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

241–250 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#241

Post by firethief »

skybrian wrote: post #200
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 wo…

Yeah, there are some major confounding factors in Alaska. I know that at least in the case of my tribe, they didn't forget how to live off the land because the government was giving them money. The government started to consider their coast with their winter houses on it someone else's private property (and still does). The government started restricting their fishing once there was a cannery on the river. The government forced them to go to schools where they weren't allowed to speak their language or practice their culture. And yes, the government eventually started giving them money. But they forgot how to live off the land much earlier, when doing so became illegal. (The introduction of hard liquor predated all of that, and coincided with 1/3 the population dying of new diseases. Also not UBI-caused.)

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#242

Post by gonational »

I’m confident that we can all agree that large corporations are efficient at extracting value from the economy (not to suggest that they don’t also add value).

If we were to take the current system, with no changes made to the rules, and send it forward 100 years in a time machine, I’m confident we can also agree that consolidation by large corporations will have increased significantly during this period of time.

If we can increase the velocity of the economy, I’m confident we can agree that this would have a similar effect as the aforementioned time machine scenario.

Indiscriminate injection of capital into an economy necessarily increases the velocity of the economy.

If you’re with me this far, then you have come to the conclusion, for yourself, that UBI will increase the velocity of the economy and further consolidate wealth into the hands of large corporations.

Has it not occurred to you that there could be reasons, other than philanthropy, that many of the proponents of UBI are millionaires/billionaires, large corporations, and both of these in their roles at economic think tanks?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#243

Post by Larrikin »

Everything I've read about UBI in experiments sounds great. But I've never heard anyone address the idea that when everyone is getting it, my landlord or some other rent seeker also knows this information, and simply raises my rent by however much I'm getting from the government because they know I can pay it and everyone else in the industry has done the same.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#244

Post by keiferski »

save_ferris wrote: post #182
keiferski wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mac…

I think you’re focusing in on the specific example too much. The general point is to create a system that has the benefits of basic income without creating a dependent underclass.

I don’t think it’s inconceivable to posit that a government could kickstart a program like the one I described, help it grow into a self-sustaining market, and then no longer provide monetary support. Of course this will never happen as the state has zero incentive to deliberately make people independent.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#245

Post by outlace »

There is already a UBI in place for veterans who suffered one of a number of qualifying disabling conditions during as a result of military service. Veterans can receive nearly $4000/mo if they are 100% service connected. Some veterans have significant disabilities like missing limbs and others qualify for things like arthritis or tinnitus. Many (in my estimation most) of them could work but choose not to once they get this basic income.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#246

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

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.

> "Doing nothing may cause an even worse situation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

Even if it were proven that doing nothing were guaranteed to cause a worse situation, which it isn't, of the myriad of things that could be done, there is no compelling evidence that UBI is the right thing to do.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#247

Post by OnlineGladiator »

ianai wrote: post #240
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say anything about the war on drugs, he said it would cause drug epidemics. Getting addicted to drugs has nothing to do with the US' moronic drug policy.

“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.” That’s an emotional trigger with unsubstantiated link to the supposition. The emotional content is from the war on drugs. People turn to drugs because they’re in a tight spot without a seeming way out. Like how a cornered animal is most dangero…

Nothing you just said has anything to do with the war on drugs, which is normally a reference to US policy. If you didn't mean to reference US policy then you should be more specific when you say "war on drugs" on anything in the United States (and this is about a US presidential candidate's would-be policies, so it's unreasonable to assume that isn't what you meant).

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#248

Post by DoreenMichele »

UBI is not going to fix our problems. You would do more good rebuilding the million SROs we've torn down in recent decades.

Small, affordable residential spaces in walkable neighborhoods mostly don't exist in the US. Injecting funds won't change that fundamental fact.

Most likely, passing out UBI will actually make it harder to solve underlying problems of that sort because rich people, who have zero need of UBI, will have a new excuse to ignore such problems. UBI will become a reason to say "Quit your bitching!" without having fixed anything.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#249

Post by gonational »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #233
gonational wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

True, if only people in Austin got a $1000 UBI then many people would want to move there for the UBI and rents there would go up by supply and demand. But if everybody in the country gets the same UBI then people are going to move from where to where exactly? If the answer is from places with higher housing costs to places with lower housing costs, I think you're going to find that there's more than enough empty spac…

You’ve misunderstood. I’m not suggesting that the rent would go up because of the increased demand for a living in Austin. I am suggesting that the rent would go up because everybody has at least $1,000 per month of free money, on top of whatever income they earned.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#250

Post by ianai »

paulddraper wrote: post #231
ianai wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t draw wide ranging conclusions from that sort of UBI. They’re part of a nation that exists within another nation. They’re facing all sorts of pressures and incentives that would not be present for a US wide UBI. The need and requirement for a UBI is real. Private sector is simply never going to find a job for everyone who needs to survive. We offer no other way for people to survive. This isn’t a balance she…

> Private sector is simply never going to find a job for everyone who needs to survive. You're technically correct that unemployment will never be 0%. But it's been < 4% for almost all of 2019.

I should expand that the private economy simply isn’t going to provide everyone everything they need-including work but also things work can’t or doesn’t provide. Plenty of full time employees have substandard health care because their employer contracts with an option of that leaves them hanging. Some employers schedule people for exactly less than what would require them to provide benefits, too. They also count toward your balance sheet unemployment rate. The unemployment metric has wide criticisms that I don’t need to regurgitate. This is why I say these metrics don’t do justice to the inspection.
Post reply on HN