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

251–260 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#251

Post by dx87 »

kkdaemas wrote: post #232
v64 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It would absolutely happen. When I was in the military, the town I lived in had to pass laws preventing landlords from changing your rent based on your rank because everyone's pay information was public. It's naive to think dealerships would try to undercut each other instead of colluding to all get more money.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#252

Post by zajio1am »

JDiculous wrote: post #231
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…

> How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation?

Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#253

Post by claudeganon »

manigandham wrote: post #197
93po wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The internet was created by governments, much of its technical infrastructure through open source projects, and I’m pretty sure most of those billionaire companies had at least some employees (many of whom I assume were also educated in public schools and state universities).

So, yes, quite obviously, they made it on the “backs of society.”

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#254

Post by sub7 »

JDiculous wrote: post #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 t…

Agreed that everyone deserves a basic standard of living as a human right but disagree that UBI is the path to that.

Giving money to people instantly creates a class of beggars. Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more and more for no more work. It's the road to ruin.

My suggestion is a set of hospitals, schools and housing that is super basic but sufficient to give people dignity and opportunity. These would be free for anyone, paid for via taxes on capital gains.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#255

Post by manigandham »

claudeganon wrote: post #253
manigandham wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The internet was created by governments, much of its technical infrastructure through open source projects, and I’m pretty sure most of those billionaire companies had at least some employees (many of whom I assume were also educated in public schools and state universities). So, yes, quite obviously, they made it on the “backs of society.”

We all pay taxes and benefit from "society". There's nothing special about it, and you too have the freedom to start your own company.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#256

Post by JDiculous »

zajio1am wrote: post #252
JDiculous wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation? Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

Employers in the U.S. can fire anyone at any time for practically any reason, cutting off one's livelihood. That feels more likely than a government doing the equivalent of cutting off someone's social security. A company's goal is to maximize profits, not provide charity to people it no longer deems useful to its bottom line.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#257

Post by SuoDuanDao »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #249
dpbriggs wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If more workplaces allowed that, I'd probably be less preoccupied with UBI.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#258

Post by clSTophEjUdRanu »

JDiculous wrote: post #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 t…

I look at it from a selfish perspective. These "lowlifes" actually drag society down. It benefits me if they are helped.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#259

Post by mgkimsal »

zajio1am wrote: post #252
JDiculous wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation? Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

> Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

Making changes at your place of employment is often impossible. We get direct chances to change our government every X years. And changing to a different employer often isn't that easy for many folks.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#260

Post by zajio1am »

GrantSolar wrote: post #185
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 '…

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

It is interesting that you frame it as 'leftist critique' instead of 'far-leftist critique'. As historically, exactly that kind of arguments were used by far left (communists) aginst moderate left (social democrats) and was a major reason for their split in 1910s.
Post reply on HN