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

161–170 of 389 posts

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

#161

Post by danenania »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #157
danenania wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hear…

It doesn't matter if most people create wealth. Just like in the startup world, human achievement and wealth creation follows a power law. It's well worth it to have 8/10 people just subsist (and, by the way, not starve/become desperate/destabilize society) if it unlocks the potential of 2 extremely capable people who otherwise wouldn't have had a chance.

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

#162

Post by Suncho »

dahdum wrote: post #156
Suncho wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

> Doesn't UBI reduce the economic productivity by both driving up the cost of labor through increased taxation

No. First of all, there's no reason that basic income has to have any taxes associated with it. A common mistake people (including the government) make is to assume that government spending must be funded by taxation. It doesn't have to be.

If the government spends and the economy responds productively to that spending, then you're fine. Taxing is a separate issue. You should only really tax when you want to remove money from a specific part of the economy.

To put it succinctly, increasing taxes does not increase the amount of money the government can usefully spend unless you directly taxed the use of some resource and the spending is going to put that particular resource to use in a more desirable way.

> and lowering the supply?

Labor is a resource that goes into production just like any other resource. Depending on the context, labor can be substituted for various other resources (including foreign labor, automation, etc.).

So it's possible that some forms of labor could become more expensive under basic income. But it could just as easily go the other way. There are plenty of jobs people would love to do if only they could afford the low pay. These desirable potentially socially beneficial jobs might get cheaper.

It's hard to say exactly what the effect of basic income will be on the labor market. But, in aggregate, we do know that the economy is capable of producing at levels higher than current output levels. If we give more people the ability to spend money, we'll produce more stuff to meet the demand.

> 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.

I can understand why you're skeptical. Just keep in mind that we're currently introducing many inefficiencies into the system just as an excuse to provide people incomes through the labor market. And even then, we're still not maxing out the productive capacity of the economy.

I would encourage you to ponder what you think might happen if the government stopped trying to balance its budget and just spent as much money as the economy could absorb without causing inflation?

What amount should that be? How does the distribution of the spending affect the amount they can spend? Surely if they spent it by tossing it down a hole, there would be no limit. But there is a limit. Where does that limit come from? How do taxes factor in?

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

#163

Post by jpao79 »

mcguire wrote: post #133
jpao79 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sends like I've heard of that before... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent-down_youth?wprov=sfla1

Fair point. I think the main thought is can the concept be revisited? Definitely using a market driven pull model versus a forced pushed model of course. Does the advent of the following change the equation: 1.) Amazon on-demand self driving delivery 2.) Free, fully automated production of consumer staples 2.) Lower cost broadband with low cost education like Khan academy and free crowdsourced entertainment like Youtube 3.) Cheap renewable energy/batteries 4.) Other solutions from Sam A/YC funded startups

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

#164

Post by Suncho »

disc wrote: post #138
Suncho wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Do you have any links I could peruse that explain how UBI would flatten the demand curve, rather than just shifting it?

Hmm. Not off the top of my head. The intuition is pretty straightforward though. Imagine the difference between doubling total amount of money in the economy by either:

a. doubling the amount of money each individual person has.

b. distributing that new money evenly across every person.

In the former case, the demand curve would get steeper, no? And in the latter case, it would get flatter.

In case a, you'd decrease the price elasticity of demand and people would have an incentive to raise prices. You'd have inflation.

In case b, you'd increase the price elasticity of demand providing an incentive for producers to keep their prices lower and compete with each other on price.

Of course it all depends on where on the demand curve we're talking about. But for many of the goods we produce, their market-clearing prices are at a quantity such that they would benefit from an additional even distribution of income to every person.

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

#165

Post by dahdum »

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 other way is thinking of the billions of brains wasted every generation just trying to survive, exactly what humans did 2000 years ago. Now imagine if all these brains could be freed and god knows how much innovation, progress and intellectual output can be unlocked into a completely different kind of society. That's a vision."

It's not so cut and dry. I don't believe that incentives under UBI will lead to greater innovation. I see it as wonderful gift to the most intelligent and self motivated, while killing the incentives to achieve anything for so many others.

I grew up in a poor rural area and have seen many examples of what guaranteed monthly checks does to ambition. I believe kids growing up in the inevitable "UBI communities" will be trapped even more strongly than in disadvantaged communities now.

My objection is not about taxes or wealth distribution, but the ethics of giving millions such a choice, much less making it the "default" one.

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

#166

Post by Alex3917 »

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

I mean the entire United States was founded on the belief that welfare unlocks greatness, because the founding fathers all believed that citizens wouldn't contribute to having a republic unless they shared in the ownership of the means of production. It's not like this is some crazy new experiment, we've been doing this for hundreds of years with everything from cod fisheries in the 1700s, the homestead act in the 1800s, ESOPs in the 1900s, tech startups in the 2000s, etc.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Share-Reducing-Inequality-Ce...

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

#167

Post by tmh79 »

danenania wrote: post #159
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…

3) its much worse if they use their newfound free time and available resources to do things that actively harm society

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

#168

Post by jpao79 »

longerthoughts wrote: post #97
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…

This speaks to me personally but think about what happens if you try to practically apply this beyond an experimental phase. When members of some of these communities start to see others that have developed more favorably, they're likely to converge on them, resulting in heavily populated urban centers and decreasingly populated rural areas like have now.

The concept would be to specifically fund projects and startups which specifically accelerate the process of making lower cost of living places like Pittsburg, Detroit, Fresno more enjoyable places to live (farmers markets, food trucks, etc.) so that people don't get stuck in overpriced coastal cities due to fear of missing out.

Kinda of like what PG describes here. http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html

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

#169

Post by geodel »

jedmeyers wrote: post #98
geodel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 90% or so tax rate will drastically improve living conditions for everyone. As a person who was born in the USSR those kind of proclamations always amuse me. I am wondering how much taxes are being paid by those people thinking that 90% tax rate will not create a feedback loop that will drastically worsen living conditions for everyone. My personal ancodote is that when I check it turns out those people rarely pay…

Exactly right. At least from Indian experiment it did not happen. That's why I said 'may be' in sense that may be rules of human nature does not apply to USA.

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

#170

Post by dahdum »

Suncho wrote: post #144
pwaai wrote: post #129

If you gave everybody a dollar, wouldn't businesses increase their prices, and consumers be okay with that price increase because they have more disposable income?

No. And the reason is that by distributing the new money evenly, you're increasing the price elasticity of demand. Instead of increasing the amount of money people are willing to pay for goods, you're increasing the number of people who want to buy goods. So instead of having an incentive to raise their prices, producers will have more of an incentive to produce more. And as long as you're not coming up against resou…

So non-resource limited prices may remain low, but couldn't most of it be captured by those items that are limited? Like rent or health care? People could move out of the cities to avoid the rent increases, but then cost of services / taxes per person rise in those areas.
Post reply on HN