Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#111

Post by ghaff »

rococode wrote: post #34
lotsofpulp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the Chinese YouTube’s have positive cash flow? I don’t even know if youtube has positive cash flow.

I was curious about Youtube too, apparently around 2015 they started breaking even. I couldn't find any more recent articles, although there were a whole bunch in 2009 about how much money it was losing. https://www.itproportal.com/2015/02/26/youtube-still-loss-le... I think an obvious but interesting thing about video-based business models in general is how their storage costs per video are basically indefinitely co…

There's no law of nature that data/eyeballs-based monetization (including advertising) has to remain viable everywhere that it is today. I find it entirely plausible that 10 years from now people will have to directly pay for more of the services that they use.

You're already seeing this with the increased number of paywalls around publication content. I expect we'll see more subscriptions and services just shutting down if people aren't willing to pay.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#112

Post by grecy »

intuitionist wrote: post #26

Altman and Yang are a natural fit because they’re both very invested (Altman literally so) in the narrative that automation is coming for huge numbers of jobs. But the economic statistics just don’t back this up. Total factor productivity, a (rough) measure of the technological contribution to economic production, is growing considerably more slowly than it was during the early 2000s, and much more slowly than during…

Even if automation isn't coming for people's job, isn't it time we moved away from this idea that every single person has to work for 40 hours a week for 50 years of their life just to survive?

What about spending time with family, or learning a new language or just enjoying one's time?

When do we reach that magical future where we actually have leisure time and can enjoy the fact we're more advanced than we were a hundred years ago when everyone worked hard?

I'd like to get there now.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#113

Post by throwno »

mwilcox wrote: post #13
roenxi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your overall point that this result is backwards to what people probably want. That being said the situation is hardly ridiculous. Eg, To a pretty reasonable first approximation, all of Amazon's income is either going to be (1) distributed to shareholders and trigger income/capital gains tax or (2) invested in making goods cheaper for amazon's customers. It isn't immediately obvious that it is a good ide…

In reality Amazon is accumulating cash faster than it can spend it, same as the rest of big tech. If it had things to reinvest it into it wouldn't be such a problem

Once your business is accumulating cash faster than it can spend it, it's time to pay a dividend.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#114

Post by 3131s »

barrkel wrote: post #95
3131s wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're using a regressive VAT tax to pay for UBI you are not redistributing wealth, you are disproportionately taxing the poor to distribute to themselves ( https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive ) much of which will be lost as the prices of goods increases to match equilibrium. Amazon won't "pay the tax" it will pass the tax along in the form of higher consumer prices. A flat value added tax is…

Taxing transactions other than capital purchases isn't going to make much of a dent in inequality. The reason we have such inequality is from capital income and appreciation. Taxing ordinary income or outgoings won't help much.

Ok, fortunately Yang also wants to increase capital gains taxes to the same rate as income taxes.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/capital-gain-carried-inter...

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#115

Post by moralsupply »

The government would need to get money somewhere for the UBI program.

It can only do so either through taxation, or by printing money, as the government is not a value-generation enterprise.

If UBI gets its funding by taxation, UBI can't work economically (not to say it wouldn't be "UBI"). Even if you tax all the rich people, it won't provide enough money for the program. Besides, you can't really tax the rich, the moment you declare an aggressive taxation regime on them, they fly their money out of the country (and possibly their businesses too, which would generate poverty). If the assumption is that it would tax "everyone but the poor" then it's not universal "income", it's just another "social program" paid by the middle class.

If UBI is funded by printing money, then it's a debt generation engine. The USA is already heavily indebted due to at least 100 years of irresponsible governments spending a lot more than what they made through taxes. UBI would only make matters worse, and could easily lead to a currency crash within at most a couple decades (which would wipe out retirement funds, savings, etc. therefore generating poverty and causing social unrest)

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#116

Post by grecy »

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #92
tempsy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$12K/year is hardly a free ride to a life of no work. There will be a tiny minority that somehow game it and live off that, but for the vast majority it’s a cushion and not a replacement for work at all.

I wish for your assessment of human nature to be accurate, but I’m quite doubtful.

You should look into welfare payments in Australia. It's about the easiest to get and most generous on the planet, and a small percentage of people do choose to be lazy and life off it.

But the very vast majority don't.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#117

Post by douglaswlance »

grecy wrote: post #112
intuitionist wrote: post #26

Altman and Yang are a natural fit because they’re both very invested (Altman literally so) in the narrative that automation is coming for huge numbers of jobs. But the economic statistics just don’t back this up. Total factor productivity, a (rough) measure of the technological contribution to economic production, is growing considerably more slowly than it was during the early 2000s, and much more slowly than during…

Even if automation isn't coming for people's job, isn't it time we moved away from this idea that every single person has to work for 40 hours a week for 50 years of their life just to survive? What about spending time with family, or learning a new language or just enjoying one's time? When do we reach that magical future where we actually have leisure time and can enjoy the fact we're more advanced than we were a h…

You can have that. Acquire more assets.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#118

Post by chiefalchemist »

kyledrake wrote: post #50

"Altman, who favors UBI, said in exchange for a floor, he’d like to see no ceiling on earnings, as some, like presidential hopeful Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, have suggested. And like Friedman, Altman suggested tying the amount of the basic income to a fixed percentage of GDP. “Right now, because people are rightly angry that there's no floor, and that most people have no real chance to be super successful, we sort…

> "UBI just doesn't solve that..."

It might not solve is but it's certainly a ding in the arc of the current status quo.

The problem with no floor is it creates fear. Lots of it. When you fear losing your job and/or your home your view of the world gets very narrow. Your options limited. Availability of opportunity and resources cause you to make bad decisions (e.g., blaming minority X or Y for your fate).

It's true UBI will not solve the power imbalance. But it can be a step in the direction of undermining the status quo.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#119

Post by swiley »

moralsupply wrote: post #115

The government would need to get money somewhere for the UBI program. It can only do so either through taxation, or by printing money, as the government is not a value-generation enterprise. If UBI gets its funding by taxation, UBI can't work economically (not to say it wouldn't be "UBI"). Even if you tax all the rich people, it won't provide enough money for the program. Besides, you can't really tax the rich, the m…

You tax coorperations, not rich individuals.

Although if you sit down and work it out I’m not sure it makes sense quite yet. UBS though probably could.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#120

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kyledrake wrote: post #50

"Altman, who favors UBI, said in exchange for a floor, he’d like to see no ceiling on earnings, as some, like presidential hopeful Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, have suggested. And like Friedman, Altman suggested tying the amount of the basic income to a fixed percentage of GDP. “Right now, because people are rightly angry that there's no floor, and that most people have no real chance to be super successful, we sort…

> UBI just doesn't solve that

Doesn't it though? You create a floor, so that anyone with a miserable job can say "screw you" and quit and go start their own business without having to worry about how they're going to make rent before the new business starts making money, and you get a lot more competition. More smaller companies instead of fewer bigger companies. And the big companies would have to pay more to get some people to not do that, so you get less inequality.

How isn't that solving the problem?

Post reply on HN