Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

spectacle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 389 posts

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#101

Post by sedtrader »

rev_bird wrote: post #72
sedtrader wrote: post #12

> America competitive in the world—lies in giving every citizen a regular allotment of money to cover basics like housing, food, and shelter. Out of curiosity don't we already do this? We have public/section 8 housing, food stamps, medical/dental, etc... If we are talking about handing out cold hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for disaster. There would be no guarantee that pe…

>If we are talking about handing out cold hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for disaster. I've tried and failed to figure out a less confrontational-sounding way to ask this, but do you have any data to back this claim up, or do you just not trust the poor?

> do you just not trust the poor?

Its not a matter of trust, its a matter of likely occurrence. In the event that someone uses their UBI on something non-essential like gambling/drugs instead of paying their rent. What do we do as a society? My solution is pay for the essentials like food, housing, medical, etc directly instead of handing out cash. This eliminates that possibility.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#102

Post by rev_bird »

sedtrader wrote: post #101
rev_bird wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we are talking about handing out cold hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for disaster. I've tried and failed to figure out a less confrontational-sounding way to ask this, but do you have any data to back this claim up, or do you just not trust the poor?

> do you just not trust the poor? Its not a matter of trust, its a matter of likely occurrence. In the event that someone uses their UBI on something non-essential like gambling/drugs instead of paying their rent. What do we do as a society? My solution is pay for the essentials like food, housing, medical, etc directly instead of handing out cash. This eliminates that possibility.

I appreciate the clarification, that makes a lot of sense.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#103

Post by EGreg »

remarkEon wrote: post #60

There's two issues that I don't think have been adequately addressed, or that I missed, in the banter over this issue. 1) What would stop us from recreating the inefficient welfare state that already exists on top of this new one when some people inevitably blow their UBI on drugs/cheetos/whatever and don't have money for rent? It seems that for this to work we'd have to maintain some intestinal fortitude to say "no"…

The scale issue is a big one. The USA is at once too big and too small at the same time.

The intercoin project was started with the aim of letting communities issue and control their own smart cryto currency, and seamlessly integrate it into apps. Same as Paypal, VISA network, Venmo, FB do. UBI becomes just an app on top of that.

Then community membership becomes a question of the community members or government. Harvard university knows who its students are. Other communities might make decisions via direct democracy (polling not voting).

intercoin.org

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#104

Post by fujiters »

sedtrader wrote: post #12

> America competitive in the world—lies in giving every citizen a regular allotment of money to cover basics like housing, food, and shelter. Out of curiosity don't we already do this? We have public/section 8 housing, food stamps, medical/dental, etc... If we are talking about handing out cold hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for disaster. There would be no guarantee that pe…

But the thought is that it may still be more efficient to give them the money to squander themselves rather than have multiple layers of bureaucracy with lots of middle men to be paid to ensure that the money gets spent as it was intended.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#105

Post by vkou »

AmericanOP wrote: post #6

In ancient Rome there were a few honest reformers who felt bread subsidies (classical UBI) were deserved by the people. It was an economic argument (as is Sam's) since Roman conquest generated massive wealth that did not reach the masses who made it possible. It was an honest attempt at economic reform by a few forward thinking leaders. Within a generation the movement was captured by politicians who used its popular…

Roman wealth was generated in an unsustainable process - through pillage, theft, and tribute of newly conquered states.

As Rome ran out of new conquests, the empire collapsed.

Compare that to whether or not modern society can provide for its members sustainably with UBI. By far, the biggest expense people have is housing - which is not limited by some natural law. One of the reasons for why housing on the coasts is so expensive is because people can't make a living in the rest of the country.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#106

Post by Suncho »

remarkEon wrote: post #60

There's two issues that I don't think have been adequately addressed, or that I missed, in the banter over this issue. 1) What would stop us from recreating the inefficient welfare state that already exists on top of this new one when some people inevitably blow their UBI on drugs/cheetos/whatever and don't have money for rent? It seems that for this to work we'd have to maintain some intestinal fortitude to say "no"…

1. Why is it a problem for people to spend their money how they choose? If people buy drugs and cheetos or whatever, then isn't that their call?

If people who need housing have the money to buy housing, but they're not buying buying housing, then I agree that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Do we see this in practice? Is there an epidemic of people who can afford homes but are choosing to suffer in homelessness?

If so, then maybe we can add some free level of shelter to everyone in addition to the basic income.

2. If you give the basic income to immigrants too, then they'll spend that money into your economy. This is a good thing. Withholding it from immigrants would probably be harmful.

I know you brought up the "global citizen" model. An easy way for us to achieve that model is just to start paying everyone in the world a basic income. Whichever country does this first will probably become the world's final superpower.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#107

Post by tc313 »

drb91 wrote: post #19
Danihan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis. $12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions. That's just over the poverty level. That's not enough to live on and it's practically a bonus for some members of this site. It's not enough to do anything with. Even upon receiving that, many people woul…

I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die.

>I mean, tax the hell out of wealth.

Easy to say when it's not your wealth being taxed.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#108

Post by jpao79 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #95
jpao79 wrote: post #85

If I were Sam A. instead of (or in addition to) funding UBI, I would fund R&D projects which enable people to live as off grid and self-sufficiently as possible with all the comforts of urban/suburban living without all the costs. Basically strive to enable Amish style living but instead of trying to maintain an complete early 19th way of life, include elements which are near free due to automated manufacturing. You…

You've just described the SoCal suburbia...but with backyard farms and solar rooftops and worse internet.

Yup, but with the important distinction being that it is achieved without piles of student loan debt, home mortgage debt and monopoly utility bills (Comcast cable, PG&E), etc. Plus since you're busy farming, you're too busy to go to the mall and therefore don't need a fancy car and latest wardrobe.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#109

Post by DoreenMichele »

The question I’m interested in: How do we unlock maximum human potential?

Last I checked, welfare does the opposite of this. It helps people merely subsist, not strive for greatness.

Then he goes on to compare YC to basic income. Seriously? They take a share in your company and help you develop it. That isn't money for nothing.

If he weren't a millionaire and the current president of YC, would we keep seeing articles about his vision on the front page of HN? I don't think so. I don't believe his arguments are that cogent or compelling.

I find it increasingly sad and frustrating to see yet another Sam Altman on UBI piece here. The mantra on HN is that ideas matter and that HN wants to deemphasize names and avoid promoting pieces being posted merely because they are about some celebrity. I think these articles fail that test.

If you take Sam Altman out of this article, would we discuss it at all? If the answer to that is no, then why are we discussing it?

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#110

Post by mcguire »

geodel wrote: post #73
dougmany wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One of the things that people forget is that if the robots really do come, yes, they will eliminate or change a lot of jobs, but the cost of goods and services will just go down and down and down. So maybe $7000 can get you everything you need, including healthcare. People pay extra money for their house to be close to work. With no work, maybe that will open up places people will want to live.

India had tax rate of up to 93% in 1970s which was done all to support poor people. I am not sure it worked very well. But may be US is very different and 90% or so tax rate will drastically improve living conditions for everyone.

During the 50s and 60s, the highest US tax bracket was over 90%.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

Post reply on HN