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

151–160 of 389 posts

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

#151

Post by mcguire »

vonnik wrote: post #49
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…

UBI is a direct cash transfer that the recipient can spend on anything. It's proven to be effective in international aid, and much more efficient that financing the enormous bureaucracies employed to decide whether someone is qualified. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39038402

The US social security administration spends ~0.7% of its total expenditures on administrative expenses. (Yes, it's more for the disability program, 1.9%.)

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

#152

Post by jganetsk »

UBI is inflationary and discourages people from working. Economists have moved on to better ideas than UBI, like the federal government providing a JG (Job Guarantee) or being an ELR (Employer of Last Resort):

https://www.thenation.com/article/job-guarantee-government-p...

The summary is: everyone who is willing and able to work should get a standard salary and benefits from the Federal Government. We could have a decentralized system for setting up/vetting/approving JG/ELR projects all across the country, but the Federal Government would pay JG/ELR participants directly. This could include all kinds of things, like Y Combinator.

As for profit-sharing "United States, Inc" as Sam Altman proposes, we can do that too. We can set up a government program that says publicly traded companies in the USA will get a tax incentive if they promise to pay at least Y% of income in dividends. The government can take a small stake in these companies, and distribute the dividends equally to all citizens. It can try to track a broad stock-market index in its portfolio to make sure the investment passive (we don't want the government actively investing in companies, it shouldn't be picking winners and losers). Also, with a low-risk portfolio, the program would hopefully stay solvent, leaving the option of liquidating assets should we ever want to unwind this (for either political or economic reasons).

Where do we get the money to do all this? Governments don't need to finance spending when they have sovereign control of their own currency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

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

#153

Post by dragonwriter »

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"…

> 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" - and that to me sounds like a serious culture change in this country

The US has cut back welfare programs in both nominal and real terms many times, broad increases have been less popular. The fortitude to say no to benefits is not missing from our culture (if it were, the suggestion of UBI would have quickly led to its adoption without substantive debate.)

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

#154

Post by carapace »

Suncho wrote: post #89
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…

> 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. This would be a mistake. Self-sufficiency is very inefficient. By pooling our resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously. If everybody in the world tried to live like t…

> By pooling our resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously.

This is a very good point, and the basis of a lot of Bucky Fuller's work. He phrased it as being the most efficient when working for the good of the most people, and so accordingly all his design had global context. At one point he designed cities with domes over them!

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

#155

Post by meddlepal »

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.

Why would anyone who would be taxed at 90% stay here?

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

#156

Post by dahdum »

Suncho wrote: post #120
DoreenMichele wrote: post #109

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…

> 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. It depends what you mean by "human potential." I agree with you that "human potential" is not the right way to frame what basic income unlocks. By giving people money to spend, it unlocks the economy's potential to produce wealth for…

"By giving people money to spend, it unlocks the economy's potential to produce wealth for the people. We won't produce wealth that people won't buy and basic income allows more people to buy more wealth."

Doesn't UBI reduce the economic productivity by both driving up the cost of labor through increased taxation and lowering the supply? Until (if) we are in a post-scarcity world how will lowering productive output ever increase the overall wealth?

I don't see how 1 Apple can offset 1 million unemployed, and really skeptical such a company could grow to that size/profitability under the necessary labor/tax system to support UBI.

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

#157

Post by DoreenMichele »

danenania wrote: post #146
DoreenMichele wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior to Sam Altman re-envisioning YC as a form of UBI, Paul Graham talked a lot about the idea that the money they gave was insignificant. The real value was in connecting you with movers and shakers and educating you about business creation. Last I checked, UBI does not come with built in business education or introductions to movers and shakers. I was homeless for nearly six years and actively trying to make busin…

I think the idea of the YC money being insignificant comes from its roots as a program for college students. When you're still mostly supported by your parents, the money isn't as big of a deal since you have basically no expenses and endless runway anyway. But when you've got rent, bills, a family, etc., the money is a very big deal and can easily be the difference between having the runway to make it vs. needing to…

The idea of UBI is free money for life. Being given $12k or $20k in exchange for stock in your company is intended to let you focus on the business for a few months and thereby try to develop wealth to last a lifetime. It is very much time limited and tied to performance.

If you promise everyone money for life, many people won't bother to create wealth. Wealth creation tends to involve rocking the boat. Have you heard of Duke Nukem Forever? They had scads of money and spent years trying to make the next perfect thing and failing to release because it wasn't yet perfect. Then they would start over because they were taking so long that technology had changed and all their work was out of date. I think they finally released when they ran out of money.

A lot of people will do absolutely nothing if they have money for life. People are neurotic, perfectionistic and on and on. We do an awful lot of stuff we don't really want to do because we need the money. We don't want to starve. If we guaranteed a minimum level of comfort, a great many people will do absolutely not a thing because doing stuff is scary and hard and what if we look like fools? and on an on.

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

#158

Post by dahdum »

mrob wrote: post #118
DoreenMichele wrote: post #109

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…

Welfare discourages striving for greatness, because as soon as you show any sign of success it's taken away from you. The "universal" in UBI means it's paid to everybody, rich and poor. It lacks the weird breakpoints and perverse incentives of welfare. You are always better off working.

Most discussions I've seen of UBI recently have shifted from universal to means tested.

Regardless, wouldn't UBI need to be higher for the sick, elderly, and disabled? Either it's high enough for them and too much for everyone else, or it's too low for them. Keep adjusting and you end up with a means tested welfare system like today.

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

#159

Post by danenania »

tobbyb wrote: post #128

The UBI debate is fundamental to how we perceive society and what kind of society we want to build into the future. If one's idea of human society is people working to earn money. Fullstop. And those who are better at it are the be all and end alls of human civilization and progress and the ultimate aspiration. Then words like lazy, people will not do anything, arguments that are generic enough to block any action, a…

The "laziness" issue is such a distraction. If some percentage of UBI recipients sit on their couches all day, that's perfectly fine.

1 - These weren't the people who were going to move our economy and society forward in the first place.

2 - It's better if they sit on the couch and have their needs met than having them turn to violence or fueling the rise of the next Hitler. That's what will happen if we take away a huge number of people's jobs via automation and give them nothing to fill the gap.

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

#160

Post by condercet »

crdoconnor wrote: post #139
condercet wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're discussing it because many of us think that basic income is one of our best bets to survive the oncoming storm. Sam Altman talking about it is one of the most interesting developments towards actually implementing basic income. Whether this would be good or bad should be open to debate (preferably with evidence), but only two lines in your comment address this.

What storm? We're constantly being told that robots can do work better than workers on low wages but evidence presented to support this is very thin.

"evidence presented to support this is very thin"

Autonomous cars are on the roads today. They're a ways off from serving as reliable truckers or taxis, but that's in our future. We're seeing rapid advancements in machine learning, especially in computer vision and abstract strategy games.

Trucking alone accounts for 5% of the US GDP [1], and employs 1.7 million Americans annually [2]. That's about 1/10 of the total US workforce. Taxi drivers and support staff for trucking are smaller occupations that are also at risk. What happens if all those jobs disappear overnight?

Hopefully the people in those jobs will successfully transition to other careers, as many did after the industrial revolution. But it might not be pretty in the short-term. I don't think it's irrational to be concerned about this.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trucking_industry_in_the_Unite...

2. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm

aside: Wikipedia has some nice graphs, but shouldn't be considered reliable. What's the best source of economic and labor data in the US (or other advanced economies), aside from Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Post reply on HN