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

171–180 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#171

Post by pc2g4d »

Proziam wrote: post #88

My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…

We should also have a voluntary charitable UBI. Encourage a culture where everybody contributes what they can to the fund, and then all donations are split equally among all citizens. That money won't be subject to the same political pressures; people who donate will feel good about themselves; and the bureaucracy needed to do this would be minimal.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#172

Post by taneq »

typ wrote: post #108
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…

I disagree. There are two kinds of goods. The ones like computers and phones which are steadily getting cheaper and the ones like housing whose price has got inflated enormously. Remember how we tried to fix the education problem by student loans and how we tried to alleviate the housing burden by mortgage tax deduction and subsidies of interests? I don't think the problem is people are unable to afford milk or a shi…

> Remember how we tried to fix the education problem by student loans and how we tried to alleviate the housing burden by mortgage tax deduction and subsidies of interests?

I don't understand how anyone ever thought that making it easier to borrow money would make things with inelastic demand more affordable. People will pay what they must to get food and shelter. If you make tertiary education non-negotiable in getting a job, then people will pay what they must to get an education. If you loan them huge sums then you just reduce price insensitivity and create a massive pricing bubble.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#173

Post by qqqwerty »

typ wrote: post #108
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…

I disagree. There are two kinds of goods. The ones like computers and phones which are steadily getting cheaper and the ones like housing whose price has got inflated enormously. Remember how we tried to fix the education problem by student loans and how we tried to alleviate the housing burden by mortgage tax deduction and subsidies of interests? I don't think the problem is people are unable to afford milk or a shi…

My original comment could probably use an edit or two, but we are actually in agreement.

Some context that was left out, inflation has been stubbornly low this past decade[1]. For many of us, this feels counterintuitive based on our experience with housing, education and healthcare. But as you pointed out, globalization and industrialization has resulted in downward pressure on prices of a wide array of goods. And when you factor housing costs across the entire US population (and not just the high COL areas), the inflation math sort of pencils out[2].

And my original point was that inflation caused by UBI should not be a concern because a) the prices of iPhones and milk are constrained by forces that are beyond the impact of UBI (globalization, hyper-efficient capitalism, etc..) and because b) prices of housing, education, and healthcare have long since untethered themselves from needing to be affordable (so UBI, which largely benefits the working class and poor, will have little impact there).

[1] https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economi...

[2] I disagree with how the Fed has handled monetary policy the past few years. Even if the inflation numbers support their moves, they seem to be willfully ignoring very large bubbles (real estate, VC) forming due to their policies.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#174

Post by tonyedgecombe »

pc2g4d wrote: post #171
Proziam wrote: post #88

My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…

We should also have a voluntary charitable UBI. Encourage a culture where everybody contributes what they can to the fund, and then all donations are split equally among all citizens. That money won't be subject to the same political pressures; people who donate will feel good about themselves; and the bureaucracy needed to do this would be minimal.

I consider myself a fairly generous person but in a crisis like this my overwhelming concern is my close family. Charitable donations aren't on my radar right now.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#175

Post by akvadrako »

qqqwerty wrote: post #59
justchilly wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

UBI removes the geographical constraints that have been distorting the US housing market. There are plenty of areas in the country that would gladly absorb excess housing demand, but the lack the jobs and economic prospects of those areas make it difficult under current circumstances.

Right - UBI could be one of the best solutions to the housing issue. It would be even better combined with another libertarian idea, land value tax.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#176

Post by luckylion »

bavell wrote: post #90
beastcoast wrote: post #71

The problem with UBI is that most versions of it would essentially liquidate social services that people would normally receive. UBI only makes sense in addition to the other parts of a comprehensive safety net (universal housing and healthcare), not as a replacement.

Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that gives me cash which I can use for anything? I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life. E.g. What good are food stamps when I have no gas (or car) to get to the store? There are some social services that are necessary and bene…

> Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that gives me cash which I can use for anything?

Because we'll have an issue when you spend your UBI on anything and then need assistance with rent, food etc pp.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#177

Post by tonyedgecombe »

tomp wrote: post #42
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.

> Net money supply hasn’t changed But where it lands has. House prices and Ferraris might be cheaper. Milk and rents will be more expensive.

Housing would be a problem where supply is constrained, I can't see it being a big issue in the US.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#178

Post by jnordwick »

zenhack wrote: post #121
kuzimoto wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? Also they own businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people. To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, and will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

> You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? In absolute terms maybe (though there are some glaring exceptions -- Amazon famous literally pays $0 in taxes), but not relative to how much they make. > To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, I don't see any reason why taxing net worth is at all less sensible than income. If anything I think it makes more sense…

> Amazon famous literally pays $0 in taxes), but not relative to how much they make.

because they took every penny and reinvested it and lost money for a long time because of such heavy investment.

just a few months ago everybody was complaining about companies not investing enough and returning money to shareholders - there was even legislation floated to force more investment.

companies cant win with people like you - invest and get assulted for tax reasons, don't invest and get yelled at for that.

you have this Utopian view of how you want everything to work, and don't even realize it isn't even possible most of the time.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#179

Post by somebodythere »

mrfusion wrote: post #24
eachro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there are any economic studies on whether social security increased inflation when it was first enacted. It's not the ideal comparison because of the sheer scale of UBI vs social security but it would be something to get notion of the impact.

Why would it increase inflation? An equal amount of money is taken out of taxes. There’s no new money being created.

It's not just the net money supply that results in inflation, it's also the prospensity for it to be spent, and on what it is spent (inelastic/elastic demand curve goods and services) which determines the amount of inflation.

If you took 100 dollars out of the pocket of every American and gave it to Warren Buffett, that would most likely be deflationary.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#180

Post by akvadrako »

timw4mail wrote: post #6

I don't see how a universal basic income could be sustainable in any way. You either have debt hyperinflation, or you have taxes high enough that the universal basic income is meaningless.

There are lots of different plans: https://ubicalculator.com/

But the main point is 99% of people are already spending more than $1000 a month to survive, so we can afford it without spending more. It's just about how the books are balanced.

For high earners it means $1000+ in taxes. For the poorest it replaces conditional welfare.

Post reply on HN