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

401–410 of 746 posts

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

#401

Post by zozbot234 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #391
zhoujianfu wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not the OP, but I would like to see some UBI studies that are at least permanent (per participant), if not universal. It’d be a lot more interesting to me to see what happens when 30 people get $1,000/mo for the rest of their lives than what 20,000 people do with an extra $250 once.

You could run a test case in a low income country where 5 million goes a long way. For example, the median per-capita income in India is $600/yr[1]. You could use this money to provide 3,000 people with $300/yr for 5 years. https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/median-income-by...

Give Directly does that. The organization is all about giving money to the extreme poor, and they're outstandingly effective at doing this. At the same time, they structure their giving activities as RCT's at varying levels (formerly household-based, now full villages AIUI) so they're also creating very valuable research output about these issues.

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

#402

Post by zhoujianfu »

kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #260
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.

> Every experiment in UBI says otherwise. Has even one of these been a permanent (for the recipients) experiment?

I don’t know why they don’t do this at $1K/mo for life for 30 people (and then study them qualitatively) instead of $250 one-time for 20,000. What is a one-time payment of $250 going to tell us about a UBI?

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

#403

Post by nyhc99 »

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…

What's wrong with competition as a price control? Isn't that the basis of capitalism? If someone else wants to raise their prices because "free money" then I'll just keep my prices the same and steal all their business.

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

#404

Post by jdc »

HideousKojima wrote: post #149
gota wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that was a major point, too, because a significant portion of the money available for social assistance is spent on deciding who can get it and fighting 'fraud'. A blanket universal give is a lot easier. However - I've always been puzzled by how each person in the US doesn't have a public, singularly identifying number assigned. Doesn't that make even an 'universal' basic income hard to define? How do you gua…

Social Security's admin costs are ~.7% of the program's budget, eliminating admin overhead, means-testing, and fraud fighting won't get you many gains: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-...

I'm not in the US, so I know little about its social security programs. But isn't Social Security is one of many?

Also this paragraph from the linked article suggests that the 0.7% figure does not include means testing:

Indeed, universal participation and the absence of means-testing make Social Security very efficient to administer. Administrative costs amount to only 0.7 percent of annual benefits, far below the percentages for private retirement annuities. Means-testing Social Security would impose significant reporting and processing burdens on both recipients and administrators, undercutting many of those advantages while yielding little savings.

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

#405

Post by zhoujianfu »

marcusverus wrote: post #193
Mayzie wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that everyone receives a basic income, equivalent to a (hopefully) updated minimum wage. Then if people want extra money for luxuries, then you work a job which will pay you on top of your standard basic income. I imagine most people would continue working.

Even assuming that the vast majority of people would keep working to maintain their standard of living, there are major issues with UBI: 1) The incentive to enter the workforce is greatly reduced. Every high-school graduate would have the means to shack up with a few of their buddies and live the college lifestyle indefinitely. I'm currently a productive adult, but only because there was no alternative. UBI is an alt…

Agreed... but the U.S. is about the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of a large workforce.

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

#406

Post by zhoujianfu »

ip26 wrote: post #251
Mayzie wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that everyone receives a basic income, equivalent to a (hopefully) updated minimum wage. Then if people want extra money for luxuries, then you work a job which will pay you on top of your standard basic income. I imagine most people would continue working.

If the point is to ensure everyone has a basic income even between jobs, but that nearly everyone will continue to work, and the purpose is to provide a safety net for the unemployed- think a minute before you reply- is it really that different from unemployment insurance?

I disagree the purpose is that people will continue to work, but regardless, it’s a much improved unemployment insurance because it doesn’t go away when you do work, and so doesn’t disincentivize work.

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

#407

Post by jbc1 »

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…

If you’re treating people wanting to live cheaply without a job as a negative situation that should be avoided, then I don’t think you’re in a mindset to be evaluating UBI specifics correctly. You should just be wholesale against it. The whole point is to free people from wage slavery. You’re worried that it will work!

On an even broader level though, location caused cost of living differences being taken in to account in anything like this seems odd. I read it as the equivalent of “but what about people who want Ferrari’s not Honda’s!?” When it seems like others see it as “what about people who have expensive to treat medical conditions?”

COL differences aren’t some arbitrary accident. You’re paying more to live somewhere more desirable.

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

#408

Post by malandrew »

vkou wrote: post #393
chrisco255 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the earnings part comes before the tax part, which is the proper order of operations. In order to produce earnings, our system dictates that you do something economically useful. That's not a perfect system, but it has produced the modern economy and for all its flaws, no economy in history has produced as much wealth as exists today. I am highly skeptical of UBI. The U.S. is the last place that should try it…

> Because the earnings part comes before the tax part, which is the proper order of operations. In order to produce earnings, our system dictates that you do something economically useful. That's not a perfect system, but it has produced the modern economy and for all its flaws, no economy in history has produced as much wealth as exists today. It should be noted that if it weren't for the energy we are extracting fr…

cheap access to energy is merely a lever for allowing people to be even more economically useful. By itself, cheap access to energy is worth nothing.

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

#409

Post by nyhc99 »

golf1052 wrote: post #229
mwfunk wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People get a UBI regardless of whether or not they work, that's the 'U' part. So any money you get from working is additional money on top of the UBI. It would be taxed, but it's still more money. It's not like other benefits where once you start earning your own money, you lose the benefit, and thus have to make a choice between not working to keep the benefit and working 40 hours a week to make similar or marginall…

>Or, maybe you're taking that into account already, and are worried about an uncanny valley in between "not working" and "working" where a significant number of people simply don't work because that first rung in the "working" ladder isn't rewarding enough to start climbing the ladder, so they're incentivized to never work. This was a concern with the recent economic assistance bill, the additional money from this bi…

Not really a fair comparison because in order to get the unemployment you have to stop working.

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

#410

Post by zhoujianfu »

loco5niner wrote: post #334
matz1 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That would be Bob.

Bob is somebody who enjoys his job, or creating value, or material things, more than surfing and playing video games.

The thought is that we have enough Bobs in the world now, and enough technology and infrastructure, that allowing the Bobs to be Bobs and the Freds to be Freds will still work out fine.

(And I agree.)

Post reply on HN