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

211–220 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#211

Post by hanniabu »

kingkawn wrote: post #193
hanniabu wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> found fancy

I was giving you the benefit

> without healthcare and without food

What? I've never heard him say this and seens like something he wouldn't say given his stance on wellbeing. Also, you can use UBI for food.

The only thing I've heard is people on welfare programs would be able to choose between continuing those or stopping them and switching to UBI. Nothing about healthcare and with these the people get to choose themselves.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#212

Post by simonsarris »

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…

Yeah, I think this is a commonly-dodged problem that is dodged precisely because the nature of UBI proponents selects for it. But it's a mistake to think one's personal motivators/use of free time/etc are true of everyone. You cannot extrapolate like that.

> Just as you can find Silicon Valley techies who think Soylent is the only sustenance a person will ever need, intellectuals tend to think everyone could be as content as they would be living life in their heads or inventing their own destiny. Most people need to be doing something to feel satisfied and a potential UBI system addresses this need just as inadequately as disability checks do now. Cue drug epidemics.

When I wrote this in 2017, the "intellectuals" I was thinking of was Sama specifically.

https://medium.com/s/free-money/after-universal-basic-income...

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#213

Post by hanniabu »

vorpalhex wrote: post #198
hanniabu wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing nothing may cause an even worse situation.

The human race has existed a long time without UBI.

That's not relevant. The stance of UBI is centered mainly on automation with a side benefit of being able to afford risks and improving quality of life.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#214

Post by AnthonyMouse »

anovikov wrote: post #192
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "w…

No need for melodrama. People often sell a big house and buy a small house when they retire and then use the difference to live on, but reducing housing scarcity makes both costs go down. Which means the reduction in the difference (surplus) is less than the total reduction in the price of the housing, and is a net benefit to the country overall. Meanwhile housing costs have knock on effects for all other costs, so they go down too. Having lower costs is a major benefit for people on a fixed income.

Reducing housing costs helps the indigent elderly at least as much as it does the average person. Who it hurts is the affluent elderly who own a big mansion and would get whacked harder than usual by a reduction in its value, but I'm not sure why I'm supposed to have a lot of sympathy for rich people trying to profit from artificial scarcity.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#215

Post by Aloha »

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…

I look at UBI as a replacement for a part time minimum wage job, not for working. Meaning it ought to give you about 250 dollars a week. I also view it as a replacement for having minimum wage too - but no one will work for 2.00 and hour either.

UBI will free throws labor force, and make it easier for labor to be more mobile and move to where the jobs are - the other key about UBI is everyone gets it, no matter if wealthy or poor.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#216

Post by grzm »

hanniabu wrote: post #205
grzm wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

That's a horrible comparison. If I didn't need to have a job I would be volunteering helping the elderly, doing construction work, helping with animal rehabilitation, inventing things (I'm a mechanical engineer), etc. I can't contribute in any of these ways I would enjoy because they either don't enough or are risky.

I think we may be talking past each other. My intent is to explain why I think phrases like “slaves” and “buy ourselves from our owners” is ill-suited for what you’re trying to convey. Indeed, I’m struggling to find the connection between your comment I first responded to and your response here. I think you’re trying to distinguish between what you have to do to live and what you would choose to do if you didn’t have to worry about making a living. That’s certainly a worthwhile point to make, but again, I don’t think that in and of itself is slavery. (I wasn’t at all implying that what you would choose to do was separate yourself from society, given the opportunity—if that’s how you read the example.)

My example may miss the mark, but it wasn’t intended to. Can you help tie them together for me?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#217

Post by crdoconnor »

3131s wrote: post #66
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…

> 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…

>Imagine if we have a VAT on yachts and nothing else, does that disproportionately affect the rich or the poor?

Nobody? They'll buy yachts abroad.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#218

Post by ianai »

simonsarris wrote: post #212
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…

Yeah, I think this is a commonly-dodged problem that is dodged precisely because the nature of UBI proponents selects for it. But it's a mistake to think one's personal motivators/use of free time/etc are true of everyone. You cannot extrapolate like that. > Just as you can find Silicon Valley techies who think Soylent is the only sustenance a person will ever need, intellectuals tend to think everyone could be as co…

Please don’t tie UBI to the failed war on drugs. Alcohol prohibition was ceased for the exact same reason the war on drugs should be ceased. Further, there are even outlawed substances which have anti-addiction affects that are part of the prohibition. It’s the definition of a bad idea insulating itself from better ideas.

People need UBI because the purely survival backed capitalistic system harms society too greatly.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#219

Post by gonational »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #174
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. You can get a one bedroom in Austin for less than $800/month, to say nothing of arrangements that involve roommates or shared facilities or couples who would then have a second UBI. > I would imagine an UBI will be mostly used by people to exclude themselves from active wo…

> You can get a one bedroom in Austin for less than $800/month

... because there is currently no program in Austin whereby residents each get $1,000 of free money month.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#220

Post by wufufufu »

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…

"welfare state" is a weak criticism. You're talking about a population that historically faced oppression and displacement. Given the context, doesn't make sense that a monthly check is the cause of alcohol addiction.
Post reply on HN