
The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income - kevin
https://spectacle.com/001/sam-altman-interview-universal-basic-income/
======
tobbyb
The UBI debate is fundamental to how we perceive society and what kind of
society we want to build into the future.

If one's idea of human society is people working to earn money. Fullstop. And
those who are better at it are the be all and end alls of human civilization
and progress and the ultimate aspiration. Then words like lazy, people will
not do anything, arguments that are generic enough to block any action, and
are actually red herrings enter the debate.

This seems to be a pretty impoverished view of humanity. But one that our
current capitalist system necessitates,

The other way is thinking of the billions of brains wasted every generation
just trying to survive, exactly what humans did 2000 years ago. Now imagine if
all these brains could be freed and god knows how much innovation, progress
and intellectual output can be unlocked into a completely different kind of
society. That's a vision.

But the reality is many will stick doggedly to the personal wealth and
achievement mantra and because of the disproportionate influence of wealth and
entrenched interests in our societies right from feudalism to now, and UBI or
any such fanciful idea will be sabotaged and blocked.

~~~
dahdum
"The other way is thinking of the billions of brains wasted every generation
just trying to survive, exactly what humans did 2000 years ago. Now imagine if
all these brains could be freed and god knows how much innovation, progress
and intellectual output can be unlocked into a completely different kind of
society. That's a vision."

It's not so cut and dry. I don't believe that incentives under UBI will lead
to greater innovation. I see it as wonderful gift to the most intelligent and
self motivated, while killing the incentives to achieve _anything_ for so many
others.

I grew up in a poor rural area and have seen many examples of what guaranteed
monthly checks does to ambition. I believe kids growing up in the inevitable
"UBI communities" will be trapped even more strongly than in disadvantaged
communities now.

My objection is not about taxes or wealth distribution, but the ethics of
giving millions such a choice, much less making it the "default" one.

~~~
chesimov
A friendly note: 'cut and dried'. As an aside are these kind of remarks
welcomed or seen as pedantic?

~~~
felideon
I think appreciated if done tactfully, as you've done. The upvotes/downvotes
would decide.

TIL.
[https://english.stackexchange.com/a/34794](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/34794)

------
remarkEon
There's two issues that I don't think have been adequately addressed, or that
I missed, in the banter over this issue.

1) What would stop us from recreating the inefficient welfare state that
already exists on top of this new one when some people inevitably blow their
UBI on drugs/cheetos/whatever and don't have money for rent? It seems that for
this to work we'd have to maintain some intestinal fortitude to say "no" \-
and that to me sounds like a serious culture change in this country...which
gets me to my next, perhaps more contentious, point.

2) What role do immigrants play in this? Google's telling me there's 11m
illegal immigrants in the US right now (though I've seen higher estimates from
more hawkish folks). What about people on a visa who pay taxes? Would they
both get UBI from Uncle Sam? My view for both would be no, but some of my
peers who support UBI have argued that they should, pretty emphatically.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm detecting, at least in my circles, a lot
of overlap between people who believe in the "global citizen" model and those
who support this. Perhaps Altman's idea of basically just issuing shares of
USG is meant to get around this, but that sounds still half-baked at this
point, even if it is just a branding strategy. This, at its heart, is more of
a rights question and I don't think we've been thinking about it that way.

~~~
Suncho
1\. Why is it a problem for people to spend their money how they choose? If
people buy drugs and cheetos or whatever, then isn't that their call?

If people who need housing have the money to buy housing, but they're not
buying buying housing, then I agree that's a problem that needs to be
addressed. Do we see this in practice? Is there an epidemic of people who can
afford homes but are choosing to suffer in homelessness?

If so, then maybe we can add some free level of shelter to everyone in
addition to the basic income.

2\. If you give the basic income to immigrants too, then they'll spend that
money into your economy. This is a good thing. Withholding it from immigrants
would probably be harmful.

I know you brought up the "global citizen" model. An easy way for us to
achieve that model is just to start paying everyone in the world a basic
income. Whichever country does this first will probably become the world's
final superpower.

~~~
remarkEon
1\. It isn't, that's not what I'm saying (if you're talking about their
freedom to do something...if you're talking about society in general it seems
obvious that certain behaviors are bad and should be discouraged). But if
you're going to tax me, and then give this money away to people it seems
reasonable that I should have at least some say in what it's spent on...which
just gets us back to the same discussions about what UBI evolves into and the
kind of culture changes required for it to work (if it's even possible for it
to work...that is not a certainty).

2\. This "if you give the money they'll spend it in your economy" thing is I
think by no means clear. The largest cash source in Mexico is remittance
payments from the US. The reason I brought up the "global citizen" model is
because there's a lack of skepticism and critical analysis on it and people
make blanket statements like "the first country to give everyone in the world
money" are actually taken seriously.

~~~
Suncho
Good points.

> if you're talking about their freedom to do something...if you're talking
> about society in general it seems obvious that certain behaviors are bad and
> should be discouraged

Okay. So you want to discourage people buying cheetos and drugs. That's fine.
I agree that they can both be unhealthy. What's a good way to discourage the
purchase of these items?

Furthermore, pretty much any activity choose to spend your time doing can fall
somewhere on the continuum of worthwhileness. And different activities are
worthwhile to different extents to different people. But to what extent should
we be judging people's activities and disallowing certain activities? Should
it extend into how they spend their money? Does it make sense for these
restrictions only to apply to poor people? Why? I'm not saying there's an easy
answer here. I agree with you that some people need help making the right
decisions sometimes and I agree with you that we need laws to protect people.

> but if you're going to tax me, and then give this money away to people it
> seems reasonable that i should have at least some say in what it's spent on

I haven't said anything about taxing you. I'm not talking about taking your
money and giving it to someone else. I understand that some basic income
proponents think that it has to be "funded" through tax revenue, but I feel
that it's a mistake to frame things in this way. Increasing taxes doesn't
increase the level of basic income we can afford.

That being said, the purpose of the government is to represent the collective
interests of the people, so you absolutely _should_ have a say in how the
government spends their money (it's not your money). And if you have strong
feelings about how certain types of spending will help or hurt people, then
you're obviously free to voice those concerns.

But I don't see how it hurts people to give them money they can spend on
anything they choose. And if we really want to deter people from buying drugs
and cheetos, I'm not sure that putting absolute conditions on how poor
individuals spend their income is an optimal way to achieve that.

> which just gets us back to the same discussions about what UBI evolves into
> and the kind of culture changes required for it to work (if it's even
> possible for it to work...that is not a certainty).

You've been alluding to a required culture change. What would that entail,
specifically?

> This "if you give the money they'll spend it in your economy" thing is I
> think by no means clear. The largest cash source in Mexico is remittance
> payments from the US.

Well, some of the basic income will get spent in our economy. To the extent
that some of it goes straight to Mexico never to return, it's roughly the
equivalent of the government spending money by tossing it down a hole. That
portion of the spending has no effect on our economy. This means that we can
increase the amount of the basic income even further because our economy has
left over capacity to absorb more spending.

> The reason I brought up the "global citizen" model is because there's a lack
> of skepticism and critical analysis on it and people make blanket statements
> like "the first country to give everyone in the world money" are actually
> taken seriously.

Fair enough. I am often not taken seriously when I say things like that. But
that doesn't mean I haven't thought about it thoroughly. So thanks for taking
me seriously and asking me questions to try to understand where I'm coming
from.

------
jpao79
If I were Sam A. instead of (or in addition to) funding UBI, I would fund R&D
projects which enable people to live as off grid and self-sufficiently as
possible with all the comforts of urban/suburban living without all the costs.

Basically strive to enable Amish style living but instead of trying to
maintain an complete early 19th way of life, include elements which are near
free due to automated manufacturing.

You supply the land (lot in an exurban area near a major metro with a
temperate climate) and labor and the rest is available at a minimal recurring
cost. 1.) Housing - Permit ready Ikea like house with mail order pre-cut 2x4
and panels 2.) Energy - Solar charged battery/heating/cooling 3.)
Transportation - 4 wheeled e-mountain bike 4.) Clothing - Target/Walmart 5.)
Food - Self grown heirloom tomatoes, quinoa with store bought supplements such
as cheap corn, meats, etc. 6.) Telecom - Long Range Wifi Receiver or Internet
Cafe 7.) Education - Khan Academy, home schooling 8.) Entertainment - Youtube
by DVD

The first two minutes of this video are pretty interesting/inspiring (not that
I'm ready to drop everything to start a farm or anything...yet):

Urban Farmer Curtis Stone
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHls2HEFudw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHls2HEFudw)

TLDR - Farming can teach you a lot about yourself.

~~~
Suncho
> If I were Sam A. instead of (or in addition to) funding UBI, I would fund
> R&D projects which enable people to live as off grid and self-sufficiently
> as possible with all the comforts of urban/suburban living without all the
> costs.

This would be a mistake. Self-sufficiency is very inefficient. By pooling our
resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously.

If everybody in the world tried to live like the Amish, we'd destroy the
planet in no time. That lifestyle was only sustainable when there were far
fewer humans.

~~~
contingencies
_Self-sufficiency is very inefficient. By pooling our resources, we can live
much more sustainably and prosperously._

Let's draw a parallel to cloud computing versus standalone computing, for the
sake of familiarity.

While you sure can get reliable and scalable storage services for less money
from a fat cloud provider, they're not equivalent to personally owned storage.
For example access times and performance differ, mutually shared human
language and the communications infrastructure become critical.

Let's draw a parallel to a windmill for flour production or a castle for
military defence within a small community. What you wind up with is a de-facto
political hierarchy emerging from centralization with its own dangers and
overheads.

In summary perhaps nature has shown us that population-wide specialization is
inefficient in the long term, and we should encourage diversity to survive
black swan events... there is a middle ground between total self-sufficiency
and totally shared infrastructure. The important thing is that we preserve a
mix of approaches.

~~~
jpao79
Great analogy. To take it further, what happens if/when Amazon and Google are
the only providers of any sort of cloud computing technology because all of
the independent computing providers are defunct and no one knows how to make
servers/disk drivers/SSDs except those two companies. Will they benevolently
keep the price of computing storage low? How about once Jeff Bezos and Larry
Page are no longer founders?

Then apply that thinking to Monsanto, Tyson, Archer Daniels and their pricing
power on food staples.

------
AmericanOP
In ancient Rome there were a few honest reformers who felt bread subsidies
(classical UBI) were deserved by the people. It was an economic argument (as
is Sam's) since Roman conquest generated massive wealth that did not reach the
masses who made it possible.

It was an honest attempt at economic reform by a few forward thinking leaders.
Within a generation the movement was captured by politicians who used its
popularity to further their ambitions. The fight against opponents self-
perpetuated and wins became more important than change. The program morphed to
the infamous bread and circuses, subsidizing a city of a million people that
ultimately collapsed.

I will aplaud the reformers but some things never change.

~~~
staunch
Not a good comparison.

The reformers (Gracchi brothers, Caesar, etc) wanted Roman citizens to have
their fair share of the actual _land_ that Rome conquered. Not regular hand
outs of grain. The idea was that citizens would actually own a piece of The
Roman Dream. Land is income, then and now.

Never happened. The wealthiest Romans were successful in assassinating
reformers and dominating the Roman 99% for a thousand years.

~~~
Balgair
I'll second this as a poor analogy. Roman politics during the Second Punic
war, the Sulla era, and then the Civil Wars/Imperial Birth is a _very_
complicated thing and not very open to a UBI analogy. At best, maybe the grain
dole of Julio-Claudian dynasty is better, but not for the whole Rome's span,
and especially not the Republic until Sulla.

For an _Excellent_ intro into Roman history see this very good podcast:
[http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/arch...](http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/archives.html)

------
DoreenMichele
_The question I’m interested in: How do we unlock maximum human potential?_

Last I checked, welfare does the opposite of this. It helps people merely
subsist, not strive for greatness.

Then he goes on to compare YC to basic income. Seriously? They take a share in
your company and help you develop it. That isn't _money for nothing._

If he weren't a millionaire and the current president of YC, would we keep
seeing articles about his vision on the front page of HN? I don't think so. I
don't believe his arguments are that cogent or compelling.

I find it increasingly sad and frustrating to see yet another _Sam Altman on
UBI_ piece here. The mantra on HN is that ideas matter and that HN wants to
deemphasize names and avoid promoting pieces being posted merely because they
are about some celebrity. I think these articles fail that test.

If you take Sam Altman out of this article, would we discuss it at all? If the
answer to that is _no,_ then why are we discussing it?

~~~
Suncho
> _The question I’m interested in: How do we unlock maximum human potential?_

> Last I checked, welfare does the opposite of this. It helps people merely
> subsist, not strive for greatness.

It depends what you mean by "human potential." I agree with you that "human
potential" is not the right way to frame what basic income unlocks. By giving
people money to spend, it unlocks the economy's potential to produce wealth
for the people. We won't produce wealth that people won't buy and basic income
allows more people to buy more wealth.

It also gives people the freedom to choose how they spend their time. We have
a lot of pointless jobs in the economy that really only exist as an excuse to
provide people incomes. A basic income can allow us to eliminate those jobs.
The people who aren't working at those useless jobs anymore are now free to do
something useful with their time.

So in that sense, basic income does unlock human potential. But by boosting
demand and by doing it in a way that flattens out the demand curve, it unlocks
resources in general, not just labor.

> If he weren't a millionaire and the current president of YC, would we keep
> seeing articles about his vision on the front page of HN? I don't think so.
> I don't believe his arguments are that cogent or compelling.

I agree with you that his arguments could certainly be more compelling. But
he's not wrong that basic income would be a good thing.

> If you take Sam Altman out of this article, would we discuss it at all? If
> the answer to that is no, then why are we discussing it?

I would certainly be discussing it. Maybe nobody would be listening to me. But
I've been involved with basic income since 2011 and I think it's hugely
important.

~~~
dahdum
"By giving people money to spend, it unlocks the economy's potential to
produce wealth for the people. We won't produce wealth that people won't buy
and basic income allows more people to buy more wealth."

Doesn't UBI reduce the economic productivity by both driving up the cost of
labor through increased taxation and lowering the supply? Until (if) we are in
a post-scarcity world how will lowering productive output ever increase the
overall wealth?

I don't see how 1 Apple can offset 1 million unemployed, and really skeptical
such a company could grow to that size/profitability under the necessary
labor/tax system to support UBI.

~~~
Suncho
> Doesn't UBI reduce the economic productivity by both driving up the cost of
> labor through increased taxation

No. First of all, there's no reason that basic income has to have any taxes
associated with it. A common mistake people (including the government) make is
to assume that government spending must be funded by taxation. It doesn't have
to be.

If the government spends and the economy responds productively to that
spending, then you're fine. Taxing is a separate issue. You should only really
tax when you want to remove money from a specific part of the economy.

To put it succinctly, increasing taxes does not increase the amount of money
the government can usefully spend _unless_ you directly taxed the use of some
resource and the spending is going to put that particular resource to use in a
more desirable way.

> and lowering the supply?

Labor is a resource that goes into production just like any other resource.
Depending on the context, labor can be substituted for various other resources
(including foreign labor, automation, etc.).

So it's possible that some forms of labor could become more expensive under
basic income. But it could just as easily go the other way. There are plenty
of jobs people would love to do if only they could afford the low pay. These
desirable potentially socially beneficial jobs might get cheaper.

It's hard to say exactly what the effect of basic income will be on the labor
market. But, in aggregate, we do know that the economy is capable of producing
at levels higher than current output levels. If we give more people the
ability to spend money, we'll produce more stuff to meet the demand.

> I don't see how 1 Apple can offset 1 million unemployed, and really
> skeptical such a company could grow to that size/profitability under the
> necessary labor/tax system to support UBI.

I can understand why you're skeptical. Just keep in mind that we're currently
introducing many inefficiencies into the system just as an excuse to provide
people incomes through the labor market. And even then, we're still not maxing
out the productive capacity of the economy.

I would encourage you to ponder what you think might happen if the government
stopped trying to balance its budget and just spent as much money as the
economy could absorb without causing inflation?

What amount should that be? How does the distribution of the spending affect
the amount they can spend? Surely if they spent it by tossing it down a hole,
there would be no limit. But there is a limit. Where does that limit come
from? How do taxes factor in?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> If the government spends and the economy responds productively to that
> spending, then you're fine. Taxing is a separate issue. You should only
> really tax when you want to remove money from a specific part of the
> economy.

Or when you don't want your government to run a deficit. Or when you don't
want to finance your government by printing money. That always ends badly, no
matter how clever the mechanism is this time, or how many people say "it's
different this time".

> To put it succinctly, increasing taxes does not increase the amount of money
> the government can usefully spend unless you directly taxed the use of some
> resource and the spending is going to put that particular resource to use in
> a more desirable way.

I don't think the economy works the way you think it works...

~~~
Suncho
> > If the government spends and the economy responds productively to that
> spending, then you're fine. Taxing is a separate issue. You should only
> really tax when you want to remove money from a specific part of the
> economy.

> Or when you don't want your government to run a deficit.

Why wouldn't you want to run a deficit? What do you feel is the downside? Are
there times when it's appropriate to run a deficit and times when it's not?
Which times are which and how do you tell the difference?

I have my own answers to these questions. But I'm asking for your opinion.

> Or when you don't want to finance your government by printing money.

What do you feel the difference is between deficit spending and printing
money?

> That always ends badly, no matter how clever the mechanism is this time, or
> how many people say "it's different this time".

Does it? Why do you suppose it is that many developed nations are running
budget deficits? Do you feel that this is a mistake? What do you think would
happen if all governments balanced their budgets?

Again, I have my own answers to these questions and I'm looking for your
opinion.

> I don't think the economy works the way you think it works...

How do you think it works?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> What do you feel the difference is between deficit spending and printing
> money?

The difference is whether the government borrows money, or simply creates it.
(And yes, I am aware that borrowing money can create money, via the magic of
fractional reserve banking.) When the government borrows the money, they have
to pay it back, or at least pay interest on it. This puts some constraint on
the government. Whereas if the government creates the money, there is no
constraint - it can spend as much money as it wants. If you don't see why that
might be a problem, let me ask you: Have you looked at Congress lately?

But if the government is using the money to create things of value to the
society, what's the problem? That's a reasonable position - _if_ the
government is doing so. And for some government spending, that's true. But for
a fair amount of it, no, it is not invested in creating things of value to
society, and so no, society does not get a return from it.

Take the military, for example. It keeps other nations from _destroying_
things of value to our society, but it doesn't _create_ any value. (It creates
jobs, and profits, but not anything of productive value.) And that means that
it's a drain on society - the people who are in the service, or creating
weapons, could be doing something else of more value to society - teaching
children, or repairing roads and bridges, or building a better air traffic
control system.

So if Congress can create money, it can divert as much of the actual
productive ability of the economy - people and materials - to whatever
Congress thinks will get more votes. Again, I say, look at Congress. Do you
really want to give them the ability to steer unlimited amounts of the economy
to do whatever they think should be done? I don't. It's a horrible idea.

I was going to answer more of your questions, but this is already long enough.

~~~
Suncho
> When the government borrows the money, they have to pay it back, or at least
> pay interest on it.

Sort of. Each individual debt obligation has to be repaid as it comes due, but
that's different from saying that total volume of debt ever needs to be paid
down. The government can be meeting its debt obligations while at the same
time increasing the total amount of debt. As long as there's a market for
government debt, they can continue to roll over their debt.

They have to pay interest too, but this isn't exactly a problem. They can
always borrow to pay the interest. And if treasury yields get too high, the
Fed can buy up excess government debt. Then one part of the government is just
paying interest to another part of the government anyway.

> This puts some constraint on the government. Whereas if the government
> creates the money, there is no constraint - it can spend as much money as it
> wants.

The borrowing is creating money. You can deficit spend without the bookkeeping
of issuing treasury securities etc., but the result is the similar. The
ultimate constraint is still the amount of spending that the economy can
productively absorb.

> If you don't see why that might be a problem, let me ask you: Have you
> looked at Congress lately?

Sure. If Congress doesn't understand how deficits work and you can trick them
into creating money without explicitly borrowing (even though you're
technically still borrowing), then great. But that's politics, not economics.

> But for a fair amount of it, no, it is not invested in creating things of
> value to society, and so no, society does not get a return from it.

Correct. If the government spends money in a way that burns resources, it
takes those resources away from the productive economy. But if the government
spends money in a way that doesn't help, but doesn't hurt either, they can
spend unlimited amounts of it without really changing the constraints on how
much additional money they can spend. For example, if they printed money and
spent it by tossing it down a hole, they could do it for as long as they
wanted without hurting anyone, but without helping anyone either.

> And that means that it's a drain on society - the people who are in the
> service, or creating weapons, could be doing something else of more value to
> society - teaching children, or repairing roads and bridges, or building a
> better air traffic control system.

Yup. If labor is scarce and you're making people work on things that are not
benefiting society, then you're taking a valuable resource (labor) away from
the productive economy. I don't think we're particularly short on labor right
now, but the same type of reasoning applies to any resource.

> So if Congress can create money, it can divert as much of the actual
> productive ability of the economy - people and materials - to whatever
> Congress thinks will get more votes. Again, I say, look at Congress. Do you
> really want to give them the ability to steer unlimited amounts of the
> economy to do whatever they think should be done? I don't. It's a horrible
> idea.

They already have that ability. I want them to use it to provide a basic
income. Maybe that means making basic income more popular so it becomes one of
the things that gets them votes.

------
babaganoosh89
Doing some back of the envelope math, US gov revenue is 3.31 trillion and the
population size is 323.1 million. Which leaves about $10244 per capita to play
with.

How would a BI work, give people $7k per year and save 3k for military and
basic services? Seems like BI would need big tax increases to become viable.

~~~
Danihan
The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk
math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis.

$12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions.
That's just over the poverty level. That's not enough to live on and it's
practically a bonus for some members of this site. It's not enough to do
anything with. Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive
hours to obtain the best house on the block.

But just to do that in the US you are talking about 3 trillion dollars (300
million x $10k for easy math) that you have to find in the budget. As you
stated, that IS the entire budget.

Now basic income advocates will say you can make up some if not most of that
by cutting welfare programs, but given the nature of welfare programs - good
luck. That UBI stipend is also not enough to pay for healthcare, so you can't
cut that.

How exactly do you convince a nation which already isn't willing to pay for
healthcare to pay for basic income, too?

I'd love to be wrong, but I've never seen any numbers that are workable,
especially in a political climate anything like today. There could be a
complete paradigm shift in the future, where machines literally take care of
all needs in an automated way, but that's such a strange reality that welfare
reform is honestly about the last problem we'd need to discuss.

~~~
drb91
I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. The math has never been the problem; it's
always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die.

~~~
stcredzero
_The math has never been the problem; it 's always been taxing the wealthy
that causes the conversation to die._

The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized
share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political
and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent
could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts
of the US:

[http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-
vill...](http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-village-
with-88-cent-rent/)

~~~
drb91
You must be joking. Wealth people? Depart with wealth? Willingly? They can pay
their taxes now and don't; I wouldn't hold your breath waiting.

No, to tax rich people you have to seize the damn money.

~~~
stcredzero
_You must be joking. Wealth people? Depart with wealth? Willingly?_

People who fund raise for non-profits convince the wealthy to part with their
wealth all the time. If we changed society to make this _the way_ to have a
legacy as a rich person, then it would happen. Cultures around the world have
convinced their wealthy and powerful to do far wackier things than endow an
intentional community.

History shows us that the crazy thing to do is to try and force very smart
people with lots of resources and power to do something they find distasteful.
The same thing to do is to change how people think, feel, and behave, using
historical models as precedents.

~~~
drb91
Well there is some success in getting rich people to divorce with the majority
of their money, but as a general rule you don’t make money by giving it away.
I don’t see any tax scheme succeeding if it depends on the participation of
the taxed—that will be abused by the rich, who have more resources to launder
money.

~~~
stcredzero
Getting the wealthy to depart with their money works if it's voluntary, and
the impetus comes from the culture they want to be a part of. When it doesn't
work, it's when other people try to force them to do it. Also, if you look at
cultures where heavy progressive taxation works, you'll find there is already
a communal thread of culture on which it's based.

Schemes to tax the rich and powerful only succeed with the participation of
the rich and powerful. That is what you are also saying, but your view is
distorted because you are othering "the rich."

------
pdonis
Sam makes an interesting analogy with Y Combinator as providing a form of
"basic income" to people trying to start startups. However, this analogy
ignores a huge difference in the two cases: the people who are trying to start
startups with Y Combinator's help are a highly self-selected group. Giving
them "basic income" often turns out to be highly productive, yes. But that
does not imply that giving basic income to everybody would turn out to be
highly productive.

To be fair, he does describe what he's attempting as an "experiment" and
acknowledges that it might not work out the way he thinks.

~~~
creaghpatr
Also when a startup burns out their runway it dies and investors probably
won't fund the same idea twice.

What happens to the people who blow their UBI on drugs/gambling etc instead of
healthcare and prosperity. Who will pay to re-fund them? (and fund them
again?)

~~~
skybrian
My guess is that it would be handled the same as senior citizens who gamble or
drink. Next month another check arrives, same as usual.

But who worries about this, or would consider cutting social security due to
drinking or gambling?

~~~
pdonis
_> who worries about this, or would consider cutting social security due to
drinking or gambling?_

We don't consider that because we maintain the polite assumption that people
get paid from social security after they retire because they paid into it
while they were working. There are plenty of cases where that's not true, but
we allow ourselves to treat them as outliers, and assume that the money people
get from social security is basically "their" money; the government just saved
it for them.

UBI removes the option to think of things this way. I think a lot of UBI
proponents have not fully considered the implications of that.

~~~
skybrian
Part of the point of UBI is to confront this "if you don't work, you can't
eat" attitude head-on, and change it to one where all citizens deserve a
certain amount of money (however small, to start) just for being people who
stay out of trouble.

It's an uphill battle to be sure.

~~~
pdonis
_> this "if you don't work, you can't eat" attitude_

It's not an "attitude", it's a fact of life. In order for you to eat, a
certain amount of work has to be done. Why should someone else do it if you're
perfectly capable? We've already made it a lot easier for you by having a huge
economy where you can do all sorts of things that can be traded for food,
instead of having to grow all your own food yourself.

The attitude that really needs to be confronted is that the amount of work
that needs to be done by some human in order for that human to eat is fixed.
It isn't; technology can reduce it. (And in fact it already has, by quite a
lot; that's why only about one in twenty people has to work at growing food
today, compared with about 19 in 20 a couple of centuries ago.) But there are
huge political barriers to technology reducing it further: governments meddle
in all kinds of ways that artificially inflate the cost of getting enough food
and other necessities. What we really need to do is stop doing that, so
entrepreneurs like Sam Altman can use technology to make necessities so cheap
that nobody will have to worry about UBI, because anyone who isn't actually
disabled or otherwise incapable will be able to earn a living.

~~~
skybrian
There's no "fact of life" here, it's just outdated ideology. If only one
person in twenty is needed to grow food (in the US, presumably), that means we
can easily feed everyone. But we can't find jobs for everyone. Automation will
make it worse.

~~~
pdonis
_> If only one person in twenty is needed to grow food (in the US,
presumably), that means we can easily feed everyone._

Who is this "we"? When I translate what you say into plain English, what I get
is: One in twenty people will grow food and be forced to give it to everyone
else, whether they want to or not. I agree that is an outdated ideology, yes.
But the fact that food needs to be produced somehow is not.

 _> we can't find jobs for everyone_

Again, who is "we"? Whose job is it to find jobs for everyone? Why is that
necessary?

 _> Automation will make it worse_

Automation can make things cheaper and cheaper; that's why it has continued to
increase. That's making things better, not worse.

What makes things worse is pretending that products and services, whether
produced by automation or any other means, will magically get distributed to
where they are needed, or that "we" will magically decide correctly how that
is to be done. That is indeed an outdated ideology, but unfortunately many
people have not yet gotten the memo.

What will make things better is admitting that products and services have to
be produced, and then traded for other products and services, in order for
people to get the things they need. So the more efficient that process is, the
less effort it will take for people to get the things they need, and therefore
the easier it will be for them to do so.

~~~
skybrian
The money flow for Social Security is taxes -> senior citizens -> Walmart (and
other stores) -> suppliers. The money flow for basic income would be similar.
How stuff gets produced isn't magic; it's much the same as today's economy.

If the paychecks stop coming and nothing replaces them, consumers stop buying
and you get a recession or worse. The key is to keep the money flowing from
companies to consumers in some other way. The clever bit with the "Great
American Share" idea is that the money gets collected via dividends instead of
taxes.

~~~
pdonis
_> The money flow for Social Security is taxes ->_

No, the money flow for Social Security is payments that were previously made
by the recipients. At least, that's how it's supposed to work. It's only
because our government has raided the Social Security trust fund for decades
that current payments have to be paid from tax revenues.

 _> How stuff gets produced isn't magic; it's much the same as today's
economy._

You didn't include production anywhere in your money flow. Where does it come
in?

------
mcguire
Sam: " _The millennials looked around and said, “Damn, I’ve got $200,000 of
student debt. I have no job prospects that are gonna let me afford a house, or
a car, or three trips a year to Europe. I better decide to shoot for something
else.”_ "

[https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-typical-household-
wit...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-typical-household-with-student-
loan-debt/)

" _The average balance of outstanding student loan debt for households with
some debt was $25,700. The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent
of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given
the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings
among this population was $71,700._ "

Note: "for households with some debt".

------
bobthechef
Sentimentalizing about drinking tea around a candle resting on a table of nice
wood is all fine and dandy, but let's put aside the images of upper middle
class comforts and imagine your local butcher embedded in a family and a local
community. He's providing a service people need and he's receiving money for
his work which he uses to support his family and keep his business running.
There is a network of interdependence in communities that also extends into
the economic sphere of life. The butcher's trade, craft, and work are
meaningful and the meaning exists in that web of relations.

The butcher's motives are complex, but one motive is that his work is also for
the sake of supporting himself and his family. His relationship with his
family, his wife, his kids, is also complex, but part of it is the (at least
partial) reliance on their husband and father in an economic sense.

What does UBI do to the butcher and his relationship to his family and to his
community?

~~~
fulafel
Are you concerned that the butcher will stop butchering, because he doesn't
like his job and would rather live frugally on just UBI without additional
income from his job? And his partner would leave him, because the relationship
was motivated only by financial dependence and also prefers a frugal UBI-only
sustenance? After which progressives would cheer for both these developments
and also because meat is unethical, and conservatives would have a case how it
would destroy economy.

I don't know, I'm sure there would be some decrease in economic activity from
life changes by people who hate their jobs and have reluctant relationships
held together by financial dependencies. But these would be probably be more
than compensated by the productive impacts on people's lives.

------
Suncho
I largely agree with what's being said in this interview, except for a few
comments:

> "But in countless ways it’s much harder to convince lawmakers and
> politicians to give every person in the country cash gratis than it is to
> guide a start-up to a nine-figure valuation."

You don't have to convince lawmakers to do it. It's possible to implement
basic income without any direct government support.

> "The question I’m interested in: How do we unlock maximum human potential?"

This is almost the right question, but not exactly. The right question is "how
do we unlock the economy's prosperity-maximizing capacity?" It's not about how
how we get the most out of humans. It's about how we provide the most _for_
humans.

> "Obviously, there are a lot of people who could do great things that would
> benefit all of us. Create art, start companies and yet they can’t."

This is true, but human labor is just one of many resources that we're not
using to their full potential. By narrowly framing things just in terms of
what we can get out of humans, we're limiting the possibilities of basic
income.

> "One of the things that people forget is that if the robots really do come,
> yes, they will eliminate or change a lot of jobs, but the cost of goods and
> services will just go down and down and down."

Sort of. Monetary policy will prevent deflation. So the price of the things
people need to _buy_ will always remain stable. It's just that people might
get more stuff for free.

> "What I would propose is a model like a company where you get a share in
> U.S. Inc. And then, instead of getting a fixed fee, you get a percentage of
> the GDP every year."

This is a mistake. The economy has the capacity to produce a certain amount of
wealth for people. That amount is difficult to calculate ahead of time.
Measures like GDP are probably not going to help. But the appropriate amount
of basic income is always going to correspond to the amount of spending that
the economy can productively respond to.

~~~
Danihan
> It's possible to implement basic income without any direct government
> support.

How's that?

> The right question is "how do we unlock the economy's prosperity-maximizing
> capacity?"

Asked and answered: free-market capitalism. Nothing has resulted in the sort
of rapid prosperity we've seen recently with market capitalism spreading
globally.

~~~
vonnik
> Asked and answered: free-market capitalism. Nothing has resulted in the sort
> of rapid prosperity we've seen recently with market capitalism spreading
> globally.

Kind of. Free-market capitalism has advantages in some situations. But you
also have markets that "freely" tend toward monopolies or oligopolies, which
end up leaving the majority of consumers in the lurch.

Over time, most systems including markets will be gamed so that certain elites
reproduce their privilege at the expense of their fellows. This is true of
free markets just as it is true of command economies.

------
matt_wulfeck
What astonishes me is how often I see a BI proponent is also a bitcoin
proponent. The government can’t be trusted not to devalue our currency but at
the same time we should introduce a system which makes our livelihoods
dependent on the whims of bureaucrats.

~~~
Suncho
> The government can’t be trusted not to devalue our currency

Governments can often be trusted to maintain a stable value of currency.
That's why fiat currency out-competed gold and why Bitcoin will never be able
to compete with a well-managed fiat currency.

> we should introduce a system which makes our livelihoods dependent on the
> whims of bureaucrats.

There are robust ways to implement basic income that don't depend on "the
whims of bureaucrats."

~~~
sleighboy
When did a fiat currency win out over gold? It requires government
manipulation by price fixing, outright debasement and mechanisms like legal
tender laws for worthless tokens to win out over a precious metal such as
gold.

~~~
Suncho
> When did a fiat currency win out over gold?

It happened gradually. But wars usually put stress on the gold system. They
caused the fault lines to slip, so to speak.

The US Dollar was the last major currency tied to gold and we finally severed
that tie in 1972 when the Bretton Woods system ended.

And the reason it happened is that in order for prices to remain stable, we
needed to be able to adjust the amount of money flowing in the economy to an
extent greater than gold would allow.

> It requires government manipulation by price fixing, outright debasement and
> mechanisms like legal tender laws for worthless tokens to win out over a
> precious metal such as gold.

Yup! With the rate of economic growth outstripping the rate at which we could
mine gold or spend new gold certificates into the economy, gold just simply
wasn't going to cut it anymore as a stable basis for a currency. In order for
markets to function smoothly, we needed a currency that could be actively
managed.

------
maxxxxx
A nice experiment would be to start with universal health care. This probably
needs to be part of UBI anyways. It would already free quite a few people of
having to stay in a bad job and would allow people with families or who are
older to be more entrepreneurial. Try this and see how the politics work out.

The trend seems to go the other way though: taxes for upper incomes are being
lowered, no estate tax and Obamacare is pretty much neglected until it falls
apart. I think instead of UBI he should worry more about near term issues.

------
kevin
We did this interview with Sam a few weeks before he posted his recent essay
on the topic. Not having to coordinate illustrations definitely helps with
publishing speed. :) During the interview, we realized it was the first time I
had heard him talk about the GDP idea as an answer to the branding problem of
bringing UBI to America.

~~~
elmar
Kevin, I just love the graphical look of Spectacle, hope you and your team
have the greatest success on this passion project.

Regarding the UBI personally I think if someone manages to make it work
without the government I am all for it.

It's a hard problem in some ways similar to a working decentralized currency
that seemed impossible and took forever to crack, maybe even
cryptocurrencies/blockchain technologies are part of an elegant solution to
this UBI implementation problem, maybe a Startup can make it work.

------
vonnik
I support some form of UBI. My concern is that UBI is a classic redistributive
strategy, and redistributive strategies have done poorly in America's long and
ongoing class war. The most recent tax plan is a good example the haves
winning another battle in that war. So the basic question for anyone who
believes in UBI and economic justice is: How do you convince the wealthy and
powerful to give up some of their wealth and power? Almost by definition, they
can't be forced to do it, because wealth and power are their own defense
against redistribution.

~~~
rev_bird
>wealth and power are their own defense against redistribution

Right now, yes, that's definitely the case. But does it have to be? Our
campaign finance system provides a direct and unlimited conduit between wealth
and political power, but we can change that.

------
sriku
I find it interesting to read up on UBI schemes and the discussion here as
well as Altman's is fascinating too.

What particularly strikes me is how he points out that this already exists in
cultures. Even in villages in India, you'd find people simply willing to do
stuff for each other. If you have a wedding in your family, the village will
come together to cook and serve meals, offer hospitality to your guests and
generally work to make everyone happy on the occasion. If you happen to be
mentally ill, someone would still feed and clothe you, include you at least in
some small way in their social life, and so on. You won't be abandoned.

UBI looks like a quantified version of this social capital. If we resist and
think "why should someone else do nothing and get the benefits of my work?",
the society has lost the practical generosities of village life and UBI might
be a way to resurrect that. I personally find it pretty ridiculous that there
are homeless and hungry people at all in the wealthiest of countries, and am
certainly curious about what potentials UBI could unlock for them given they
haven't yet fallen into antisocial ways despite their condition. Something is
wrong if you see an old man in rags rummaging through a trash can for food
scraps in a high GDP country.

~~~
ryanx435
It's ridiculous to extol the virtues of a society that values extended family,
and then turn around and say it's a good sign for ubi in America, where our
family unit has shrunk to minimal size.

Ridiculous.

------
sytelus
The experiment Sam mentions is already _heavily_ biased. They are giving away
$1000-$2000 to few families in Oakland as basic income. The problem is that
these families are already aware that some Silicon Valley billionaire is
performing experiment on them and they know this life line would disappear in
future. So they would be forced to make best out of it unlike if this was
provided by government for rest of their lives unconditionally.

Another counter point is that doing this at scale would have huge impact on
pricing of services. A lot of people do monotonous boring repetitive work they
absolutely hate even if it generates bare bone income. This can include
everything from janitorial services to cashier at grocery store to
construction sites. Once you get same amount of money for free, there is less
incentive for anyone to do this sort of work. Consequently supply for workers
would reduce while demand stays same. This would inflate prices of goods and
services in general economy. My hunch is that price increase would be exactly
such that to offset the basic income. So the net effect would be having no
basic income at all. In countries like Finland things are different because of
their sovereign funds, tax structure and external income sources.

~~~
tom_mellior
> janitorial services to cashier at grocery store to construction sites. Once
> you get same amount of money for free, there is less incentive for anyone to
> do this sort of work

Yes, the UBI will free the labor market to be an actual free market in which
services are priced fairly. If you need a janitor, you will have to provide
pay that the janitor is willing to work for, even if not threatened by
starvation or homelessness.

------
partycoder
Universal basic income is a complex issue.

First, you need to see it as a part of the existing system: healthcare,
education, law enforcement, prisons, etc.

\- A hospital cannot deny care to a patient in an emergency situation. Many
medical emergencies occur due to poor living conditions. If you give money to
people, their living conditions improve, improving their health and reducing
their chances of getting in a medical emergency situation.

\- Law enforcement spends a lot of resources and time handling crime. Given
money to people is a deterrent for crime.

\- Did you know that having a person in prison is more expensive than having
them on a hotel? Since giving money to people deters crime, it also prevents
them going to prison.

So, in this respect, just by having people do absolutely nothing, you can end
up saving money. This is unintuitive.

Now, universal basic income can be bad in some cases. Many people in the
economy do whatever it takes to have an income, however low. They will risk
their lives, their health, do things they don't want to do. Universal basic
income gives people an option to not engage in those activities.

------
chevman
I think reinstituting a 2 year (or whatever length of time) national service
requirement is a much more realistic, practical way of moving the country, and
this general discussion, forward.

UBI feels like a tactic with too many complications and opportunities to
distort incentives, motivations, etc.

~~~
Danihan
Instituting UBI is about as practical as simply ending all taxes.

------
jpao79
"We’re still in our pilot. It turns out that giving money to people is much
harder than you might imagine. We’ve had to work with state, local, federal
governments so that people in our study don’t lose their housing eligibility,
lose their food assistance just because we’re giving them money and raising
their income level. And what we don’t want is to make anyone worse off."

It feels like this statement is what would concern most skeptics of UBI, that
is yet another layer of complexity on top of an already complex system.

Isn't the main benefit of UBI to make it so everything is streamlined into a
single program and administrative overhead is reduced?

~~~
netinstructions
Sure that could be the goal, but when you run a small pilot you can't just
ignore the existing policies and laws...

Also it's not the _main_ benefit of UBI. It's just one benefit (or side
effect) of UBI - when it's _universal_ (not just a pilot) you can reduce the
overhead of administrative costs.

~~~
jerkstate
If the benefit requires other subsidies for recipients to survive, does it
actually fit the definition of UBI?

~~~
Suncho
> If the benefit requires other subsidies for recipients to survive, does it
> actually fit the definition of UBI?

Different people used different definitions of basic income. As far as I know,
the most commonly accepted definition says nothing about the amount. But I
have heard people say that it's not a "true" basic income if it's not above a
certain level.

~~~
jerkstate
I just looked up the "basic income" wikipedia page and you are right, "full"
basic income is above subsistence/poverty level and "partial" basic income is
below. So this would be a trial of partial, non-universal basic income.

------
fuzzfactor
Well, here's a copy from memory of my post from hours ago that has now
disappeared:

Um, no need, it's in my comments but not in this message list any more, not
necessary to use what's left of my feeble memory, I'll just copy & paste it
back in :)

Without the leading dollar sign for one of my run-on sentences, replaced by
USD instead, just like you would do on a teletype machine.

Quoting myself here:

>It is easy for some of us to remember what it was like back in the '60's when
SF rose to become the US center of non-capitalism at the time.

>The Grateful Dead were local musicians who gained more widespread popularity
whether every one of them wanted it or not, especially once they got a record
deal with a capitalist outfit that could advertise and promote in ways that
the musicians could not or would not do on their own.

>As the purported "leader" of the band, Jerry Garcia for one indicated that he
was soon earning more income than he really needed, and having a strong
balance toward benevolence over greed, set out to give 1000USD each to
numerous individuals who without a doubt were truly in need of the funds.

>1000USD really would go a lot further then compared to a short 10 years later
once the devastating devaluation of the US dollar was set into motion after it
was unlinked to a universally appreciated natural resource (gold).

>Anyway, turns out that before too long it was determined that it was costing
1200usd to give away each 1000USD, and the program ended up grinding to a
halt.

------
tzakrajs
Screw human productivity, how about human happiness.

------
fuzzfactor
It is easy for some of us to remember what it was like back in the '60's when
SF rose to become the US center of non-capitalism at the time.

The Grateful Dead were local musicians who gained more widespread popularity
whether every one of them wanted it or not, especially once they got a record
deal with a capitalist outfit that could advertise and promote in ways that
the musicians could not or would not do on their own.

As the purported "leader" of the band, Jerry Garcia for one indicated that he
was soon earning more income than he really needed, and having a strong
balance toward benevolence over greed, set out to give $1000 each to numerous
individuals who without a doubt were truly in need of the funds.

$1000 really would go a lot further then compared to a short 10 years later
once the devastating devaluation of the US dollar was set into motion after it
was unlinked to a universally appreciated natural resource (gold).

Anyway, turns out that before too long it was determined that it was costing
$1200 to give away each $1000, and the program ended up grinding to a halt.

------
blueyes
> And there’s some country where it was, like, referendum. It got totally
> crushed a year, two years ago, maybe it was Sweden. I don’t remember.

Fwiw, the country that Sam is referring to here is Switzerland.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-36454060)

------
longerthoughts
> "a bunch of people have guessed my email address and emailed me saying, 'I
> heard that you’re doing this. I’ll be in the control group just because I
> think this is important. I don’t need any compensation, I just believe in
> this idea, and I want to be part of the study.'"

This is hardly evidence that getting 2,000 control volunteers will be easy.
Unlikely that the people who knew about the study and came forward are
representative of the entire target test group on relevant criteria (e.g.
income level). It's great to see support for the experiment and getting people
to volunteer information without receiving money is a solvable problem, this
answer just seemed evasive and promotional when a "you're right, it's going to
be tough and we're working on it" would have been plenty justified.

------
perilunar
I don't think people should view UBI as "giving away free money".

Instead we should look at it from a geologist[1]/geolibertarian[2]
perspective: as compensation for appropriation of land and natural resources
that rightfully belong to everyone.

UBI should be funded by land and resource taxes, not from income, sales or
corporate taxes.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism)

~~~
akvadrako
HN has talked about funding UBI via a land value tax before:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15264024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15264024)

It makes a fair amount of sense, and puts the incentives in the right place.

------
pwaai
If you gave everybody a dollar, wouldn't businesses increase their prices, and
consumers be okay with that price increase because they have more disposable
income?

~~~
Suncho
No. And the reason is that by distributing the new money evenly, you're
increasing the price elasticity of demand. Instead of increasing the amount of
money people are willing to pay for goods, you're increasing the _number_ of
people who want to buy goods.

So instead of having an incentive to raise their prices, producers will have
more of an incentive to produce more. And as long as you're not coming up
against resource limits, prices will stay low. If producers tried to raise
their prices, they'd lose customers.

Does that make sense?

~~~
dahdum
So non-resource limited prices may remain low, but couldn't most of it be
captured by those items that are limited? Like rent or health care? People
could move out of the cities to avoid the rent increases, but then cost of
services / taxes per person rise in those areas.

~~~
Suncho
> So non-resource limited prices may remain low, but couldn't most of it be
> captured by those items that are limited?

Yes. And that's a very good point. For example, we might have the resources to
feed the world, but we don't have the resources to feed the world meat 24/7\.
The price of meat would increase, so people would substitute other forms of
food.

> Like rent or health care? People could move out of the cities to avoid the
> rent increases, but then cost of services / taxes per person rise in those
> areas.

Basic income allows people to move out of the cities because "proximity to
jobs" is less of an incentive for them to live there. This causes the real
estate prices in expensive cities like New York and San Francisco to drop as
other areas become more desirable to live in.

People wouldn't be moving out of the cities to avoid rent increases. They'd be
moving out of the cities because it becomes more affordable to live outside of
the cities. That, in turn, would cause rent prices in the cities to decrease.

Health care prices are an issue that basic income doesn't solve. We need to
address them regardless of whether we have a basic income.

~~~
dahdum
Doesn't moving out of the cities, and as you state, away from jobs exacerbate
the number of people who will no longer be employed?

These new UBI based communities won't be able to provide the same
economic/educational opportunities or efficiency of services that the cities
can.

~~~
Suncho
> Doesn't moving out of the cities, and as you state, away from jobs
> exacerbate the number of people who will no longer be employed?

Depends on what you mean. A couple questions:

1\. Is it a problem for people not to be employed?

2\. How do we define employment? Does the pay have to be above a minimum wage?
Does it have to be full time? Does volunteer work count? Etc.

We presumably all want people to find interesting and fulfilling ways to spend
their time. Basic income gives people the _freedom_ to spend their time in a
meaningful way. But it doesn't directly provide meaningful activities to
people.

If, after implementing a basic income, we discover that everybody's bored,
then I agree with you that this a problem that we'll have to address.

But we should keep in mind that many people are miserable in their jobs
already. I have a feeling that people will find interesting ways to spend
their time on their own, but if they don't, it's not the end of the world.
Freeing people from jobs doesn't automatically make them happy, but it's a
first step.

> These new UBI based communities won't be able to provide the same
> economic/educational opportunities or efficiency of services that the cities
> can.

I don't know what you mean by UBI-based communities. It's not that the world
will be segregated into UBI-based communities and non-UBI-based communities.
It's all a continuum. As in today's world, there will be a continuum of people
at different income levels. UBI just puts a floor on income.

As is the case today, some cities will be more desirable to live in than
others. Maybe those cities have better economic/educational opportunities, as
you say. But that's true already today. And because basic income will make it
more affordable to live in those cities, it increases everyone's opportunity
across the board.

As far as educational opportunities go though, if everyone has the freedom to
spend their time how they choose, there are plenty of educational resources
available out there for anyone, no matter where you live. I wrote a blog post
about this a while ago:

[http://www.suncho.com/blog/20140219_too_cool_for_school.html](http://www.suncho.com/blog/20140219_too_cool_for_school.html)

------
carapace
Okay, forgive me if this has been mentioned elsewhere here, I haven't read the
whole thread.

My take on UBI is that it only makes sense as a response to rampant automation
that has marginalized a substantial (perhaps >75%) portion of the global human
population. Meaning that most people cannot effectively enter the economy and
provide for themselves because they just cannot compete against the machines,
at some point in the near-future.

In the limit, nanotech and fusion power will put almost all of us out of work
(not to mention AI/ML et. al.)

At that point, we have to figure out what to do with all these "surplus"
people. The (gruesome) options are: enslave them (N. Korea), or kill them.

One maybe-possible other solution is to _just give them money_ and see what
they do.

From my POV any discussion of UBI as something other than a response to a
"phase shift" in economic realities due to advancing automation is kind of
missing the point.

I actually would like to create a Universal Automation Inc. company and issue
shares and get crackin', but I'm lazy _and it seems to be happening anyway!_

------
jganetsk
UBI is inflationary and discourages people from working. Economists have moved
on to better ideas than UBI, like the federal government providing a JG (Job
Guarantee) or being an ELR (Employer of Last Resort):

[https://www.thenation.com/article/job-guarantee-
government-p...](https://www.thenation.com/article/job-guarantee-government-
plan-full-employment/#)

The summary is: everyone who is willing and able to work should get a standard
salary and benefits from the Federal Government. We could have a decentralized
system for setting up/vetting/approving JG/ELR projects all across the
country, but the Federal Government would pay JG/ELR participants directly.
This could include all kinds of things, like Y Combinator.

As for profit-sharing "United States, Inc" as Sam Altman proposes, we can do
that too. We can set up a government program that says publicly traded
companies in the USA will get a tax incentive if they promise to pay at least
Y% of income in dividends. The government can take a small stake in these
companies, and distribute the dividends equally to all citizens. It can try to
track a broad stock-market index in its portfolio to make sure the investment
passive (we don't want the government actively investing in companies, it
shouldn't be picking winners and losers). Also, with a low-risk portfolio, the
program would hopefully stay solvent, leaving the option of liquidating assets
should we ever want to unwind this (for either political or economic reasons).

Where do we get the money to do all this? Governments don't need to finance
spending when they have sovereign control of their own currency.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory)

~~~
Dylan16807
> UBI is inflationary and discourages people from working. Economists have
> moved on to better ideas than UBI, like the federal government providing a
> JG (Job Guarantee) or being an ELR (Employer of Last Resort)

If by "discourages" you actually mean negative incentive to work, that would
be awful.

But I suspect you mean it _lowers_ the incentive to work. And that's not
necessarily a bad thing.

Productivity per hour keeps increasing. It's okay to let the average workweek
get smaller. Minimum wage government labor is likely not the best use of a lot
of people's time.

------
alva
Would like to hear Sam's thoughts on how this would impact on immigration.
Could the system sustain the current or higher levels of immigration? If not,
would Sam recommend cutting immigration drastically for this to be a viable
option?

~~~
dragonwriter
While the whole point of the experiment that they are doing is to get a better
idea of what BI could support, I can't see any reason why a UBI that was
viable otherwise, with the obvious eligibility criteria (covered population is
either citizens-only or citizens and legal permanent residents), would have
any trouble with immigration at current levels.

If UBI reduced minimum wages (say by $1/hr. for each $2000/yr. of UBI, from a
pre-UBI target level that increases with inflation) and is not available to
immigrants other than permanent residents, it might reduce immigration demand
in categories that require a period of non-LPR status (and _particularly_
attractiveness of resort to illegal immigration) by reducing both wages (but
not total income, for citizens and LPRs) for unskilled workers directly in
both open employment and, by indirect pressure, under-the-table employment.

------
joejerryronnie
The reason a bunch of extremely wealthy people are huge proponents of UBI is
because it is a way to create apathy in the general population. They hype up
the great UBI enabled artist or entrepreneur trope while knowing full well the
vast majority of UBI recipients will just buy more opioids and another pack of
smokes. As the wealth gap continues to grow around the world, the UBI scenario
is much more palatable to the ultra-wealthy than another French Revolution
(nobody wants to end up as the Tech Titan equivalent of Louis and Marie).

------
pdonis
The "share of GDP" thing has already been discussed on HN (in response to
Sam's own blog post on the subject):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15789108](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15789108)

My comment on a basic flaw in the underlying analogy (that nothing like
"shares in the US" corresponds to a share of GDP) is here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15791054](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15791054)

------
sedtrader
> America competitive in the world—lies in giving every citizen a regular
> allotment of money to cover basics like housing, food, and shelter.

Out of curiosity don't we already do this? We have public/section 8 housing,
food stamps, medical/dental, etc... If we are talking about handing out cold
hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for
disaster. There would be no guarantee that people would use that money for
basics like housing and food.

~~~
vonnik
UBI is a direct cash transfer that the recipient can spend on anything. It's
proven to be effective in international aid, and much more efficient that
financing the enormous bureaucracies employed to decide whether someone is
qualified. [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
africa-39038402](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39038402)

~~~
mcguire
The US social security administration spends ~0.7% of its total expenditures
on administrative expenses. (Yes, it's more for the disability program, 1.9%.)

------
DLarsen
It seems naive to think that the "universal" aspect would be maintained
absolutely. At some point, the "bad people" don't deserve a share, and when it
gets to the point that "happiness" can't be bought without UBI, you
potentially have a very powerful means of near-universal coercion.

------
staunch
How can Sam Altman realize that YC is itself a potential solution and still do
nothing? YC is still the same private club, that brags about funding just 3%
of the founders that apply.

If Elon Musk ran YC, he'd raise billions and fund thousands, and then use that
success to fund tens of thousands, and then ...

------
eaoliver
Why does anyone care what Sam Altman thinks?

------
kavbojka
UBI is a thinly veiled attempt by elites to buy the consent of those of us who
then can't just drug or satiate with cheap goods. I won't fall for it. Consume
the rich!!

~~~
montecarl
Consume the rich. Reminds me of a Tupac interview:
[https://youtu.be/LbEnnrVyb-g?t=417](https://youtu.be/LbEnnrVyb-g?t=417)

------
CptJamesCook
Reminder: Communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century.

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents, the very worst
kind of tangents.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
phkahler
Sam talked right over something very important. He points out that poor people
have a hard time making rent and buying food. He then notes that it was
difficult to give them money without affecting their subsidies. I've said
before, if you give poor people money the first thing that will change is
their rent. Every time the government make money for something more available
the price of that something goes up - see housing (lower interest rates
increase prices) and student loans (no explanation needed).

IMHO the key is not to give people money, but to reduce the cost of their
existence. Get rid of the mortgage deduction. Reduce or eliminate property
taxes on homes. Heck, put a cap on what percentage of a home price can be
borrowed.

I agree that unlocking many peoples potential may require freeing them
financially, but I don't agree that you do it by handing out money.

While I'm ranting, I'd expect someone in tech to be able to model or simulate
a hundred million person economy and figure out how to get desired outcomes
rather than jump on some popular untested idea like BI. Kudos for trying to
test it though, but it's not a real test unless it's economy-wide (rents won't
really increase if 0.1 percent of the people get free money).

------
ucaetano
After deriding UBI for a long time, and believing it won't work, I came up
with a trial model that, IMHO, would allow it to be tested out with minimal
damage to the economy (even though I still don't think it would work):

Take a country, US for example. Let's say that society determines that a
reasonable UBI is $1000/month (ignore the number, this is about the process,
not the amount).

When I say "everyone", I mean "every US resident who has been a US citizen for
at least X years".

\- Year 1: everyone begins receiving $10/month, conditioned to willing to have
employment and spending tracked by researchers. Everyone who receives a payout
and also receives social support funds, sees the social support funds reduced
by $10 per month.

\- Year 5: if researches see no significant negative results and the economy
continues to grow, etc. the payout is increased to $50/month. Otherwise, if
there are significantly negative outcomes, the payout is eliminated.

\- Year 10: repeat, payout increased to $100/month.

\- Year 15: repeat, payout increased to $200/month.

\- Year 20: repeat, payout increased to $500/month.

\- Year 25: repeat, payout increased to $750/month.

\- Year 30: repeat, payout increased to $1000/month. All other social payouts
are ended.

~~~
romwell
I disagree with this model.

A lot of positive externalities that UBI will bring simply won't kick in at
low payout levels, whereas the negatives which will be brought in by diversion
of funds will be apparent.

The externalities I am talking about are of this form: -Increased benefits to
public health as people are less stressed about losing jobs -Increased
entrepreneurship and all the benefits that come from it -Increased cultural
output and the increased geopolitical influence

The whole point of UBI is that's it's not another handout.

It's giving everyone an option to not have to work a day job to survive
(something that moderately well-off people, or people with upper-middle-class
parents already have).

The impact of "what if most of the citizens didn't have to work to survive"
can't be estimated with a small hand-out, because it will not achieve that.

In other words, UBI is somewhat binary in nature: either you have it, or you
don't. It doesn't scale down beyond a certain point.

~~~
ucaetano
> In other words, UBI is somewhat binary in nature: either you have it, or you
> don't. It doesn't scale down beyond a certain point.

Then we're better off without it. It would be completely naive to try to roll
it out in full scale without knowing the potential impact. Not worth taking
the risk.

