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.
Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
251–260 of 444 posts
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#252Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#253"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…
> money is power Money isn’t power. Power is power. If Putin became bankrupt tonight, he’d still be one of the most powerful people on earth tomorrow morning. Power is the capacity to have others do what you want, including handing you their money when you need it. Case in point: how many million-dollar lottery winners ended up having any nontrivial influence on their community or state? Nearly 0.
Nitzan and Bichler argue quite convincingly that capital is power - money isn't necessarily power, but money-capital absolutely is.
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#254I’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…
Multiple parties can benefit from UBI.
You also handwave and make a load of assumptions in each of your statements.
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#255Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#256I 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…
If we want to free people from tyrannical employers, isn’t free healthcare step one? Perhaps some sort of more available food stamps step two?
I would agree with a lot of the criticism of government should not target too closely etc, but those two programs seems pretty well run compared to the free market alternatives. At least when they are allowed to.
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
By what mechanism does that cause the rent to go up?
The entire reason people are setting up shop in Austin is that it's so much less expensive than San Francisco. If landlords in Austin tried to raise rents then people would go to Kansas City or Buffalo or Louisville.
Some of the landlords would figure out that it's more profitable to have tenants at lower rents than higher rents and no tenants.
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#258Earlier 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.
That depends on your expected standard of living and your pay.
In Utah, the median wage is $15.8/he, which puts you around $32k/year (assuming 250 work days @ 8 hours/day), and the median salary with a bachelor's degree is ~$57k[1]. I'll be looking at the lower figure.
Let's make a few assumptions:
- $15/hr is take home, not gross, and we'll ignore all government programs - single, and living with roommates is acceptable - within range of mass transit, so no car needed - goal is to maintain minimal lifestyle w/o work
It looks like $1200 is a reasonable rent for a 2BR apartment, so $600/month should be doable with one roommate, less with two.
So, here are some expenses:
- rent - $600 - transportation - $85 (unlimited pass for light rail & bus, $200 for commuter rail, but I'm looking within range of the light rail) - food - $300/month (very generous $10/day, cooking for one could cut this in half) - utilities - $100/month (shared utilities)
So, $1100/month for basic expenses. $15/hr would get ~$2500/month. If we increase expenses to $1500, that still means ~$1000/month can go toward retirement. If our aim is $1500/month spending, we can estimate the amount we need to stop working using the 4% rule [2], and I'll include a range to go from 3-4% to account for a longer "retirement" (4% is for 30-year retirement, but expenses could be reduced as well).
Amount needed (today's dollars, 4% rule accounts for inflation):
- 3% - $600k - 4% - $450k
Saving $1k/month for 20 years puts you at ~$500k assuming 7% growth (average growth of stock market after taking inflation into account). This number is approximately in the middle of our range, and 22 years is $600k; monthly investment and return can vary, so 20-25 years seems like a reasonable estimate. If you start at 25, you'd be done by 50, which is way better than the average person, and you can make this less by reducing expenses, increasing income, or utilizing public services.
To make this process easy, we could also use this chart [3], which is based on savings rate. $1k/2.5k = 40% savings rate, which is 22 years according to the chart, which is in line with what I put down here.
The actual story is obviously more complex since I hand-waved medical costs, simplified assumptions, etc, but the general story is valuable. Maybe retiring at 45 isn't practical for everyone, but perhaps working significantly fewer hours is practical. If we simplify our lifestyle, we can be much more financially secure much earlier. I'm sure a savvy individual could earn a bit more (side hustles) and spend a bit less (decrease food expenses, bike instead of taking the bus, etc).
I'm sure the figures look a bit different in various areas, but the root of the matter is that the average person should have a much better outlook than we see on average. I think the solution lies in better education (I doubt the average person understands compound interest), better housing availability (reduce costs), better mass transit, etc.
- [1] https://slchamber.com/median-wage-in-utah/ - [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/four-percent-rule.asp - [3] https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#259Earlier 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…
>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.
Yup. Plus talking about 'VAT on yachts' is nonsensical in the context of funding a basic income anyway. There are a lot of economically inactive people to fund and not many yachts being purchased; wealthy dynasties tend to consume only tiny fractions of the economic rents they can extract from the economy each year. Choosing a consumption tax as a means of funding a UBI ensures that the bulk of the net contribution towards funding it will be paid by the large numbers of people who spend most of their incomes on consumption - i.e the middle classes.
Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI
#260I’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…
Multiple parties can benefit from UBI. You also handwave and make a load of assumptions in each of your statements.
What are the statements I’ve made that are not A) rooted in generally accepted economic theories or B) syllogism based on the other statements?
I don’t expect you’ll reply :]