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

421–430 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#421

Post by godelski »

ukabwlsbeux wrote: post #329
godelski wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

How did their costs go up?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#422

Post by v64 »

godelski wrote: post #413
dx87 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Charging rent based on rank would be a form of discrimination... also this is anti-competitive behavior. It is pretty well understood that regulation should exist. It is just a question of how much and how to regulate.

In America, this is the problem that has to be addressed before we can consider rolling out projects like UBI. I agree with you that regulations have to exist for this to work, and we simply don't have the regulations in place right now to enable it widely.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#423

Post by godelski »

dfxm12 wrote: post #357
godelski wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea here is that people that are sick can actually take time off. If you've worked in these kinds of jobs you show up to work sick because you can't miss a day, because you can't have a smaller paycheck. So a little more money eases this and gives more leverage to workers.

$1000/mo gives you some leverage, but at the end of the day, not being tied to your job just so you can have decent and affordable health insurance gives you more. This doesn't even talk about stuff money can't buy, like mandatory paid sick leave. Instead of trying to just "ease this", why not try to eliminate it?

I get frustrated with answers like this. It sets up an __OR__ question when one didn't exist. I mean the discussion is about Andrew Yang's UBI. He also supported single payer. Why is this an __OR__ discussion? We don't have to fight when we're on the same side.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#424

Post by godelski »

v64 wrote: post #422
godelski wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging rent based on rank would be a form of discrimination... also this is anti-competitive behavior. It is pretty well understood that regulation should exist. It is just a question of how much and how to regulate.

In America, this is the problem that has to be addressed before we can consider rolling out projects like UBI. I agree with you that regulations have to exist for this to work, and we simply don't have the regulations in place right now to enable it widely.

I was suggesting that regulations have to exist in general. Over the entire market. But what you said just flat out confuses me. That we shouldn't implement something because we currently don't have regulations for it? Why would we? We haven't implemented it. I mean with that kind of attitude we can't get anything done.

Do I expect hiccups and bumps in the road? Yeah, why wouldn't I? Humans aren't perfect. Never have been, never will be. But just because there are speedbumps in my neighborhood doesn't mean I should never go to the store. I still need to eat at the end of the day.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#425

Post by speby »

UBI ... providing direct services for/to the poor ... or a blend, will never resolve some people from "being poor" or adding "burden" to the system despite the system giving them "a minimum of what they need to survive." You can give a mentally ill person $1,000 a month for years and every time he gets the check, maybe he hands it over to a slum lord who secretly threatens the safety or has "tricked" the mentally ill person into giving him the money instead. Bottom line: Giving that person the money every month doesn't "fix" the mentally ill person's problem(s). It's just another roundabout way to try and minimize poor-dom.

All of these solutions are potentially workable, or a blend. I think if anything what we should focus more on is which methods (or blend of methods) works to minimize poor-dom the "most" compared to many of the others, while also balancing the overall cost to deliver said methods on society.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#426

Post by v64 »

godelski wrote: post #424
v64 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America, this is the problem that has to be addressed before we can consider rolling out projects like UBI. I agree with you that regulations have to exist for this to work, and we simply don't have the regulations in place right now to enable it widely.

I was suggesting that regulations have to exist in general. Over the entire market. But what you said just flat out confuses me. That we shouldn't implement something because we currently don't have regulations for it? Why would we? We haven't implemented it. I mean with that kind of attitude we can't get anything done. Do I expect hiccups and bumps in the road? Yeah, why wouldn't I? Humans aren't perfect. Never have…

> That we shouldn't implement something because we currently don't have regulations for it? Why would we? We haven't implemented it. I mean with that kind of attitude we can't get anything done.

I think before implementing UBI, we have to address the broader issue of anticompetitive behavior in American business, due largely to decades of ill-advised deregulation, coupled with regulatory bodies who refuse to prevent anticompetitive mergers. Once we have undone the damage of deregulation, then I believe it's prudent to start putting UBI proposals on the table, but not before. Otherwise we risk making the situation worse for consumers and better for rent seekers.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#427

Post by digitaltrees »

speby wrote: post #425

UBI ... providing direct services for/to the poor ... or a blend, will never resolve some people from "being poor" or adding "burden" to the system despite the system giving them "a minimum of what they need to survive." You can give a mentally ill person $1,000 a month for years and every time he gets the check, maybe he hands it over to a slum lord who secretly threatens the safety or has "tricked" the mentally ill…

Except that most people that are poor are not mentally ill. In fact most people that are poor can handle money and their life just fine...they just don't get paid enough.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#428

Post by kingTug »

imafish wrote: post #159
JeremyBanks wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tulsi is going on Fox to complain about not being allowed in the debates despite having ~0 support. She is not a good-faith actor, and blacklisting her is entirely appropriate.

Well, blacklisting is absolutely undemocratic. But it is fair to not have her in the debates when she does not meet the requirements.

Bloomberg didn’t qualify for the debates either. They changed the rules at the 11th hour so he could participate.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#429

Post by SilasX »

bnjms wrote: post #420
SilasX wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the argument must be wrong because it would imply things are hopeless? That's a textbook fallacy of appeal to consequences. You're not actually addressing whether it's true. The point is that the UBI isn't going to fix things until you first fix the dynamic that's responsible for gobbling up all the economic slack, so that should be the priority.

I am obviously not addressing whether it's true or saying the argument must be wrong. I'm pointing out there's some circular reasoning here that's unexamined in most online discussions about UBI. I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should hav…

>I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should have less inequality though even if we did that would put us in the similar position as with UBI where costs rebalance.

I wasn't making anything like that argument. I was saying that, if you don't address the dynamics that gobble up household economic slack, then a UBI won't produce the additional slack you're trying to produce. Three's nothing circular about that.

>And at the end I ask, rhetorically but still, what's to be done. So here you also assume it's true without addressing it and offer no answer to how to address the gobbling up of the economic slack.

In fact, the link I gave was from (the aptly named) landvaluetax.org and is from an organization that has one theory and solution for how land rents eat up slack and a solution.

And even if I didn't, it's still a valid point that the primary problem is "things that extract household slack", and needs to be address before any UBI is piled on.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#430

Post by SilasX »

godelski wrote: post #412
SilasX wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the argument must be wrong because it would imply things are hopeless? That's a textbook fallacy of appeal to consequences. You're not actually addressing whether it's true. The point is that the UBI isn't going to fix things until you first fix the dynamic that's responsible for gobbling up all the economic slack, so that should be the priority.

They are saying you are wrong because there are other things in the market besides housing. If you inverse your logic it means lowering wages provides cheaper rent. And that just sounds ludicrous.

>They are saying you are wrong because there are other things in the market besides housing

They said nothing like that; that might be what you think, and I'd be glad to address that, but it doesn't help the discussion when you invent arguments that were never made and expect me to have already answered them.

Real estate, unlike cars or food, can't be brought on the market to rapidly respond to demand, and people don't keep raising bids to the point where they leave a certain amount of slack in their budget.

There are ways to get around this (like with faster building and scaling up of transportation infra) but it would need to be address before throwing on a UBI, which was my point.

>If you inverse your logic it means lowering wages provides cheaper rent.

Rents generally do decline when wages fall.

Post reply on HN