Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

dailymail.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#111

Post by munificent »

bobthepanda wrote: post #30
munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

The problem with declaring "universal basic X" is that once the "base" level gets set it gets very hard to reduce the baseline. We see this in countries that use fuel subsidies and are now trying to withdraw them because they are too expensive, and same goes for food. For example; universal basic water in Arizona might have the adverse effect of incentivizing greater water consumption. Universal basic fuel can incent…

> The problem with declaring "universal basic X" is that once the "base" level gets set it gets very hard to reduce the baseline.

You say that like it's a bad thing. But the fundamental premise of human progress should be that the baseline for all people gradually goes up over time. If anything, I consider it a feature that it becomes hard to lower a baseline once it's entrenched. That makes it harder for a powerful minority to take over and then deliberately leave the poor behind by taking away services from them.

> For example; universal basic water in Arizona might have the adverse effect of incentivizing greater water consumption.

This is a great example. I consider "basic" to be an important word in the term. The baseline level should be set such that if everyone consumes the resource at that level, then we are OK with that. A universal basic water that gave everyone in Arizona 1,000 gallons per day would probably be a bad choice.

> In countries that provide basic rations, there are absolutely massive problems with people illegally siphoning subsidized food, water, and electricity and reselling in black markets or other countries with unsubsidized goods for profit.

I see that as partly a problem of those countries being woefully deficient in some other critical resource. There must be some resource they need more than food that makes it worth giving up the ration on the black market in order to be able to afford it. Like many systems, a system like universal basic services can't work in isolation. It must be designed in the holistic context of its participants.

Also, of course, any system like this does need to have enforcement. At scale, some fraction of participants will be bad actors and the system has to be designed with that in mind.

(I accept that one of the good things about about UBI versus providing services directly is that money is much more liquid than services, so participants can more easily rebalance as needed to keep the system in harmony.)

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#112

Post by munificent »

hyperpape wrote: post #31
munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

Healthcare is reasonable, but the right way to provide people food is to give them money. Otherwise, you can't possibly provide a useful service. People choose to spend more or less on food, eat different things, etc. If I want to spend a lot on food, that's my choice, but I should give up something else. Or if I decide to eat rice and lentils multiple times a week, I should be able to save money. Even more important…

> People choose to spend more or less on food, eat different things, etc.

Don't overlook the basic part in the term. The goal is not to provide all the food that everyone wants to eat. It would be to provide basic access to the baseline food needed to be healthy and functioning.

If you want more than that, great. Now you have an incentive to work. That's good, because we must incentivize people to be productive members of society otherwise the whole system collapses.

The intent with providing basic services or income is not to lower the total productive output of a society by removing incentives to work. Its to raise the total productivity by removing the inefficiencies caused when people are too poor, unhealthy, or afraid to work hard or be entrepreneurial.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#113

Post by munificent »

umvi wrote: post #42
munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

> What people need to thrive is security the knowledge that if unfortunate events outside of their control happen, that they will be helped to the degree that society is able I don't know if I believe this. It's unpopular, but I think being completely secure may have some negatives. For example, drawing upon my own life experiences, I found it hard to find motivation to be productive when I was completely secure in a…

As in many things in life, the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle and not at the extreme ends.

People need enough risk of negative consequences to encourage them to make wise decisions. But they also need enough security (especially in things outside of their control) in order to be able to prioritize long-term goals over short-term ones.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#114

Post by munificent »

jakearmitage wrote: post #28
munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

What about child care? Education? Transportation? Dental care?

At "basic" levels, yes, to all of those.

Here's a way to think of it: A society succeeds to the degree that it harnesses the maximum of each individual's potential.

The goal then is for a society to remove impediments that prevent someone from reaching their potential. Imagine a potential Einstein born to unfortunately poor parents. One measure of the how well these services are calibrated is the degree that that Einstein is able to reach their potential despite the misfortune of their parents.

Lack of early child care, eduction, transportation and certainly (non-cosmetic) dental care can certainly stifle someone's potential, so those seem like reasonable problems for a just society to aim to address.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#115

Post by munificent »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #32
munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

I generally think that people are pretty good at spending money on necessities, which may not be the necessities that others have or want. Universal basic services will likely mismatch resources with demand or need, and will thus be inefficient. A basic income is flexible and lets individuals choose where to use that resource. As a rapper once alluded, foodstamps don't buy diapers.

> I generally think that people are pretty good at spending money on necessities

There is actually a wealth of data that shows that poverty changes how brains functions and interferes with long term planning.

> As a rapper once alluded, foodstamps don't buy diapers.

True, but that's probably mostly a consequence of the fact that food stamps were created by the Department of Agriculture partially to address food production surpluses.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#116

Post by hyperpape »

munificent wrote: post #112
hyperpape wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare is reasonable, but the right way to provide people food is to give them money. Otherwise, you can't possibly provide a useful service. People choose to spend more or less on food, eat different things, etc. If I want to spend a lot on food, that's my choice, but I should give up something else. Or if I decide to eat rice and lentils multiple times a week, I should be able to save money. Even more important…

> People choose to spend more or less on food, eat different things, etc. Don't overlook the basic part in the term. The goal is not to provide all the food that everyone wants to eat. It would be to provide basic access to the baseline food needed to be healthy and functioning. If you want more than that, great. Now you have an incentive to work. That's good, because we must incentivize people to be productive membe…

I get the premise, and agree that UBI should leave people with an incentive to work. Still, there are pretty divergent needs, and I think money is best.

In the latter two years of grad school, my wife and I ate very cheaply. I was always at home or at the office with a fridge and microwave, had time to make bread and things like that. But there are working poor people work places where that's not easy to do, and so they end up spending a good bit more on food.

It's bin-packing. If people have different needs, making each bin big enough for all of them is gonna cost more than giving them money that they can move between their various bins.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#117

Post by r00fus »

umvi wrote: post #96
r00fus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your viewpoint is "unpopular" because it's entirely anecdotal and survivor bias (you're posting here indicates you are at least not in a pure survival state). Taking one's "common sense" anecdotes and applying them to society as a whole is where things get problematic. For the latter you need data and analysis to guide you as well as common sense.

UBI is an unproven pie-in-the-sky pipe dream with no strong evidence in its favor (since it has never been adopted, at scale, by a nation or city-state). All of the UBI studies and experiments are highly controlled, small scale, and don't take into account human behavior that happen in real life (greed). Let's see some UBI experiments that fail for once by telling the participants to take advantage of each other howe…

> UBI is an unproven pie-in-the-sky pipe dream with no strong evidence in its favor

The facts differ with your opinion [1].

> Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence.

This attitude is likely what leads to mass adoption of conspiracy theories. Not all of which are false, but most are missing key facts and/or context.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots#Madhya_Pra...

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#118

Post by pxue »

cultus wrote: post #11
jjtheblunt wrote: post #5

How was $1000/month for anyone over age 18 supposed to be funded? Without exact details answering such, do voters believe this is more than seeking voter-attention. Are there actual plans of implementation whose economics/numbers work? I see people discuss such but never see answers.

The same way we are funding massive corporate bailouts. Sovereign government debt does not work like personal debt, for the simple reason that money can be printed. Fears of inflation in a time like this are completely unwarranted. edit: Back of the envelope math shows that 1000/month for the US population is about $4 trillion/year. The Fed has pumped more than that into financial markets since this pandemic has star…

QE is not magically injecting trillions into the economy. Feds really don’t give a shit about the economy of dinners and rents of the little people. They care about macro employment rates. Shit, we could have a country 100% employment rate and people can’t pay rent, feds would still be patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#119

Post by missedthecue »

petermcneeley wrote: post #106
missedthecue wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying redistribution. Meaning taking money from people with more to give to people with less. (I assume youre not just talking about moving figures around but leaving everyone with the same amount in the end). I'm saying there are not enough people with more than people less to provide that $12,000 transfer to each person in a way that benefits most people.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distri... If you just took 20% of people making over 150k it would be enough to give 1k a month to the bottom 50%. (and yes i understand this is household) And this of course is the silly idea that your giving people making 50k a year 12k more for some reason. This also doesnt include the real money up at the top top end. It also doesnt include any wealth transfer…

But UBI doesnt only pay those making less than the median

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#120

Post by SubiculumCode »

munificent wrote: post #115
SubiculumCode wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally think that people are pretty good at spending money on necessities, which may not be the necessities that others have or want. Universal basic services will likely mismatch resources with demand or need, and will thus be inefficient. A basic income is flexible and lets individuals choose where to use that resource. As a rapper once alluded, foodstamps don't buy diapers.

> I generally think that people are pretty good at spending money on necessities There is actually a wealth of data that shows that poverty changes how brains functions and interferes with long term planning. > As a rapper once alluded, foodstamps don't buy diapers. True, but that's probably mostly a consequence of the fact that food stamps were created by the Department of Agriculture partially to address food produ…

There is also a wealth of data showing government inefficiencies and poor effectiveness with blanket purchase policies. I still contend that the poorer will make better choices than a top-down provisioning system.
Post reply on HN