Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#61

Post by Apocryphon »

datashow wrote: post #17
grecy wrote: post #9

We don't have to entirely speculate, we can look at existing evidence. Australia has the most liberal welfare in the world. Anyone over 18 can get $984 per month, and up to another $242 in rent assistance. [1] It has nothing to do with your previous employment history, or being fired, or anything like that. In fact, you can get it if you've never had a job in your life. You need to be "actively looking for work" whic…

OK. Then why not any of those places become the innovation engine of the world? I heard people would become more creative and innovative under those circumstances.

Have you heard of Jira, perchance

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#62

Post by manicdee »

bluedino wrote: post #51

>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck; almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money. I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but 78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it together.

While a significant portion of that 78% might be people who think a monthly income of X means they can service debts with monthly costs of X, there are also people for whom basic cost of living (mostly rent) is most of their income. An example would be someone working in the valley area who doesn’t earn enough to afford to move to cheaper accommodation (along with associated increase in commuting costs). It’s not their inability to control spending, it’s the requirement to be geographically close to their place of work.

If there were more jobs available in the backwoods, there would be the real possibility of moving there to reduce the cost of living to a smaller portion of income.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#63

Post by hyperpallium »

justchilly wrote: post #30
qqqwerty wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation is a non-issue. Economic growth has largely been constrained by demand, not supply. And the modern economy is saturated with replacement goods. If the demand for milk goes up, I can switch to soy milk. If soy milk goes up, I can switch to Almond. And if all of them go up, I just drink water. Once most basic needs are met, inflation looses its power with a few exceptions. The financialization of our economy…

Not sure I follow how the milk as a substitute for water analogy translates to housing. There are no substitutes for housing in desirable areas. When the entire working class suddenly has more income, it doesn't create more housing, it pushes up the price of housing. Sure we could build more, but why? After all, if the price of affordable housing goes up, so does less affordable housing, and luxury housing. And we en…

Yes. Also, first home owner's grants increased prices. Reduced interest rates increased house prices. Perhaps the great covid-19 WFH experiment will (partially) undermine the housing geography monopoly.

Would socialist free housing, utilities, food, medical care, education might work better than UBI? What incentives would make capitalism provide them?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#64

Post by battery_cowboy »

uk_programmer wrote: post #27
majormajor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should I pay for someone else doing nothing? I am close to 40% tax at the moment and I've been saving for a house for years (I earn too much to have any help on buying a flat). What the studies say is absolutely irrelevant because I cannot abide the principle. You're gonna pay one way or another... Some costs will be more monetary, some will be more health/crime-related, etc, but very few of us live in countrie…

> You're gonna pay one way or another. Only because nonsense like this is allowed. > Some costs will be more monetary, some will be more health/crime-related, etc, but very few of us live in countries where there is a general desire and will to force people to work. You should be looking for work. If you haven't tried looking for a job you get your benefits removed. Obviously the Elderly and Disabled should get help…

Coward, downvoting because you have no response to my valid question.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#65

Post by allovernow »

The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life.

That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. There's a point where it becomes unethical and/or counterproductive...but where that point is perhaps remains to be seen.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#68

Post by arebop »

sunnydayddr wrote: post #43
mrfusion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.

I'm not sure how one would manage to produce $1,000 per month per citizen over 18 without printing money. That's $2,500,000,000,000 per year. You'd have to raise taxes by more than 50% to cover the costs.

The average American pays $10489 in taxes each year. Double the taxes and give average Americans $12000 and they'll come out ahead. Median Americans will do even better. Even if you assume no efficiency improvements, no benefits from velocity of money changes, and no cuts to existing social welfare programs such that the average tax increase equals the $12000 expenditure, you can fund it purely on taxes and most people will still end up with more money in their pockets.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#69

Post by sesteel »

allovernow wrote: post #65

The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life. That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. The…

In order for capitalism to work, money has to change hands. Typically, money changes hands for an item or service of perceived value. Again, typically, there is a profit calculated into that transaction. That small fraction which constitutes the profit is often wealth transferring from one person to another. Over time, that wealth coalesces into fewer and fewer hands. There are many ways to combat this pooling of wealth into the hands of the few, but none of the traditional ways appear to work in the face of automation. Capitalism will fail if people do not have money to spend.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#70

Post by bavell »

sunnydayddr wrote: post #43
mrfusion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.

I'm not sure how one would manage to produce $1,000 per month per citizen over 18 without printing money. That's $2,500,000,000,000 per year. You'd have to raise taxes by more than 50% to cover the costs.

The US govt has recently dumped trillions into the banking system in a matter of days. Last I checked they were talking about additionally cutting payroll taxes for the year.

Somehow they were able to do this without raising taxes by 50%... Turns out we have the money after all.

Post reply on HN