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

181–190 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#181

Post by hanniabu »

e40 wrote: post #164
sethammons wrote: post #159

I like the idea of freeing people to be able to quit and get a new job any time, where quitting today means a real threat of losing one's home, transportation, or ability to eat (never mind fueling the cycle of debt that keeps so many down). I think it would be a net benefit if people could tell oppressive employers to fuck off without fear. However, a welfare state is a real thing to be worried about. My sister work…

Any time such a huge change is introduced into a complex system, it is extremely hard to see all the unintended consequences. I like the idea of UBI, too. Taking that leap worries me, though, we might be in for a worse time because of it.

Doing nothing may cause an even worse situation.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#182

Post by save_ferris »

keiferski wrote: post #64
save_ferris wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue that giving out this free technology still creates the dependency you’re trying to avoid. Realistically, a lot of people aren’t going to know how to use this technology up front, so what are they gonna do? What if the technology breaks and needs to be fixed? Do people rely on the state for maintenance? You’re still paying for it either way. In your first example, it sounds like the ultimate goal is grow eno…

I don’t think fixing broken technology requires the ongoing involvement of the state. If (gasoline) car manufacturers all disappeared tomorrow, mechanics would still be able to maintain them. The goal is to reduce dependency and increase independence. The way to do that is by creating a distributed, public knowledge and skills base.

> I don’t think fixing broken technology requires the ongoing involvement of the state

If said technology served to meet universal basic needs, the state would have to be involved somehow. Otherwise, how would someone destitute be able to pay a mechanic to fix the machine that makes the food? That money would have to come from somewhere, and if we're guaranteeing that everyone has a right to a working food-making machine, then it's hard to see how private interests keep those machines running.

The idea that we could just give everyone a food-making machine and solve state dependency issues just seems so shortsighted in how technology and government really works. I struggle to think of a single consumer appliance that doesn't require some kind of maintenance, which would have to be paid for somehow.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#183

Post by snidane »

JorgeGT wrote: post #135
grecy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Answer is: never. The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago, but instead of settling we want more: traveling, more and more advanced tech, vast amount of entertainment, etc. Consider the multi-billion dollar media productions (games, TV series, movies, music, books, etc.) that you can access at the command of your voice vs. th…

So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs because we have TVs, Netflixes, Games, gadgets, toys etc.

I would argue that many people nowadays feel more like slaves than monarchs since they can hardly even afford healthcare in many cases, they probably won't have a pension due to current demographics, they have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords, tax lords, pension lords, healthcare lords and other various fee lords.

True, It does feel like Feedalism again, but for many not from position of monarchs but serfs.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#184

Post by hanniabu »

kingkawn wrote: post #178
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how exactly is a ubi not solving rampant poverty? Maybe someone's implementation is flawed but to make an extraordinary claim like UBI can't solve poverty will require extraordinary proof. Likewise, how is ubi regressive? What would a progressive solution to poverty be?

If the introduction of UBI is coupled with the dismantling of existing social safety net it is effectively the privatization of public welfare, and will result in all the related pitfalls.

It feels like you just strung together dinne fancy words and didn't provide any reasoning.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#185

Post by yonaguska »

perfect_kiss wrote: post #132
kyledrake wrote: post #63

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. If the primary concern is t…

Living in a VAT Post-Soviet country, I am not sure if that argument about "hitting harder the poor" is true, if VAT system is not specially aligned against the poor, which was the case in my country earlier times of Post-Soviet transition, but has changed recently. The thing about VAT is that it is multilateral, and applies to many types of business-to-business transactions as well to business-to-consumer, so all the…

I really appreciate those points.

> So in reality, implementing proper VAT system requires powerful government, and also VAT does not survive lobbyism and cronyism.

This kind of kills the VAT being feasible here in the US. We have crazy amounts of lobbying and legal loopholes and while the US gvt is powerful, that's somewhat antithetical to the founding ideals of that.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#186

Post by fooker »

doyceplunk wrote: post #69
chr1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on how government would get the money for UBI. If it goes ahead and just prints more money then there will be rampant inflation, but if it redirects money from other programs, the prices of some goods may change, but there won't be inflation.

The money will come from a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT). No new money will be printed to pay for the Freedom Dividend so there will be no inflation.

>No new money will be printed to pay for the Freedom Dividend so there will be no inflation.

Wow this is fundamental misunderstanding of what inflation is.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#187

Post by AnthonyMouse »

snidane wrote: post #168
anovikov wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously there is NO WAY in the world an UBI will cover the rent - even the rent alone - in any place where it makes sense starting a business. I would imagine an UBI will be mostly used by people to exclude themselves from active workforce to "retire" in low-cost destinations. Because that will be the only thing it will really allow doing. Say you impose a super huge 30% income tax (anything above that will cause a…

> Seriously there is NO WAY in the world an UBI will cover the rent - even the rent alone - in any place where it makes sense starting a business. Wrong. UBI financed by monopoly taxes makes rents go rock bottom. High uncompeted markup prices - Rents - are by definition caused by some kind of monopoly situation, because they are not competed away. You need to tax monopolies and not call it tax but a 'privilege fee' a…

> You need to tax monopolies and not call it tax but a 'privilege fee'

Probably better to just get rid of the monopolies, e.g. by relaxing zoning restrictions on density so that housing supply can respond to demand.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#188

Post by hanniabu »

dwiel wrote: post #160
douglaswlance wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have that. Acquire more assets.

yeah, and if you are lucky, you'll only have to work 40 hours a week for 50 years to acquire them.

Which brings up his quality of life stance.

It honestly feels like we're paid slaves waiting until we have enough to buy ourselves from our owners.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#189

Post by charlesu »

moralsupply wrote: post #173
charlesu wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're oversimplifying how companies determine prices and wages. Yes, corporate taxes are one consideration. There's also competition, regulations, distribution costs, and commodity prices. Passing along your costs directly to consumers is a great way to give up market share to a more efficient or creative competitor.

If taxes are applied to all corporations, competition is not a factor to be considered.

That's an interesting statement. Why not?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#190

Post by snidane »

echelon wrote: post #18
sak5sk wrote: post #2

Great to see tech leaders get behind UBI. Now is the time and Yang is the candidate of a lifetime. I never understood how people buy into the whole "break up the tech giants" argument. It makes no sense, just a great platitude with no real accomplishment. Who wants to use the 2nd best Twitter or Facebook? Not a single person.

How does UBI even work? Won't it just lead to rampant inflation where the basic income is spread thin, eaten up almost entirely by the rising cost of goods? It seems like this in turn will require an even higher basic income, which exacerbates the problem. Isn't an analogous situation that of private loans for tuition? Tuitions have risen across the board to eat up all the new "free" money in the system. Won't UBI ma…

> How does UBI even work? Won't it just lead to rampant inflation where the basic income is spread thin, eaten up almost entirely by the rising cost of goods?

In the long run UBI promotes innovation and competition. Therefore those industries with competition would not suffer from rampant inflation.

Businesses without competition (monopolies) would on the other hand experience huge inflation simply because there is no pressure to keep the price down. This would be the case of natural monopolies (eg. banks or networks such as telecommunication, railroads, water systems) and government guaranteed monopolies (pharma, US healthcare, various overregulated industries).

Post reply on HN