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

441–450 of 746 posts

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

#441

Post by chillacy »

blackrock wrote: post #311

I have difficulty believing that UBI will ever work, unless you get the basic problems solved first. Namely, housing. The problem actually boils down to democracy itself, where people vote for laws that favors themselves, and excludes outsiders, specifically the NIMBY crowd. These are the people that vote in housing regulations, environmental review injunctions to prevent construction, etc. Regardless of whether UBI…

Agreed that housing needs to be fixed.

In the short term it would eat away at any income but it won't be 100% of it, and it will also vary by location. Some housing markets are more supply constrained than others.

Also a portable source of income would reduce demand for housing in cities too.

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

#442

Post by joppy »

foobar_ wrote: post #397
barrenko wrote: post #381

UBI is inevitable. Like software development, whoever makes it first will win and bring us closer to our Star Trekian furute.

Are you sure were are not heading towards The Expanse ;P Here's one counter argument for UBI. Who will do all the boring work needed for building a dam / apartment ? If we are honest about it, most of this boring, physically harmful and repetitive infrastructure work is only done by the working class that chooses to do it because the alternative is begging. It's because of the threat of extreme poverty and unemployme…

Perhaps it's time that this kind of work is recognised as being more valuable than it is today, precisely because not many people want to do it.

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

#443

Post by chillacy »

Pfhreak wrote: post #72
macspoofing wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>how do we ensure that rents don't just go up by that amount or wages don't go down by that amount? Two ways to answer this: 1) If you're printing money, then yes, prices will rise, and if price controls are implemented it will lead to shortages (e.g. Venezuela) 2) If you're not printing money, then competition will simply lower the cost. It's the same as today - outside of terrible policies like rent-control, why do…

You have a lot more faith in markets than I do. I don't believe that we've been particularly well served by the housing or health care markets. It's been demonstrated, again and again, that 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing. I think we fundamentally disagree, though, which is ok. I see rent control as one mechanism to attempt to decommodify housing (which I'm strongly in favor of). I'm not sur…

> 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing

Curious where you live because in Seattle this has definitely kept the rent prices from growing as fast as in the SFBA.

Admittedly these are apartments on the expensive side though, affordable housing is not a priority for developers because it's not as profitable per square foot. Blame {wealth inequality | zoning}, depending on your outlook.

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

#444

Post by Aperocky »

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…

> without proper price controls

US government injected about 3 trillion worth of liquidity into the country since the start of the coronavirus, similar to how UBI of $1000/month to every single adult would cost. And did you see any price rise?

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

#445

Post by aiyodev »

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'…

Studies suggest the opposite. UBI does not cause inflation.

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

#446

Post by jpindar »

kerkeslager wrote: post #337
burrows wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wo…

>since companies will have to pay significantly more than UBI.

They would only have to do that if people had to choose between taking the job and getting UBI.

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

#447

Post by chillacy »

troughway wrote: post #67

What is stopping companies that make money (to pay for UBI through tax increases) from leaving the country to elsewhere with lower taxation? Where would this money come from then? If things do get automated it means labor is no longer needed to be sourced locally, making it much easier to uproot and go elsewhere.

Even if companies uproot, selling to US consumers means paying US VAT taxes. US companies pay european VATs too, they all complain about it but don't leave the market as long as profits are positive.

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

#448

Post by burrows »

zhoujianfu wrote: post #410
loco5niner wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

All the Freds got together and decided they want some of Bob’s stuff.

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

#449

Post by vinceguidry »

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…

I would LOVE to see more US experiments with UBI. The economics have already been tested. The federal government has these enormous funded installations where the people living there don't have to worry about the economy at all.

These gov-funded individuals then go and spend their largesse in the local economy, in many cases propping them up all by themselves.

This happens on a massive scale, right here, right now. They're called military bases. Politicians lobby hard to get the federal government to build them in their states, whether they're needed for military purposes or not.

People pooh-poohing UBI just don't seem to understand just how much of the economy already is paying people to do not much that is actually useful. So many of us have bullshit jobs. There would be mass poverty and unemployment otherwise.

Formalizing it instead of hiding it behind a veneer of fake usefulness will allow us to study it. Companies will have to entice people to take jobs rather than coerce them.

It'll be amazing.

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

#450

Post by oh_sigh »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #355

I could see UBI as an alternative to federal government spend. E.g. every time I hear about the U.S. sending billions to the middle east, I wonder how much more effectively it could be spent in the hands of thousands upon thousands of americans. It’s almost like implementing something closer to direct democracy instead of representative republic democracy in regards to spending...

For every billion the USG wastes, $3/year could go to each citizen. Not to mention that almost all the money sent over makes it's way back to defense industry jobs in the US.
Post reply on HN