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

231–240 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#231

Post by JDiculous »

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 '…

> but the risk for people in power to use it against the people.

As opposed to what, private undemocratic unaccountable authoritarian institutions controlling peoples' lives?

> nce UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival.

Anybody who's dependent on their employers' paycheck is dependent on their employer for survival. How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation?

We already have UBI, but only old people can qualify for it, and the dividend amount is proportional to how much money you made in your lifetime. It's called social security.

Extending this dividend to the rest of the population is the next logical extension of this.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#232

Post by kkdaemas »

v64 wrote: post #115
godelski wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prices will rise in an attempt to capture some of that known financial excess The assumes financial excess. The reason for UBI is that there isn't excess. If 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, then that's not excess. If 63% of Americans can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, that's not excess. You're right that inflation happens when there is excess, but given these stats, I don't buy that part of the…

> A person that couldn't afford a car can now. I person with a $1k beater car can now buy a $5k car. Wouldn't car dealers raise their prices some value up to $1k because they know anyone coming in that month to buy a car also just received a $1k check from the government? > Someone that was living paycheck to paycheck can now take a breath, buy a TV and a Netflix subscription. Netflix may raise their prices knowing e…

> Wouldn't car dealers raise their prices some value up to $1k because they know anyone coming in that month to buy a car also just received a $1k check from the government?

There is still competition between car dealers, so I doubt this would happen.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#233

Post by sokoloff »

nikofeyn wrote: post #151
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…

are you seriously arguing that heavily taxing insanely wealthy people is unethical? i mean, we're literally living in a moment in which public school closures means many kids don't have reliable access to food anymore. there are plenty of other examples in which people are seriously struggling. and somehow taxing the wealthy is unethical. the fact that you bifurcate people into the "haves" and "have nots" speaks volu…

Not GP, but I think there’s a reasonable argument that taxing income for the purpose of funding essential government services is on stronger ethical footing than taxing wealth for the specific purpose of wealth redistribution.

The latter is IMO not ethical if it excessively punishes productive activity. In this case “impractical is unethical”, even as I’d prefer a UBI world in many ways.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#234

Post by JDiculous »

aazaa wrote: post #3

The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty s…

There is nothing inflationary about UBI. It's interesting how people think the onus is on UBI proponents to justify why their policy wouldn't cause inflation. Even if it did cause inflation, ultimately it's just a redistribution of wealth, and it still helps those most at the bottom.

You mention Venezuela which is a totally different scenario. They had an economy overly dependent on imports paid for by the revenue from oil exports, so when the price of oil crashed, so did their economy along with it. With resulting large amounts of foreign denominated debt, their only options were to 1. default 2. print money to pay off those foreign-denominated debts. They went with option #2, and their currency collapsed. Furthermore their country has extremely weak property rights (eg. businesses being seized by the government), enormously high levels of corruption, and ridiculous price controls.

Now what does any of that have to do with UBI?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#235

Post by bumby »

paulmd wrote: post #143
bumby wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some are advocating for a value added tax with certain categorical exemptions. My limited understanding is this would make necessity purchases more secure while making discretionary “luxury” purchases more expensive

VAT is kind of a bad tax scheme. It's regressive and discourages consumption (which, like it or not, is the engine that drives our economy). It's better just to have income and wealth taxes.

Isn’t the point of the categorical exemptions to avoid it being regressive? I.e., it skews the tax toward those consuming non-essentials?

I agree that it may discourage consumption. It’s not clear to me that this is fundamentally a bad thing, at least in terms of conspicuous consumerism

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#236

Post by JDiculous »

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #4
cgrealy wrote: post #2

I'm not sure there's a "what if" at all, more like a "when will". At some point, a UBI will become a necessity. The most likely other options are a dystopian nightmare or a complete overhaul of our basic economic principles (i.e. a post-scarcity Star Trek-esque society)

For the most part I agree, but the important fact is that that point might not be now. Just because you might know the end point, doesn't mean you can skip the steps in between or try to get there too quickly. That can lead to disaster as you'll probably not have the right conditions or supporting structures in place.

Have you seen all the homeless people in SF or NYC lately? I'd love to see the reaction to some cushy FAANG engineer telling them "the time for UBI might not be now".

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#237

Post by oxymoran »

He was right. He was right before the pandemic and he’s even more right now. Whenever this ends, it’s going create even more incentive for employers to automate. Some of these jobs are going to disappear over the next few weeks and they may never come back.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#238

Post by JDiculous »

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.

Australia is doing pretty damn well. The pay there is fantastic, and it's one of the few countries where you can work any honest job and still get paid well (I can attest that this is not the case in the U.S.). Many foreigners flock there in large part for this reason. 1 month+ vacation, strong healthcare system, good benefits, etc. And remember their population is only 24.6 million.

I'd say having a higher standard of living is more important than being the "innovation engine of the world", however arbitrarily defined that is.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#240

Post by JDiculous »

kova12 wrote: post #86

I think his most compelling policy is not UBI, but giving the people money to spend on politics. This country is suffocated by special interests, which create draconian laws for all of us to follow just so that they can collect a little bit ore money. Just filing the taxes alone is a monumentally frustrating experience. This needs to be streamlined, but it will never be until corporations are stripped from their lobb…

The only real way to fix this in the U.S. is to allow rank-based voting, otherwise it is practically impossible for any third-party candidate to get elected.

So long as we have a two-party system, we will have dumbed down political policies pandering to the brainless masses with little room for innovative progressive ideas.

Post reply on HN