Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income • Hacker News Board

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#51

Post by macspoofing » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

bslyke wrote: post #47

macspoofing wrote: post #10

What is the actual case for Basic Income? I hear that it 'solves' the problem of automation ... except that it doesn't actually solve it AT ALL. If automation will lead to high unemployment, basic income will do nothing for that. It will send cash to people who aren't working so they can provide for basic necessities, but our welfare state already does that. And we know that segments of society that are wholly depend…

Our welfare state has gaps where non-workers, who should be supported by welfare, are still getting screwed. I thought this paper on the subject was interesting: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/01/20/how-to-fix-o... Seems like UBI fills in the gaps in a sloppy easy way, while also giving money to workers, who don't truly 'need' the welfare. It frees them from the chains of being stuck at their job, but univ…

Right, so you're in the second camp where UBI adds extra costs to the existing welfare state. So there are no savings.

> It frees them from the chains of being stuck at their job

Yes. It would be nice to get nice things and not worry about working. You can't get away from the underlying reality that jobs aren't fun but they still need to be done. Also, we know that populations that are wholly supported by government welfare with no incentive to work suffer from drug/alcohol abuse and crime.

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#52

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:01 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #49

toomuchtodo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is policy and PR hacking in lieu of having incredibly deep pockets. Sorry to tell you that real life is messy. Think of it as growth hacking. This is a sales endeavor. You must sell that the current form of capitalism is fundamentally broken. This is no different than contributing to the "right" Congressional candidates with few dollars so they control hundreds of billions of dollars of policy (or in this case,…

But you can’t prove anything about universal income without the universal part. As without it it’s not the same thing and we don’t know if it’ll have the same effects.

You can approximate. Close enough. It's going to be impossible to implement without testing the concept.

I'm not here to convince you, and if you're not a policymaker or the Fed, I don't have to.

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#53

Post by macspoofing » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:03 PM UTC

JoeSmithson wrote: post #45

macspoofing wrote: post #10

What is the actual case for Basic Income? I hear that it 'solves' the problem of automation ... except that it doesn't actually solve it AT ALL. If automation will lead to high unemployment, basic income will do nothing for that. It will send cash to people who aren't working so they can provide for basic necessities, but our welfare state already does that. And we know that segments of society that are wholly depend…

For one, it removes pathological situations where people are disincentivised to work because it would mean they lose means-tested support. The great unknown is whether it also disincentivises work itself in a way that would be a negative overall. The general idea is that it removes the threat of poverty, which potentially allows people to make more rational decisions, and negates the need for cruder solutions like mi…

>it removes pathological situations where people are disincentivised to work because it would mean they lose means-tested support.

That's a problem with how welfare is structured, that can be fixed with changing welfare.

>The great unknown is whether it also disincentivises work itself in a way that would be a negative overall

Why would you think it wouldn't?

>which potentially allows people to make more rational decisions, and negates the need for cruder solutions like minimum wage, regulations, unions etc

If you think you can get leftist/progressive support for UBI by cutting ANY social program, you are in for quite an awakening. Welfare state employes hundreds of thousands of people, they will not support UBI either. The libertarian view of UBI replacing social programs has ZERO chance of passing. So what's left is UBI being just another expense of top of the huge welfare state costs.

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#54

Post by luckylion » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

_pd19 wrote: post #34

luckylion wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is just a placeholder for value produced. You usually produce value by doing something with your brain and body. "My money = my choice" is essentially "my body = my choice".

I don't feel like spending my time debating libertarians, but just know that the little old "my body is my own means I have complete control over all wealth and taxation is never justified" syllogism is far from unassailable or widely accepted.

I'm not a libertarian, but I generally agree with "my body = my choice".

I don't mind taxes in general (if fair and reasonable, which I don't think the taxes in my country are), but the general principle still applies and coming out against it does sound weird to me. Taxes are a necessary evil to have a society, but I don't think starting from a position of "you should not have control over your body" is going to lead to models of societies that I'd like to live in. And again, you can remove the money part completely, it's just easier to use money than barter for everything.

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#55

Post by beamatronic » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #27

Proven wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Just like Krugman's QE! How am I going to get back my devalued savings once we find out it doesn't work, all savers have been ruined and fiat money has no value? There's no need to test it on any scale, including small, because it can't work.

Savers aren't entitled to a return. No one is entitled to fiat holding or increasing in value. The utility value of capital is declining, plain and simply. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/700-year-decline-of-interes... https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/ke... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INTDSRJPM193N http://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/marketinfo/official_interest... https://www.riksbank.se…

It almost seems like the best use of cash is to use it as a down payment for a loan on an appreciating asset (like a house)

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#56

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:10 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #52

chrisseaton wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can’t prove anything about universal income without the universal part. As without it it’s not the same thing and we don’t know if it’ll have the same effects.

You can approximate. Close enough. It's going to be impossible to implement without testing the concept. I'm not here to convince you, and if you're not a policymaker or the Fed, I don't have to.

But the 'universal' part is the main thing people including policy makers have an issue with, and that's the bit not being tested.

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#57

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:11 PM UTC

beamatronic wrote: post #55

toomuchtodo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Savers aren't entitled to a return. No one is entitled to fiat holding or increasing in value. The utility value of capital is declining, plain and simply. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/700-year-decline-of-interes... https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/ke... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INTDSRJPM193N http://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/marketinfo/official_interest... https://www.riksbank.se…

It almost seems like the best use of cash is to use it as a down payment for a loan on an appreciating asset (like a house)

What happens if the house no longer appreciates?

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#58

Post by toohotatopic » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:11 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #50

toohotatopic wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need a critical mass? Everybody with an income can try it at any given moment: Find one or more persons who _you_ want to support and support them with a basic income. If UBI works, they will also start supporting other people. Sooner or later, you have an economy of people who support each other with UBI. Chances are that you are unlucky and your choice of seeding persons wasn't good. But for science, tha…

UBI is no good if it's not durable and reliable to the recipient. If you imagine that UBI would allow people to live with a lower level of stress around starvation, you have to imagine that they would want to rely on that income a decade from now. Saying "find a rich benefactor to decide to give money away" doesn't reasonably test anything meaningful about UBI. I can tell you that people will generally be happier if…

I haven't said 'find a rich benefactor', but 'be the benefactor'.

There is no need to be rich. Spouses stay at home and are not worried if their partner has a regular job. It doesn't have to work for everybody. For starters, find somebody who can handle the risk of you losing your job.

Of course people are happier if they get rich. But that's not what UBI is about. The question is: do people need a monetary buffer to get on in life and become more profitable so that society benefits as a whole?

If that theory is true, then supporting one or two persons will lead to them making more money and being able to support one or two persons in return by themselves. That's a system that can grow, if UBI works.

So, whoever believes in UBI: start supporting one person, and see what will happen.

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#59

Post by MiroF » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:14 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #54

_pd19 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like spending my time debating libertarians, but just know that the little old "my body is my own means I have complete control over all wealth and taxation is never justified" syllogism is far from unassailable or widely accepted.

I'm not a libertarian, but I generally agree with "my body = my choice". I don't mind taxes in general (if fair and reasonable, which I don't think the taxes in my country are), but the general principle still applies and coming out against it does sound weird to me. Taxes are a necessary evil to have a society, but I don't think starting from a position of "you should not have control over your body" is going to lea…

> "you should not have control over your body"

That's not the part of the syllogism most people take issue with, you're being disingenuous. If fair and reasonable taxes are okay, then it seems like you aren't intrinsically entitled to all wealth that flows from your body, so then it seems like if the reasons for UBI are compelling enough, a taxation system to fund it would be justified.

It also seems unclear why you should be naturally entitled to all your wealth, because you don't produce wealth in a vacuum, but rather as part of a system of social cooperation - that is what determines what you are entitled to. Then, it seems like we should start with what the rules of a reasonable system of social cooperation ought to be, rather than starting from self-ownership. That's a sketch of a potential response to your syllogism.

It seems equally silly to me to structure society so that just because you happened to be born into poverty, your life choices are substantially constrained due to no choice of your own.

Re: Jack Dorsey is giving Andrew Yang $5M to build the case for a basic income

#60

Post by luckylion » Thu, May 21, 2020, 2:23 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #43

luckylion wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you think of a way to incentivize private experiments in UBI? Contracts that guarantee the recipient will pay X% of their income to the UBI source over the next Y years. Claims are that people's creative and productive power will be unleashed. If true, their income will rise dramatically, and they'll pay lots of "taxes" back to the UBI source.

So.. loans, but with way shittier terms for the borrower?

Loans that automatically disappear after X years with interest payments that only apply if you make more than $Y (Y = UBI paid out).

It wouldn't be the person asking for a loan that speculates on them earning enough to pay it back. It would be the entity giving the loan speculating on the person earning so much more in the next few years that the income-percentage makes them lots of money.

Of course, for it to test UBI, the giving entity must not be allowed to decide whether they accept someone or not, that would lead to them picking and choosing, like insurance companies with pre-existing conditions.

However, if the claims about UBI are true, they won't need to, as even the odd slacker will be more than offset by the exploding productivity of the overwhelming majority.

I'm sure Dorsey could fund it, the question is whether he actually believes in the claims of giant benefits and virtually no slackers.