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

261–270 of 389 posts

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

#261

Post by EGreg »

sjg007 wrote: post #214
EGreg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downvoters never explain. My own guess is they hate when someone links to their own project. Every time I put any link to my projects I get a few downvotes no matter HOW good the rest of the comment is.

My concern is the lack of debate beyond two or three comments. Basically someone says something, another replies, there’s a follow up and then nothing. It’s weird that there’s no discussion, just hit pieces. You see the same thing in the media both in articles/reports as well as callers and comments. We’ve lost the capacity to debate as a society. Or at least we now debate in 123 character tweets or memes.

Yep. Each forum has its own flavor.

I have found the factor that earns downvotes is a link to your own project - the downvoters don't engage you fairly after that.

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

#262

Post by staunch »

How can Sam Altman realize that YC is itself a potential solution and still do nothing? YC is still the same private club, that brags about funding just 3% of the founders that apply.

If Elon Musk ran YC, he'd raise billions and fund thousands, and then use that success to fund tens of thousands, and then ...

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

#263

Post by dahdum »

Suncho wrote: post #207
dahdum wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So non-resource limited prices may remain low, but couldn't most of it be captured by those items that are limited? Yes. And that's a very good point. For example, we might have the resources to feed the world, but we don't have the resources to feed the world meat 24/7. The price of meat would increase, so people would substitute other forms of food. > Like rent or health care? People could move out of the cities…

Doesn't moving out of the cities, and as you state, away from jobs exacerbate the number of people who will no longer be employed?

These new UBI based communities won't be able to provide the same economic/educational opportunities or efficiency of services that the cities can.

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

#264

Post by gehwartzen »

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.

There is still at least one break point with a UBI since it is payed for by money gained through taxation. While in theory everyone 'gets' the UBI those that pay more than the UBI in taxes effectively just get taxed that amount less. There is a break point where the money you pay in taxes matches the UBI.

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

#265

Post by comicjk »

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…

I think the remark you're replying to was in jest or sarcastic.

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

#266

Post by AFNobody »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #211
guelo wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last I checked How did you check? Most research I've seen shows that welfare reduces poverty but does not drag down gdp. Anti-welfare people tend to ignore the positive benefits of entrepreneurs being able to take more risks when they know that a bankruptcy won't be catastrophic and that they could still send their children to school and get treatment when they're sick.

Successful entrepreneurs aren't usually on welfare, they come from great backgrounds (hi Sam, Mark, Bill, Donald...).

> Successful entrepreneurs aren't usually on welfare, they come from great backgrounds (hi Sam, Mark, Bill, Donald...).

Coming from a wealthy enough background that you can fall back on your parents if you fail is a form of welfare as it allows you to take risks without it being a disaster that leaves you homeless.

Welfare serves a similar function.

Its a safety net that allows you to take risks w/o ending up starving/homeless/etc.

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

#267

Post by [deleted] »

njarboe wrote: post #245
condercet wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Only 17 million US workers with a population of 320 million. That can't be right. Maybe 1/100?

[deleted]

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

#268

Post by bobthechef »

Sentimentalizing about drinking tea around a candle resting on a table of nice wood is all fine and dandy, but let's put aside the images of upper middle class comforts and imagine your local butcher embedded in a family and a local community. He's providing a service people need and he's receiving money for his work which he uses to support his family and keep his business running. There is a network of interdependence in communities that also extends into the economic sphere of life. The butcher's trade, craft, and work are meaningful and the meaning exists in that web of relations.

The butcher's motives are complex, but one motive is that his work is also for the sake of supporting himself and his family. His relationship with his family, his wife, his kids, is also complex, but part of it is the (at least partial) reliance on their husband and father in an economic sense.

What does UBI do to the butcher and his relationship to his family and to his community?

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

#269

Post by sliverstorm »

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…

Self-sufficiency is inefficient, but specialization has enabled greater and greater consumption rather than reduced impact.

If everybody lived like the Amish we might need to farm more land, but for example there wouldn't be much in the way of fossil fuel exploitation or mineral extraction.

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

#270

Post by sliverstorm »

nkoren wrote: post #127
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…

> 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. Wrong, utterly wrong, on accounts. > It's not enough to do anything with. You have no idea what it's like to be poor. I grew up poor in America. $12k per year is an absolutely life-changing amount for many people. It means you will not go hungry. It means you will not die of…

Assuming no change in employment. Yet one of the first arguments for UBI is always that people can then quit their crummy jobs.
Post reply on HN