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

291–300 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#291

Post by sudosteph »

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 reservation system has created a uniquely imbalanced system for Native Americans where they often live on land that has neither abundant natural resources nor easy access to money from tourism, industry, or trading in general. In that respect, I think the best comparison would actually be to Americans in the parts of the Appalachians (though parts of the Appalachians have mining or tourism, some parts have neither and are very remote).

Looking at a summary for some of that data, it's a very similar poverty rate in some parts, like Appalachian Kentucky[1] (25%) despite a relatively high rate of employment (compared to native Americans). I can't do a full breakdown from my phone, but I do wonder if there are other pieces of data about well-being that differ between working and non-working poor that are worth considering.

Though it's also hard to quantify what role racism might play in limiting opportunity for Native Americans, which would compound on the issues of being generally isolated from economic opportunities.

[1] https://fahe.org/appalachian-poverty/

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#292

Post by AnthonyMouse »

gonational wrote: post #284
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The reason it goes up if you give everyone $1M/month is that $1M/month of money for everyone in the country doesn't actually exist. That's ~$330T/month. You couldn't collect that amount in taxes because nobody has it to collect it from; or if you did then nobody would actually be getting $1M/month since they'd just all be paying ~$1M/month in taxes to fund it.

The implied way to do it is, of course, by printing the money. Which would indeed cause inflation in not just rents but everything. But how does that apply to the real case when the money doesn't come from printing it?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#293

Post by sethammons »

firethief wrote: post #241
skybrian wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 govern…

Thank you for your first hand account.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#294

Post by gonational »

maccam94 wrote: post #278
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.

Rent prices are still governed by supply and demand (modulo some rent control), not by how much money the tenants have.

Supply and demand happens on both sides of the equation; when it supply increases on the money side, we call it inflation.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#295

Post by Ididntdothis »

kmonsen wrote: post #256
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…

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.

Agreed. Health care would be great first step. If we can’t pull that off I don’t have much hope for UBI.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#296

Post by TheCoelacanth »

dwiel wrote: post #151
JorgeGT wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answer is: never. The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago, but instead of settling we want more: traveling, more and more advanced tech, vast amount of entertainment, etc. Consider the multi-billion dollar media productions (games, TV series, movies, music, books, etc.) that you can access at the command of your voice vs. th…

I disagree. Try to actually settle down (without winning the startup/rich parents/literal lottery first) and see how it goes. If you haven't raised a nice safety fund and you get sick, you are screwed. If you dont want to live in the middle of nowhere, land owners are going to want a huge chunk of money for that priviledge. Also good luck finding a part time job that pays much better than minimum wage. I know a lot o…

100 years ago, you were screwed if you got the wrong infection no matter how rich you were. Now we cure that with a $30 course of antibiotics.

Even just the limited healthcare you can get from free clinics and emergency treatment that hospitals are required to provide even if you aren't able to pay would be better than the best care money could buy 100 years ago.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#297

Post by lidHanteyk »

ScottBurson wrote: post #283
Reedx wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It is not a problem if rich people resent having to pay money into the government in order to keep the system running. Rich people are only rich because the government maintains the monetary system. Being so rich that one resents the very government that establishes their riches is a feature, not a bug.

Edit: As usual for rapid downvotes on polite posts, do downvoters care to explain themselves? Or is today a day for irrationally defending the rich?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#298

Post by lotsofpulp »

Larrikin wrote: post #243

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.

The solution to that is remove the rent seeking by introducing new supply of housing. Or regulating it like utilities.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#299

Post by sethammons »

kmonsen wrote: post #256
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…

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.

I think healthcare is a great candidate for a step one.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#300

Post by tome »

joshbetz wrote: post #262
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " ...the other key about UBI is everyone gets it, no matter if wealthy or poor " Of course if you have anything above poverty level income, it gets snatched right back plus whole lot more though taxes to cover the other UBI recipients who don't. The "everybody gets UBI" rhetoric doesn't really fool anybody; money doesn't come out of thin air.

We wouldn’t need all the infrastructure to ensure only qualified people get welfare. I’ve heard this would make UBI cheaper than what we do now, considering that it would be essentially taxed away from rich people as you say.

Do you have compelling examples on non-means-tested benefits remaining non-means-tested indefinitely? This doesn't seem to be what happens in the UK. Some government invariably either wants to reduce its expenditure or be seen to be "tough on scroungers" and the start means testing.
Post reply on HN