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

431–440 of 746 posts

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

#431

Post by chillacy »

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…

Look at it this way:

1. The US is already spending over a trillion a year on welfare

2. These programs have high administrative costs and create negative incentives to work (you can make more not working than working)

3. UBI has low administrative costs, does not have extra disincentive to work (because you won't lose it by working, and most UBI proposals are poverty subsistence anyways)

There's plenty of conservative economists who support flavors of UBI. Charles Murray and Greg Mankiew to name a few. Yang's UBI was sort of centrist, it actually eliminated several existing social programs which would arguably be better replaced with the UBI, but did not go as far as Murray's which eliminates social security, medicare, etc.

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

#432

Post by ieRei6ae »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #162
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?

People studied the UBI idea and recognized the costs of giving money to everyone are so enormous that it's unworkable. That's there the means testing has come in to try to limit that. Something more like a "guaranteed minimum income" where you can't have less money than what is required to have a good standard of living is a cheaper and more effective idea that accomplishes the same goals of ending poverty.

> People studied the UBI idea and recognized the costs of giving money to everyone are so enormous that it's unworkable

This is simply false. Please provide sources for this claim.

Most implementations of UBI are comparable to the existing taxation.

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

#433

Post by ozten »

Article is light on details, I hope this is an ongoing $250 to the same individuals, otherwise I don't think it is a good UBI experiment.

You could give 66 people $250 a month forever[1]. 20,000 individuals spends all of the endowment immediately.

[1] Assuming 3% inflation, 7% investment returns, and the foundation is spending 4% on payouts.

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

#434

Post by chillacy »

rsync wrote: post #286

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 ?

Yang cashed out and ran a nonprofit for the past decade, his net worth is nothing like Dorsey's.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2019/11/19/andrew-...

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

#435

Post by JakeTheAndroid »

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…

Idk that I agree with these points really at all.

If you are only making the COL, most people are simply not going to sustain the college lifestyle indefinitely. People have wants and needs and drives outside of financial hardship. Yes, it might mean kids 18-23 are relaxing a bit more on getting into the workforce, but thats ideally the age in which they are learning and getting prepared to get a real job. Ideally we want to remove those barriers of entry for them, and allow them room to develop.

If financial hardship was a main factor of drive and high impact, productive work, we'd only see people under the poverty line entering into the high impact fields. That isn't the current reality.

Also, people that are willing to group up and live a college lifestyle for 30 years are people who were unlikely to EVER get involved in high impact work. At worst it's a net neutral here.

As for the retirement age, is that really terrible? Since we have established drive isn't inherent to financial hardship, it stands to reason people would continue to work through their prime working years. If people are now able to call it at 55, thats just a better quality of life for everyone, and ensure a constantly revolving job market.

3 is possible. But if we expect insane inflation due to UBI, then it invalidates all the other points you made, as now the UBI isn't meeting COL for a normal QOL.

I don't think we have enough information in either direction to assume the impact to the workforce. When in history has this ever been achieved in a society that also has high social mobility? People have interests and drives and I believe they will always pursue these things. And instead of squandering peoples potential on useless jobs that they enter into only to make ends meet, we can allow them to achieve a much higher potential by contributing to something that better aligns with their skills.

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

#436

Post by jpindar »

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?

It's very different, because there are many reasons why UI can be delayed or denied - ask some of the people who are supposed to be receiving it now! - and in any case it only lasts for six months or so.

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

#437

Post by neilparikh »

kzrdude wrote: post #374
zhoujianfu wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, there are a few other questions... Is it monthly or weekly/bi-weekly/quarterly/annually? Does universal include children under 18? Non-citizens? If so, for the same amount? Can you borrow against your UBI or allow others to take liens? How do you actually register and get the money? But that’s about it I can think of!

The citizen question is so very hard, because in practice, non-citizens are numerous and very vulnerable. Cementing UBI for citizens only, would construct a gulf state like two tier society. Eligibility for the UBI will always be contested. Would it not make it even harder for immigration laws as well?

If the choice is between a comprehensive welfare state/UBI for both citizens and non-citizens, with restricted immigration vs. welfare/UBI restrict to citizens only but with more permissive immigration, I suspect the vast majority of non-Americans would choose the second. UBI for non-citizens is nice, but completely useless if the US won't even let you in.

For people in poorer countries, the quality of life improvement from coming in the US would be so drastic, that preventing people from making that movement, simply to give a small minority of them a marginal benefit, seems to be the wrong decision to take.

Another way to put it is that the two tier system already exists, it's just that the second tier is outside the US/developed countries.

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

#438

Post by jdale27 »

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…

The economic system enabled the extraction of fossil fuels in the first place. Capitalism predates the industrial revolution.

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

#439

Post by chris_va »

uoaei wrote: post #313
chris_va wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A higher velocity of capital ~= larger economy, which is good. However, a higher velocity of capital without commensurate economic value being created ~= massive inflation. This is a potential risk for UBI, and one that small-scale studies do not cover. Ideally, the additional economic value would be greater than the face value of the capital transferred every year, but there is no guarantee that is correct (nor is t…

Yes, taking things ad absurdum in either direction will lead to catastrophe. The perspective of MMT is that government can and should tax out money at a rate that keeps the economy from inflating beyond the scope of our control, and inject it at a rate that sustains the velocity of capital. Making this perspective the dominant one in discourse, however, would require a lot more public trust in government before peopl…

Well, in this case "ad absurdum" is pretty close to a reasonable UBI. A reasonable UBI (say $1000/mo) is going to be ~15% of the entire US economy "printed" every year.

The NPV of that dilution would be enormous, unless the economic value being created is very close to $1000/mo (or higher).

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

#440

Post by sdenton4 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #377
fullshark wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UBI seems like it would be the most powerful vote-buying weapon ever created in the hands of any government given the opportunity to implement it. What's the difference between debating over UBI and increasing/decreasing taxes with regard to buying votes? Truly universal as you say there's only one question re: UBI what's the monthly payment? With tax code there's a million different loopholes and special interest…

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…

As Henry Ford said, cars will never go anywhere, because, for all their flaws, no mode of transportation in history has been more efficient than the train.
Post reply on HN