
What If Andrew Yang Was Right? - Reedx
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-romney-yang-money/608134/
======
aazaa
The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling.

But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal
conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the
economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere.

Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago
that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty stores were the topic of
concern.

COVID-19 has brought with it store shortages, which no doubt is a massive
shock to most Americans. Nobody knows when those shortages will end.

Imagine what could happen if you dropped a grand in everyone's pocket every
month. Also imagine the humanitarian crisis that would result by trying to
suppress consumer inflation through price controls.

~~~
qqqwerty
Inflation is a non-issue. Economic growth has largely been constrained by
demand, not supply. And the modern economy is saturated with replacement
goods. If the demand for milk goes up, I can switch to soy milk. If soy milk
goes up, I can switch to Almond. And if all of them go up, I just drink water.
Once most basic needs are met, inflation looses its power with a few
exceptions. The financialization of our economy has resulted in crazy high
house prices, education, and to some degree health care. And that was driven
by excessive monetary stimulus. Giving working class folks an extra $1k a
month is not going to cause houses to go up by $1M. But giving speculators
access to absurdly low interest rates will.

~~~
karaterobot
> If the demand for milk goes up, I can switch to soy milk. If soy milk goes
> up, I can switch to Almond. And if all of them go up, I just drink water.

I don't understand how this example describes a situation where inflation is a
non-issue. I used to be able to afford to drink milk; now, due to inflation, I
can only afford to drink water. That sounds like inflation. What am I missing
from this example?

~~~
qqqwerty
There are 2 issues that I was attempting to demonstrate, but perhaps I
conflated them a bit. Here is second attempt:

Inflation requires a persistent and durable increase in the price of a good.
The first issue is that a large proportion of individuals in modern economies
are barely making enough money to make ends meet. They are very sensitive to
price. An increase in the price of milk would likely cause them to switch to
alternatives, thus lowering demand for milk which would then bring the price
back down. In effect, the constraint on the wages of the lower classes acts as
a constraint on prices of goods. And the second factor, is that in these
modern global economies, we have plenty of replacements for almost all types
of goods. So if a drought in the mid-west causes soy prices to spike, people
will just east less soy based products and switch to something cheaper for a
while.

COVID-19 could disrupt that of course. But my hunch is that within a few
months after the lockdowns are over, most supply chains will be back up and
running. At that point we will be back to being demand constrained (perhaps
significantly so if the economic impact is severe enough).

~~~
jariel
1) Real inflationary problems are always about money supply, not regular
changes in supply/demand.

When Chavez goes nutty, people don't want his currency, it starts to crash, he
prints to pay his bills, it _really_ crashes. This is where all the inflation
crisis comes.

2) The 'milk substitute' thing I think illustrates the opposite point you're
trying to make. Having to give up Milk to drink water is a _severely_ negative
consequence! Projected across all of one's lifestyle and habits, it would be
comparable to giving up a car to ride only the bus. Giving up Netflix for
'library books'. This implies a serious degradation in the quality of life.

If anything though, we've been concerned about deflation for a very long time,
not inflation.

~~~
christophilus
> Giving up Netflix for 'library books'. This implies a serious degradation in
> the quality of life.

If everyone gave up Netflix for library books, I think that’d be a massive
societal win.

Other than that, I agree with your point.

~~~
jariel
Ah yes, shouldn't we all?

But we can choose books anytime, and we don't. So when you and I think about
'win' it must be different than what 'everyone else wants' at least in terms
of how they actively chose to spend their time.

------
olivermarks
Congress woman Tulsi Gabbard (the Clinton blacklisted presidential candidate)
took on Yang's UBI initiative after he ran out of money and dropped out of the
presidential race. Gabbard introduced HRes 897 last Thursday and has been
vocal about providing an urgent $1k per month UBI payment for the projected 10
million US citizens who will lose their jobs.

The DNC in their wisdom have again chosen to blank Gabbard and focus on AOC
and Romney thinking about doing the same thing, although I believe there are
now co sponsors and momentum for HRes897.

[https://actionnetwork.org/letters/include-ubi-in-the-
economi...](https://actionnetwork.org/letters/include-ubi-in-the-economic-
stimulus-plan-for-covid-19?source=direct_link&)

~~~
JeremyBanks
Tulsi is going on Fox to complain about not being allowed in the debates
despite having ~0 support. She is not a good-faith actor, and blacklisting her
is entirely appropriate.

~~~
imafish
Well, blacklisting is absolutely undemocratic.

But it is fair to not have her in the debates when she does not meet the
requirements.

~~~
charwalker
I think they mean that if a Democratic candidate is going on the (known to the
left wing as pure propaganda and lies) right wing network of choice to make
their case then they are not arguing in good faith and simply looking to score
points with people who will never vote for her anyway.

It's disingenuous and she had next to 0 support anyway.

~~~
olivermarks
Here's the sequence of events with Tulsi Gabbard's presidential campaign which
is important if you believe in running a fair democracy, my fundamental point
here.

Gabbard resigned as a rising star DNC VP in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders
over Mrs Clinton who had bought the party off with a cash infusion (largely
raised by Weinstein) on the agreement she had control of party strategy and
messaging, and could include multiple super delegates at the convention.
Congreswoman Gabbard announced her grass roots funded presidential campaign
and has run it from a mini van with volunteers, a very small paid staff and
~$1m budget.

Gabbard got great traction - most searched for via Google - in the first two
TV show Q & sixty second answer commercial TV 'debates' and destroyed the
Harris campaign with her debating skills in November.

Throughout the campaign, and massively increased in 2020, the DNC media has
either subsequently ignored her or run negative messaging to undermine her
credibility. The DNC knows reform would come if Gabbard got control.

The DNC changed their debate rules to allow 55x billionaire Bloomberg to 'run'
and debate as a presidential candidate, spending incredible sums to obliterate
Sanders and others before pulling out again.

The corporate puppet candidates Buttigieg, Klobochar (and subsequently Warren
afterwards) pulled out just before Super Tuesday - and after tens of thousands
had cast their postal ballots - to endorse Biden, the DNC's preferred
candidate. The debate rules were changed again by the DNC after Gabbard won
two delegates to exclude her. The only media Gabbard gets coverage on is Fox
News and internet shows and podcasts.

There is a massive disinformation campaign she is constantly fighting (Russian
asset, Assad and Modi supporter etc) that undermines her fundamental anti war
pro diplomacy platform.

My point: if the DNC give hundreds of millions in free positive media coverage
to their preferred candidates and blacklist/ blackout positive coverage of
other candidates is it any surprise Gabbard has done so badly, or other future
and past candidates? Many many people don't even know she is in the
presidential race on ballots that still list long suspended campaigns from
Harris and others.

The DNC rely on name recognition and positive media messaging to amplify their
preferred candidates. This is not democracy or a level playing field.

The Gabbard platform positions: www.tulsigabbard.org

~~~
true_religion
Bloomberg is a nationally known politician who was willing to spend 230
million in a 4 week span. Gabbard isn’t comparable to that.

~~~
olivermarks
Correct. There needs to be campaign finance restrictions put in place,
otherwise these media owning oligarchs and their networks will continue to
have overwhelming control over democracy. Gabbard is just a congresswoman and
army major with a very modest background.

------
Proziam
My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people
in power to use it against the people.

Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single
most influential campaign topic.

Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle
over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior
(worst of all worlds with numerous 'compromises'), and then followed by a
repeal and whatever subsequent chaos comes out of it.

I don't want to imagine what would happen to the folks who find themselves
reliant on UBI if it were to go down that path.

~~~
JDiculous
> but the risk for people in power to use it against the people.

As opposed to what, private undemocratic unaccountable authoritarian
institutions controlling peoples' lives?

> nce UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival.

Anybody who's dependent on their employers' paycheck is dependent on their
employer for survival. How is dependence on the government any more dangerous
than being dependent on a corporation?

We already have UBI, but only old people can qualify for it, and the dividend
amount is proportional to how much money you made in your lifetime. It's
called social security.

Extending this dividend to the rest of the population is the next logical
extension of this.

~~~
zajio1am
> How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent
> on a corporation?

Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

~~~
mgkimsal
> Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

Making changes _at_ your place of employment is often impossible. We get
direct chances to change our government every X years. And changing to a
different employer often isn't that easy for many folks.

~~~
danarmak
Changing your employment is individual and allows different offerings from
different employers, matching the wants and needs of different people.
Changing your government needs a majority consensus and at least some people
will be in the minority who doesn't get what they want.

I don't think tying employment to healthcare is a good thing, but I don't
think your argument gives a good reason, either.

~~~
zentiggr
Changing your employment is as simple as irritating your manager or missing
some KPI, and getting fired in all these 'right to work' states. UBI would
keep people who would otherwise live on the brink of utter chaos enough to
sever their dependence on minimum wage slavery.

Your picture of people picking and choosing from enticing opportunities isn't
remotely true for people at the bottom where this would help.

~~~
danarmak
So fix your employment, minimum wage, etc. laws, too. UBI is a huge
undertaking in terms of legal and social changes, we shouldn't consider it
"either this change or no change".

------
cgrealy
I'm not sure there's a "what if" at all, more like a "when will".

At some point, a UBI will become a necessity. The most likely other options
are a dystopian nightmare or a complete overhaul of our basic economic
principles (i.e. a post-scarcity Star Trek-esque society)

~~~
kosievdmerwe
For the most part I agree, but the important fact is that that point might not
be now. Just because you might know the end point, doesn't mean you can skip
the steps in between or try to get there too quickly. That can lead to
disaster as you'll probably not have the right conditions or supporting
structures in place.

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Our current pandemic and the economic consequences certainly will make more
people open to UBI. Once the recovery starts, look for businesses to invest
heavily in automation so they're not caught in a labor crunch again when their
human labor get sick, quarantined, or ineffective due to social distancing.
This may cause a permanent shift in labor demand that never again comes close
to matching the labor supply. Or maybe it'll end up like other revolutions
with new currently unknown jobs opening up over time.

~~~
RedneckBob
Check out the "Future of Work" where they cover the top 5 most popular jobs
and how they are in danger. The self driving trucks shock the human truck
drivers in the diner.

Makes me sad to see their faces when they realize just how far along and how
good the self driving trucks have become:

\-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4)

UBI will become a necessity because the alternative will not be pretty.

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Self driving trucks probably are going to be considered a national security
issue going forward. We can't have cargo sitting around waiting for humans in
a health crisis. That will indeed be a huge gut punch to that segment of the
labor market. The only slightly silver lining is that trucking has very high
turnover so the number put out of their jobs will be less than you might
think. What will hurt though will be the loss of opportunity to be a truck
driver, even if only for a few years.

------
altcognito
UBI is fundamentally right, my biggest issue with this approach is that this
is the last step before eliminating support for the poor altogether. No longer
hampered by the intricacies of providing a service, it now becomes a debate
over "how much do people need to survive? Why do we need this in the first
place? This is redistribution!" This is a battle "the people" not only have
lost typically, but failed to even take up an interest in defending for
themselves.

~~~
chrstphrhrt
Yeah I'm afraid that the trickle-down grifters will always cook up some
soundbites to knock any no-strings-attached benefits by pushing the freeloader
fallacy and people will fall for it. Which brings us back to square one, but
without anything needs based, causing a massive surge in poverty again.

Of course this has to be balanced with the utter paternalism of determining
"needs" in the first place. It clearly isn't enough on its own, and is also
ripe for abuse in different ways.

------
dmix
Didn’t George W Bush send a cheque out to every American? I figured that’s
what Romney had in mind more than full scale UBI.

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Yes and most of it was spent on paying off debt rather than buying tvs and
iPods to stimulate the economy. I know I put my check into my savings account
and didn't think about it again.

~~~
look_lookatme
Isn't that the biggest goal right now? Maintaining a healthy banking and
housing system by subsidizing rent, mortgages, debt payments etc? $1000 a
month doesn't seem like a stimulus, it seems like a bridge to the other side.

~~~
dfxm12
Better than $1000 would be codified protections for tenants or borrowers. Yes,
this doesn't have to be an either-or thing, but I'd still want to have the law
on my side.

I guess what I mean is that in order to fix, as Yang says, the biggest winner
take _all_ economy, you have to do something different than _just_ throw money
at it (lest the winners take that, too). The goal should be to address why
we're here in the first place to make sure it doesn't happen again (at least
not to this level), and not to just barely get by and bounce right back to
being one inconvenience away from ruin.

------
beastcoast
The problem with UBI is that most versions of it would essentially liquidate
social services that people would normally receive. UBI only makes sense in
addition to the other parts of a comprehensive safety net (universal housing
and healthcare), not as a replacement.

~~~
bavell
Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs
for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that
gives me cash which I can use for anything? I'm the one who best knows how to
effectively allocate those resources in my life. E.g. What good are food
stamps when I have no gas (or car) to get to the store?

There are some social services that are necessary and beneficial but these
should be built on top of a UBI foundation for maximum effectiveness.

~~~
asdf9240
> I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my
> life.

Some people do not get good enough education and do not know how to
effectively allocate resources.

> There are some social services that are necessary and beneficial but these
> should be built on top of a UBI foundation for maximum effectiveness.

Do you mean the other way around? Necessary social services should be the
foundation with UBI built on top of it. Social services can do some things
better than UBI can even when assuming everyone uses their UBI completely
rationally.

~~~
derrick_jensen
Exactly. If you knew how to best allocate resources in your life, you probably
wouldn't be in a situation where you need UBI.

------
monadic2
Yang was right in the sense that UBI is going to make more and more sense
moving forward. I am still unclear how this would intersect with e.g.
healthcare needs, which I believe is fundamentally an easier problem to solve
for greater immediate effect.

~~~
godelski
I think the idea here is that people that are sick can actually take time off.
If you've worked in these kinds of jobs you show up to work sick because you
can't miss a day, because you can't have a smaller paycheck. So a little more
money eases this and gives more leverage to workers.

~~~
dfxm12
$1000/mo gives you some leverage, but at the end of the day, not being tied to
your job just so you can have decent and affordable health insurance gives you
more. This doesn't even talk about stuff money can't buy, like mandatory paid
sick leave.

Instead of trying to just "ease this", why not try to eliminate it?

~~~
godelski
I get frustrated with answers like this. It sets up an __OR__ question when
one didn't exist. I mean the discussion is about Andrew Yang's UBI. He also
supported single payer. Why is this an __OR__ discussion? We don't have to
fight when we're on the same side.

------
grecy
We don't have to entirely speculate, we can look at existing evidence.

Australia has the most liberal welfare in the world. Anyone over 18 can get
$984 per month, and up to another $242 in rent assistance. [1]

It has nothing to do with your previous employment history, or being fired, or
anything like that. In fact, you can get it if you've never had a job in your
life. You need to be "actively looking for work" which in reality means fill
out a few job applications and forms every week. It's easy, I've done it.

You can't live a glamorous life, but you can certainly live. Especially if you
get 3-4 people in a cheap rental, you'll have enough money to surf everyday,
or watch TV, or smoke weed or do whatever else you want.

Yes, there are people that do exactly that, and probably will for all time.
Has it ruined the Australian economy? nope. Has there been rampant inflation?
nope.

I know it's not exactly UBI because if you have a paying job you can't get
this money. So it's not "extra" money for everyone, but money for those that
can't/won't or don't find paying work. It's interesting because it shows what
percentage of people choose to sit around and do nothing with their lives and
get free money - not that many [2]. When you dig into the numbers and take out
age pensioners, people with disabilities and students (who get paid to go to
university), you see that about 1.2 million Australian get welfare payments,
which is just less than 5% of the population.

Keep in mind Australia has extremely low violent crime rates, and has one the
highest happiness indexes in the world, and Melbourne is often voted the
world's most livable city (or it comes in 2nd). [4]

Here's a great breakdown of how Australia spends it's welfare money [3]

Please, look at what other countries are doing and learn from it, don't just
endlessly speculate about all the terrible ways UBI (or something like the
above) might destroy things.

[1] [https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-
world-h...](https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-how-
does-australia-stack-up/)

[2] [http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-half-to-two-
thirds-o...](http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-half-to-two-thirds-of-
the-australian-population-receiving-a-government-benefit-41027)

[3] [https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-
welfare/australia...](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-
welfare/australias-welfare-2017/contents/summary)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Liveability_Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Liveability_Ranking)

~~~
datashow
OK. Then why not any of those places become the innovation engine of the
world? I heard people would become more creative and innovative under those
circumstances.

~~~
wenc
You might now know this if you live in North America because Australia hardly
enters our consciousness or our news cycles, but in many parts of the world
Australia has a reputation of being a very innovative country, especially in
physical engineering and software. Part of it has to do with their anti-
authoritarian heritage and survivalist mindset--they don't take hierarchy too
seriously. Whether their creativity is helped by a generous welfare society or
not, I'm not sure, but you definitely can't say Australians aren't innovative.

~~~
datashow
My question is "why not any of those places become the innovation engine of
the world". I didn't even mention Australia.

------
redis_mlc
There is a precedent to this situation.

During the Great Depression/Dust Bowl in the 1920's, government officials were
adamantly opposed to giving cash or food to citizens. Moral hazard, and all
that.

The result was that:

\- there were food riots

\- some Americans starved to death

\- Washington, D.C. was occupied by protesters living in tent cities, and the
military had to intervene to prevent government buildings from being stormed.

------
teyc
I was trying to think of parallels with the programming world, and perhaps
this analogy might make sense to some people.

Sometimes, the software we maintain accumulates so much tech debt that it
becomes very difficult to make any headway. By setting aside some development
time to address these issues, we enable developers to gain velocity again.

In a similar way, sometimes we see poor people make illogical economic
choices, simply because of a cash crunch. When people are poor, they have too
many competing priorities that require urgent attention, and they find
themselves caught in a series of wicked choices. A Harvard study suggests that
poverty causes 13 point drop in IQ.

The right level of UBI may actually improve the way energy and capital is
deployed. It also protects a lot of small employers from economic shocks by
smoothing out the velocity of money.

Many readers are rightly concerned about the moral hazard introduced through
redistribution of wealth. However, seen through the lens of tech debt and
investment, UBI is relatively straight forward way of investing in the future.

------
m3nu
This would be a kind of monetary stimulus. Helicopter money. Could be more
effective than lowering interest rates further.

------
oxymoran
He was right. He was right before the pandemic and he’s even more right now.
Whenever this ends, it’s going create even more incentive for employers to
automate. Some of these jobs are going to disappear over the next few weeks
and they may never come back.

------
speby
UBI ... providing direct services for/to the poor ... or a blend, will never
resolve some people from "being poor" or adding "burden" to the system despite
the system giving them "a minimum of what they need to survive." You can give
a mentally ill person $1,000 a month for years and every time he gets the
check, maybe he hands it over to a slum lord who secretly threatens the safety
or has "tricked" the mentally ill person into giving him the money instead.
Bottom line: Giving that person the money every month doesn't "fix" the
mentally ill person's problem(s). It's just another roundabout way to try and
minimize poor-dom.

All of these solutions are potentially workable, or a blend. I think if
anything what we should focus more on is which methods (or blend of methods)
works to minimize poor-dom the "most" compared to many of the others, while
also balancing the overall cost to deliver said methods on society.

~~~
digitaltrees
Except that most people that are poor are not mentally ill. In fact most
people that are poor can handle money and their life just fine...they just
don't get paid enough.

------
Intermernet
The combination of UBI and universal health care would mean that combating a
pandemic would be much easier than it currently is. Everyone stays at home and
self isolates for 2 weeks. Curve flattened. Bills payed.

Ah well, it's a pity the side effects apparently include some McCarthyist
caricature of communism /s

------
kova12
I think his most compelling policy is not UBI, but giving the people money to
spend on politics. This country is suffocated by special interests, which
create draconian laws for all of us to follow just so that they can collect a
little bit ore money. Just filing the taxes alone is a monumentally
frustrating experience. This needs to be streamlined, but it will never be
until corporations are stripped from their lobbying.

~~~
Fellshard
Anything that generates a feedback loop where politicians give you tax money
to spend on politicians has an instant smell to me. There may be other ways to
accomplish this, but that feedback loop stinks to high heaven on initial
examination.

~~~
droopyEyelids
You might want to try a neti pot, because you seem to be missing the smell of
the government giving billions to large corporation in a way that accomplishes
the same feedback loop you're mentioning.

That is the way the system has been working for decades. For example, airlines
have been doing stock buybacks with all their profits for the last several
years, and now they don't have the money to weather 2 months of coronavirus,
so they'll need a bailout. Then, watch for more stock buybacks and executive
bonuses.

You're right it smells, but it's time that graft was extended to the people of
this country, who will actually spend it and help the economy a bit, rather
than sending it indirectly to the bank accounts of the wealthiest people in
the country.

~~~
Fellshard
Nowhere in what I said have I defended similar feedback loops. They stink no
matter what form they take, and two wrongs don't make a right.

------
blackrock
Just build more homes!

Build apartment high rises and condominium complexes, that people can own,
with 15 years of work. Why should we be forced to work for 30 years as a slave
to pay off some bank’s mortgage?

It’s not our damn fault, that politicians are inept and can’t do the right
thing, by providing affordable homes.

Socialize the housing market. This is a basic human right, but the greed of
capitalism is forcing everyone to pay insane prices for their housing.

------
WaitWaitWha
The problem with UBI is what others have already pointed out. My conclusions
are from personal observation, so it is anecdotal and it is a generalization
as most societal woes are.

There will always be a group of individuals who are content with the minimum
without making any effort. This group will not work to gain more. They are
just content at not working and getting the minimum wage and additional
government handouts.

My experience is from a communist country. The shoddy craftsmanship for
buildings, cars, services all around in my opinion was direct result for all
the promised universal basic "something". In the beginning it all seemed good
and well, but as more and more people got on the UB something, the less and
less production/service was done.

This is not a communist/socialist economic problem, but a human nature problem
in my opinion. We always go for the least amount of effort, for the most
amount of reward.

To this effect, I cannot see how to prevent UBI pushing the lowest common
level of participation in the society as a producer.

~~~
snidane
Definition of work and productivity is arbitrary. You can think of these
people taking the monthly UBI, shopping for groceries and eating it as
meaningful work in quest for continuation of human race. I wouldn't see that
as completely zero value add.

As long as others work more than basic subsistence we'll be fine.

------
JDiculous
One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our
society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel
about slavery.

UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's
also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances,
no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private
employers, that you belong to society, you are deserving of a modest
respectable standard of living, and you are entitled to some of the proceeds
of the wealth generated by the land with which you've been excluded.

~~~
sub7
Agreed that everyone deserves a basic standard of living as a human right but
disagree that UBI is the path to that.

Giving money to people instantly creates a class of beggars. Beggars with
voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more and more for no
more work. It's the road to ruin.

My suggestion is a set of hospitals, schools and housing that is super basic
but sufficient to give people dignity and opportunity. These would be free for
anyone, paid for via taxes on capital gains.

~~~
zentiggr
It's funny that you say a class of beggars would be created, when most UBI
scenarios I've read about show that people tend to try to improve their
situations in whichever way makes the most sense...

some who can finally afford basic water food and housing start seeking
medical/psych help they couldn't afford.

Some get more schooling to improve their employment prospects.

Some buy a car to start saving themselves hours a week on public
transportation and therefore have more time to live.

And a small percentage don't get it and squander it.

You see the policy turning into a UK-style dole... I think you don't see the
enormous benefits that reaching the point of 'having enough' can provide.

I've recently started making more than I have in the rest of my life... and
besides finally paying down our household debt, and accomplishing the cash-
starved household repairs, I'm starting to look at volunteering and truly
giving to charities _because I can_.

Just providing basic services doesn't give people the same options, the
mobility to do with their lives what makes sense in their circumstances.

~~~
sub7
I really want capitalism to give you a wage to do all those things. I
understand it's been cronified and monopoloies have fucked over a whole lot of
people.

The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for being
born. We need to enforce fair markets, fair wages etc.

For those at the very bottom, I want dignity, a free education, and if still
unsuccessful access to a low skill job that can pay basic bills.

~~~
dangravell
> The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for
> being born.

You write that as if it's some kind of natural law, as if the second clause is
_obviously_ more absurd than the first. It's that the case and, if so, why?

~~~
sub7
When you decouple income from output or wages from work, you're essentially
devaluing work and incentivizing people to work less or (more destructively)
work worse.

It's not an absurd thought at all, it's a very natural solution to propose in
environments like we have today. It's also been tried in many different
countries in many different time periods. Leads to failure every single time.

------
drenginian
No surely a trickle down would work better?

------
helen___keller
Taking a long-term view, UBI is a good idea, full stop.

Societies' advancements in technology & productivity decrease the effective
cost (as percentage of GDP) of meeting the very base needs of a human being.
Food, cheap medicines like tylenol & antibiotics, most facets of human life
are dirt cheap from a production perspective, and this trend will continue
from automation.

This means someone who is currently unproductive can be subsidized to survive
for 10 full years, and if there's even a small chance they become a high-
productivity individual afterwards then society comes out ahead on net value.
The actual numbers depend on how low we can push production costs with
automation, but in the limit as human survival cost approaches zero relative
to the economy, the only rational decision is to subsidize all human survival
and work within that framework to encourage citizens to be even more
productive. After all, if someone dies of lack of healthcare, or starves, or
lives in the streets and doesn't know how to get back off the streets, that's
a net loss to humanity in opportunity cost. If that person had just been
subsidized through their hard times, there's a non-zero chance they become
high value to society.

UBI allows us to reap these benefits in an efficient manner: using the free
market. But, speaking today not in the long term, there are exceptions to the
low cost of human survival which would hamper UBI from being effective.

In our (American) society, there are a few base needs that we _haven 't_
adequately driven down costs. Shelter mostly, also any healthcare that is more
involved than taking a pill a day (notably: seeing a doctor). Humankind in
general CAN make these costs low for the most part, but American society in
particular has NOT made these costs low.

We need to address the housing & urban development crisis, and we need to
address the healthcare crisis.

The housing & urban development crisis is a system of regulations and inaction
that have simultaneously limited the amount of housing near desirable
locations, while failing to provide efficient transportation to bring people
in from less desirable locations. In other words, housing costs are dominated
not by the cost to build a house, but the cost of land. This can be addressed
by reforming our awful & piecemeal zoning, construction, and transportation
systems and their respective regulations. Optionally, some might suggest that
we try to fight against the ongoing trends of urban consolidation; if people
have a reason to move to upstate new york or the midwest, instead of to NYC,
then housing costs aren't a problem. But right now all economic incentives
point to moving to NYC metro, given the choices, and personally I don't like
to wage war against the tide of the free market.

The healthcare crisis is one of rent seeking by insurance companies upon our
awful half-assed nearly-free-market approach to healthcare. Quite simply,
people don't have choices (your healthcare options are restricted by your
insurance, which is restricted by your employer), and no prices on anything
are known ahead of time. This adds up to an ultra-inefficient system. By doing
just about anything that stops the rent seeking of the insurance system upon
the healthcare system so we can more efficiently treat a healthy society
(there are free market solutions, but personally I would put my weight behind
medicare-for-all).

In conclusion, if we give everyone $1000/mo, that's going to get funneled into
bidding up rent in big cities or surprise healthcare bills. We need to solve
these issues with our free market before we take a free market approach to the
common welfare; until then I would advocate more targeted approaches that are
less likely to invite rent seeking behavior (foodstamps and such).

------
bluedino
>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck;
almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill

On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money.

I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but
78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it
together.

~~~
imafish
Again, blame the poor for their poverty.

Gives a nice tummy feel but does nothing good for society.

~~~
dang
It wasn't a particularly deep comment, but your reply breaks the site
guidelines. That's heading in the wrong direction. Please review
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and stick to the rules when posting here. Note this one:

" _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone
says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._"

~~~
imafish
Yeah. Fair enough

------
allovernow
The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we
should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's
plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single
unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life.

That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the
haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. There's a
point where it becomes unethical and/or counterproductive...but where that
point is perhaps remains to be seen.

~~~
nikofeyn
are you seriously arguing that heavily taxing insanely wealthy people is
unethical? i mean, we're literally living in a moment in which public school
closures means many kids don't have reliable access to food anymore. there are
_plenty_ of other examples in which people are seriously struggling. and
somehow taxing the wealthy is unethical. the fact that you bifurcate people
into the "haves" and "have nots" speaks volumes.

and of course UBI is literally wealth distribution. what would you consider
public schools, roads, infrastructure, and other things paid with taxes?

~~~
frobozz
> are you seriously arguing that heavily taxing insanely wealthy people is
> unethical?

I don't think that is what allovernow is saying at all.

> There's a point where it becomes unethical and/or counterproductive...but
> where that point is perhaps remains to be seen.

So, potentially

\- Tax the billionaires down to 999millionaires. Not unethical or
counterproductive in the slightest.

\- Implement a tax that makes every worker's net income identical. Probably
both counterproductive and unethical.

\- Implement a tax/UBI system that puts a worker's net income below that of a
non-worker. Definitely counterproductive, unsustainable and unethical.

The point that allovernow is describing is somewhere between those extremes.

------
timw4mail
I don't see how a universal basic income could be sustainable in any way.

You either have debt hyperinflation, or you have taxes high enough that the
universal basic income is meaningless.

~~~
RedneckBob
"you have taxes high enough that the universal basic income is meaningless."

Not true. You should read the UBI policy proposal that Yang created for his
POTUS run. You can find them here:

\- [https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-
faq/](https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/) \-
[https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-
dividend/](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/)

~~~
wenc
This article [1] is one of the few to have taken Andrew Yang's UBI policies
seriously and on their merits (unlike most others that summarily dismiss
them), thought through some of their implications, found shortcomings, but
still ended up still largely acknowledging that they could work.

I think a well-designed UBI could work. The tricky part is that UBI is one of
those experiments that has to be done on the large, and pulling back if it
doesn't work out is challenging. Any errors in implementation and design are
potentially very expensive.

[1] [https://theweek.com/articles/858097/andrew-yangs-ubi-
problem](https://theweek.com/articles/858097/andrew-yangs-ubi-problem)

------
buzzkillington
Why he isn't:

Suggested income: $12,000

US Population: $327,200,000

Total cost for first year: $3,926,400,000,000

Total government expenditure for US: $3,800,000,000

So we would need to shut down everything the government does to afford his
UBI. I personally don't feel like going for free market ICBM solutions is the
best way to run an army, but each to their own.

~~~
JCharante
Aren't there restriction like only for citizens 18+ and under Yang's policy
it'd be you either take UBI or other subsidies you qualify for.

~~~
buzzkillington
UBI only works when it isn't universal, basic or income.

At that point you have invented a worse welfare state.

