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

361–370 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#361

Post by whateveracct »

qmmmur wrote: post #199
whateveracct wrote: post #167

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…

Trust me, having a safety net isn't going to kill your drive.

I agree. My point is a safety net doesn't feel safe when it's one election away from being neutered.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#362

Post by spicymaki »

lonelappde wrote: post #326
spicymaki wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Just to make it clear to the down voters. I do not agree with the objection to universal healthcare! This is just an opinion I heard when congress was drafting the ACA.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#363

Post by Traster »

JDiculous wrote: post #234
aazaa wrote: post #3

The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty s…

There is nothing inflationary about UBI. It's interesting how people think the onus is on UBI proponents to justify why their policy wouldn't cause inflation. Even if it did cause inflation, ultimately it's just a redistribution of wealth, and it still helps those most at the bottom. You mention Venezuela which is a totally different scenario. They had an economy overly dependent on imports paid for by the revenue fr…

That first paragraph is a hell of whipsaw. It's not inflationary, you need to prove it is inflationary, and even if it is inflationary it doesn't matter.

UBI as a policy is trivially putting lots of money into circulation, so it's not unreasonable for people to be worried that would be inflationary.

Venezuela is a great example of the problems of inflation, which is a big concern with UBI as a policy, that's what it has to do with UBI.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#364

Post by manigandham »

claudeganon wrote: post #262
manigandham wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This presumes that societies are run and tax so as to provide equal benefits to all. This is disproven by, I dunno, the history of every society.

Taxes are not equally paid either. I'm not sure what your point is. Do you want to limit wealth? Do you want to ban entrepreneurship? Do you want communism?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#365

Post by sub7 »

dangravell wrote: post #309
sub7 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for being born. You write that as if it's some kind of natural law, as if the second clause is _obviously_ more absurd than the first. It's that the case and, if so, why?

When you decouple income from output or wages from work, you're essentially devaluing work and incentivizing people to work less or (more destructively) work worse.

It's not an absurd thought at all, it's a very natural solution to propose in environments like we have today. It's also been tried in many different countries in many different time periods. Leads to failure every single time.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#366

Post by ubercow13 »

kuzimoto wrote: post #349
ubercow13 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Taking money from one person and giving to another is immoral Basically every society in the world does this, how is it immoral? I think it is immoral not to do that, considering that there is no way that any society can guarantee absolute equality of opportunity for all citizens.

> Basically every society in the world does this, how is it immoral? The difference is taxes should be paying for public goods, to which everyone is equally entitled and able to use. Taking money from one person to give directly to another person is stealing, how is that not immoral? > considering that there is no way that any society can guarantee absolute equality of opportunity for all citizens. It's impossible to…

Taxation is not stealing. In the ECHR for example your right to property is completely superseded by anything the government decides is in the best interest of society:

>(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

>(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#367

Post by bnjms »

ajr0 wrote: post #360
mrfusion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.

out of curiosity, why not just tax people less rather than offer UBI? either lower the tax or start offering monthly tax refunds? would that work as an alternative or equivalent to UBI or am I thinking of something very different?

That’s just a UBI with a different mechanism. The problem here is most proposals for negative income tax pay out annually rather than monthly (you specifically do not), and fail to account for people who do not work but otherwise provide useful input into the economy like stay at home parents and adults taking care of elderly family.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#368

Post by manigandham »

jariel wrote: post #217
manigandham wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically Yang's UBI plan is that everyone receives it, regardless of wealth. Also there are plenty of entitlement programs already and replacing them with UBI would probably yield less total cost from simpler implementation and less bureaucracy, while making it more available.

"Also there are plenty of entitlement programs already and replacing them with UBI would probably yield less total cost from simpler implementation and less bureaucracy, while making it more available." This is a fundamental flaw in the argument. 1) That a 'single program' will be cheaper. Maybe, but maybe not. My government spent more than $1 Billion implementing a simple 'gun registry' for police to store gun recor…

Your first example shows that government is terribly inefficient so a single program that just writes checks should be better than many programs with complex requirements and giant overhead.

As for the second, just because some labor unions are notoriously rent seeking doesn't mean we don't have mass changes in govt organizations. Programs are shutdown all the time. I doubt those labor unions would have a good argument against this anyway. What are they going to say? We're keeping our jobs so we can keep you from getting paid?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#369

Post by bnjms »

SilasX wrote: post #338
godelski wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prices will rise in an attempt to capture some of that known financial excess The assumes financial excess. The reason for UBI is that there isn't excess. If 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, then that's not excess. If 63% of Americans can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, that's not excess. You're right that inflation happens when there is excess, but given these stats, I don't buy that part of the…

>The assumes financial excess. The reason for UBI is that there isn't excess. If 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, then that's not excess. If 63% of Americans can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, that's not excess. But if the core problem is that everyone is bidding away all their financial slack on rent, then they will still take any such windfall and do the same with it, pushing themselves right ba…

This is what bothers me most about arguments against UBI. They seem to have baked into them an assumption that any reduction of inequality will be eaten by rents. Then it follows that the only thing is to balance concentrated private economic power with concentrated public economic power. But what I want to see is more people with more control for themselves not planned for them by a program or economic happenstance.

So if it’s hopeless then what’s to be done?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#370

Post by Fjolsvith »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #116
Fjolsvith wrote: post #83

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.

>Edit: It occurred to me the government could lock people up in work camps in order to be able to tax them So people end up in a situation where they are forced to work in order to survive, the same situation they are in now.

Ah, but in Capitalism, they can choose not to work.
Post reply on HN