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

281–290 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#281

Post by hbarka »

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.

Talking about the unemployment rate without mentioning the labor force participation rate is painting an incomplete picture.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#282

Post by matz1 »

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #93
tells wrote: post #41

The most exciting thing about UBI is how versatile its benefits are for human resilience. Work conditions unfair? you have a much easier time quitting knowing you won't be stuck with 0 income. Politics overrun with corporate money? flush it out with grassroots donations now that you have some pocket money. Sick of the day to day grind? take your money to a community that fits with your personality now that every comm…

Yes, free money magically appearing would make life easier for the individuals receiving it (at least, in the short term). No one is arguing otherwise. The concern is that it may have even greater negative effects on the economy as a whole.

As for right now, the US economy as a whole is looking great. GDP number is good, stock market at high, etc but for most ordinary people those means nothing, they still suffer.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#283

Post by ScottBurson »

Reedx wrote: post #270
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 can see UBI causing more resentment on both sides, the receivers and the payers. But in this case (Yang's Freedom Dividend), everyone gets it. Doesn't that essentially solve the issue?

No, because high-income people still have to be net payers. Otherwise, where does the money come from?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#284

Post by gonational »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #257
gonational wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps the reason is not obvious because of the scale, so lets exaggerate the numbers to make it more obvious:

If everyone in the US was given $1 million per month, do you think that rent in Austin would go up in absolute terms?

If yes, by what mechanism can you imagine this effect is caused?

If no, I don’t know what to say.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#285

Post by moralsupply »

charlesu wrote: post #189
moralsupply wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's an interesting statement. Why not?

If all companies are taxed equally, it [obviously] means taxes incur on their balance sheets equally.

Therefore, in order to meet their growth, profitability, etc. requirements, they'd all have to embed taxes in their prices.

If one company becomes "smarter" and more competitive, it's not going to be because taxes created an incentive for them, it would be because they are just doing what they always do: to increase the means of production through entrepreneurship -- which turns out to be the "invisible hand" that exterminates poverty.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#286

Post by reissbaker »

coredog64 wrote: post #194
hacknat wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wealth is not taxed. If you have a large amount of wealth, you don't need income, and it's likely that — if you do have income — your income represents a very small percentage of your net worth growth over time. Most of it is capital gains, which:

1. Are taxed at a much lower rate, and,

2. Are only taxed when the gains are "realized," e.g. when you sell at a profit.

As a result, if you have a large amount of wealth, your net worth can increase dramatically while being untaxed (if you don't sell) or taxed very low (if you sell some percentage of the gains — and only the sold percentage gets taxed, the rest doesn't). Depending on your investment strategy you can also play games with taxes, e.g. when rebalancing your portfolio, try to mostly sell your shares that have lost value, so that you put a loss on the books rather than a gain and are thus untaxed (or even get tax credits).

That's why Warren Buffett talks about paying less in taxes than his secretary.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#287

Post by carapace »

Is anyone interested in starting a member-owned "General Automation Corp" to just go ahead and UBI ourselves without waiting for politics?

I'm seriously you guys.

Bootstrap off some desert land, convert it into e.g. Village Homes[0] (but up to date) using Permaculture, et. al. including local carbon-neutral fuel production integrated into the ecosystem[1], lease/sell units, rinse and repeat.

Alongside that, develop a kind of super-RepRap[2] to manufacture e.g. the contents of a Daiso store[3].

(BTW, no cult shit, no radical new lifestyles, just a small town built as if the last few centuries of progress actually happened: food production, power capture & storage, automation, etc... You know: Star Trek TNG sans fictional technology.)

Anybody?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes

[1] http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/

[2] https://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap

[3] Not all human problems can be solved by a few ounces of plastic or metal, but those that can, can be solved at Daiso for $1.50.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#288

Post by maxsilver »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #120
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…

> UBI just doesn't solve that Doesn't it though? You create a floor, so that anyone with a miserable job can say "screw you" and quit and go start their own business without having to worry about how they're going to make rent before the new business starts making money, and you get a lot more competition. More smaller companies instead of fewer bigger companies. And the big companies would have to pay more to get so…

The only way that works is if UBI is both guaranteed and super high. Like "everyone gets a guaranteed $50k/yr" super high. The UBI Yang and folks are talking about is so low that it doesn't offer any of those benefits.

$1k/month worth of UBI wouldn't even cover average rent for a single person in any of the ~20 most populated cities in the US.

$1k/month doesn't quite even cover the cost of child daycare for a single child, in most of the US.

$1k/month of UBI is barely even ~50% of the current minimum wage in much of the US (a minimum wage that currently is so low, that it doesn't even cover bare-minimum cost of living either). The UBI is so low, it doesn't even give people the freedom to leave the lowest-paying legal job a typical person could have.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#289

Post by mkolodny »

paulddraper wrote: post #264
service_bus wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you are saying about Native Americans is contradicted by every study that has been done so far. https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effect... Yang also discusses this in his book. Please don't comment hyperbole if you're not able to support your thoughts with data.

> if you're not able to support your thoughts with data Likewise. That article is a highly anecdotal puff piece, focusing on a few exceptional inspirational stories from a single tribe. I could find all sorts of non-UBI rags-to-riches stories too. AFAIK, despite no end of UBI pontification, no real study has even been done about existing native UBI (correct me please). What we do know is that Native Americans consist…

The "free money" that Wired article [0] is about isn't for all Native Americans - it's only for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. That tribe splits their casino's profit evenly. Their profit came out to about $12,000/person in 2016 (the same amount that Andrew Yang is proposing for Universal Basic Income [1]).

There are other Native American owned casinos who give their tribe members payouts, but not all of them can. According to Partnership with Native Americans [2], fewer than 15% of Native American tribes operate prosperous casinos.

[0] https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effect... [1] https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/ [2] http://www.nativepartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pw...

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#290

Post by hacknat »

coredog64 wrote: post #194
hacknat wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of the extreme wealth generated in our society is not generated via income. Most of it is generated through property (land, stocks, insurance products, etc). Yang actually addresses this fact. The elite of the world are so effectively globalized now that they are not subject to the tax code of one country. The US is, frankly, not strong enough to take down billionaires single handely.
Post reply on HN