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

371–380 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#371

Post by paulddraper »

gonational wrote: post #242

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…

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

Only if you get it from the same place that provides free lunches.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#372

Post by dang »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #324
jostylr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please don't post inflammatory things or cross into personal attack, regardless of how wrong some other comment is or you feel it is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#373

Post by jariel »

jostylr wrote: post #332
paulddraper wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Here is a study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1... Their chosen highlights: >Highlights >The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) has provided UBI averaging $6600 US (2015) dollars for a family of four since 1982. >The PFD reduced the number of rural Alaska Indigenous people in poverty during 2011–2015 by 22%, down from 46% in 2000. >The PFD reduced poverty among rural Alaska Indigenous…

I don't think anyone is questioning that UBI given to people with 'nothing' will enable them to have 'stuff'.

The question is the social implications towards productive social cooperation: i.e. getting an education, getting a job, improving skills etc..

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#374

Post by pdonis »

randomdata wrote: post #68
pdonis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what if instead of a flat cash payment, the basic income program provided free technologies that covered basic needs What if, instead of yammering about UBI, Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur, went out and started a company to make such technologies? The way to innovate is to innovate, not to try to milk money out of the government. The whole discussion about UBI misses this basic point: to make it easier for people to…

> For example, the government subsidizes large agribusinesses instead of letting innovators and entrepreneurs find cheaper ways of providing people with food. The primary subsidy afforded to farmers is effectively assistance in paying insurance premiums. Insurance that exists to keep farms afloat during bad years in an environment that is highly volatile. The intent is not to make food cheaper (although that may happ…

> The primary subsidy afforded to farmers is effectively assistance in paying insurance premiums.

But the vast majority of the subsidy goes not to small individual farmers, who might need such insurance (although even on the assumption that they do, private sector insurance companies and speculators could provide it more efficiently than the government does), but to large agribusinesses who have more than enough resources and diversity to self-insure. So the entities who are getting the subsidy don't actually need it. But it makes a great way for politicians to stealthily transfer wealth to their donors and supporters.

> The intent is not to make food cheaper (although that may happen as a side effect)

It doesn't make food cheaper, it makes it more expensive and creates a mismatch between supply and demand.

> I am not sure that really limits the desire of innovators and entrepreneurs to seek out ways to provide cheaper food.

It might not limit the desire, but it certainly limits the ability. It's hard to compete with large businesses that get government subsidies they don't actually need.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#375

Post by paulddraper »

hnbreak wrote: post #25

Yang says that breaking up tech monopolies won't help (with giving a very weak example) but he doesn't give a proper answer how to get competition back. Why does China have 20 different kind of Youtubes and the western world just one?

> the western world just one?

* Dailymotion (France)

* Flickr (United States)

* Metacafe (United States)

* IGTV (United States)

* Photobucket (United Sates)

* Twitch (United States)

* Veoh (United States/Israel)

* Vevo (United States)

* Vimeo (United States)

Vimeo in particular has about one-quarter the "market share" as Youtube [1]

[1] https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/online-video/youtube-m...

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#376

Post by pdonis »

analognoise wrote: post #158
pdonis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what if instead of a flat cash payment, the basic income program provided free technologies that covered basic needs What if, instead of yammering about UBI, Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur, went out and started a company to make such technologies? The way to innovate is to innovate, not to try to milk money out of the government. The whole discussion about UBI misses this basic point: to make it easier for people to…

"while rigging building codes so the only method of construction that's feasible is two by fours and drywall, instead of letting innovators and entrepreneurs figure out cheaper and more durable methods of construction for homes." It turns out that 2x4 construction on a slab is one of the cheapest and most durable methods of construction around. Building codes are built from lives lost, and are not trivial to replace…

> It turns out that 2x4 construction on a slab is one of the cheapest and most durable methods of construction around.

That the ordinary person knows of, yes. But that's a far cry from being the cheapest and most durable method possible.

> Building codes are built from lives lost

To some extent they are. But they also are an excellent vehicle for regulatory capture. The safety aspects don't need to be controlled by the government; see below.

> It would of course be cheaper to build favelas.

Would you buy one? In a free market, the construction industry would build what people wanted to buy. If people don't want to buy unsafe homes, nobody will be able to make money building unsafe homes. If people want assurance that their homes are safe (and even if they don't, their insurance companies will), there will be a market for third party home inspectors and standards organizations to provide it. Other industries have had no problem coming up with safety standards without government regulation; a good example is the Underwriters Laboratories standards for electrical devices.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#377

Post by paulddraper »

manfredo wrote: post #362
jostylr wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1... Their chosen highlights: >Highlights >The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) has provided UBI averaging $6600 US (2015) dollars for a family of four since 1982. >The PFD reduced the number of rural Alaska Indigenous people in poverty during 2011–2015 by 22%, down from 46% in 2000. >The PFD reduced poverty among rural Alaska Indigenous…

This is not really that significant of a result, given that the measure of poverty they used is an income threshold. In other words, the study result found that supplementing income with direct cash payments reduced the percentage of people that fell below the poverty income threshold. Which is an obvious consequence of a uniform increase in people's income.

Exactly. To highlight the difference: the money was coming from people's wallets outside of the measured population.

In other words, they were delivering free lunches.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#378

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #333
maxsilver wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rent prices are still governed by supply and demand This is not accurate. Rent prices have little to do with supply and demand, and are primarily driven by how much money tenants have (or more accurately, how much tenants can be bled for before they give up and leave). This is why rent rises even when supply is greater than demand, and why rents rise even in places where demand is falling dramatically.

Rent prices have everything to do with supply and demand. One of the reasons they're so high in San Francisco is that it's surrounded on three sides by water, which restricts outward supply expansion. And then zoning restricts upward supply expansion. You have much the same issue in Manhattan, which is an island. How else do you explain housing costs being lower in Austin (available land, less restrictive zoning) tha…

[deleted]

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#379

Post by dang »

hanniabu wrote: post #184
kingkawn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the introduction of UBI is coupled with the dismantling of existing social safety net it is effectively the privatization of public welfare, and will result in all the related pitfalls.

It feels like you just strung together dinne fancy words and didn't provide any reasoning.

Please don't be a jerk in HN comments, and please don't make unsubstantive negative posts.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#380

Post by mc32 »

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…

Qatar should be a good case for long-term study: citizens are guaranteed state jobs, land grants and a free education.
Post reply on HN