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

401–410 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#401

Post by save_ferris »

keiferski wrote: post #244
save_ferris wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think fixing broken technology requires the ongoing involvement of the state If said technology served to meet universal basic needs, the state would have to be involved somehow. Otherwise, how would someone destitute be able to pay a mechanic to fix the machine that makes the food? That money would have to come from somewhere, and if we're guaranteeing that everyone has a right to a working food-making mac…

I think you’re focusing in on the specific example too much. The general point is to create a system that has the benefits of basic income without creating a dependent underclass. I don’t think it’s inconceivable to posit that a government could kickstart a program like the one I described, help it grow into a self-sustaining market, and then no longer provide monetary support. Of course this will never happen as the…

I do think it’s inconceivable for two reasons.

1) Such a system would require some kind of maintenance and administration, which costs money. If you have a concrete example of a self-sustaining universal system that accomplishes this object, feel free to bring it forward. I can’t think of a single example of a social program or system that operates without administration at any kind of large scale. You can only argue it’s possible by being specific about how exactly it’s possible. Name one government program that still functions today and doesn’t receive any monetary support.

2) With AI and automation, we’re on track to eliminate the need for much of our human output. The ability to earn a steady income is already being challenged today (just look at how poorly gig workers are paid and treated), and will continue to get harder for those who lack the skills. A system which exists to provide universal services will create a dependent class, regardless of how they receive their benefit. Getting food or something else as opposed to cash doesn’t make them any less dependent. You’ve just changed the output of the service. Not to mention what a target such a system would be for privatization. It’s not like private interests are always looking out for the best outcome for the public either, just look at TurboTax capturing the tax return market.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#402

Post by PudgePacket »

gonational wrote: post #260
PudgePacket wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple parties can benefit from UBI. You also handwave and make a load of assumptions in each of your statements.

What are the statements I’ve made that are not A) rooted in generally accepted economic theories or B) syllogism based on the other statements? I don’t expect you’ll reply :]

Of course not, you made so many statements it's not worth my time at all. Care to provide sources for all your generally accepted economic theories ?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#403

Post by paulddraper »

kyledrake wrote: post #400
paulddraper wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL supporting the 2016 Republican presidential candidate was evil.

No, platforming for a racist demagogue that causes pain and suffering to millions of people so you can maybe win some Palantir contracts isn't evil at all, I'm not sure where you got that impression. It's just really solid moral judgement, I'm glad he has billions of dollars to push towards positive agendas like that, it's so good for our society to have children in cages at the border so you can win a chess game aga…

Thiel's political views are long standing and have been no secret.

Perhaps there were other motives, but his views lined up best with Trump.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#405

Post by solveit »

kyledrake wrote: post #341
Reedx wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He supports healthcare for everyone, that's literally the goal[1]. He just has a different approach to get there. And some argue it's a more realistic approach than Medicare for All, which (at this point) doesn't seem terribly likely to get widespread support and pass. 1. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/medicare-for-all/

None of the stuff Yang is proposing will pass the current Senate, including and especially UBI. Why not drop UBI then as well? The fact is that he is trying to call his fake health plan "Medicare for All" when it doesn't even have a public option and was recently called out on it, and frankly it makes him look more like a swindler than a serious candidate. https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1211317868555423744

Because UBI is the point of his campaign. His and his supporters claims to the contrary notwithstanding[1], Yang is a single issue candidate trying to draw attention and support for UBI. I would be very surprised if he really thought he could win.

[1] Because obviously you should claim you're running to win. Even if you and everyone else knows you have a snowball's chance in hell.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#406

Post by aoeusnth1 »

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.

This is factually incorrect, although it's possible you know that and are just overstating your case. Specifically, you have to spend $120k/year on nonessentials to break even with the Freedom Dividend plan. That's a far cry from "anything above poverty level... gets snatched back plus a whole lot more".

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#407

Post by aoeusnth1 »

zpallin wrote: post #274
pascoej wrote: post #162

Yang does have an interesting idea for campaign finance reform too. 100$ a year for any citizen to spend on political campaigns. In some ways I think this is bigger than the UBI. If everybody spent this voucher it would be ~23B, almost 4x what was spent on federal races in 2016. I think it will be more likely that our elected officials make better policy for normal people if their campaign funding also comes from the…

As you pointed out, special interests will just raise the value of a politician so the $100 disappears in value. That or buy out ads to convince people to spend on their corporate sponsored candidates rather than the ones seeking direct support from voters. Both of these already happen, so why wouldn't they happen more? Solving this issue of corruption in campaign finance requires a solution that only publicly financ…

The ratio of special interest funding would have to increase by 80x to outweigh the $100 by a factor of 10:

Currently, the $100 democracy dollars would outweigh special interest politician funding by 8:1, so for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction implies that political favors go up nearly 100x in price. That seems like an easy win to me.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#408

Post by gremlinsinc »

kmonsen wrote: post #256
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…

If we want to free people from tyrannical employers, isn’t free healthcare step one? Perhaps some sort of more available food stamps step two? I would agree with a lot of the criticism of government should not target too closely etc, but those two programs seems pretty well run compared to the free market alternatives. At least when they are allowed to.

Why not also have a guaranteed housing program to go w/ foodstamps? I mean walmart gets major tax relief, why not call in their tax deficit as benefits to people who need it most?

I support UBI, but a stepping stone easily could be:

Better support for freelancers/gig economy workers. Better support for self-employed w/ regards to welfare/health. Jobs guarantee. Single-payer health. Housing assistance, esp. in times of dire need (job transition). Free college education and retraining assistance (maybe gov't grants for dev bootcamps and similar programs).

UBI makes sense in that you get rid of a lot of bureacracy but I don't think we're politically ready just yet. I think after we get M4A and college as a 'right', then we will be a lot closer, plus a lot more genz and millenials will be voting and increasing the progressive voice in D.C.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#409

Post by aeternum »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #368
aeternum wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is generally not the rich that resent it. The rich simply see taxes as a cost of doing business that they should attempt to minimize as they would any cost. If you look at welfare, those that resent it most are the people that are just over the threshold to receive it. They see themselves as significantly better than those on welfare who are lazy and gaming the system.

Okay, but we're talking about UBI, and in UBI systems, there aren't any people that are just barely over the threshold. I don't really see folks resenting welfare. I see a whole lot of folks who have probably never experienced welfare, though, and who are ready to judge those who do receive it. I don't consider this a reasonable line of thought, though, but rather an indicator of bigotry and poor empathy.

The rich have no reason to resent the system, they've done quite well through it, and the vast majority will treat any new tax as simply a cost to minimize. From a game-theory POV, they act predictably.

In contrast, low-income locales often do not act logically: https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-f...

The working poor resent the non-working poor for being lazy and freeloading. As you mentioned, bigotry also plays a role in this. Both groups often resent the government for giving them just enough to subsist but not enough to lift their communities out of poverty.

I don't see UBI as changing any of that. Eliminating the threshold is good, but it won't address this underlying resentment.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#410

Post by fooker »

chr1 wrote: post #382
fooker wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No new money will be printed to pay for the Freedom Dividend so there will be no inflation. Wow this is fundamental misunderstanding of what inflation is.

What exactly is the fundamental misunderstanding here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation says > Economists generally believe that very high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply. Views on which factors determine low to moderate rates of inflation are more varied. The freedom dividend can cause low to moderate inflation, if the extra tax is high enough to c…

We are not talking about hyperinflation here.
Post reply on HN