & [https://xkcd.com/1520/](https://xkcd.com/1520/) spring to mind

3: A lot of internet ink has been spilled on the topic, but [http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v12/n3/full/nmeth.3288.h...](http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v12/n3/full/nmeth.3288.html) & [http://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19313.long](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19313.long) & [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical- err...](http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical- errors-1.14700) are good places to start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another situation where peer review makes no sense is sometimes recognized by traditional peer reviewed journals. _Physical Review Letters_ has suspended peer review on occasion for high-energy physics experiments with thousands of authors, acknowledging that it would be difficult to find a competent reviewer who is not already on the author list.

</comment><comment><USER5> So to answer the author's question; peer review makes no sense when your peers are incapable of judging a paper's validity either through a lack of domain knowledge on the subject or an overall poor grasp of scientific concepts in the community as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER6> I believe peer review to be generally harmful. It forces you to do things in a certain direction, in a certain way.

To quote Knuth:

"In fact what I would like to see is thousands of computer scientists let loose to do whatever they want. That's what really advances the field."

And today, the idea marketplace does not need to be mediated by conferences and papers.

There is however, one aspect in which removing them is tricky, and that is funding. Currently, publication is a metric used to grant funds or evaluate the result of research. If we removed that metric, it would just likely be replaced by other forms of gate-keeping that are as bad. And giving money to anyone is kind of problematic, of course; even just a permissive filter (checking for "reasonableness") would let in way too much candidates w.r.t. available money. I don't really know what could solve that particular conondrum.

<comment><USER7> This suggestion is as extreme and misguided as suggesting that code review is harmful.

<comment><USER6> This suggestion is as extreme and misguided as suggesting that this suggestion is harmful.

(This is not a typo :] )</comment></comment></comment>


Secret Geek A-Team Hacks Back, Defends Worldwide Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-12/ff_kaminsky <comment><USER2> Already posted: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=377155>

</comment><comment><USER3> This article started out very interesting, but it oversensationalized everything. It's an interesting story: you don't need to turn it into cheesy drama to keep your readers.

Wired loses more of my respect every time I get a link to an article.

<comment><USER4> I swear some of their photos make people look like Homer Simpson. When Richard Branson was on the cover in a space helmet, I could imagine him saying 'Doh'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"... He began by scanning the Internet for workout tips and read that five minutes of sprinting was the equivalent of a half-hour jog. This seemed like a great shortcut—an elegant exercise hack—so ... That same afternoon, he laced up his new kicks and burst out the front door ... He took a few strides, slipped on a concrete ramp and crashed to the sidewalk, shattering his left elbow. ..."_

Typical programmer error. How many times do you have to say it before it comes back to bite you ... don't prematurely optimise.

</comment><comment><USER4> I read this - "five minutes of sprinting" - as meaning C sprintf. I must be programming too much.</comment>


JavaScript can sleep - <AUTHOR> http://blog.klipse.tech/javascript/2016/12/19/es2017-sleep.html <comment><USER2> Is it necessary to mark the sleep function as async?

I had the impression every function that returns a promise could be "await"ed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Give it a try. And you'll know...

You can use the babel online repl [https://babeljs.io/repl/#?babili=false&evaluate=true&lineWra...](https://babeljs.io/repl/#?babili=false&evaluate=true&lineWrap=false&presets=es2017)

<comment><USER2> Yes, I was right.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple, Set to Move to Its Spaceship, Should Try More Moonshots - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/technology/apple-set-to-move-to-its-spaceship-should-try-more-moonshots.html?ref=topics&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Nope... Apple is too profitable, and even if they do hit the moon it can't be as profitable as phones that are propped up by rent-seeking spectrum owners.

It's a big part of the puzzle behind the "Atlas Shrugged" scenario we have where profitable companies pile up cash that they don't invest.

Even if Apple can greatly expand it's revenue with a "moonshot", it will be perceived as lower quality revenue if the margin is less, so shareholder value will decline.</comment>


Color Footage of America's First Shopping Mall Opening in 1956 - <AUTHOR> http://www.openculture.com/2016/06/color-footage-of-americas-first-shopping-mall-opening-in-1956.html <comment><USER2> One of the things that's absolutely fascinating about this to me is that the dress and wardrobe of everyone is just so much nicer than what I'll typically run into in a mall, even ten years ago.

I kind of wonder if American clothing has just gotten less and less formal over the years, or what--maybe it's just a Midwest thing?</comment>


Addressing Your Concerns - <AUTHOR> https://blog.shiftyjelly.com/2018/05/08/addressing-your-concerns/ <comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussion about the acquisition: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16989505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16989505)</comment>


Ask HN: How do you approach internet safety for your kids? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> {random internet advice}

Our main strategy has been the same as for non-internet safety, talking about sexuality, drugs, and crime since the boy was young and normalizing those discussions to create a context of trust. Our theory is more less that the only proven method for creating desirable behavior is to help a our child learn to make good decisions.

So far, it seems to be working reasonably well. It's not that he doesn't form typical teenage judgments from time to time, but there's a foundation for conversation and a history wherein listening to our experience has proven to him to be worth doing via independent verification.

tl;dr Talk with your kids now and it will be easier to talk with them later and more likely that you will be able to discuss potential issues when they first arise rather than when they become habits.

Good luck.</comment>


A Linguist Explains Why Texting and Tweeting Aren't Ruining the English Language - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neaanb/a-linguist-explains-why-texting-and-tweeting-arent-ruining-the-english-language <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20496643](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20496643)</comment>


Ask HN: Did you code in the 1980s? Which language(s) did you use? What for? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Only for my own personal amusement. I received, along with my sisters, a ZX Spectrum 48k for Christmas in 1984 or so.

The machine had a dead tape-deck on arrival, which meant that we couldn't play with any of the games in the bundle (10 IIRC).

My sisters lost interest pretty much immediately, but I read the manual and started entering the simple BASIC programs.

Over time I learned BASIC pretty well, eventually moving on to z80 machine code.

I stopped programming for a few years, instead preferring to play games, but then I wanted to get extra-lives so I started "hacking". Slowly learning how to by-pass the loaders on commercial games, so I could examine the programs and tweak them for infinite lives, timers, & etc.

I got a few POKEs published in UK magazines at the time, you'd write a little BASIC program that POKEd in machine-code to load the game from tape, patching it to return to your control, before modifying the game-code and jumping to the entry-point.

That occupied me from 84-90 or so.

</comment><comment><USER3> 6502, z80, 6809, BASIC, LSE, Pascal, COBOL, 360 assembler, S35 assembler, 68000, Microsoft Basic, LightSpeed Pascal, C, Modula-2, Object-Pascal, 8086, FORTRAN IV, Smalltalk, sh, csh, awk.

Some to learn, some to work, some for a hobby.

At work on that period, I've used 68000 assembler, S35 assembler, Microsoft Basic, LightSpeed Pascal, C, Modula-2.

In the 90's personal computers became more powerful, internet became accessible, and therefore the gamut of accessible programming languages became much wider and much more interesting (Lisp, scheme, prolog, ML, Ada, Modula-3, Oberon, etc). But that's not your question.

<comment><USER4> Quite an extensive list there :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes, started in 1984 with BASIC on my 8 bit home PC. Used that to learn programming, explore the machine & make a few primitive games.

Then moved on to Z80 assembler (massively faster, and that's where you really get to understand how the computer works).

At the end before going to University also used some Pascal, but not that much.

Didn't know about C back then, wish I had.

</comment><comment><USER5> Basic & Z80 ASM on the ZX81 and Camputers Lynx at home, for fun. Basic & DBaseII on PC-DOS as my first paid gig in 83. Then Fortran, C, x86 & 68000 ASM for mech eng software on DOS, Windows, VMS and Xenix [1] from 1985 to 1990. I wrote a Xenix device driver for a PC AT 386 hosted 68000 powered graphics card. That was fun :) Also did some C & Fortran on Intergraph's Clipper based Unix workstation.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was young, writing very simple games in Color BASIC on a TRS-80 hooked up to the family TV.

It didn't have a floppy drive, but it did let you save your programs to an audio cassette tape so you could load them up and reuse them later.

This was a highly unreliable way of storing programs, as my sister would often record audio over my programs because she liked watching the needles on the tape recorder move back and forth as she spoke.

</comment><comment><USER7> 6502 assembly - we were building the Acorn BBC machine (!) BCPL - the "before C" language at Cambridge University Pascal, SNOBOL - just because Modula 2 - because it was sooo cool (and we were using a variant of our own with all kinds of neat stuff - like exceptions!)

</comment><comment><USER8> Z8 BASIC, ZX80 BASIC, BBC BASIC, Sinclair QL BASIC, loads of other varieties of BASIC. Turbo Pascal, C, C++, Smalltalk. Z80, Z8 and 6502 assembler. Ladder logic.

Several others that I've forgotten.

</comment><comment><USER9> Only for fun, games and experiments

TI-99/4A: Logo and BASIC

Apple II: Applesoft BASIC and 6502 assembler

Commodore Amiga: BASIC, ARexx, assembler, Pascal, Aztec C.

</comment><comment><USER10> Basic, Assembly (6502, 8088), Pascal, Fortran</comment>


Particles App Material Design - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=hundredthirtythree.particles

<comment><AUTHOR> Discover more than hundred elementary and composite particles in modernn phyiscs in a really simple, material design app Particles. Learn, share and have fun with friends.

</comment><comment><USER2> Good app, really helpful</comment>


Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/ <comment><USER2> Why wouldn't all standard of living benefits of basic income get eliminated immediately by all relevant costs rising to soak it up?

This happens every single time the poor get any sort of money. In poor neighborhoods the rents cost as much as people are able to pay, no more, no less.

Do you know when most rental deposits are collected? Around the tax return season.

If suddenly the poor had some money to spare - the rents will simply go up. The water bill will go up. Electricity, gas. Etc.. until there's no extra income left. And then the poor will be in exactly the same situation as they are now.

Source: long time resident (and landlord btw) of poor neighborhoods of Philly.

P.S: Government is willing to help poor with mortgages? House prices balloon. Government is helping with education grants - colleges raise tuition. Borderline-broke municipalities with enormous unfunded liabilities are looking for any opportunity to collect back taxes and make up new ones. I can go on.

Why would this be any different? As the history shows it will provide a benefit for only a short amount of time until costs catch up.

P.P.S: I am not an opponent of helping poor, quite the opposite. I just don't know how to go about it in real world.

<comment><USER3> I fail to see by what mechanism what you describes occurs. Do you constantly query your occupant of pay raises? Why would every raise be siphoned by rent? Poor people have problem making ends meet for clothes, food, etc. Sure, more money put inflationary pressure, but it's not a magic direct correlation and instant feedback. If the government is serious and declares that it will adjust basic income to match the market price for basic goods and regulate their prices, including building low-rent lodging, then the inflationary pressure will have to subsides into only unregulated items.

<comment><USER2> I certainly don't "constantly query", but somehow there's always a feedback of what is a successful economic model.

I have so many examples of this. For instance due to terrible public schools - private schools cost roughly what it would cost you to move to a good neighborhood with good public school.

Day care - costs around what the government contributes as day care assistance.

Etc...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, the real question is, are you ready to pay for the Guaranteed Basic Income? Generously assuming that it's not indexed to inflation, probably what would happen is that costs would rise to account for the newfound money. Then, of course, there would have to be services that remain in place, because if people spend their income stupidly, we can't have them starving in the streets. Then you have the collection problem, that suddenly taxes would have to go up (and they would, of course, regardless of how many services you think you can cut).

The people who pay? In general, as with any tax increase, it's the middle class. It's the couple that went to college, saved their money, worked hard, bought a house and started a family. Regardless of how much you think you can raise tax rates on "the rich", the only way to pay for something like this is by getting to the middle class, which is where the tax revenue is.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think we should just call it what it is a dividend. We have crossed a point where handing off 10% of everyone's income allows for a reasonable minimum standard of living. But, because progress is always going to cost some people more than others we need to align incentives.

Sorry, I know your a world class doctor, but _Auto Scan (TM)_ just does a better job.

The important thing to remember is that % for a given standard is dropping over time. If 1% is enough to reach the current US standard then it's going to be really hard to say no.

PS: I don't think we will take this global any time soon. But, we could. World GDP is 106 dollars per person per day. 10% of that is 10.06$ per person per day. 80% of humanity lives on less than 10$ per day.

<comment><USER6> The numbers seem to work for the US.

A 10% income tax increase redistributed to all US households would be ~$11,000 per household, which is right about what the poverty line is for 1 person. If your household makes less than $110k you get a tax cut, above $110k you will be paying more to prevent social unrest.

All numbers in Billions and for 2014

Total earned income $14,700

Total income tax $1,000

\</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

                        $13,700

10% = $1,370

Total US households .125

basic income per household 1370/.125 = $11,000

<comment><USER5> I think suggestions reduce low income tax breaks and other social welfare programs while introducing a BI. ~11k per year could be close to net tax neutral.

EX: A flat tax at the highest rate would adds ~2,745$ to everyone above of the first tax bracket $9,275/yr, next tax bracket is hands out 6,980$, together that's a 9,725$ benefit for everyone making over $37,650/yr already being baked into the tax code.

On top of that you get things like HUD, education grants etc. Not to mention the 60+ million people getting Social Security.

PS: Not that I think the odds are good in the US any time soon. But, we are facing a lot of systemic issues which could promote a huge range of reforms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Disclaimer: I don't know anything about anything.

Some parents can put 850k in a account for their child when it's born that gets invested, say in the American economy (grows by say 7% over an average, long time period), which compounds until later in life, and when they grow up, they can access it. With good financial responsibility, this child won't have to work a day in their lives and can live off the returns.

Why can't we as a society do this for everyone, but you can never touch the account, only the returns? That is, wealth and a foot in the returns of humanity as a right.

You're born, you get $1mil put in an account that gets invested. When you turn 18, you start getting a monthly check, the return on that investment. You can never touch the account, only get its returns.

Someone tell me why this is a bad idea, worse than guaranteed basic income.

<comment><USER8> What makes you think the American economy would continue growing at 7% forever?

And why do you believe prices wouldn't rise to meet the new common standard of living afforded by this grant?

<comment><USER7> Because humans will never stop climbing. It's built into us. Even most people in poverty want to climb, they just have little to no options, so they find ways to cope nevertheless.

As for rising prices, surely they can't rise _everywhere_? People will be able to afford to abandon the obscenely wealthy playpens (SF, NY, Tokyo, etc) and move somewhere that's affordable. Cost of living varies depending on location, doesn't it? Surely this would result in more competition, not less?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> An earlier Freakonomics episode [1] discusses whether early retirement is bad for the health. According to the show it actually might be: _" one additional year of early retirement causes an increase in the risk of premature death of 2.4 percentage points"_

Guaranteed Basic Income sounds like an early retirement option for most people, so where it's probably a fantastic opportunity for self-starters, it might be lethal for everyone else. GBI's side effect can be weeding out non- entrepreneurs.

[1] Early Retirement: Bad For Your Health? [http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/29/early-retirement-bad- for-...](http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/29/early-retirement-bad-for-your- health/)

</comment><comment><USER10> It is important to consider this as more and more white-collar jobs may become redundant due to automation [e.g. 1].

Moreover, it would be interesting to see what becomes of today's jobs if there were an basic income. E.g. what percentage of jobs would disappear and not be missed? How many people would continue to work at their current job?

[1] [http://books.simonandschuster.com/The-Industries-of-the- Futu...](http://books.simonandschuster.com/The-Industries-of-the-Future/Alec- Ross/9781476753652)

<comment><USER11> Why? We have had "automation" in some form or another for many millennia and we have not needed a "basic income".

Every technological advancement from the invention of hand tools, to creating complex machines can be loosely classified as "automation" and in every case the standard of living has increased and resources were then allocated to some more productive means.

Why is today's automation any different?

<comment><USER10> The general argument (made e.g,. in the Alec Ross book) is that there will not be enough paid work left as more and more jobs are automated. So paying a basic income would become necessary to ensure people's survival (or prevent social unrest).

<comment><USER11> Just around my home I could easily hire a few people to do various jobs at any given time, but it is not cheap enough for me to justify doing that. Automation comes at a cost, and often humans laborers can do the job cheaper. The thing that will be pushing people out of a job is minimum wage, not the automation which often results in reaction to minimum wage.

<comment><USER12> Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions.

Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier. I suspect once we have BI, it will be much more expensive to pay someone to come clean your house.

<comment><USER11> >Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Nope.

>Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions.

No, minimum wage is a political stunt which results unemployment. That is why you now see the same union lobbyists who pushed for the $15 minimum wage now lobbying for exemptions for their unions.

>Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier.

Are you suggesting that wealthy people are ok if all of their workers died? Seems pretty ridiculous. If I am opposed to someone stealing my wallet, does that mean I am in favor of their kids starving to death?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It was interesting that they used dogs as an example of a population that had its work taken away by technological progress, yet did not provide the obvious counter example (horses).

<comment><USER14> Horses also had their work taken away by technological progress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Negative. Those with money will fight like hell to keep from giving it up. However if by some chance/miracle a guaranteed income is ever instituted, it will become a political football, as politicians and advocacy groups seek to continuously push it higher and higher. Instead of a money handout, I would rather support money in exchange for public works and service. I don't believe handouts without some kind of exchange will ever really work.

<comment><USER16> Politically I don't see it being any different to progressive taxes which many (most?) countries already implement.

Practically I suspect it will need to be quite low to avoid all sorts of distortions.

<comment><USER15> By politically I'm imagining a politician campaigning on the promise to increase the basic minimum income. Vote for me and I'll get your basic income increased. Don't vote for my opponent because they just want to cut your basic income! It's the tax issue all over again.

<comment><USER17> Exactly, and just as likely to be gummed up by complexity. After all, how can you be against teachers and firefighters receiving just a _little_ more BI for their essential, thankless jobs?

<comment><USER18> but such considerations are what their actual income is for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Next month in Switzerland, there's a votation to establish a basic income. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2016#Basic_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2016#Basic_income_referendum)

</comment><comment><USER11> In the past century we have countless examples of socialism failing, yet its proponents devise some new scheme, some new brand and try to sell it as if something will be different this time. Socialism will always fail because it is contradictory to human nature.

<comment><USER20> We have countless examples of capitalism failing too. But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. However, as any animal, if you corner them and put them in survival mode, things can get ugly.

The purpose of modern states is exactly to provide security in multiple ways, one of them being shared financial security, to remove the need of constant struggle for survival and allow the social side of humanity to flurish.

As an example on a smaller scale: There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance. Pure survival mode. Compare that for instance with companies like Google, that spoil everyone and even give you 20% time for free. So far they haven't collapsed. Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply. That exactly is the human behaviour argument.

Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling.

<comment><USER11> >But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals.

Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it having the word "social" in it?). Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature?

>There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance.

And yet people work for Amazon. Willingly. What's wrong with that? Just because the work environment does not meet your standards of what you expect from a job, why would you want to deprive others of their jobs? That's very anti-social.

>Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply.

Not only are they not countries but trying to extrapolate such scenarios which happen between free acting, cooperating, social individuals to a generic edict enforced through threat of violence is foolhardy.

>Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling.

Again, your examples tell us nothing of socialism and are not even applicable.

<comment><USER21> >Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature?

No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds.

You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest.

The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met, not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking, walking primates that we are.

<comment><USER11> >No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds.

Socialism may claim that but the results are very anti-social as demonstrated in my previous comment. You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? That's just one of dozens of possible scenarios I could mention which socialism prohibits.

>You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance

Yes, as that was the idea I was refuting from the parent comment.

>but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest.

Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow. We need not compare state to state, as socialist programs are typically applied to individual sectors of an economy. Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by. You will find corruption and you will find greater public outrage. Healthcare being a prime example. Ironically progressives blame the short comings in these sectors on capitalism.

>The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor.

I agree. I would like to see more thought, more experiment and more results to see how little of a state might be accomplished.

<comment><USER21> >You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon?

Socialism itself doesn't prevent you from hiring someone for $4 an hour. Current laws (which may be based on socialist principles) do that. You could argue that, in a future with a universal basic income, we wouldn't need a minimum wage, as people could survive on even no wage. Would this be more or less socialist than things as they are today?

>Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow.

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? Of course not. Prove within reasonable heuristics? Depends on your definition of "reasonable". Our definitions are clearly different.

>Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by.

A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a socialist government. Perhaps it is not the socialist regulation that caused the failure, but the failure of the industry to meet public need which drives regulation. You may find this reversal (or un-reversal) of cause and effect ironic, but it really comes down to the classic correlation vs causation question. Without better research, we really cannot know.

For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes. Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree.

<comment><USER11> >A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a socialist government.

I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. In my study of history the case which government lays out for their new intervention is based on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely downright lies. This has been the case in anti-trust, social security, medicaid and many more instances.

The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer demands?

>For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes.

Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election? How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these improved aggregates?

>Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree.

I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on, but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say its pointless.

<comment><USER21> >In my study of history the case which government lays out for their new intervention is based on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely downright lies. This has been the case in anti-trust, social security, medicaid and many more instances.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I guess we fundamentally disagree on how historical events should be interpreted.

>The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer demands?

Industries don't exist to meet demands, they exist to create profit. Meeting an external demand can create profit, but so can unlawful or immoral business practices. This is the very reason why people seek an organized entity (like a government) to negotiate on their behalf. Pristine economic theories work nicely in a bubble, but we don't live in one.

>Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election? How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these improved aggregates?

Do I agree with everything that the US government does? No. Would I rather be a US citizen than one of any other country? Yes. Do I think this country has the potential to move itself in the right direction? Yes.

>I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on, but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say its pointless.

In what world is it good socialist policy to squander trillions of dollars? Obviously things could be improved. Yes, some regulation is bad, just look at the anti-competitive practices Comcast has lobbied for over the years (and make no mistake, those policies are only in place because of Comcast's lobbying). Regulation is not the same thing as socialism. Socialism can impose regulation to promote certain principles, sure, but that doesn't mean all regulation is created to further social goals.

<comment><USER11> >Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I guess we fundamentally disagree on how historical events should be interpreted.

As I said previously, I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. Let's examine the facts and discuss further. Saying we disagree in the interpretation of historical events without even discussing any is a cop out and intellectually disingenuous.

>Industries don't exist to meet demands, they exist to create profit. Meeting an external demand can create profit, but so can unlawful or immoral business practices.

In a free (and freeish) market, businesses cannot survive without meeting customers' demands. It's possible a business owner could have a myriad of motivations, but the fact remains they must at least be meeting customer demands. But this goes back to the comment above. Please provide an example of an industry that was at least relatively laissez faire and failed to meet customer demands.

>This is the very reason why people seek an organized entity (like a government) to negotiate on their behalf.

I know very few people who view the government as an organization which negotiates on their behalf. In fact I can safely say I have never before heard anyone describe government in such a manner.

>Pristine economic theories work nicely in a bubble, but we don't live in one.

Unfortunately socialism doesn't even work in the bubble (it has been debunked thoroughly by economists such as F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard among others), let alone the real world. Thankfully capitalism has an excellent track record and we know empirically of its efficacy to improve the standard of living and increase human cooperation.

>In what world is it good socialist policy to squander trillions of dollars?

I have no idea what "good socialist policy" is as it seems like an oxymoron to me, but I think it's only fair that those who had their money forcefully taken from them determine whether the money is being squandered.

<comment><USER21> >As I said previously, I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. Let's examine the facts and discuss further. Saying we disagree in the interpretation of historical events without even discussing any is a cop out and intellectually disingenuous.

We would only be discussing our subjective interpretations of facts. I don't think that's intellectually disingenuous. For example, how could you argue with a Holocaust-denier who believes that all records were forged? You could be pointing to the exact same things but interpreting them differently. I don't think we share a common ground, and there nothing I could say to you or you could say to me to change the way we emphasize or de-emphasize historical facts and their relation to one another.

>In a free (and freeish) market, businesses cannot survive without meeting customers' demands. It's possible a business owner could have a myriad of motivations, but the fact remains they must at least be meeting customer demands. But this goes back to the comment above. Please provide an example of an industry that was at least relatively laissez faire and failed to meet customer demands.

What is a "free" market? I think this is the important question. My core belief is that actors in an economy will act according to game theory. Is a free market one with no rules? If so, what is to stop someone from lying, cheating, or stealing? Is a free market a system with a few basic principles? If so, who serves as judge to determine if rules were broken? How do you ensure this judge acts in the best interest of the market rather than their own best interest? What is the punishment for breaking rules? In my view, businesses do have a drive to create value. However, businesses also have a drive to make a cheap buck where they can at someone else's expense. I think having a government act on behalf of consumers is necessary to keep rent- seeking motives in check and let value-creation stay at the forefront. I simply do not believe that large, powerful, independent businesses will act with my best interests at heart.

>I know very few people who view the government as an organization which negotiates on their behalf. In fact I can safely say I have never before heard anyone describe government in such a manner.

Ideally, I do think that is what a government should be. I'm very happy that my government has orchestrated clean water, built power lines, roads, and bridges, and ensured basic standards for food quality. In essence, the government is a sort of corporation of which I received a single share upon birth. The ultimate morality of being forced into purchasing that share is debatable, but pragmatically, at least for now, I'm happy with it.

>Unfortunately socialism doesn't even work in the bubble (it has been debunked thoroughly by economists such as F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard among others), let alone the real world. Thankfully capitalism has an excellent track record and we know empirically of its efficacy to improve the standard of living and increase human cooperation.

I think you carry a lot of baggage when you use the term socialism. I'm not talking full-scale USSR planned economies. The US has been dabbling in socialist policies since the Great Depression. That track record you attribute to capitalism I attribute to socialism (or I guess social capitalism). I'm not advocating for full government control of the economy. I do think the government can be an actor in an economy for net benefit, and I think certain powers should be ensured.

>I have no idea what "good socialist policy" is as it seems like an oxymoron to me, but I think it's only fair that those who had their money forcefully taken from them determine whether the money is being squandered.

Let's call it social capitalism, then. You seem to have a problem with the word socialism itself.

<comment><USER11> >What is a "free" market? I think this is the important question. My core belief is that actors in an economy will act according to game theory. Is a free market one with no rules? If so, what is to stop someone from lying, cheating, or stealing? Is a free market a system with a few basic principles?

While clearly defining a free market is an important discussion, I think it out of the scope of this discussion. The direction for the thread was to explore your claim that government regulation in a market is initially introduced to mend a "failing industry". The only way to verify such a claim would be to explore some historical case. As you refuse to identify such a case, defining the term "free market" is a diversion.

>In essence, the government is a sort of corporation of which I received a single share upon birth.

>I simply do not believe that large, powerful, independent businesses will act with my best interests at heart.

Seems contradictory, don't you think? I find it ironic that you believe private businesses would do you personal harm, but you have no similar concerns for government. It is government not businesses who are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the past century alone. It is government not businesses which hold a monopoly on violence and perform their every act, even the ones you deem noble, through the threat of violence.

<comment><USER21> >It is government not businesses who are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the past century alone.

This is simply untrue. You cannot blame the concept of government for what people in governments do. I can be against what a private industry does without being against the concept of industries altogether.

>I find it ironic that you believe private businesses would do you personal harm, but you have no similar concerns for government.

I said no such thing. I said that I have more of a say in what happens in my government than in a private business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Where is the incentive to get people off the couch looking for work or going to school?

<comment><USER23> Inside every person, silly.

<comment><USER24> If I had a decent basic income, I wouldn't be working.

<comment><USER25> But not everyone would. I really love my work. Fewer people in the marketplace would be good for me because it would drive up my wages, which means I could afford to do things that the average UBI recipient could not.

Also, it's not like UBI would solve all social problems. Many people who like to work in nonprofits today would continue to do so. Probably even more people would because they would have more of a safety net underneath them while they save the world.

That said, I'm skeptical of a UBI. Too many unknown consequences.

<comment><USER26> Money is just an abstraction for actual goods and services produced by the economy. If your wages go up, presumably so does the wages of those whose services you consume.

If less people worked, the economy would produce less and we would be worse off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It seems to me that the question of how to finance a UBI is probably the largest stumbling block.

Of course it could be done through taxes but a lot of people have legitimate concerns about government taxation. For taxation to work you need a coercive government and many of us are very aware of the downsides of such an entity. Of course taxation isn't the only reason we have a coercive government there's also the war on drugs and other policies which seem to ultimately derive from the need of a significant fraction of the population to dictate the choices of their fellow citizens. This tendency is of course inevitably amplified among those who self-select for government or political careers. There is also to some degree a legitimate need for self-defense which also inevitably leads to some degree of coercive government. But even if these problems could be solved, say for example through more rational and better focused defense policies and through evolution of ethical views to give greater weight to the desires of individuals to lead their lives as they see fit, if we are going to provide a safety net for everyone we will always need some form of government and if that government is financed through taxation a level of coercive and invasive policies is likely inevitable.

Could we find a better way to finance government and a UBI ? Some countries and regions with extensive natural resources have been able to leverage them to help finance their governments and provide assistance to citizens (examples I believe include Norway and Alaska). However most economies are not so strongly dependent on the exploitation of natural resources so this type of solution cannot be generalized. What if a nation's government became an investor in that nation's economy ? I'm not talking about nationalization of industry but allowing the government to acquire minority ownership of public corporations as a means not of exerting control but of generating income. Could we imagine government evolving to the point of relying for its financing on a financial portfolio much like some universities receive substantial income from their endowments ? I'm not an economist but I've never encountered this idea in the press. It would be interesting to know what the experts think of it.

<comment><USER28> You have to fund it via land value tax or rentiers will take up all the slack.

Get rid of income tax, tax land. We want to stop rentiers, we don't want to stop workers. Right now it's back to front, by design.

<comment><USER29> Can you explain how land value tax relates to current UK council tax? Is CT just a really poorly implemented LVT and could LVT be implemented by modifying the existing CT system?

I advocate for LVT in the abstract but get stuck on explaining implementation in a relatable way.

p.s. really appreciate your persistent posting on this :)

<comment><USER28> Sorry i missed this msg. Yes CT is not enough. LVT would replace income tax as the primary govt income.

Read Henry George.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've wondered if a "guaranteed basic goods" systems might make sense, either as an alternative to a basic income system, or as a way to slowly transition to one.

The idea would be that as we figure out how to automate things, we make those things essentially public goods. We end up with a mixed economy, where we have one class of goods that are produced in publicly owned automated factories and do not cost the consumer money, and another class of goods that work like they do now where private parties produce them and sell them for money which the buyers earn through paid employment.

For instance, consider vegetables. We're close to being able to make almost fully automated farms for many crops, and we're close to fully automating most of the shipping from farm to market. The idea would be that as we achieve this, the government buys up these farms (or starts its own farms), and everyone gets a daily allotment of the produce from these farms. Some meat production is also highly automated, and so we should be able to at some point in the not too distant future add meat to this.

At that point everyone who has a place to cook has their basic food requirements taken care of.

How about transportation? Automobile manufacture is very automated. At some point that too will be almost completely automated. Combine that with self- driving cars, and we should be able to have a publicly owned nationwide fleet of self-driving taxis. Ideally these would be electric cars, powered by publicly owned solar, wind, hydroelectric, or nuclear systems.

As automation gets more and more advanced, more and more goods can be added to the "made by publicly owned automated factories" list and made available to all.

When enough stuff is automated and turned into public goods to allow someone to survive reasonably without a job as long as they have housing, we can start making publicly owned housing in places where land and construction costs are cheap. That will be away from the big cities, but for people who decide to not work that would be fine, as it would for people who can work remotely. So we should be able to reach a point where everyone can have a basic apartment or small house and the necessities to survive reasonably there, without an income.

Will we ever be able to automate everything except creative intellectual work? I don't think so, at least not for a long time. I think that would require the development of something like the robots from Asimov's stories--robots that have human form factors (so that they can work anywhere that a human can work) and human level intelligence, and I don't think we'll be there anytime in the next 100 years.

A nice thing about this approach is that it can be done with minimal disruption. With basic income you have to give everyone enough to reasonably survive right from the start. With basic goods, you go item by item, industry by industry.</comment>