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

Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#261

Post by claudiawerner »

JorgeGT wrote: post #135
grecy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if automation isn't coming for people's job, isn't it time we moved away from this idea that every single person has to work for 40 hours a week for 50 years of their life just to survive? What about spending time with family, or learning a new language or just enjoying one's time? When do we reach that magical future where we actually have leisure time and can enjoy the fact we're more advanced than we were a h…

Answer is: never. The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago, but instead of settling we want more: traveling, more and more advanced tech, vast amount of entertainment, etc. Consider the multi-billion dollar media productions (games, TV series, movies, music, books, etc.) that you can access at the command of your voice vs. th…

> The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago

This comparison makes very little sense, because with change in society and social structures, human needs and desires also change. To compare today's person with someone from centuries ago ignores that doctrine. The fact is that kings had the best in society centuries ago, but the majority of people don't have the best in society today. Whether "the best" is accessible is a different matter, but kings had an excellent standard of living in their time period.

It is genuinely confusing why someone would think that saying we live better than a king lived centuries ago is some kind of argument that things shouldn't be further improved. Why, exactly, is the king's standard of living relevant today, other than as a historical curiosity?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#262

Post by joshbetz »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #238
Aloha wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I look at UBI as a replacement for a part time minimum wage job, not for working. Meaning it ought to give you about 250 dollars a week. I also view it as a replacement for having minimum wage too - but no one will work for 2.00 and hour either. UBI will free throws labor force, and make it easier for labor to be more mobile and move to where the jobs are - the other key about UBI is everyone gets it, no matter if we…

> " ...the other key about UBI is everyone gets it, no matter if wealthy or poor " Of course if you have anything above poverty level income, it gets snatched right back plus whole lot more though taxes to cover the other UBI recipients who don't. The "everybody gets UBI" rhetoric doesn't really fool anybody; money doesn't come out of thin air.

We wouldn’t need all the infrastructure to ensure only qualified people get welfare. I’ve heard this would make UBI cheaper than what we do now, considering that it would be essentially taxed away from rich people as you say.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#263

Post by snidane »

ALittleLight wrote: post #42

Yang's proposal doesn't seem like UBI to me. A key component of UBI being the U - i.e that it is universal. However, Yang wants to pay for it, in part, by adding new taxes. In order for some people to make money, others must, on net, lose money. To actually have a UBI I think the government needs something valuable, and can then sell that valuable and distribute the money equally. For example, in Alaska, the state ha…

I agree, but about the part about nationalization of companies. Historically it tended to produce bad outcomes. People just don't put the same effort if they don't own it.

What actually works is government stepping in by producing a competitor when it sees oligopolies developing and the participating companies not innovating further but just undermining each other or colluding to undermine interests of their customers.

For example in the early railroads there were tons of companies building their own railroads instead of coopearing with others to reuse. Telecommunication networks tend to get stuck similarly. That's how AT&T was created to have a single infrastructure entity and lot of competition on top of that infrastructure. Similar situation can be observed in social networks today. The business model for them is not that great unless you infect them with advertisement. Twitter struggled a lot with monetization because it feels more like a infrastructure project similar to roads or phone lines. Perhaps it is time for government to create competing social network or just pump support money to a community created one.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#264

Post by paulddraper »

service_bus wrote: post #228
sethammons wrote: post #159

I like the idea of freeing people to be able to quit and get a new job any time, where quitting today means a real threat of losing one's home, transportation, or ability to eat (never mind fueling the cycle of debt that keeps so many down). I think it would be a net benefit if people could tell oppressive employers to fuck off without fear. However, a welfare state is a real thing to be worried about. My sister work…

Everything you are saying about Native Americans is contradicted by every study that has been done so far. https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effect... Yang also discusses this in his book. Please don't comment hyperbole if you're not able to support your thoughts with data.

> if you're not able to support your thoughts with data

Likewise.

That article is a highly anecdotal puff piece, focusing on a few exceptional inspirational stories from a single tribe. I could find all sorts of non-UBI rags-to-riches stories too.

AFAIK, despite no end of UBI pontification, no real study has even been done about existing native UBI (correct me please).

What we do know is that Native Americans consistently have 25% lower median income [1], double the poverty rate [2] [3], and nearly double the unemployment rate [4] of the rest of the United States.

Either UBI doesn't work, or it does work and without it Native Americans would be almost unbelievably terrible -- even compared to other historically oppressed groups (blacks, Irish, Japanese).

[1] https://www.epi.org/blog/2016-acs-shows-stubbornly-high-nati...

[2] https://theredroad.org/issues/native-american-poverty/

[3] https://census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drop...

[4] https://thinkprogress.org/the-unemployment-rate-for-native-a...

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#265

Post by claudiawerner »

grzm wrote: post #197
hanniabu wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which brings up his quality of life stance. It honestly feels like we're paid slaves waiting until we have enough to buy ourselves from our owners.

I find this perspective problematic. I understand it feels like a lack of freedom—indeed you are constrained from doing whatever you want. As an example, imagine you are on your own, completely outside of society, out of contact with others. You’d need to build and maintain shelter. You’d need to forage or grow food. You’re not free to do whatever you want, until you have accumulated enough resources to not need to d…

>As an example, imagine you are on your own, completely outside of society, out of contact with others. You’d need to build and maintain shelter. You’d need to forage or grow food. You’re not free to do whatever you want, until you have accumulated enough resources to not need to do the work to provide what you need for everyday survival.

This is true, but it's not the only perspective, and it misses out on a lot of normative social theory. J.E. Roemer would argue that because we are part of society, measurements of wellbeing should be taken relative to the wealth generated by society. The question is not if someone would be better off if they withdrew from society with only their own wealth, but if they'd be better off if they withdrew with a per-capita share of society's productive capacity.

>I don’t think we’d call this slavery, yet it has the same shape as what you describe.

Slavery isn't the word for it, but necessity is the word for it. It makes much more sense to talk of the freedom/necessity dichotomy than it does to talk of the freedom/slavery dichotomy.

"The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class."

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#266

Post by carapace »

moralsupply wrote: post #115

The government would need to get money somewhere for the UBI program. It can only do so either through taxation, or by printing money, as the government is not a value-generation enterprise. If UBI gets its funding by taxation, UBI can't work economically (not to say it wouldn't be "UBI"). Even if you tax all the rich people, it won't provide enough money for the program. Besides, you can't really tax the rich, the m…

FWIW, I think UBI only makes sense in a context where most people cannot compete in the economic system (against corporations with automation) and so the alternative (to just giving them money) is some kind of nightmare (take your pick.)

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#267

Post by chiefalchemist »

sethammons wrote: post #159

I like the idea of freeing people to be able to quit and get a new job any time, where quitting today means a real threat of losing one's home, transportation, or ability to eat (never mind fueling the cycle of debt that keeps so many down). I think it would be a net benefit if people could tell oppressive employers to fuck off without fear. However, a welfare state is a real thing to be worried about. My sister work…

UBI is not a panacea. It does help move some key micro needles (i.e., employers needing to be more mindful of employees).

On the other hand, at the macro level (read: federal) there is risk. That is, elected officials will mistakenly see it as a replacement for opportunity; as a cure of institutional injustice. The native Americans got screwed. Their culture and pride destroyed. Simply tossing money at them isn't enough. But that's what we've done. We shouldn't be surprised.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#268

Post by devonkim »

crdoconnor wrote: post #217
3131s wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're using a regressive VAT tax to pay for UBI you are not redistributing wealth, you are disproportionately taxing the poor to distribute to themselves ( https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive ) much of which will be lost as the prices of goods increases to match equilibrium. Amazon won't "pay the tax" it will pass the tax along in the form of higher consumer prices. A flat value added tax is…

>Imagine if we have a VAT on yachts and nothing else, does that disproportionately affect the rich or the poor? Nobody? They'll buy yachts abroad.

VAT is usually much higher in the world. 10% ish would put the US in the lower quartile. So not worth dodging the VAT and then to transport over still

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#269

Post by coffeefirst »

e40 wrote: post #164
sethammons wrote: post #159

I like the idea of freeing people to be able to quit and get a new job any time, where quitting today means a real threat of losing one's home, transportation, or ability to eat (never mind fueling the cycle of debt that keeps so many down). I think it would be a net benefit if people could tell oppressive employers to fuck off without fear. However, a welfare state is a real thing to be worried about. My sister work…

Any time such a huge change is introduced into a complex system, it is extremely hard to see all the unintended consequences. I like the idea of UBI, too. Taking that leap worries me, though, we might be in for a worse time because of it.

Right. This is also the argument for Earned Income Taxes, which is a cash mechanism without the social or political baggage.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#270

Post by Reedx »

sethammons wrote: post #159

I like the idea of freeing people to be able to quit and get a new job any time, where quitting today means a real threat of losing one's home, transportation, or ability to eat (never mind fueling the cycle of debt that keeps so many down). I think it would be a net benefit if people could tell oppressive employers to fuck off without fear. However, a welfare state is a real thing to be worried about. My sister work…

> I can see UBI causing more resentment on both sides, the receivers and the payers.

But in this case (Yang's Freedom Dividend), everyone gets it. Doesn't that essentially solve the issue?

Post reply on HN