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

America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

semianalysis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 448 posts

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#61

Post by outside1234 »

ryandrake wrote: post #47
dragonwriter wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't, and the proof of that is that landlords don't already charge 100% of income. You seem to be assuming housing rental is an perfectly monopolistic market, which it isn't, and any place where it even loosely approximates that needs to correct that whether or not UBI is adopted.

Most participants in mature markets know approximately what percentage of the public's wallet they can grab. Obviously it's not 100% for any of them, but they all know what they can get away with. My guess is that if UBI added $1,000/mo to everyone's income, landlords would respond by raising rent by about $400-$500 or so, grocery stores would raise their prices by a percentage of that new income, and so on for all b…

One market where we see this effect, I think, is university education.

Access to cheap loans has lead to an explosion in costs.

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#63

Post by dingnuts »

cladopa wrote: post #57
blueyes wrote: post #18

Some authors of this piece are deeply involved themselves in building robots and other hardware technology. They should be taken seriously. The US is moving into a trade war, however unwise, with the country that supplies components for everything we make and need. That country has expansionist ambitions and a superior manufacturing base, which is typically what wins wars.

>That country has expansionist ambitions and a superior manufacturing base, which is typically what wins wars. What country are you referring to. US with Greenland, and Canada?

CHINA!

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#64

Post by dragonwriter »

ryandrake wrote: post #47
dragonwriter wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't, and the proof of that is that landlords don't already charge 100% of income. You seem to be assuming housing rental is an perfectly monopolistic market, which it isn't, and any place where it even loosely approximates that needs to correct that whether or not UBI is adopted.

Most participants in mature markets know approximately what percentage of the public's wallet they can grab. Obviously it's not 100% for any of them, but they all know what they can get away with. My guess is that if UBI added $1,000/mo to everyone's income, landlords would respond by raising rent by about $400-$500 or so, grocery stores would raise their prices by a percentage of that new income, and so on for all b…

> My guess is that if UBI added $1,000/mo to everyone's income

Aside from whether the prediction is realistic under this assumption, UBI under any realistic financing scheme doesn't do that. It replaces (and potentially increases the net benefit of) means-tested welfare at the bottom end of the income distribution and spreads the clawback from a set of relatively sharp cliffs that occur between working poor and middle income levels to a much more gradual effective trail-off over nearly the whole income distribution as part of progressive income taxation.

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#65

Post by jacobgkau »

dragonwriter wrote: post #38
llamaimperative wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI won't fix much for a far more trivial and mechanistic reason: adding $1,000/mo to everyone's income merely gives landlords the ability to charge ($1,000*n bedrooms)/mo more in rent.

No, it doesn't, and the proof of that is that landlords don't already charge 100% of income. You seem to be assuming housing rental is an perfectly monopolistic market, which it isn't, and any place where it even loosely approximates that needs to correct that whether or not UBI is adopted.

I had to move out of an apartment a few years ago and into a spare half-story at a friend's house. The apartment was attempting to raise my rent, while not to 100% of my income (yet), a significant amount. Their excuse was "that's the market rate now," and when I told them to F off and went to check other nearby apartments, they were correct, that was the "market rate."

I have absolutely zero doubt that if the government had paid me the difference they were trying to charge (as UBI or any other stipend), they would've raised the rate again by the same amount very quickly. In fact, going by the idea that supply & demand are what caused that (rather than simple landlord greed that I generally see it as), UBI definitely can't fix it, since UBI will not increase supply or decrease demand-- they'll still need to charge just enough that some people can't afford it in order for there to be "enough."

You're somewhat correct in that the solution (building more housing, I guess) is not really related to UBI.

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#66

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

ryandrake wrote: post #47
dragonwriter wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't, and the proof of that is that landlords don't already charge 100% of income. You seem to be assuming housing rental is an perfectly monopolistic market, which it isn't, and any place where it even loosely approximates that needs to correct that whether or not UBI is adopted.

Most participants in mature markets know approximately what percentage of the public's wallet they can grab. Obviously it's not 100% for any of them, but they all know what they can get away with. My guess is that if UBI added $1,000/mo to everyone's income, landlords would respond by raising rent by about $400-$500 or so, grocery stores would raise their prices by a percentage of that new income, and so on for all b…

- Are you assuming that all these people also have employment income on top of their UBI? Or only UBI? The premise upthread seemed to be UBI in response to mass unemployment caused by automation. Are you sure renters will still have more money in their pockets, even with UBI?

- If they don't have employment, and incomes are $0, then in the absence of UBI, would rent also drop to $0? If not, then I think we're better off with UBI.

- These higher prices for rent and groceries seem like strong incentives for competition. Maybe we can't expect that in NIMBY San Francisco, but without a jobs market, the only attraction to live there is the weather. Why not move somewhere cheaper?

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#67

Post by [deleted] »

blueyes wrote: post #18

Some authors of this piece are deeply involved themselves in building robots and other hardware technology. They should be taken seriously. The US is moving into a trade war, however unwise, with the country that supplies components for everything we make and need. That country has expansionist ambitions and a superior manufacturing base, which is typically what wins wars.

[deleted]

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#68

Post by jacobgkau »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #58
ryandrake wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most participants in mature markets know approximately what percentage of the public's wallet they can grab. Obviously it's not 100% for any of them, but they all know what they can get away with. My guess is that if UBI added $1,000/mo to everyone's income, landlords would respond by raising rent by about $400-$500 or so, grocery stores would raise their prices by a percentage of that new income, and so on for all b…

This seems reductive. Not all goods have inelastic demand and no substitutes or alternatives. Not every industry is supply limited. Said differently, not everything is immune to competition. If cost of housing goes up, building and moving become more attractive by comparison. Instead of saving 500/mo by commuting, now you might save $1000 by relocating. Rate limit edit: I said commuting, not going going to live in so…

> If cost of housing goes up, building and moving become more attractive by comparison.

Do you think "just move away from the city centers (where all the jobs that you used to need are) to random middle-of-nowhere wherever-we-have-space" will hold forever, and won't trail off once the initial phenomenon of everyone dispersing is finished?

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#69

Post by dingnuts »

pphysch wrote: post #52
readthenotes1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic, since the rage/fear-baiting and hijacking of dopamine is an existential threat!

Once upon a time, a US president said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". His unconventional administration brought USA from deep economic depression into a golden age. Meanwhile, the current ruling elite smears him as one of the worst presidents of all time, and has spent decades undoing that legacy and racing towards a repeat of 1929.

he also ran for reelection four times and made private ownership of gold illegal, and vastly expanded the power of the executive branch.

Reminds me a lot of the current guy and his obsession with another term, and whether or not the gold (that FDR largely stole from the people in the first place) is in Ft Knox.

I guess the biggest difference is DOGE but it's all too much centralized power for me

Re: America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1

#70

Post by [deleted] »

piva00 wrote: post #17
yannis wrote: post #5

How I hate articles like this, painting everything as "existential" threat. Feeding the paranoia that has grubbed the US. Everything is viewed as a threat.

Paranoia is the USA's way of life, when life always seems to be teetering on the edge of a cliff: losing your job at a moment's time, losing your life savings for a healthcare emergency, losing your kid to a school shooting, losing your stuff to burglars. Any of these have a very low chance of happening but they can be so life-changing that Americans seem to always be in some state of paranoia, a low-trust society wi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN