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

551–560 of 746 posts

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

#551

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

grecy wrote: post #388
cheeseomlit wrote: post #136

If the government starts giving me enough money each month to subsist while drastically raising taxes on my earnings from employment then I'll simply stop working. I would imagine most people would do the same.

> If the government starts giving me enough money each month to subsist .... then I'll simply stop working Australia has been doing it for decades. They have low unemployment. Your hypothesis is not borne out in real life.

They clearly state you have to be looking for a job. [1]

[1] https://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-volume-1/9-11-unempl...

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

#552

Post by AnthonyMouse »

d0100 wrote: post #477

UBI should cover government-regulated and government-provided essentials to living. Ex.: * Government housing: $500 * Government basic food package - daily (1500kcal): $300 * x kJ electricity, x m3 water, x m3 gas, x bps internet connection: $500 * Clothing, hygiene, cleaning supplies: $50 * Universal healthcare: free (and free condoms) * Free education (from abc to PHD) This is not a comprehensive list, or even the…

> UBI should cover government-regulated and government-provided essentials to living.

The reason you don't do this is that the government is not better at making diapers and laundry detergent than Procter & Gamble nor better at manufacturing Tylenol than Johnson & Johnson nor better at growing tomatoes than local farmers.

If you give people $300 then they can buy $300 worth of food. if you give people $300 worth of "government food" then they'll have $150 worth of actual food because half of the money will go to the agriculture companies with the best lobbyists, and the same lobbyists will get to choose what kind of food it is. Government cheese is not an ideal. Meanwhile if you have $300 then if you want to you can grow your own tomatoes in your back yard, eat those, and use some of the money for something else entirely.

Also, special fail for these:

> * Universal healthcare: free (and free condoms)

> * Free education (from abc to PHD)

Suppose the government could provide healthcare for $10,000/year. Okay, let them do that while giving everyone $10,000/year to buy it with. But don't force them to.

Suppose a private health insurance company could provide coverage for $5000/year with a $10,000 deductible, instead of $10,000/year with no deductible. You're taking more risk, but not that much more (best case you gain $5000/year, worst case you lose $5000/year). And overall you would expect it to be a gain because you're paying the first $10,000 out of pocket, which makes you price sensitive, which causes you to not waste money on unnecessary care, which lowers average costs.

It's the same thing for education. Give parents money and let them choose a school. Solves the entire mess with school quality being tied to home prices. Doesn't screw over parents who home school, because they still get the money. And if the government can provide the best schools for the best price, parents will choose them anyway. But if not, they shouldn't be forced to.

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

#553

Post by jms »

donw wrote: post #541
jms wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what if someone spends it all on whiskey or oxy? They're maximising their own preferences. If they were addicted to alcohol, sudden withdrawal can kill. One of the big reasons for UBI is the belief that an individual can better assess their own needs and wants, and procure them more cheaply than the government. This is partly a moral/philosphical stand - the tension is between giving individual freedom in the form…

I agree very strongly with you, but I don't think that's where the parent poster was going. Imagine we have a UBI, and we do all kinds of other smart things -- end the War on Drugs, establish Bismarck-style national healthcare[1], all that. Let's do a thought experiment. What happens when Alice blows all of her UBI on Lady Lee Vodka and Oxy. Nothing left for rent, food, the rest. Nobody else in the picture to help: n…

I actually agree with both you and the parent poster - this is a real problem.

My position would be that you still need assistance programs as well as the UBI for people like the above, but I'd treat it as a health issue rather than a poverty issue.

I think this is where you really do need a paternalistic government for people who need the guidance, but it should be the exception, not the rule. Let's respect peoples choices for themselves and only step in if necessary.

I'd argue that Alice is either addicted or mentally ill, and supported living facilities or similar would be the way to go. She would still be entitled to her UBI, which would be her route out of the system once she no longer needs to spend it on drugs.

So I'd say that UBI will never completely replace all government programs, but it should be the default and go a long way to reducing the need for existing programs.

If I were implementing it, I'd start with a low amount (well below the cost of living) and increase it over time. I'd leave the current support programs in place. The current programs are means tested anyway, so the hope would be that as UBI increases, use of the current programs would reduce, and we would have time to reorganise them as needed.

This would also give us a chance to measure the effects and get real world data as to the impacts on society and government incoming/spending.

I guess the real question would be how much it would all cost. My gut feeling is that short term it would decrease productivity as people wouldn't feel the need to work so hard, but long term it would increase productivity as people will be able to invest more in themselves.

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

#554

Post by rch »

demadog wrote: post #511
d0100 wrote: post #477

UBI should cover government-regulated and government-provided essentials to living. Ex.: * Government housing: $500 * Government basic food package - daily (1500kcal): $300 * x kJ electricity, x m3 water, x m3 gas, x bps internet connection: $500 * Clothing, hygiene, cleaning supplies: $50 * Universal healthcare: free (and free condoms) * Free education (from abc to PHD) This is not a comprehensive list, or even the…

I'd be curious to see it play out in a smaller country for a few years. The U.S. is a big place to gamble on it. No one is saying flip the switch for 328.2 million, I know that, but at the same time it would be best to do an MVP on a smaller scale with, say, a population of 5 million and then learn and iterate from there. Even when testing with 5 million though, you often have countries of that size having more of a…

One (edit: another) problem with that thinking is that the U.S. is a uniquely capable financial entity with an associated population, while your other examples are merely political entities.

To a certain extent we have an opportunity to experiment now. Might as well learn what we can.

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

#555

Post by ibeckermayer »

1propionyl wrote: post #465
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…

It's also just not a good idea. Social welfare programs act as single buyers/negotiators and can exploit economies of scale and collective bargaining to deliver reduced costs. Something that individuals can't do. Giving everyone their own money for, say healthcare costs, and having them navigate markets alone... achieves exactly the kind of divide-and-conquer that price-gouging pharmaceutical companies and hospitals…

Why would people making individual purchasing decisions tend to coincide with prices going down for essential goods like food and clothing, but not for healthcare?

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

#556

Post by devonkim »

jms wrote: post #530
sneak wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea here is that UBI replaces all of the other government welfare programs, no? What happens when someone spends all their UBI on whiskey or oxy and consumes it all and is then hungry? Should we keep food stamps around? Why can't we do that part (universal food stamps) by itself? I don't think the all-or-nothing approach of UBI makes a ton of sense. We can do things today like more free or subsidized foo…

So what if someone spends it all on whiskey or oxy? They're maximising their own preferences. If they were addicted to alcohol, sudden withdrawal can kill. One of the big reasons for UBI is the belief that an individual can better assess their own needs and wants, and procure them more cheaply than the government. This is partly a moral/philosphical stand - the tension is between giving individual freedom in the form…

Yang’s UBI was never intended as a replacement for a safety net which was gravely miscommunicated / twisted by our outrage media dynamics. What he’s advocated for are completely universal programs without means testing that build on top of UBI as a presumption such as his (somewhat weak, yes) disability program. His entire thesis of the economy is that people both rich and poor are suffering enslaved to a dehumanizing economy that ironically destroys human potential and suffocating itself (the very opposite of one trend of capitalism in the past few hundred years) and destigmatizing assistance across all lines is important toward resolving the human toll politically.

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

#557

Post by perseusprime11 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #552
d0100 wrote: post #477

UBI should cover government-regulated and government-provided essentials to living. Ex.: * Government housing: $500 * Government basic food package - daily (1500kcal): $300 * x kJ electricity, x m3 water, x m3 gas, x bps internet connection: $500 * Clothing, hygiene, cleaning supplies: $50 * Universal healthcare: free (and free condoms) * Free education (from abc to PHD) This is not a comprehensive list, or even the…

> UBI should cover government-regulated and government-provided essentials to living. The reason you don't do this is that the government is not better at making diapers and laundry detergent than Procter & Gamble nor better at manufacturing Tylenol than Johnson & Johnson nor better at growing tomatoes than local farmers. If you give people $300 then they can buy $300 worth of food. if you give people $300 worth of "…

This feels like BS. Sorry! K12 is free. There should be no problem expanding to college and beyond. Also, see no reason to not have a good universal healthcare that is detached from your employer. These are smart ideas worth pursuing.

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

#558

Post by Pfhreak »

chillacy wrote: post #443
Pfhreak wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seattle. And housing prices here are astronomical. My home has nearly tripled in value over seven years.

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

#560

Post by chii »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #552
d0100 wrote: post #477

UBI should cover government-regulated and government-provided essentials to living. Ex.: * Government housing: $500 * Government basic food package - daily (1500kcal): $300 * x kJ electricity, x m3 water, x m3 gas, x bps internet connection: $500 * Clothing, hygiene, cleaning supplies: $50 * Universal healthcare: free (and free condoms) * Free education (from abc to PHD) This is not a comprehensive list, or even the…

> UBI should cover government-regulated and government-provided essentials to living. The reason you don't do this is that the government is not better at making diapers and laundry detergent than Procter & Gamble nor better at manufacturing Tylenol than Johnson & Johnson nor better at growing tomatoes than local farmers. If you give people $300 then they can buy $300 worth of food. if you give people $300 worth of "…

> provide coverage for $5000/year with a $10,000 deductible, instead of $10,000/year with no deductible.

that's the wrong way to think about it. The above makes an implicit assumption that by doing this you "save" $5000/yr because the insurance company is "more efficient".

That's wrong - you actually cost $5000 (this being the "profit" the insurance company makes if you _didn't_ need the medical treatment that year). Under the gov't version, if you were healthy, you're "free". You only cost when you actually need the medical treatment.

Healthcare should not be done under a private insurance model. Any profit made by the private insurer is a cost to providing medical treatment, and does not contribute to the outcome. By making medical treatment a tax payer funded scheme, the cost of an unhealthy society is spread out amongst all. Not only does this give the gov't buying pressure to lower the margins of all medical treatments, it also makes a policy pressure for gov't to give preventative measures for good health outcomes (like legislating low sugar foods, or incentivize exercise and good diet etc).

Post reply on HN