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

311–320 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#311

Post by jjgreen »

Shivetya wrote: post #297
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…

Poverty and homelessness will not be solved by throwing money around. It only can be solved if society is willing to understand some people need to be told what to do each step of their lives. It will only be solved if people realize that we will actually have to build housing and make people live there. It will only be solved when people realize that once you get them housed you may need to insure their dietary need…

You are right, there are people who cannot operate on their own, and I have decided that you are one of them. So I will tell you where to live, I will tell you what to eat, I will tell you what to wear. Go on, dance like a monkey for me and my superior friends.

Not so much fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#312

Post by wonderwonder »

sub7 wrote: post #285
DagAgren wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People know what they need to spend their money on. Telling them what they can and can't do with it is both patronising and counter-productive. Let the person who is affected by the choices make the choices.

Patronizing and counter productive is giving people money for nothing. It's telling people that they're useless. You should read up on the beggar networks in India and the exploitation that occurs when you handout money for no work.

If everyone is getting a set amount of money every month, its the opposite. Its telling them that they are valued and that society knows they are a human being and is trying to at least provide them with a roof and food. It allows them a base from which to improve themselves. It gives breathing room.

Study after study have proven that the greatest indicator of where you end up in life is where you start. Start in poverty odds are you will end there.

Its pretty hard for a single mom with 2 kids that works 2 jobs to also go to school, interviews etc. and make a better life. Especially when so many of the low skilled jobs provide no benefits. If she slips once, she is homeless.

Ensuring she has at least her basics met allows her to drop the second job and figure out a way to go to school or learn a skill. Or at the very least it allows her to spend time with her kids each night working on their homework and giving them a chance to break the poverty cycle.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#313

Post by pozdnyshev »

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…

[dead]

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#314

Post by majos »

_2d30 wrote: post #131
bluedino wrote: post #51

>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck; almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money. I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but 78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it together.

I'm kind of skeptical of the number. It also doesn't really gel that well with his 50% can't afford a $400 bill. It seems to be based on survey data from CareerBuilder which could be misleading for whole hosts of reasons.

The best source I know of for statistics like this is the Federal Reserve's most recent "Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households" [1]. It's a survey of about 10,000 people and, as far as I can tell, is the source for many claims like "40% of American adults cannot meet an unexpected $400 expense", which has been consistently true for several years, although it used to be more like 50% in 2013. Note that “cannot meet” here means anything other than “would pay the expense in full before next month”.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-repor...

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#315

Post by [deleted] »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #243
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#316

Post by nkrisc »

madengr wrote: post #299
jimmysacks wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its allowed to continue because some are mentally Ill and refuse to get treated (and we can't force them into treatment) and some make poor life decisions like having multiple children with no means to support them (you have the freedom to do this). You can't just give money to someone mentally Ill or will just squander the money and continue to make bad decisions. We will still have just as much poverty and homeless…

Many will turn right around and spend it on drugs.

Honestly, so what? Most will not and those that do will have less car stereos to steal to get their fix.

The real problem is that some people just can't get over the fact that some other people are just going to use drugs no matter what, so we might as well reduce the total harm involved for society.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#317

Post by rfrey »

forkexec wrote: post #295
jimmysacks wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its allowed to continue because some are mentally Ill and refuse to get treated (and we can't force them into treatment) and some make poor life decisions like having multiple children with no means to support them (you have the freedom to do this). You can't just give money to someone mentally Ill or will just squander the money and continue to make bad decisions. We will still have just as much poverty and homeless…

Shame on you. Your hateful and ignorant stereotypes are defective victim blaming and based on myths. The US has almost no mental healthcare system because JFK was assassinated before the transition to community-based residential treatment centers could be stood-up. Reagan destroyed what remained and condemned the mentally-unwell to neglect and misery.

I agree 100% with your world view but downvoted you due to the unnecessary hostility. That kind of rhetoric is not debate or discussion, it is ring-fighting theatrics to get the crowd cheering for you.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#318

Post by danarmak »

zentiggr wrote: post #277
danarmak wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So fix your employment, minimum wage, etc. laws, too. UBI is a huge undertaking in terms of legal and social changes, we shouldn't consider it "either this change or no change".

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#319

Post by rorykoehler »

lanevorockz wrote: post #302
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 believe you haven't worked with homeless people much, but the problem with homeless is NOT poverty. People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief. Hard problem to solve and it wouldn't be fixed by universal income. We tried convincing homeless people to go into shelters or to at least care a bit for themselves ( free self c…

While I agree I think Ubi would help regardless.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#320

Post by notdonspaulding »

grecy wrote: post #50
uk_programmer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those. You completely missed the point. I am against the principle of me (a tax payer) paying for someone else not working unless they can't work (unable to work). The inflation argument is completely irrelevant. > If you want to rebut that last point b…

> It isn't about the facts. It is about the principle. What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyo…

> What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts.

What uk_programmer's original argument was that even if it worked, even if we could afford it, it would be wrong to make uk_programmer work for $5000/mo. and then take $1000/mo. of their money and give it to someone else.

Having a factual discussion about the implementation may be interesting, and may be worth discussing, but the argument has already been laid out on moral grounds. If you're going to continue answering the "How?" question and ignoring the "Why?" question, you're going to keep finding that you're talking across purposes from the GP.

(BTW, I think your "factual" case is severely flawed as well, but that's a story for another time.)

Post reply on HN