Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

businessinsider.com

421–430 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#421
post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reso…

> But the vast majority of the subsidy goes not to small individual farmers, who might need such insurance

You are quite right that there is no preferential treatment for smaller farmers. It is simply for each dollar in premiums required, 60¢ is paid for by the farmer, 40¢ is paid by the government. It is true that those who pay the most in premiums (i.e. the largest farms) will receive the most in subsidies. It is designed to be a fair system without preference for any particular farm.

> large agribusinesses who have more than enough resources and diversity to self-insure.

On the flip side, small farmers have off-farm jobs so a loss on the farm is not likely to sink them. They still have their day job to pay the bills.

> private sector insurance companies and speculators could provide it more efficiently than the government does

I'm a tad bit skeptical. Private insurance has done well to serve individual events like a house fire or automobile accident, but when things happen on a grand scale like a major flood or widespread fire, it seems they fall back to government bailouts. The trouble with insurance on the farm is that it isn't usually just one farmer with failure. It is all the farmers at the same time. Private insurance hasn't proven a model to handle such cases, and if you're going to rely on the government to step in anyway as we've seen many times in the private insurance space when disaster strikes a large area, why not codify that action?

> It's hard to compete with large businesses that get government subsidies they don't actually need.

I am quite interested in your elaboration on this as I am not seeing how large businesses are advantaged by the subsidy in a way that small business are not. Proportionately, the subsidy given to each farmer is equal.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you pointed out, special interests will just raise the value of a politician so the $100 disappears in value. That or buy out ads to convince people to spend on their corporate sponsored candidates rather than the ones seeking direct support from voters. Both of these already happen, so why wouldn't they happen more? Solving this issue of corruption in campaign finance requires a solution that only publicly financ…

The ratio of special interest funding would have to increase by 80x to outweigh the $100 by a factor of 10: Currently, the $100 democracy dollars would outweigh special interest politician funding by 8:1, so for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction implies that political favors go up nearly 100x in price. That seems like an easy win to me.

[deleted]

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you pointed out, special interests will just raise the value of a politician so the $100 disappears in value. That or buy out ads to convince people to spend on their corporate sponsored candidates rather than the ones seeking direct support from voters. Both of these already happen, so why wouldn't they happen more? Solving this issue of corruption in campaign finance requires a solution that only publicly financ…

The ratio of special interest funding would have to increase by 80x to outweigh the $100 by a factor of 10: Currently, the $100 democracy dollars would outweigh special interest politician funding by 8:1, so for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction implies that political favors go up nearly 100x in price. That seems like an easy win to me.

Special interest money absolutely does not need to outweigh the "democracy dollars" contributions in order to be effective. It just needs to be enough to sway the vote of the politicians. Most of the time voters aren't even aware of the agreements their representatives had made with donors. This won't change with "democracy dollars." Politicians will gladly take voter contributions, but they'll continue to take special interest money until the laws change.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does't make sense to take wealth though. The only way wealth can increase (in a usuable liquid form at least) is through income, which is already taxed. If I eat beans and rice for 10 years to help save for a awesome retirement, I should be able to save that money.

I agree that wealth taxes seem difficult to enforce at the least. However, income is not the only way wealth increases: as I mentioned, the primary way wealth increases for the very wealthy is capital gains via investment, which are taxed at a lower rate, and are only taxed on "realization," aka sale (your net worth can increase by a billion dollars, but if you only sell $100k of it, you're taxed on the $100k). Taxin…

Yes, capital gains are taxed as income (as soon as there is something you can actually pay taxes with).

That they are taxed at a reduced rate is true but doesn't invalidate the fact they are still income.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich have no reason to resent the system, they've done quite well through it, and the vast majority will treat any new tax as simply a cost to minimize. From a game-theory POV, they act predictably. In contrast, low-income locales often do not act logically: https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-f... The working poor resent the non-working poor for being lazy and freeloading. As you mentioned…

Politely, I don't think that you're actually talking to anybody in "the [non-]working poor". The article you linked commits a dire mistake: They claim that a government that took care of its lazy and poor would encourage the poor to be lazier and the lazy to be poorer, but when has there ever been such a government that actually does care for its lazy and poor? Their claim is without evidence and based upon a style o…

Interesting points, thanks for the response. I haven't had the experience of living below the poverty line.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#426

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…

> The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago This comparison makes very little sense, because with change in society and social structures, human needs and desires also change. To compare today's person with someone from centuries ago ignores that doctrine. The fact is that kings had the best in society centuries ago, but the m…

Perhaps to put our own desires into perspective. Is an unhappy king of 1000 years past or future helpful for understanding our own path towards happiness? If it shows the futility of material reliance, I'd say yes.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> found fancy I was giving you the benefit > without healthcare and without food What? I've never heard him say this and seens like something he wouldn't say given his stance on wellbeing. Also, you can use UBI for food. The only thing I've heard is people on welfare programs would be able to choose between continuing those or stopping them and switching to UBI. Nothing about healthcare and with these the people get…

From Yang’s campaign website: “Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.” The point of public healthcare and food programs, among the other programs he’s talking about not having, is that even if you run out of money you can still buy food because the food stamps are reserved for…

Has anyone actually studied what people do in these scenarios or are you just assuming that people will willingly starve themselves to death en masse at a rate greater than the current just because they get $1k in pity money a month?

Give me a break.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you accounting for the increased economic velocity of a sustained cash injection across the entire country?

But there will be less injection that now right, in case UBI is implemented? No "new" money will appear (unless you suggest printing more and more trillions). This is the same money taken away as taxes. Except now it goes to those in need, instead it will go to everyone: now almost all of that money is consumed and so is indeed a "cash injection", instead the portion of the money - that goes to those already doing OK…

You completely dodged the question.

I'll rephrase in case I've been unclear.

How, or have, you considered that if everyone gets an extra $1k/mo that a huge swath of Americans will just spend it every month? When they spend that money it does not disappear. Some goes to taxes and gets redistributed there. Some gets taken by the service providers (grocery stores, gas stations, cable/cell companies, etc) some gets vacuumed up into the murky world of private equity, some flows into the black market, etc, etc, etc. That money keeps flowing and keeps generating tax revenue. This is economic velocity.

The question I have is how have you examined this effect and found it to be unlikely to spur an increase in quality of life for tens of millions of Americans?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#429

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.

In a survey done by a social worker of n somewhere around 80 nearly all people on public assistance programs preferred the cash instead of public assistance. Arbitrarily set and legislated into oblivion means testing thresholds and the administrative overhead of checking in constantly plus the shame of assistance appears to be a serious problem. Similar happens with EITC which most people eligible for do not claim. S…

I agree that the overhead burden is insanely expensive. There's also the cruel, soul destroying experiences on both sides to account for. The staff, paranoid, treating everyone as a leech until proven not. The downtrodden, forced to prove their innocence while drowning in the bad hand life dealt them.

Another effect to consider is where do all the staff go to get new jobs? Many will find the private sector exceptionally difficult to integrate into after decades in public benefits work.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This forces the bag holders to pay more. What happens when companies expenses increase? They increase their costs, cut jobs, cut benefits, and in very rare cases take short term losses to implement one of the former methods. There are not enough high paying jobs. Period. Hard stop. There won't ever be. Now, we need gas station attendants, room cleaners, baggers, bus drivers. These jobs will be replaced by much less e…

I'm doubtful of any tax-based plan as a longterm solution. Here's why. Money needs to flow in a circle for a sustainability. But we can't force people to spend all their money monthly and even then tax is not 100% so net negative monthly shortage risk. Maybe we need a spend it or lose it basic-credit system. About high paying jobs, suppose we pay 100$/hr for people to monitor the machines, up to a cap of 1K$/mth. Her…

Just to be clear. You're doubtful that this will work so we shouldn't try, and should continue to watch people living and dying on the streets from the comforts of the lavish accommodations?

Then you go on to propose fantastical, never gonna happen, jobs just poofing into existence at some indeterminate date in the future? Perhaps when enough people have died on the streets as to make UBI palatable over more food and housing riots? That's where we are headed if we can't start fixing these problems there will be riots.

Post reply on HN