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

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

yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 746 posts

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

#281

Post by thisiszilff »

pdonis wrote: post #242
luckylion wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where does this "trust fund" come from? It doesn't just magically appear. I agree completely. People work more than they currently need to because they don't have a trust fund. I'm not arguing that we should give everybody their personal trust fund, I'm explaining why people work and try to save up money even though they don't need those savings in the next 10 minutes.

> I agree completely. No, you don't. See below. > People work more than they currently need to because they don't have a trust fund. No, people work more than they currently need to because they are exercising prudence, common sense, and planning for the future. Which every adult human being is supposed to take responsibility for doing for themselves, and not expect a "trust fund" to magically take care of for them.…

UBI feels like a way of addressing the incoming loss of jobs due to automation.

> No, people work more than they currently need to because they are exercising prudence, common sense, and planning for the future. Which every adult human being is supposed to take responsibility for doing for themselves, and not expect a "trust fund" to magically take care of for them.

It may not be materially possible for everyone to actually do this within our current economic organization in light of automation. People that benefit from UBI may very well be responsible and organized.

We can twist this a little and say that the responsible and organized thing is to plan for automation, to develop skills that make sure you aren't put out of work, etc. Personally I find that position logically valid, but I ideally would push for UBI while also making sure I have a good chance for not needing it.

A cynical take is that UBI is just enough to ensure the masses of unemployed would be complacent enough to not riot.

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

#282

Post by arcticfox »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #269
nogabebop23 wrote: post #256

>> Yang says Humanity Forward plans to immediately distribute Dorsey’s contribution in the form of small cash grants of $250 to nearly 20,000 people who’ve lost their jobs or taken an economic hit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic So money based on certain non-universal conditions? Isn't this one of the root problems? People cannot accept a truly universal system - you've already got too much; that guy lives in th…

So... basically people who lost their jobs to COVID are winners in your mind?

It's not bad, it just misses a lot of the benefit of 'basic' income. For example, my wife had just finished her education and was looking for a job when COVID hit. She's randomly just as hosed as everyone that actually lost an existing job, but qualifies for none of the same relief.

The benefit of the 'universal basic' part of UBI is that it just washes away all edge cases, and it's pretty hard to feel like you've been wronged by it.

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

#283

Post by klmadfejno »

Reedx wrote: post #238
zelly wrote: post #157

UBI only makes sense in the science fiction world that Andrew Yang and other non-technical journalists think is somehow imminent. We still need people to make things. There are still guys hanging off the side of garbage trucks every day and people still pick fruits by hand. If no one does these things, you will starve and die. We cannot survive forever on financial engineering by bureaucrats and importing all our nec…

It doesn't replace people making things, though. You'd still want to work and create value to improve your situation. It'd just function as a floor and provide some stability. Bearing in mind the increasing rate of job destruction and creation. We're no longer in a world where you can rely on being able to have the same profession your whole life. Having that floor would be useful to smooth those transitions out, and…

> It doesn't replace people making things, though. You'd still want to work and provide value to improve your situation.

Doing shitty jobs usually doesn't improve one's situation though. If you earn minimum wage you're going to be better off just trying to gain a marketable skill and living off your income.

You say 'easier for people to take risks'. Well, yeah. So who's gonna be dumb enough to keep scrubbing grime off the bathroom floor when its easy and safe to invest in yourself? There's a solution to that of course, which is "pay people more", which is great. Now people get paid enough to merit working a shit job even with UBI. But now we have a different problem, things cost more to produce, which means prices go up! How much do they go up? Well probably to around the point at which the guy scrubbing grime is at the same level of economic wealth as before, and the guy who stopped to work on self improvement suddenly can't survive on his not-longer-basic UBI.

We need people to perform shitty jobs. Increasing real wages would be a good step to do that. Talk of people being able to take more risks in entrepreneurship is just techie dreams about how it could be better if their privileged economic condition were a little more privileged. It's not wrong, but it's hardly an important problem for society.

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

#284

Post by asdff »

nogabebop23 wrote: post #256

>> Yang says Humanity Forward plans to immediately distribute Dorsey’s contribution in the form of small cash grants of $250 to nearly 20,000 people who’ve lost their jobs or taken an economic hit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic So money based on certain non-universal conditions? Isn't this one of the root problems? People cannot accept a truly universal system - you've already got too much; that guy lives in th…

It seems like people would like it, being that it's in their own interest, but you should hear how much people today disregard social welfare programs. Either throwing their hands up in the air that it would be impossibly expensive, and/or bread would become $20.

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

#285

Post by BosunoB »

nogabebop23 wrote: post #256

>> Yang says Humanity Forward plans to immediately distribute Dorsey’s contribution in the form of small cash grants of $250 to nearly 20,000 people who’ve lost their jobs or taken an economic hit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic So money based on certain non-universal conditions? Isn't this one of the root problems? People cannot accept a truly universal system - you've already got too much; that guy lives in th…

I think that people can accept a universal program, but legislators and the think tanks that govern their policy cannot. The point of Dorsey's funding is to provide high quality data to bolster the policy, and this might have that effect even if, like you say, the payments aren't universal.

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

#286

Post by rsync »

Why doesn't he just fund this experiment himself ?

From wikipedia:

"Originally a corporate lawyer, Yang began working in various startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive from 2000 to 2009."

Maybe this a matching donation from Dorsey ?

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

#287

Post by jlokier »

starpilot wrote: post #123
gist wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a landlord [1] I can answer that question. Btw, I have not found any UBI proponent addressing it either (they tend to avoid that with economic speak if at all) [2] Rent will go up. All you have to do is look what happens in 'hot' markets (SFO/NYC/Bay Area) where there are so many dollars floating around. [1] Both commercial and residential but not in a hot market a 'normal' market. [2] Including Yang

By how much? Do you assume that the full UBI amount will be available for tenants to pay rent, and that no other prices will increase? I imagine that landlords in aggregate would understand that it would not be in their benefit to raise all rents by an amount equal to the UBI if they want to keep tenants. Yang's campaign estimated that prices would go up about 12%, so for higher income (like many on HN) this would be…

I think rents and other costs will rise to the equilibrium point where a lot of people are stressed by the price but just about able to pay it.

Same as now.

It's not a coincidence that the cost of living is equal to the amount which lots of people struggle with, yet are just about coping with.

However, a key benefit of UBI is that the situation is stable and predictable for people on it. Currently, people who are just about coping are living in constant low-level fear that their circumstances will change for the worse. For people who would have to turn to government support, a legitimate fear is not knowing what claims will be allowed, or being asked difficult questions about lifestyle for which there is no safe, honest answer.

That fear has a lot of consequences. For example measured IQ is lowered in that state. People do not make the best decisions; they can't. They are sicker too. They can't make plans. They can't make investments in their own future.

UBI addresses this uncertainty and fear, even if the markets react so nobody (on average) is better off compared with basic costs of living such as rent and food. And so it makes life better.

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

#288

Post by ahdeanz »

kerkeslager wrote: post #257

While I think UBI is one of the better solutions to the poverty problem in the US, I think almost any solution to poverty will fall prey to inflation if we don't address income inequality. One way to do this is pay ratio caps at companies. It's pretty hard to argue against this: if you really believe that wealth trickles down, then you should have no problem trusting but verifying that.

This is a classic pre-distribution versus redistribution debate. I’d just note that they are not mutually exclusive strategies and can both be undertaken simultaneously.

You can see Sweden has been able to do so but countries like US, France, Germany, UK all have similar levels of inequality before redistribution.

The US inequality compared to those countries is primarily due to lack of redistribution:

Around ~29 minute mark: https://youtu.be/DCUq5_ERDp8

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

#289

Post by thisiszilff »

viklove wrote: post #247
luckylion wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You currently don't have the option to not work. Most people work more than they need to because they realize that the future is uncertain and having savings will be beneficial if there's trouble at some point in the future. Give the same people a trust fund that takes care of them and that they trust to last for their life time, and most will stop working as hard. They may still work, but much less and most likely o…

I could subsist while working only 10 hours a week, yet I usually put in 50+. Can you explain what's wrong with me? Or is everyone similar?

A big part is anxiety about the future. You are not guaranteed economic opportunities in the future, so we make the most we have of the present to ensure we can provide for ourselves in the future.

You also enjoy not subsisting. I enjoy not subsisting.

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

#290

Post by ethanbond »

robotresearcher wrote: post #253
Passthepeas wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so by that logic, if we took money away from people the rent would go down? The answer is yes, it probably would, but not enough to negate the effect of the wealth change. With a UBI of $1,000 I would expect rent might go up in some areas by maybe up to a few hundred but this idea that rent would somehow skyrocket to the point that it would nullify any benefit seems a ridiculous assertion to me.

What forces would stop landlords capturing a large part of this money?

Nothing.

Landlords regularly capture upside from social, economic, or technological improvements. Cue conversation on the actual remedy to rampant wealth inequality, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Post reply on HN