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

321–330 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#321

Post by ukabwlsbeux »

neltnerb wrote: post #76
opportune wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, the housing market is more complex than you think. If the bottom of the market gets bid up because of an increase in purchasing power that will affect higher priced units too - if previously I was considering a shitty studio in a bad area for $500/mo vs a 1bed in a good area for $1k/mo, and now the studio is $800/mo, don’t you think the 1bed is going to cost more too? Also everybody has low interest rates for the…

It's certainly more complicated than I understand, but I see it like this... Case 1: With no UBI the person who works in food service has to live an hour or more out of town and commutes to work each day. This is because their pay is better in town than out of town so it's worth it financially overall. Or they simply are paying more in housing costs than they should, are feeding money up the rent chain instead of sav…

I don’t see how it would reduce the power of landlords. If more people want to live in an area than housing can support, rents will increase to whatever level they can sustain to find the equilibrium where fewer people can afford it. If fewer people want to live in an area than housing supports, rents will fall.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#322

Post by rorykoehler »

sub7 wrote: post #284
zentiggr wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny that you say a class of beggars would be created, when most UBI scenarios I've read about show that people tend to try to improve their situations in whichever way makes the most sense... some who can finally afford basic water food and housing start seeking medical/psych help they couldn't afford. Some get more schooling to improve their employment prospects. Some buy a car to start saving themselves hour…

I really want capitalism to give you a wage to do all those things. I understand it's been cronified and monopoloies have fucked over a whole lot of people. The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for being born. We need to enforce fair markets, fair wages etc. For those at the very bottom, I want dignity, a free education, and if still unsuccessful access to a low skill job that can pay…

I don’t understand why people with more money should have such outrageous levels of power over those with less. That’s all capitalism is. Coercion through artificial constraint.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#323

Post by pnutjam »

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…

You are talking about a small percentage of the homeless, plenty of poor people would be helped by this and saved from becoming homeless. They could afford to stay in their rural hometown instead of making their way to the cities where they can currently get help.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#324

Post by ukabwlsbeux »

qqqwerty wrote: post #59
justchilly wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I follow how the milk as a substitute for water analogy translates to housing. There are no substitutes for housing in desirable areas. When the entire working class suddenly has more income, it doesn't create more housing, it pushes up the price of housing. Sure we could build more, but why? After all, if the price of affordable housing goes up, so does less affordable housing, and luxury housing. And we en…

UBI removes the geographical constraints that have been distorting the US housing market. There are plenty of areas in the country that would gladly absorb excess housing demand, but the lack the jobs and economic prospects of those areas make it difficult under current circumstances.

If people are moving to areas that lack jobs and economic prospects, because they can survive on UBI, you’ve just burdened a bunch of small towns with people who aren’t interested in making more money.

Towns need tax revenue, which doesn’t come in sufficient quantity from people happily volunteering on a UBI wage.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#325

Post by lonelappde »

ngold wrote: post #224
qqqwerty wrote: post #187

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 claim is circulated about but I don't think it's true as an overall cost, but only as a cost-for-value. A few ER visits is cheaper than actually providing lifelong preventive care and chronic disease management before they die. O If you don't have a high risks of dying for your condition at the ER, you don't cost money while you sit in the lobby.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#326

Post by lonelappde »

spicymaki wrote: post #222
qqqwerty wrote: post #187

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…

Another point that opponents to universal healthcare would claim was that granting access to healthcare services to the entire US population would degrade quality forcing rationing of service. With inequality you can buy your way to good service when you wanted it. However, with universal healthcare, you have to wait in line like everyone else.

"you" == "a few wealthy people"

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#327

Post by gph »

JDiculous wrote: post #301
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…

Are you kidding me? We literally dump our mental health patients on the streets. [1] How many of the homeless in SF/NYC that you see have kids with them? The mental gymnastics people go through to justify homelessness and poverty is sickening. https://www.kqed.org/news/10737399/nevada-to-pay-san-francis...

"In a national survey, 60 percent of homeless women and 41 percent of homeless men had at least one minor child, but only 39 percent of women and 3 percent of men lived with any children (Burt et al., 1999)" [1]

Most homeless people have had children, they just get taken away from them.

[1]https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/homeless-children-update-researc...

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#328

Post by pnutjam »

sub7 wrote: post #275
kevinwang wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds suspiciously like a centrally planned economy. Hmmm... Where have I heard that vilified before...

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#329

Post by ukabwlsbeux »

godelski wrote: post #141
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? Why would they. They just got more customers. They already have a surplus of supply. In fact, you could make the argument that they could reduce car prices because with more customers you can operate on smaller margins. This is literally operatin…

They would raise prices because their costs just went up, with a huge emphasis on rent.

Also, this has nothing to do with operating at scale

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#330

Post by lonelappde »

bernawil wrote: post #279
scatters wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wealth is accumulated income which is subject to income tax so wealth a different dimension, so even if you expect an additional tax that grows at the same rate? The units are incoherent.
Post reply on HN