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

191–200 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#191

Post by hanniabu »

pascoej wrote: post #162

Yang does have an interesting idea for campaign finance reform too. 100$ a year for any citizen to spend on political campaigns. In some ways I think this is bigger than the UBI. If everybody spent this voucher it would be ~23B, almost 4x what was spent on federal races in 2016. I think it will be more likely that our elected officials make better policy for normal people if their campaign funding also comes from the…

Yeah I really like that you could support what you want as it gives more control to the citizens.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#192

Post by anovikov »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #187
snidane wrote: post #168

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. 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.

But you need to destroy democracy in order to be able to do that? Isn't that a too high price to pay? Also it will mean leaving tens of millions of largely elderly or at least 55+ people, bankrupt and destitute, and having to deal with the problem of feeding like 50M+ elderly people, instead of the same amount of young people who now can't afford rents? Is that REALLY worth the trouble? See it's not some imaginary "world jewry" or someone like that who owns all the apartments, it's the same ordinary American people, just older ones. Why forcibly taking money from one large demographic to another - from one who can't really change things for themselves much anymore to those who can - by destroying democracy in the process - is supposed to change anything at all for the better? And how is it even basically 'fair'?

To me it feels both politically impossible, morally unjustifiable, and socially bullshit. "Get too many people very angry for no benefit at all".

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#193

Post by kingkawn »

hanniabu wrote: post #184
kingkawn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It boggles to imagine which of those words you found fancy

Yang’s website says the plan will rely on poor people electing not to get other social safety net benefits. People will end up without healthcare and without food if there are not programs in place to address those problems specifically.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#194

Post by coredog64 »

hacknat wrote: post #100
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…

I agree with you that VAT by itself is regressive, but coupled with UBI it is not even close. Relative to their wealth, Rich people, effectively, do not even pay income tax. The bulk of income tax is paid by the middle class. Does that seem fair to you? I agree with you that money is power, but you are not going to stop the existence of Billionaires and Trillionaires. That would need to be a coordinated global effort…

> Relative to their wealth, Rich people, effectively, do not even pay income tax.

Can you explain this, as this doesn’t appear to be backed up by IRS stats on effective rates & total revenue.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#195

Post by hanniabu »

hnbreak wrote: post #25

Yang says that breaking up tech monopolies won't help (with giving a very weak example) but he doesn't give a proper answer how to get competition back. Why does China have 20 different kind of Youtubes and the western world just one?

I feel like because he's new and trying to shake things up that people are holding him to way higher of a standard than other candidates. Other candidates have been throwing things out there like wanting to provide healthcare to everyone (just one example) and as far as I've seen they've provided no plans for how they will make this happen. Yet for Yang everyone wants to see every detail of it. I also feel like this may be lead by organizations that don't like that he's shaking things up (apparently the DNC told him not to even mention the threat of automation because they don't want to scare people, as if putting our heads in the sand gets anything done).

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#196

Post by charlesu »

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.

Why are you doubtful? Are people born into wealth generally lazy?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#197

Post by grzm »

hanniabu wrote: post #188
dwiel wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find this perspective problematic. I understand it feels like a lack of freedom—indeed you are constrained from doing whatever you want.

As an example, imagine you are on your own, completely outside of society, out of contact with others. You’d need to build and maintain shelter. You’d need to forage or grow food. You’re not free to do whatever you want, until you have accumulated enough resources to not need to do the work to provide what you need for everyday survival.

I don’t think we’d call this slavery, yet it has the same shape as what you describe. Slavery implies coercion or violence limiting freedom, which certainly still exists in the world, but isn’t an apt description of what you describe.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#198

Post by vorpalhex »

hanniabu wrote: post #181
e40 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The human race has existed a long time without UBI.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#199

Post by crdoconnor »

hacknat wrote: post #100
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…

I agree with you that VAT by itself is regressive, but coupled with UBI it is not even close. Relative to their wealth, Rich people, effectively, do not even pay income tax. The bulk of income tax is paid by the middle class. Does that seem fair to you? I agree with you that money is power, but you are not going to stop the existence of Billionaires and Trillionaires. That would need to be a coordinated global effort…

Water down intellectual property rights, strengthen labor rights, tax land appropriately and a lot of billionaires would just disappear of their own accord.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#200

Post by skybrian »

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…

The problem is comparing the situation in those places in Alaska to what we think it would like without those yearly checks. It seems like it might be worse? But hard to know.

There are studies in other places that are more positive, but they probably aren't generalizable.

A big difference with a program where eligibility is based on citizenship is you could take it with you anywhere in the nation and probably the world. People willing to move should benefit greatly from this but the long-term effects seem hard to predict.

Post reply on HN