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

321–330 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#321

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

banads wrote: post #208

How can a US Dollar based UBI solve the problems of automation when the Super Admins of the US Dollar are explicitly pursuing the opposite goal? According to the Federal Reserve website, 2/3 of their main goals are: 1. Seeking to maximize employment 2. Maintaining stable prices https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does... Automation and ephemeralization minimize employment and prices, but the money…

Simple proposition, but the Federal Reserve is not part of the US Government. Perhaps it’s time that system be re-evaluated?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#322

Post by FussyZeus »

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…

[dead]

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#323

Post by Reedx »

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?

Well, eventually everyone will have the experience of getting UBI when they turn 18, prior to achieving high income. It will just be something everyone has from the start of adulthood and an accepted part of reality.

Which leads to me think that it'd be a temporary issue and will naturally resolve itself over time.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#324

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

jostylr wrote: post #103
GarrisonPrime wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then there’s the behavioral factor to consider. Will UBI truly relieve pressure and give people a hand up? Or will it result in a large swathe of the population dropping out of the labor force and accepting a life of poverty and marginalization? Could some UBI pushers actually see the latter as the true goal? Ask any Native American how empowering a UBI-esque system worked out for them. Not that I’m rejecting the ide…

There is a Native American example with UBI (North Carolina, casino-based UBI) and it sounds like it immediately improved outcomes and did not impact working: https://thecorrespondent.com/4664/why-do-the-poor-make-such-... Also, would you stop working if you got 12k a year for free? How much do the wealthy make in dividends a year? Do they stop working? Maybe to ensure that the wealthy continue to work, we should pre…

> Also, would you stop working if you got 12k a year for free?

Please define “free”. It’s not free. It’s just other people’s money. The scheme is literally we’ll collect money from everyone and then give it back.

If everyone has an extra 12k... NO ONE has an extra 12k.

>Who wants to do nothing all day long?

Oh. You might want to venture outside of your bubble a bit.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#325

Post by AnthonyMouse »

maxsilver wrote: post #316
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making it guaranteed is implied. Making it huge is completely unnecessary and counterproductive. $1k/month doesn't cover average rent in the most populated cities because the most populated cities have the highest rents and its purpose is not to make you average , it's to provide a floor. Supplying enough for the lowest rent in the lowest cost of living place is sufficient for that, and if you want more you can go ge…

> It (UBI @ $1k/month) is just supposed to take starving and freezing to death off the table My point is that $1k/month does not do this . Hell, minimum wage is approximately 1.5x to 2x greater than UBI (depending on the area), and even it does not quite take "starving and freezing to death" off the table. "Working Homelessness" is a thing - https://www.npr.org/2018/09/30/652572292/working-while-homel... and https://…

Working homelessness is a thing in California because of outrageous housing costs. The problem there isn't insufficient wages, it's insufficient local housing.

You can live a spartan life on $12,000/year in many places in the midwest and not die of poverty.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#326

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

carapace wrote: post #318
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you invent a time machine, go back to places like Taos in the 1960s, lots hippy communes that are now weird architecture AirBNBs. History repeats itself, reality always wins.

Sorry, I have no idea how your comment connects with what I wrote.

It’s been tried before. Lots of times. The reality of “let’s form our own utopia town/city/commune” always loses out to reality of primal human interests.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#328

Post by rustybelt »

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.

Yep, that's why Yang completely lost me when he dropped Medicare for All. Universal healthcare would dramatically reduce the dependance of workers on exploitative employers and it's way more feasible than UBI. Over 50% of healthcare today in the US is already funded by the government.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#329

Post by nixpulvis »

carapace wrote: post #314
nixpulvis wrote: post #223

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Welfare is a tax, and a much needed one since the alternative costs even more. I don't really see how a universal basic income (UBI) solves much of anything that other welfare programs couldn't solve more effectively. If the argument is that it's easier to just give everyone $1,000, then I think you're a lazy policymaker.

> There's no such thing as a free lunch. Sure there is. In fact, all lunch was free until we invented money and farming. The Sun is a free lunch . "It's raining soup, grab a bucket!"

The sun still requires space to harvest, much like anything.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#330

Post by dragonwriter »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #325
maxsilver wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It (UBI @ $1k/month) is just supposed to take starving and freezing to death off the table My point is that $1k/month does not do this . Hell, minimum wage is approximately 1.5x to 2x greater than UBI (depending on the area), and even it does not quite take "starving and freezing to death" off the table. "Working Homelessness" is a thing - https://www.npr.org/2018/09/30/652572292/working-while-homel... and https://…

Working homelessness is a thing in California because of outrageous housing costs. The problem there isn't insufficient wages, it's insufficient local housing. You can live a spartan life on $12,000/year in many places in the midwest and not die of poverty.

> The problem there isn't insufficient wages

Yes it is.

> it's insufficient local housing

Insufficient housing given wages and insufficient wages given housing costs are the exact same thing. If you have one you, ipso facto, have the other.

California has insufficient low-end wages (and poverty support programs) given the prices (not just for housing, though that's a particularly significant aspect of the issue) created by the wealth of California's high-end workers and capitalists.

Post reply on HN