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

#331

Post by somewhereoutth » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

burrows wrote: post #235

smalltalks wrote: post #217

Technically speaking , many European countries already have "Basic Income". ( France , Sweden , Norway...) They are reserved for individuals "Not Active" though ( Unemployed and not looking for a Job ) over a certain age. Those "BI" massively lower poverty , which usually massively reduce crime-rate , drugs related usage etc... With 700€/Month you aren't gonna far anyway, you have enaugh for food and rent , and that'…

> With 700€/Month you aren't gonna far anyway, you have enaugh for food and rent , and that's it... Contingent benefits disincentivize people from participating in the economy. People paid to do nothing... do nothing. > For America it's different, America cannot technically afford "BI" because the entirety of the US economy has been built on having 20% of the population living under the poverty line in order for good…

A lot of the UBI in Europe is benefits in kind. Healthcare is the obvious one, but also police forces with a higher degree of professionalism, better access to (and treatment by) the justice system, clean water, higher food standards, it goes on. Right now we are benefiting from a coherent and effective response to Covid-19. All these things can be found in the US - if you can afford to pay.

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

#332

Post by zozbot234 » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #317

zozbot234 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is indirectly means-tested; if you make too much money, you end up giving back as much or more in taxes and/or partial UBI clawbacks than what you would get via UBI. This actually ends up working better and being cheaper than most alternatives (including the "guaranteed minimum"), because it's comparatively easy to structure a comprehensive tax system so that it minimizes distortions on people's behavior, and har…

The idea of replacing existing social programs with cash handouts reminds me of Bitcoin's earlier days. Proponents were thinking of what it would be like if they were poor, and not what life is like for poor people. It is not the case that you can reasonably just give large groups of people with histories of poor financial literacy cash as a replacement for food, shelter, or other necessities. Many people will make b…

Many experiments have been done that involve giving UBI-like grants (and even large, one-time-only cash grants) to people in extreme poverty. The money gets spent in sensible ways, by and large. Investing in one's shelter (e.g. replacing a leaky roof), paying for children's education or buying assets for a profitable business venture are extremely common choices. Regardless of their "financial literacy" (people in extreme poverty are hardly used to dealing with financials!) people seem to grok that they're getting something quite valuable, and are not inclined to waste what they get.

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

#333

Post by artsyca » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

Even if there is a case for universal basic income these are not the droids you seek when it comes to endorsing it as a concept in fact my instinct tells me they'll fumble it and end up causing it to fall out of favour even if it could've been implemented

The reason is these two lead with their egos rather than engendering true community belonging

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

#334

Post by loco5niner » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #265

burrows wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no one is working, then who is being taxed to pay for the UBI?

What do you mean no one is working ? There'll still be people working.

That would be Bob.

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

#335

Post by gnicholas » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #327

gnicholas wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's not what trickle-down economics was ever about, to my understanding. But more importantly, a plan like you suggest would surely increase the user of contractors, rendering these the proposed pay ratio impotent.

Yes, there are loopholes that need to be closed. The same as any short description of a complex economic policy. I'm not sure why you think this problem is insurmountable: states already have regulations around who may be considered contractors.

States do have rules around considering individuals to be contractors. I don't know of any laws that do the same with regard to contracted companies — for example, the company that employs the people who clean the bathrooms at FB. This seems much harder to overcome with regulations.

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

#336

Post by wincy » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

nawitus wrote: post #307

HideousKojima wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What happened? Every single proposed UBI was either insufficient to cover people's basic needs, obscenely expensive, or both. That's what happened. There simply isn't enough tax revenue, even if you seized 100% of the wealth and future earnings of the wealthy, to provide a basic income sufficient for most people to live off of. Also a lot of proposals would have ended up giving the poor and elderly less than they ge…

> Every single proposed UBI was either insufficient to cover people's basic needs, obscenely expensive, or both. I don't think that's true. In a really simple model imagine UBI of $2000/month given for everyone. Then imagine increasing income taxes by $2000 for all employed workers. Then the true cost would be difference between current unemployed benefits of the UBI, which shoudln't be obscenely expensive (in normal…

But it wouldn’t be $2000 per worker, as you’d have to get enough tax money to pay the people who aren’t working that $2000. If I make $6000 a month and you make $0 a month, and then we both get $2000 a month from my taxes, how can my take home pay remain $6000?

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

#337

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

burrows wrote: post #270

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.

> 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. Please define the "poverty problem" in the US. How is an increase in the money supply related to income inequality?

> Please define the "poverty problem" in the US.

Ugh. That's way too complex, and you know it. But I'll try to give you some bullet points:

1. Homelessness 2. Inability to afford healthcare 3. Home ownership being inaccessible to most people 4. Inability to afford childcare 5. Inability to afford education

Note how 1, 4, and 5 aren't solvable by providing jobs--these are problems that prevent you from entering the workforce even when jobs are available.

Frankly, I don't think you're asking this question in good faith.

> How is an increase in the money supply related to income inequality?

If you implement UBI, you're essentially also implementing a minimum wage, since companies will have to pay significantly more than UBI. Rather than accept a cut in their own pay to pay workers more, executives will raise the price of goods and services. This effect, across the economy causes inflation. So if you don't find a way to prevent executives raising their own pay to maintain inequality, you get inflation any time you give money to the poor.

Economic conservatives tend to overstate this problem, in my opinion--there's nothing preventing you from just raising the UBI proportional to inflation. But historically, minimum wage hasn't tracked inflation, and I worry that UBI would suffer the same problem.

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

#338

Post by chillwaves » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

grayfaced wrote: post #293

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…

Even universal has winners and losers. How do you deal with different cost of livings between Bay Area and Mississippi? If the UBI is not adjusted and covers living expenses in cheap areas but not expensive areas, then people might decide to live cheaply without a job. That risks creating slums. If it's adjusted to locality, then areas will grow and dwindle based on accuracy of those adjustment tables. Which would tu…

People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. In fact, many would argue this is a benefit of UBI and will bring much needed economic resources to under populated parts of the country.

Not everyone needs to live in the Bay Area.

COL adjustment to UBI would be a huge mistake and undermine the entire concept.

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

#339

Post by moduspol » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #332

moduspol wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of replacing existing social programs with cash handouts reminds me of Bitcoin's earlier days. Proponents were thinking of what it would be like if they were poor, and not what life is like for poor people. It is not the case that you can reasonably just give large groups of people with histories of poor financial literacy cash as a replacement for food, shelter, or other necessities. Many people will make b…

Many experiments have been done that involve giving UBI-like grants (and even large, one-time-only cash grants) to people in extreme poverty. The money gets spent in sensible ways, by and large. Investing in one's shelter (e.g. replacing a leaky roof), paying for children's education or buying assets for a profitable business venture are extremely common choices. Regardless of their "financial literacy" (people in ex…

I haven't yet seen a UBI experiment that replaced someone's pre-existing means for food, shelter, or other necessities. But maybe I missed it.

I don't think anyone doubts that often people will spend additional money they are given productively.

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

#340

Post by loco5niner » Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

viklove wrote: post #244

pdonis wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've invented machines that can do basically everything it takes to support human life. We have? We have machines that can do everything it takes to grow food, prepare it, ship it where it's needed, with no humans? We have machines that can build houses, cars, bicycles, and other forms of transportation, with no humans? We have machines that can make our clothes and all other necessary items with no humans? We hav…

If we really still want them, the law of demand will help us out. The price will go up, and people will start working to be able to afford it. If it turns out that we don't actually want smartphones, new jeans, Starbucks coffee, etc -- then that's great too. We'll end up with a lot less pointless consumption and people can spend their lives chillin' with their buddies!

What will actually happen is the UBI money will FIRST go to smartphones, new jeans, Starbucks coffee, and the necessaries of life will come in second.