Live data from Hacker News

What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

theatlantic.com

241–250 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Enjoy themselves.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#242
One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel about slavery.

UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong to society, you are deserving of a modest respectable standard of living, and you are entitled to some of the proceeds of the wealth generated by the land with which you've been excluded.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#243
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…

Exactly. This is akin to the argument that we shouldn't further nationalize healthcare because "do you really want some government beaurocrat making healthcare decisions for you?"

Compared to the current system where some combination of the numbers in your bank account and am insurance company beaurocrat are making the decision? Yes.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#244
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 '…

> My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people.

It's not a question of 'if' but 'when'. You can learn quite a bit from India's insane "reservation" policy where more than half of all opportunities (and in some cases > 80%) are 'allocated' to certain 'backward classes'. Never mind that these 'backward classes' dominate politics of the country, and are often quite rich (the 'creamy layer' in India is about $20k, in a country with per-capita GDP of 1/10 that).

The supposedly 'conspiratorial all-controlling' Brahmins are but scapegoats (like the Jews) in a propaganda story that only dates back to the British times (see Nicholas Dirks). It's depressing that the supposed 'liberal' Western media is creating a situation which very well might lead to widespread genocide and pogroms in India (this has happened before), like in Rwanda, Germany and elsewhere. The grand Hindu temples and all its wealth has already been looted by these supposed 'backward classes'; I wonder what else they'll come for next.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#245

One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel about slavery. UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong t…

Especially in our time now when the relative cost of these things is so low. And worse even still is the atrocious conditions in jails and prisons in the U.S. wherein we often end up depositing people who need not be there if simply supplied necessities at a much lower cost without incarceration.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#246
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 '…

I've seen realistic figures for my country on UBI and from what I've seen UBI at a realistic level does not seem to be affordable. It's insanely expensive. Moreover, without massive changes elsewhere in society, UBI would decrease social mobility and lead to a two-class society that keeps the poor even poorer than now.

I'd rather see reasonable minimum wages, and higher taxes that are spent on universal health care, free education and social welfare in the usual Prioritarian way, though with very loose conditions on eligible recipients. Make it the least bureaucratic possible and the most friendly to side jobs and transitioning to self-sustenance as possible, and it will works optimally. The current systems in most countries are horrible, because they are designed to punish people who are creative and try to make money on the side - they are based on the stupid and outdated idea that you're either a successful entrepreneur, or an employee, or get social welfare. In reality, the system should allow anyone to transition between those three roles with ease, as it fits best in the current situation, and without being bogged down by existential sorrows all the time.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#247
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'Universal' part of UBI is the key here. The problem with our current patch work of social programs is that the constituencies for each program are fractured and disorganized. A child tax credit here, a food program there, it is easy to slowly whittle down a social program in those cases. But a Universal BI means that any changes or cuts to the program will impact everyone. It is much harder to play politics when…

Sadly the majority of america that is uninsured has universal emergency room healthcare. And that is the most expensive kind. We have probably 100 million Americans on this universal healthcare plan.

That and Medicaid, which covers a significant portion of America already.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism can't provide housing, utilities, food, medical care and education for free. People would just quit their job if they got all that with no effort. Then how would the government be able to pay for the free stuff if it wasn't able to tax workers? Edit: It occurred to me the government could lock people up in work camps in order to be able to tax them.

> Capitalism can't provide housing, utilities, food, medical care and education for free. > People would just quit their job if they got all that with no effort. Citation needed. All previous experiments on ubi have shown the opposite. You are just painting a boogeyman, without evidence to back it up.

People still work in countries with free medical care and education.

I think the effect on motivation is the central issue of UBI. There might need to be an adjustment. I know for myself, it can be helpful to be compelled to do something that I've been putting off. Sometimes, people don't feel they have a reason to act, but having to go to work can help. It prevents inactivity and isolation.

Perhaps a focus on mental health and intrinsic motivation will be the answer.

But I think most will naturally aim at higher goals than survival... as they do now.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Eh universal healthcare would probably increase 'drive' at a macro level as it doesn't chain the overqualified or highly productive individual to crappy jobs that happen to have good insurance. Not to mention you lose the overhead of dealing with insurance, for you and your family. But yeah, I could see a class of people who would use UBI to permanently slack off whereas they would be highly productive otherwise. Edi…

> But yeah, I could see a class of people who would use UBI to permanently slack off whereas they would be highly productive otherwise.

If you're highly productive, willing to live on a minimal payout, and highly prioritize time away from work, then by all rights you should already be on sabbatical eight months a year or something.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Live humbly on UBI, grow vegetables in your yard and invent a better method of automation in your garage. If you succeed at the latter, who knows? To me the point of UBI+Automation is that we unlock the potential of more people following a muse without needing to spend too much time surviving.
Post reply on HN