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

191–200 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#191

Post by Fellshard »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #95
Fellshard wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that generates a feedback loop where politicians give you tax money to spend on politicians has an instant smell to me. There may be other ways to accomplish this, but that feedback loop stinks to high heaven on initial examination.

You might want to try a neti pot, because you seem to be missing the smell of the government giving billions to large corporation in a way that accomplishes the same feedback loop you're mentioning. That is the way the system has been working for decades. For example, airlines have been doing stock buybacks with all their profits for the last several years, and now they don't have the money to weather 2 months of cor…

Nowhere in what I said have I defended similar feedback loops. They stink no matter what form they take, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#192

Post by manigandham »

buzzkillington wrote: post #182
logicchains wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Productivity is defined as output per unit labour. This means any profitable investment the firm makes will increase productivity (assuming the number of employees remains the same). If the minimum wage was indexed to productivity, then any such investment would increase labour costs.

Yes, so the only way to increase profits is to increase automation. A much better use of human brains then using them to flip burgers.

So automate away all the jobs? What are people supposed to do then?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#193

Post by GrantSolar »

krapp wrote: post #189
GrantSolar wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the bigger leftist critiques of UBI - instead of enacting meaningful change to the system, gifting the people just enough money to keep them docile and prevent upsetting the ruling class and, like you said, weaponising for further political gain

One problem is the implication behind that critique, that the poor should rather be kept poor until their anger is useful for class warfare (the political gain of the left.) I sympathize with the left far more than the right but both sides seem perfectly happy to consider the proletariat as sheep when it serves their purpose. As far as I'm concerned, UBI would be meaningful change to the system.

>the implication behind that critique, that the poor should rather be kept poor until...

I think it's more that UBI will result in at best a brief reprieve from poverty. It won't be a long-term or even medium-term solution as it only treats the symptom, not the cause.

While I can celebrate anyone promising/implementing welfare programs such as UBI and the huge social benefits they bring, I am cautious of how these will play out politically.

>both sides seem perfectly happy to consider the lower classes as sheep when it serves their purpose

Just want to throw out that I disagree with this

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#194

Post by manigandham »

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 '…

What would reliance look like? People need a stable minimum amount to survive? Isn't that already the case for many? Isn't that the point of so many entitlement programs? Isn't that the reason for proposing UBI?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#195

Post by atq2119 »

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #134
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…

All taxation and spending is wealth redistribution.

Heck, almost everything anybody does related to the economic sphere is wealth (re)distribution.

Property rights are wealth redistribution away from the commons and towards a relatively small number of individuals. Does that make them bad? Well, I'd say maybe, it depends on the details...

We need to work against the effectiveness of this rhetoric trick where only some things are labelled "redistribution" to show them in a negative light.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#196

Post by manigandham »

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…

Technically Yang's UBI plan is that everyone receives it, regardless of wealth. Also there are plenty of entitlement programs already and replacing them with UBI would probably yield less total cost from simpler implementation and less bureaucracy, while making it more available.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#197

Post by manigandham »

93po wrote: post #79
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…

There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.

There are several founders of YC companies that are self-made billionaires and they post on this very forum.

Do you really think they made it on the "backs of society" through "corruption and bribery" rather than building a company that provides value to those willing to pay for it?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#198

Post by scatters »

dnautics wrote: post #154
puzzledobserver wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think something similar has happened with minimum wages. It appears to me that the natural next step is to make the minimum wage grow with inflation. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, so we're stuck with various government-mandated minimum wage levels that are tied to the value of money from several years before. Companies can now point to the law, and use this obsolete number as a metric by which to set their o…

Minimum wage doesn't grow with inflation because the point of inflation is to steal wealth from the working class: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...

Inflation is a tax on wealth, not on labor.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#199

Post by qmmmur »

whateveracct wrote: post #167
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 '…

M4A is similar as well. I guess all big social safety nets have this problem. UBI and M4A would encourage me (and others) to pursue less lucrative pursuits (arts, research, gamedev, entrepreneurship, etc) but it would be hard for me to quit my nice tech job salary if there's the specter of the GOP potentially killing the benefits that enable my pursuit. And that doesn't even compare to the effect that uncertainty has…

Trust me, having a safety net isn't going to kill your drive.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#200

Post by imafish »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #168
imafish wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, blame the poor for their poverty. Gives a nice tummy feel but does nothing good for society.

I say you set up a system where a large number of people are poor by design, you can't blame those that end up poor. You blame the system and the people implementing it.

I agree. Yang says it pretty well. The US is a near winner-take-all capitalism. It only awards and invests in people at or near the top.

Can you make it from bottom to top? Sure! But it is very unlikely, and not really something the US system is designed for. If you go from rags to riches in the US it is in spite of the system and not because of it.

Disclosure:

I live in a capitalistic society with government paid education, health care and child care. My parents are low-wage workers and in the US, they would definitely not have afforded an education for me. Here, I got a high quality masters degree paid by society _because it is a great investment_!

I will gladly pay every penny and more back into society, so that many others, like me, can have the same opportunities as me in spite of their parents income.

Post reply on HN