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

341–350 of 746 posts

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

#341

Post by andrekandre »

slg wrote: post #139
Press2forEN wrote: post #110

Years ago, proponents of UBI claimed that it was a replacement for all other forms of social welfare. Now it appears by most proposals to be yet another means-tested add-on. What happened?

Because replacing all other forms of social welfare is completely impractical from a political standpoint in either the short or medium term. It would involve huge societal changes that would require most people to rethink how government works. That isn't something that would happen quickly. If you are a UBI proponent, you can either spend multiple decades fighting that fight before you see any progress or you compro…

the other thing is, without proper price controls (rent, basic food stuffs, transportation etc) business will look at it as a chance to jack up prices because "free money"

the other aspect is, no amount of ubi is going to cover huge medical costs that the current u.s system incurs, as well as higher education for those thst really do want to improve themselves and contribute

so (i think) ubi isnt a bad idea, but it needs to be coupled with other structural reforms and price controls to prevent being a huge potential diaster

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

#342

Post by kenhwang »

chillwaves wrote: post #338
grayfaced wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's a double edged sword. Encouraging people to minimize their COL and spend the money on underinvested areas of the country is fantastic for decreasing the wealth gap.

But the other likely outcome is drastic COL inflation in low COL areas which adversely impacts them significantly more.

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

#343

Post by maxbond »

BurningFrog wrote: post #243
jedberg wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every experiment in UBI says otherwise. Direct cash grants usually lead people to do more work, because now they can do the work they enjoy. Also, look around groups of wealthy people. The ones who don't have to work anymore. Sure, some of them live a life of leisure, but many of them still work, because they get bored otherwise.

People will always to things they enjoy. No one questions that. We have paid employment to get people to do things that need to be done !

Are you familiar with the concept of Bullshit Jobs? In short, I'm not convinced that all or even most jobs are actually necessary.

Surely it's reasonable to expect that people will be passionate about the things that actually need to be done, precisely because they are necessary. One of the most intense people I've ever met has cleaned SUPERFUND sites for decades. I'm not sure how well paid they are, but I am sure it isn't about the money. If they have trouble attracting people, they'll raise wages, and surely we can expect that what some people enjoy is making lots of money. Would it be so bad if working a shitty job no one would do voluntarily was well compensated, instead of poorly?

In experiments with UBI, many of the people who quit do so to spend more time with their family - and keep in mind, domestic work is _work_ that is _necessary_ and incredibly valuable to society - or to retire earlier. Doesn't that sound reasonable? Do we really need to force people to work when they could be engaged in other activities valuable to society or to themselves? Wouldn't it be nice if there was more room for young people to be promoted?

Another thing idea I've been toying with is the devil's bargain of trading UBI for eliminating minimum wage. I was watching a video about getting into locksmithing, and the speaker joked that if you made some faux pas, your potential employer would value you at $2/hr and send you packing.

But that begged the question for me; what if I could work for $2/hr, with very few barriers, and get enough experience to earn more? In order to be hireable, I'd have to work at a negative rate, investing money in tools and locks to practice on. I have the privilege of having a family that could support me while I did something like that. But what if we could all do that, not because you won a socioeconomic lottery, but because our society was willing to invest in you and take a chance on you, regardless of your background?

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

#344

Post by andrekandre »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #264
bt1a wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yang definitely waffled on MFA and appeared to not support it towards the end. That was something of him that I was disappointed - I couldn't understand why he didn't realize that MFA is the way to go. I do wonder if he waffled on it to retain support from people further to the right. That said, I actually think Yang's ideas are going to reverberate throughout political discourse over the next decade. Similar to how…

>I couldn't understand why he didn't realize that MFA is the way to go. Maybe because that's not a fact. MFA might not be the way to go. This isn't a simple binary issue.

no, he waffled

in interviews he literally said, when challenged, that "mfa isnt actually a bill" and that "mfa to means xyz" when actually mfi is a bill and specifically defined as a policy not some ambigous goal of "getting everyone covered, lets discuss how to get there"

i was deeply dissapointed in him after that...

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

#345

Post by Avicebron »

kenhwang wrote: post #342
chillwaves wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's a double edged sword. Encouraging people to minimize their COL and spend the money on underinvested areas of the country is fantastic for decreasing the wealth gap. But the other likely outcome is drastic COL inflation in low COL areas which adversely impacts them significantly more.

But if everyone including those in the low COL area was getting UBI then it should equalize no?

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

#346

Post by zozbot234 »

moduspol wrote: post #339
zozbot234 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why shouldn't cash be the benchmark when it comes to aiding poor folks? If giving food or shelter really is more helpful than just giving the equivalent cost in cold hard cash, that will be quite interesting. But let's see the proof of that.

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

#347

Post by Tiktaalik »

xyzzyz wrote: post #312
Tiktaalik wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually a big bureaucratic problem to give people several thousand dollars and then demand most of it back later. Most people don't notice income taxes since it comes out of their paycheque. It would genuinely be tough problem to educate people to not spend their basic income, or to design a system where it's clawed back through paycheques.

> It would genuinely be tough problem to educate people to not spend their basic income, or to design a system where it's clawed back through paycheques. We can use the system that we already have, that is, income tax. It has worked fine for quite a while.

Yeah note the line after that. This is a new wrinkle to the norm.

Not saying these issues can't be addressed, just pushing back against the notion that UBI is simple to implement.

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

#348

Post by exclusiv »

kenhwang wrote: post #342
chillwaves wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's a double edged sword. Encouraging people to minimize their COL and spend the money on underinvested areas of the country is fantastic for decreasing the wealth gap. But the other likely outcome is drastic COL inflation in low COL areas which adversely impacts them significantly more.

Yes. Colorado hates on Texans for scooping up real estate and driving up prices and taxes. And Texans hate on Californians for scooping up their real estate. You can't have it all. And if you do, it won't last forever. Such is life.

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

#350

Post by bhupy »

andrekandre wrote: post #341
slg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because replacing all other forms of social welfare is completely impractical from a political standpoint in either the short or medium term. It would involve huge societal changes that would require most people to rethink how government works. That isn't something that would happen quickly. If you are a UBI proponent, you can either spend multiple decades fighting that fight before you see any progress or you compro…

the other thing is, without proper price controls (rent, basic food stuffs, transportation etc) business will look at it as a chance to jack up prices because "free money" the other aspect is, no amount of ubi is going to cover huge medical costs that the current u.s system incurs, as well as higher education for those thst really do want to improve themselves and contribute so (i think) ubi isnt a bad idea, but it n…

> the other thing is, without proper price controls (rent, basic food stuffs, transportation etc) business will look at it as a chance to jack up prices because "free money"

I don't buy this argument. Businesses that do this would be leaving money on the table: namely the poor people that were outside of their total addressable market. Whereas before those folks would never have been able to provide revenue, with more cash in their pockets, they are now potential consumers. Increasing prices just maintains the same TAM for no real reason — you can make more revenue by serving the newly minted consumers.

The only good/service for which this breaks down is housing, for which there is a true supply scarcity — but even that ceases to be true in a regime with proper zoning reform (like Japan).

Post reply on HN