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

51–60 of 192 posts

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

#51

Post by toomuchtodo »

itsoktocry wrote: post #48
toomuchtodo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are attributing to federal fiscal policy what was caused by supply chain dysfunction, housing inventory shortages, and corporate profits. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/eco... > Global supply chain disruptions following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the rapid rise in U.S. inflation over the past two years. Evidence suggests that supply chain pressures pushed up the co…

> You are attributing to federal fiscal policy what was caused by supply chain dysfunction, housing inventory shortages, and corporate profits. Would you be shocked to learn the inflation had a number of causes, including the vast COVID stimulus? I mean, your quote above attributes 60%, and that supply chain issues resolving "contributed" to inflation easing. I'm for UBI if we can figure out how to implement it. We'v…

Not shocked if its true, asking you to validate the assertion with data. I brought citations, I will wait for yours.

> Otherwise, generic extreme argument: give everyone a billion and we all win.

No reasonable person takes this argument seriously. The discussion is "will providing for everyone's basic needs through UBI cause inflation?"

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

#52

Post by spiderfarmer »

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…

I am not only talking about elections. I'm saying money and gerrymandering result in politicians ignoring the policy preferences of a large part of their electorate, especially after they have been elected. If your interests are no longer represented, why bother voting at the next election?

  "Even without being able to gauge the actual political power of wealthy citizens, we can confidently reject the view that extensive political power by the wealthy would be of little practical importance anyway because their policy preferences are much the same as everyone else’s. On many important issues the preferences of the wealthy appear to differ markedly from those of the general public. Thus, if policy makers do weigh citizens’ policy preferences differentially based on their income or wealth, the result will not only significantly violate democratic ideals of political equality, but will also affect the substantive contours of American public policy."
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-...

  "Still, the researchers hold that gerrymandering harms our democracy. “Elections are a way to hold politicians accountable for what their constituency wants,” said Kosuke Imai, professor of government and of statistics as well as leader of the ALARM Project research team, which uses big data and computational algorithms to study redistricting. “But if many lawmakers are in safe seats, guaranteed to win by a relatively comfortable margin, there’s less incentive to respond to what voters want."
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/07/biggest-probl...

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

#54

Post by Gormo »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #24
tiahura wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do you know anybody who is financially struggling? Would you tell them to their face that you consider them to be human pigeons? One problem with UBI is that it would go to millions of people and surely there will be tens of thousands that fulfill the stereotype that poor people just waste their money and a layabouts. That 5% or whatever will be provided as evidence ad nauseam that UBI is a boondoggle, entirely dismi…

> Do you know anybody who is financially struggling?

I know plenty of people who are financially struggling. I am not convinced that the best way to help them is to make them perpetually dependent on the state for direct subsidies, instead of addressing the problems that are making it difficult them from becoming more financially secure within a pluralistic economy.

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

#55

Post by danielbln »

throwawa14223 wrote: post #46

[flagged]

Things look pretty dystopian as it stands, and if concentration of wealth continues, we'll speed down that dark road even faster. If not UBI, what other solution is there? Especially as automation sweeps through cognitive work?

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

#56

Post by mc32 »

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 believe many of these UBI experiments were also advocated by different billionaires. One idealistic group and one pessimistic group.

Communism is one big UBI. Everyone has something to do and everyone gets paid enough to buy basic goods and services even if sometimes some good and services become scarce. Communism proved it works, but it's not efficient. It means you have to choose between a somewhat stagnant society and a progressive society (not progressive in the political but rather technological sense).

For some this would be good. But for others not. Moreover, the government can dictate what it wants from you since you are beholden to it and don't have much mobility.

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

#57

Post by n2d4 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #40
endisneigh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Strictly economic theoretical speaking, inflation wouldn't happen if the money isn't "new" money, but instead is fully reallocated money. A likely picture would be less money going into assets (where wealthy people money tends to end up) and more money going into consumables (where poor people money tends to end up). However the money pile should stay the same all else being equal.

That's false, "strictly economic theoretical speaking" inflation is a function of spending and savings (among others). If you take savings and use it to increase spendings, that causes demand-pull inflation.

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

#58

Post by BiteCode_dev »

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'd say the biggest expected problem is massive inflation.

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

#59

Post by throwawa14223 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #47
throwawa14223 wrote: post #46

[flagged]

Sure there is. Just give it back if you don't want it. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...

That doesn't solve the whole problem. It requires more interaction with the state instead of just allowing an opt out. It also doesn't allow opting out at the paying in layer.

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

#60

Post by devonkim »

sackfield wrote: post #21

UBI experiments are mostly pointless until they reach a national level. Otherwise you end up giving people a bunch of extra cash from the working economy, and surprise surprise, people are generally happier and better off with more free cash. The question is what happens when you do this on a large enough scale to affect economic production.

A lot of the point of the experiments is specifically to provide for evidence that critics tend to have about what poor people do with money. Because a great, great many people basically believe (falsely) that poverty is essentially a choice made by poor decisions more or less and that it is a personal or moral failing. There’s so little evidence for this it’s kind of crazy but then we take a look at those with that kind of attitude and see a huge bias
Post reply on HN