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

381–390 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#381

Post by sudosteph »

paulddraper wrote: post #370
sudosteph wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 neithe…

Tourism/entertainment in fact is the primary source of the UBI.

So super similar economic conditions then. Enough tourism to create jobs and/or UBI in some parts, but not evenly distributed at all, especially for places that are already disadvantaged due to location.

Per http://www.nativepartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pw...

> The National Indian Gaming Commission reports only 242 tribes in 28 states operate casinos (as of 2014). Of these 242, about 88 have less than $3 million in revenue, and 96 have $10-25 million in revenue (enough to give per capita payouts, depending on the needs of each tribe and federal approval). Research shows that casinos need to be within 50 miles of a metro area (with 10,000 or more residents) to be highly profitable such as the few mentioned here. In PWNA’s experience, the rural and remote casinos do not have enough traffic to generate large profits — they do create a few tribal jobs.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#382

Post by chr1 »

fooker wrote: post #186
doyceplunk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money will come from a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT). No new money will be printed to pay for the Freedom Dividend so there will be no inflation.

>No new money will be printed to pay for the Freedom Dividend so there will be no inflation. Wow this is fundamental misunderstanding of what inflation is.

What exactly is the fundamental misunderstanding here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation says

> Economists generally believe that very high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply. Views on which factors determine low to moderate rates of inflation are more varied.

The freedom dividend can cause low to moderate inflation, if the extra tax is high enough to cause recession. But the only path to hyperinflation is government printing more money.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#383

Post by hanniabu »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #311
hanniabu wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I really like that you could support what you want as it gives more control to the citizens.

How? It does literally nothing for special interests buying politicians, it just adds MORE money into the system. No thanks. Side note... not many people here would like the never ending series of populist presidents this would bring if it did work.

Let's say lobbyists pull funding from one sector and push it into another, such as the endless funding for military pulling funding away from other sectors like education, then you as a citizen that wants to support education can decide to put your $100 towards that.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#384

Post by vinay427 »

mc32 wrote: post #380
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.

No thank you. That's easy to do when 88% of the population are foreign workers, virtually none of whom have a path to citizenship, most of whom are rewarded with relatively low wages, and many of whom face exploitation by various means. It's a feudalistic system that doesn't focus on benefiting the people in Qatar, only the Qatari citizens.

http://priyadsouza.com/population-of-qatar-by-nationality-in...

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#385

Post by mc32 »

vinay427 wrote: post #384
mc32 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No thank you. That's easy to do when 88% of the population are foreign workers, virtually none of whom have a path to citizenship, most of whom are rewarded with relatively low wages, and many of whom face exploitation by various means. It's a feudalistic system that doesn't focus on benefiting the people in Qatar, only the Qatari citizens. http://priyadsouza.com/population-of-qatar-by-nationality-in...

Sure, but if it can't work in that society, how would it ever work in a more just society?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#386

Post by vinay427 »

mc32 wrote: post #385
vinay427 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No thank you. That's easy to do when 88% of the population are foreign workers, virtually none of whom have a path to citizenship, most of whom are rewarded with relatively low wages, and many of whom face exploitation by various means. It's a feudalistic system that doesn't focus on benefiting the people in Qatar, only the Qatari citizens. http://priyadsouza.com/population-of-qatar-by-nationality-in...

Sure, but if it can't work in that society, how would it ever work in a more just society?

1. Because every country's economy is not identical to Qatar's. Workers in many countries are more productive (in monetary value, for instance) compared to those in many other countries. Loosely, having workers that bring in more money would allow for needing fewer workers.

2. I don't have a strong opinion on UBI right now, but I don't see how Qatar's exploitative system somehow disqualifies UBI in general. Based on what you described, it doesn't even sound like a universal income: it's neither universal nor disposable income.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#387

Post by claudiawerner »

ghostwriter wrote: post #308
claudiawerner wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitzan and Bichler argue quite convincingly that capital is power - money isn't necessarily power, but money-capital absolutely is.

No amount of capital (economic power) will save you from the power of the state to take it from you, should that idea arise in the minds of those who define the state policy.

In the world of international trade, only a stupid nation would do that. Systemic fear among the capital-holding class is usually unrelated to the fear of the state. Nevertheless, Nitzan and Bichler argue the ways in which capital uses its political arms to influence policy. One particularly obvious example is the strengthening of IP law, another is the military industry.

Political power and capital are intertwined, but neither is above the other in a direct hierarchical relationship, because both can hold a gun to each other's head. So long as the state keeps the right to property, and it almost always will, capital has nothing to fear.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#388

Post by mc32 »

vinay427 wrote: post #386
mc32 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but if it can't work in that society, how would it ever work in a more just society?

1. Because every country's economy is not identical to Qatar's. Workers in many countries are more productive (in monetary value, for instance) compared to those in many other countries. Loosely, having workers that bring in more money would allow for needing fewer workers. 2. I don't have a strong opinion on UBI right now, but I don't see how Qatar's exploitative system somehow disqualifies UBI in general. Based on…

So it's too early to tell. But if it does work, then that means under some conditions it can work. If it cannot work, then, there is little hope as their system is kind of handicapped to have a better chance than most.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#389

Post by Proven »

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…

No study is necessary to be able to conclude with absolute certainty that UBI is unworkable nonsense.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#390

Post by Faark »

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…

> Who wants to do nothing all day long?

As someone having participated in a support group for people excessively using online/digital media: It might not be a very satisfying life, but it's seems easier than ever to distract yourself while unproductively wasting your time.

For some of those individuals, this was about not wasting their limited time outside work. But a significant share had their lives entirely supported by e.g. gov or parents. And external factors in many cases caused the necessity to change.

I agree with society ensuring people can have their basic needs met. But why does it have to be an unconditional monthly check? Beside strong support offers in areas like psychological, guidance or life advice, I'd prefer the right to trade X hours per week (preferably more like 20ish than the current 40) to your gov to get what you need to live.

It would act as a minimum wage. It would incentivize finding something better, especially if not satisfied with the work assigned by gov to you. It would still guide those living on autopilot towards something at least somewhat productive. And yeah, it would be tricky to implement well :/

Post reply on HN