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

271–280 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#271

Post by khafra »

sub7 wrote: post #254
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 a…

> 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.

I don't know if you realize this, but beggars already exist. There are literally people standing by the road with signs asking for money. Presumably many of them can also vote.

UBI just eliminates the physical and emotional toll of standing outside all day holding a sign, asking for money. Does that make the road to ruin you envision more likely, or more dire?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#272

Post by pshc »

manigandham wrote: post #192
buzzkillington wrote: post #182

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?

Latte art and craft brewing.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#273

Post by kuzimoto »

trymas wrote: post #144
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...

Billionaires need your country more than you think. It's just a bluff.

Thousands of millionaires fled France [0]. Also, according to CNN 30 years ago 12 European countries had a wealth tax, today only 3 [1].

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-tax/macron-fights-...

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/17/opinions/wealth-tax-is-bad-id...

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#274

Post by zajio1am »

typ wrote: post #218
qqqwerty wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

I still don't think we can put out the fire by pouring more fuel. For instance, rents are proportionally related to the income of the population. How can we prevent the extra cash flow from being translated into higher rent/housing prices? If I have that extra cash, I would certainly 'leverage' it to expand my real estate portfolio :) That said, I don't object to UBI per se and I agree that the Fed's policy would lea…

Rents should be limited by marginal utility of living in costly city. If you can have higher wage by living in costly city compared to small town, than it make sense to accept higher rent. But if you receive extra income regardless of where you live, then it is hard to say what effect it would have on prices. It may even cause people to prefer cheaper small towns as marginal utility from wage difference would be lower.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#275

Post by sub7 »

kevinwang wrote: post #267
sub7 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

1. Everyone already has voting rights though, and those in poverty are already incentivized to seek welfare, so how would UBI "create" that? 2. How does your suggestion prevent that?

There's a big difference between money and money that can only be spent on a certain set of services.

As far as I know welfare is still food stamps etc i.e. not cash.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#276

Post by redis_mlc »

jnordwick wrote: post #178
zenhack wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

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

No, my understanding from press reporting is that the heavy reinvestment was to avoid taxes in the first place

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#277

Post by zentiggr »

danarmak wrote: post #266
mgkimsal wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Changing your employment is individual and allows different offerings from different employers, matching the wants and needs of different people. Changing your government needs a majority consensus and at least some people will be in the minority who doesn't get what they want. I don't think tying employment to healthcare is a good thing, but I don't think your argument gives a good reason, either.

Changing your employment is as simple as irritating your manager or missing some KPI, and getting fired in all these 'right to work' states. UBI would keep people who would otherwise live on the brink of utter chaos enough to sever their dependence on minimum wage slavery.

Your picture of people picking and choosing from enticing opportunities isn't remotely true for people at the bottom where this would help.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#278

Post by jhbadger »

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 government (at least in a democracy) is way easier than changing your employer, which are generally run with no input from employees (although some employee-run businesses do get to vote for their management).

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#279

Post by bernawil »

scatters wrote: post #198
dnautics wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't get it. Asset prices track inflation like clockwork. What's even funnier to me is that taxes on wealth rarely raise as fast as asset prices!

If anything it's a tax on income.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#280

Post by bsenftner »

sub7 wrote: post #254
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 a…

I also disagree with UBI for the premise that it does not fix any of the underlying causes of wealth inequality - in essence, it is a free ticket for the corrupt to continue business as usual. We need to address the nepotism and the crony-capitalism that maintains the status quo in the same families generation after do-nothing generation.
Post reply on HN