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

Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

scottsantens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 192 posts

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#151

Post by drcongo »

throwawa14223 wrote: post #101
drcongo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not proposing anything. It's just inevitable that when a right wing throwaway account posts about anything, it's just so they can steer around to their favourite topic of The Foreigns.

At some point it has to come down to that. The USA is (mostly) not growing through birth so any proposal to gradually decrease the population has to include immigration. As AI advances I believe having a lower population will be a competitive advantage.

Nothing ever "has to come down to" foreigners unless that's your preassigned agenda that you want to bring everything around to. Pretty much every study ever done has concluded that immigration is a net benefit to a country's GDP and emigration is a net loss.

> The USA is (mostly) not growing through birth so any proposal to gradually decrease the population has to include immigration.

You're going to need to explain how you've managed to bring The Foreigns into this, you've just glued together two unrelated statements. You say that the US population isn't growing through birthrates, and then talk about population decrease and immigration as though that's related. If the US population isn't growing through birthrates, and people continue to die (which is pretty much a given), then you've got your wish without ever needing your racism.

Out of interest, which of the First Nations tribes were you born into?

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#152

Post by endominus »

danielbln wrote: post #103
endominus wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We don't have a solution to fix it so let's try the solution that makes it worse" is not a very compelling argument.

That's OP's argument, I don't think UBI is a solution that makes things worse. That said, I'd like to know what the alternative could be, hence my line of questioning.

Have you looked into Georgism?

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#153

Post by spiderfarmer »

throwawa14223 wrote: post #138
spiderfarmer wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't violate any of your rights. The fact that you really think so is already undemocratic. Hence my remarks.

Mandatory sexual education violates my freedom of religion, as my believes around sex are a deeply held religious conviction. Edit: The rest I would just try to leave. I think they're the wrong direction for any country and I wouldn't want to be part of a country that voted that way, but you can't fight with that kind of majority.

If I say the policies that are being implemented by your side violates my right to freedom from religion, how do you react?

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#154

Post by dragonwriter »

Gormo wrote: post #116
dragonwriter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious as to where you are seeing unrestricted donations. SuperPACs, one of the main engines of US spending on politics.

"SuperPAC" is a loaded term used to refer to independent advocacy groups that spend money to publicize their own political positions; direct coordination or transfers of funds to any actual political campaign is prohibited to them, so referring to these as campaign donations is not really accurate.

Since the 2012 cycle, groups nominally independent of the candidate have formed single-candidate superPACs for almost every major candidate in every election, and the coordinate message and activities with the formal campaign committees indirectly via public messaging, even if they avoid other coordination (they certainly try to avoid being caught in other coordination.)

Legality aside, not considering donations people make to these single-candidate SuperPACs as just as much “campaign donations” for all practical purposes as those made to candidate committees is willful blindness.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#155

Post by throwawa14223 »

drcongo wrote: post #151
throwawa14223 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point it has to come down to that. The USA is (mostly) not growing through birth so any proposal to gradually decrease the population has to include immigration. As AI advances I believe having a lower population will be a competitive advantage.

Nothing ever "has to come down to" foreigners unless that's your preassigned agenda that you want to bring everything around to. Pretty much every study ever done has concluded that immigration is a net benefit to a country's GDP and emigration is a net loss. > The USA is (mostly) not growing through birth so any proposal to gradually decrease the population has to include immigration. You're going to need to explain…

> You're going to need to explain how you've managed to bring The Foreigns into this, you've just glued together two unrelated statements. You say that the US population isn't growing through birthrates, and then talk about population decrease and immigration as though that's related.

As far as I can tell, population growth in the USA is from people moving here from other places. Not as a result of growth from people having children.[1]

Assuming we live in a world where AI eats jobs, which as far as I can tell is what we are talking about, I would expect population growth, regardless of birth or flowing from another country to stop being beneficial. I agree with you that under current system it is a net benefit.

>Out of interest, which of the First Nations tribes were you born into?

How is that relevant?

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-projections-sh...

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#156

Post by JoeAltmaier »

endisneigh wrote: post #14
spamizbad wrote: post #8

UBI's critics expected these programs to have terrible outcomes, where recipients would spend their money on trivialities (or worse: drugs). Instead, what we find is that UBI recipients either spend it on essentials, stuff for their kids children or paying down debt.

I don’t really have any horse in the race but the experiments I’ve seen are hardly universal nor sufficiently guaranteed. It’s basically just a one time payment spread over some period, so it’s not surprising people would use money they know won’t be around forever for essentials. On the other hand it would be nice to know what happened with all of the Covid checks since that also was given to many, but again hardly…

UBI experiments have been going on for decades. Pensions, annuities, trust funds, retirement savings. People spend it on living expenses. And a few amenities if there's anything left over.

Let's not overthink this. We don't need to pretend it's a mystery how UBI would play out. It's been commonplace for a century.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#157

Post by throwawa14223 »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #153
throwawa14223 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandatory sexual education violates my freedom of religion, as my believes around sex are a deeply held religious conviction. Edit: The rest I would just try to leave. I think they're the wrong direction for any country and I wouldn't want to be part of a country that voted that way, but you can't fight with that kind of majority.

If I say the policies that are being implemented by your side violates my right to freedom from religion, how do you react?

I'm very sympathetic to that I think we need far more ways for people to opt out based on freedom of religion/conscience to be able to maximize personal liberty. I don't like being forced by the government but I don't like others being forced either.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#159

Post by drcongo »

throwawa14223 wrote: post #155
drcongo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing ever "has to come down to" foreigners unless that's your preassigned agenda that you want to bring everything around to. Pretty much every study ever done has concluded that immigration is a net benefit to a country's GDP and emigration is a net loss. > The USA is (mostly) not growing through birth so any proposal to gradually decrease the population has to include immigration. You're going to need to explain…

> You're going to need to explain how you've managed to bring The Foreigns into this, you've just glued together two unrelated statements. You say that the US population isn't growing through birthrates, and then talk about population decrease and immigration as though that's related. As far as I can tell, population growth in the USA is from people moving here from other places. Not as a result of growth from people…

> Assuming we live in a world where AI eats jobs, which as far as I can tell is what we are talking about

No, this is a thread about billionaires lobbying against UBI. You brought AI into it so you could have a go about the foreigners.

> How is that relevant?

It's relevant because you're so anti-immigration that surely you must be native to the land you live on, otherwise you're just another racist pulling the ladder up behind you.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#160

Post by psadauskas »

rayiner wrote: post #30
spiderfarmer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European I already think there is not much democracy left in the USA. At a federal level it's moving towards an autocracy at a rapid pace, and a large part of the electorate seems keen to cheer it on. At a local level money, gerrymandering and propaganda make it impossible to elect politicians who give a fair representation of people's interests. And with a two party system, it's more than likely that both of th…

> money, gerrymandering Let’s take these two separately. As to money: the evidence shows money isn’t buying results. Wall Street and Silicon Valley strongly supported Clinton in 2016. She outspent Donald Trump by 70%: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/trump-and-cl... ($340m to $581m). But Clinton lost. Within the Republican Party, billionaires billionaires wanted someone other than Trump: https://fortun…

Take a look at Figure 1 in this study (about halfway down): https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

Essentially, the likelihood of a particular bill being passed doesn't matter at all on how many average citizens want it to pass. It does matter greatly, almost 100%, on how much the economic elites want it to pass.

Post reply on HN