8 ms·

>> Yang says Humanity Forward plans to immediately distribute Dorsey’s contribution in the form of small cash grants of $250 to nearly 20,000 people who’ve lost

>> Yang says Humanity Forward plans to immediately distribute Dorsey’s contribution in the form of small cash grants of $250 to nearly 20,000 people who’ve lost their jobs or taken an economic hit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic So money based on certain non-universal conditions? Isn't this one of the root problems? People cannot accept a truly universal system - you've already got too much; that guy lives in the wrong part of the country; you have too much education; they're not citizens... Bill Gates has stated he doesn't have enough money to tackle all major areas and make significant advances; then guys like Yang want to use far less money for even bigger mandates. This just looks like a way for rich guys to pick very specific winners. UBI seems like it would be the most powerful vote-buying weapon ever created in the hands of any government given the opportunity to implement it.

bananabreakfast 6y ago
So... basically people who lost their jobs to COVID are winners in your mind?
- arcticfox 6y ago
  It's not bad, it just misses a lot of the benefit of 'basic' income. For example, my wife had just finished her education and was looking for a job when COVID hit. She's randomly just as hosed as everyone that actually lost an existing job, but qualifies for none of the same relief. The benefit of the 'universal basic' part of UBI is that it just washes away all edge cases, and it's pretty hard to feel like you've been wronged by it.
  - cableshaft 6y ago
    Andrew Yang's Humanity Forward organization is not the nation's government. They don't have the resources to make something universal. That's one of the reasons he ran for president, was so he could do that. The people weren't ready this time, but maybe in 4 years, when he's probably going to run again, they'll be more willing to give him a shot. But right now he is doing what he can and working with much, much more limited resources, so it only makes sense to target people who are in immediate need because of the crisis. There are a lot more people than even that 20,000 that are struggling right now (40 million people have lost their job since the start of the pandemic, in the US), but if he divided $5,000,000 by 40 million people, it'd only give each person 12 cents, which doesn't help any single individual enough to make any difference, while simultaneously turning into a much more of a logistical nightmare. For example he had Sam Harris on his Yang Speaks podcast recently, and Yang said that to a certain extent he sympathizes on how long the stimulus checks are getting out to people because he's been giving money out himself and it's been difficult to pin down current addresses for the people most in need. So what is it you're expecting him to do with that $5 million instead, that would make it more universal?
    - zhoujianfu 6y ago
      I’m not the OP, but I would like to see some UBI studies that are at least permanent (per participant), if not universal. It’d be a lot more interesting to me to see what happens when 30 people get $1,000/mo for the rest of their lives than what 20,000 people do with an extra $250 once.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        You could run a test case in a low income country where 5 million goes a long way. For example, the median per-capita income in India is $600/yr[1]. You could use this money to provide 3,000 people with $300/yr for 5 years. https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/median-income-by-country/ https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/median-income-by...
        zozbot234 6y ago
        Give Directly does that. The organization is all about giving money to the extreme poor, and they're outstandingly effective at doing this. At the same time, they structure their giving activities as RCT's at varying levels (formerly household-based, now full villages AIUI) so they're also creating very valuable research output about these issues.
        zhoujianfu 6y ago
        True.. I’d probably rather do $120/yr for 3,000 people for life (as opposed to just five years). Assuming $120 is equivalent to $12,000 in the US, and for life is going to be more interesting than even five years. And at 7% interest you could afford this forever off the $5M endowment.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I think the point is that giving 250 on 20,000 people is a poor way to " build the case for a universal basic income". It is not a test case for any of the purported advantages for UBI, and actively undermines many of the fundamental principles of UBI. Hell, the money would be better spent on lobbying.
Nasrudith 6y ago
That isn't exactly new politically for better or worse and essentially "bug report closed - a feature not a bug". Fundamentally that is what more democratic systems are - more distributive of political power and interests to please. They are supposed to "buy" votes by pleasing the voters! Every human has their price but that price may not be monetary. Of course all ways are not equal in terms of wisdom or morality. Athenian democracy was rather different but they had voted for several wars of conquest to enrich themselves and the rowers (the job was higher paid than a soldier due to scarcity and militarily you both want better performance of professionals vs slaves and for them to be allies of soldiers during naval boardings instead of slaves who rebel for freedom).
asdff 6y ago
It seems like people would like it, being that it's in their own interest, but you should hear how much people today disregard social welfare programs. Either throwing their hands up in the air that it would be impossibly expensive, and/or bread would become $20.
BosunoB 6y ago
I think that people can accept a universal program, but legislators and the think tanks that govern their policy cannot. The point of Dorsey's funding is to provide high quality data to bolster the policy, and this might have that effect even if, like you say, the payments aren't universal.
grayfaced 6y ago
Even universal has winners and losers. How do you deal with different cost of livings between Bay Area and Mississippi? If the UBI is not adjusted and covers living expenses in cheap areas but not expensive areas, then people might decide to live cheaply without a job. That risks creating slums. If it's adjusted to locality, then areas will grow and dwindle based on accuracy of those adjustment tables. Which would turn those tables overtly political.
- alexbanks 6y ago
  I haven't spent a ton of time thinking about UBI. Can you explain how our current society doesn't already have slums? Or how UB would increase them?
- chillwaves 6y ago
  People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. In fact, many would argue this is a benefit of UBI and will bring much needed economic resources to under populated parts of the country. Not everyone needs to live in the Bay Area. COL adjustment to UBI would be a huge mistake and undermine the entire concept.
  - kenhwang 6y ago
    I think it's a double edged sword. Encouraging people to minimize their COL and spend the money on underinvested areas of the country is fantastic for decreasing the wealth gap. But the other likely outcome is drastic COL inflation in low COL areas which adversely impacts them significantly more.
    - Avicebron 6y ago
      But if everyone including those in the low COL area was getting UBI then it should equalize no?
      - kenhwang 6y ago
        I believe so, but the economic impact isn't well understood yet. The UBI experiments so far have shown that it does have an inflationary effect (which causes COL to go up), and at the same time, incomes decrease as secondary earners opt for UBI instead of working. People overall are much happier, but their financial situation gets worse.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fullshark 6y ago
> UBI seems like it would be the most powerful vote-buying weapon ever created in the hands of any government given the opportunity to implement it. What's the difference between debating over UBI and increasing/decreasing taxes with regard to buying votes? Truly universal as you say there's only one question re: UBI what's the monthly payment? With tax code there's a million different loopholes and special interest carve outs etc.
- zhoujianfu 6y ago
  To be fair, there are a few other questions... Is it monthly or weekly/bi-weekly/quarterly/annually? Does universal include children under 18? Non-citizens? If so, for the same amount? Can you borrow against your UBI or allow others to take liens? How do you actually register and get the money? But that’s about it I can think of!
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    The citizen question is so very hard, because in practice, non-citizens are numerous and very vulnerable. Cementing UBI for citizens only, would construct a gulf state like two tier society. Eligibility for the UBI will always be contested. Would it not make it even harder for immigration laws as well?
    - neilparikh 6y ago
      If the choice is between a comprehensive welfare state/UBI for both citizens and non-citizens, with restricted immigration vs. welfare/UBI restrict to citizens only but with more permissive immigration, I suspect the vast majority of non-Americans would choose the second. UBI for non-citizens is nice, but completely useless if the US won't even let you in. For people in poorer countries, the quality of life improvement from coming in the US would be so drastic, that preventing people from making that movement, simply to give a small minority of them a marginal benefit, seems to be the wrong decision to take. Another way to put it is that the two tier system already exists, it's just that the second tier is outside the US/developed countries.
- 6y ago
tootie 6y ago
This is way for Yang to stay in the public eye and Dorsey to burnish his image with the progressive crowd while simultaneously amplifying the worst of the far right in his day job.
Apofis 6y ago
That's going to do absolutely nothing. Small UBI is damn near worthless. You need to go toward at least minimum wage's worth per year to see any decent effects. Whoever figures out how to do full UBI on that level will be heralded as a messiah if they can actually put their plan in place and execute it.

bananabreakfast 6y ago

So... basically people who lost their jobs to COVID are winners in your mind?

arcticfox 6y ago
It's not bad, it just misses a lot of the benefit of 'basic' income. For example, my wife had just finished her education and was looking for a job when COVID hit. She's randomly just as hosed as everyone that actually lost an existing job, but qualifies for none of the same relief. The benefit of the 'universal basic' part of UBI is that it just washes away all edge cases, and it's pretty hard to feel like you've been wronged by it.
- cableshaft 6y ago
  Andrew Yang's Humanity Forward organization is not the nation's government. They don't have the resources to make something universal. That's one of the reasons he ran for president, was so he could do that. The people weren't ready this time, but maybe in 4 years, when he's probably going to run again, they'll be more willing to give him a shot. But right now he is doing what he can and working with much, much more limited resources, so it only makes sense to target people who are in immediate need because of the crisis. There are a lot more people than even that 20,000 that are struggling right now (40 million people have lost their job since the start of the pandemic, in the US), but if he divided $5,000,000 by 40 million people, it'd only give each person 12 cents, which doesn't help any single individual enough to make any difference, while simultaneously turning into a much more of a logistical nightmare. For example he had Sam Harris on his Yang Speaks podcast recently, and Yang said that to a certain extent he sympathizes on how long the stimulus checks are getting out to people because he's been giving money out himself and it's been difficult to pin down current addresses for the people most in need. So what is it you're expecting him to do with that $5 million instead, that would make it more universal?
  - zhoujianfu 6y ago
    I’m not the OP, but I would like to see some UBI studies that are at least permanent (per participant), if not universal. It’d be a lot more interesting to me to see what happens when 30 people get $1,000/mo for the rest of their lives than what 20,000 people do with an extra $250 once.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      You could run a test case in a low income country where 5 million goes a long way. For example, the median per-capita income in India is $600/yr[1]. You could use this money to provide 3,000 people with $300/yr for 5 years. https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/median-income-by-country/ https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/median-income-by...
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        Give Directly does that. The organization is all about giving money to the extreme poor, and they're outstandingly effective at doing this. At the same time, they structure their giving activities as RCT's at varying levels (formerly household-based, now full villages AIUI) so they're also creating very valuable research output about these issues.
      - zhoujianfu 6y ago
        True.. I’d probably rather do $120/yr for 3,000 people for life (as opposed to just five years). Assuming $120 is equivalent to $12,000 in the US, and for life is going to be more interesting than even five years. And at 7% interest you could afford this forever off the $5M endowment.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I think the point is that giving 250 on 20,000 people is a poor way to " build the case for a universal basic income". It is not a test case for any of the purported advantages for UBI, and actively undermines many of the fundamental principles of UBI. Hell, the money would be better spent on lobbying.

Nasrudith 6y ago

That isn't exactly new politically for better or worse and essentially "bug report closed - a feature not a bug". Fundamentally that is what more democratic systems are - more distributive of political power and interests to please. They are supposed to "buy" votes by pleasing the voters! Every human has their price but that price may not be monetary. Of course all ways are not equal in terms of wisdom or morality. Athenian democracy was rather different but they had voted for several wars of conquest to enrich themselves and the rowers (the job was higher paid than a soldier due to scarcity and militarily you both want better performance of professionals vs slaves and for them to be allies of soldiers during naval boardings instead of slaves who rebel for freedom).

asdff 6y ago

It seems like people would like it, being that it's in their own interest, but you should hear how much people today disregard social welfare programs. Either throwing their hands up in the air that it would be impossibly expensive, and/or bread would become $20.

BosunoB 6y ago

I think that people can accept a universal program, but legislators and the think tanks that govern their policy cannot. The point of Dorsey's funding is to provide high quality data to bolster the policy, and this might have that effect even if, like you say, the payments aren't universal.

grayfaced 6y ago

Even universal has winners and losers. How do you deal with different cost of livings between Bay Area and Mississippi? If the UBI is not adjusted and covers living expenses in cheap areas but not expensive areas, then people might decide to live cheaply without a job. That risks creating slums. If it's adjusted to locality, then areas will grow and dwindle based on accuracy of those adjustment tables. Which would turn those tables overtly political.

alexbanks 6y ago
I haven't spent a ton of time thinking about UBI. Can you explain how our current society doesn't already have slums? Or how UB would increase them?
chillwaves 6y ago
People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. In fact, many would argue this is a benefit of UBI and will bring much needed economic resources to under populated parts of the country. Not everyone needs to live in the Bay Area. COL adjustment to UBI would be a huge mistake and undermine the entire concept.
- kenhwang 6y ago
  I think it's a double edged sword. Encouraging people to minimize their COL and spend the money on underinvested areas of the country is fantastic for decreasing the wealth gap. But the other likely outcome is drastic COL inflation in low COL areas which adversely impacts them significantly more.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    But if everyone including those in the low COL area was getting UBI then it should equalize no?
    - kenhwang 6y ago
      I believe so, but the economic impact isn't well understood yet. The UBI experiments so far have shown that it does have an inflationary effect (which causes COL to go up), and at the same time, incomes decrease as secondary earners opt for UBI instead of working. People overall are much happier, but their financial situation gets worse.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fullshark 6y ago

> UBI seems like it would be the most powerful vote-buying weapon ever created in the hands of any government given the opportunity to implement it. What's the difference between debating over UBI and increasing/decreasing taxes with regard to buying votes? Truly universal as you say there's only one question re: UBI what's the monthly payment? With tax code there's a million different loopholes and special interest carve outs etc.

zhoujianfu 6y ago
To be fair, there are a few other questions... Is it monthly or weekly/bi-weekly/quarterly/annually? Does universal include children under 18? Non-citizens? If so, for the same amount? Can you borrow against your UBI or allow others to take liens? How do you actually register and get the money? But that’s about it I can think of!
- kzrdude 6y ago
  The citizen question is so very hard, because in practice, non-citizens are numerous and very vulnerable. Cementing UBI for citizens only, would construct a gulf state like two tier society. Eligibility for the UBI will always be contested. Would it not make it even harder for immigration laws as well?
  - neilparikh 6y ago
    If the choice is between a comprehensive welfare state/UBI for both citizens and non-citizens, with restricted immigration vs. welfare/UBI restrict to citizens only but with more permissive immigration, I suspect the vast majority of non-Americans would choose the second. UBI for non-citizens is nice, but completely useless if the US won't even let you in. For people in poorer countries, the quality of life improvement from coming in the US would be so drastic, that preventing people from making that movement, simply to give a small minority of them a marginal benefit, seems to be the wrong decision to take. Another way to put it is that the two tier system already exists, it's just that the second tier is outside the US/developed countries.
6y ago

tootie 6y ago

This is way for Yang to stay in the public eye and Dorsey to burnish his image with the progressive crowd while simultaneously amplifying the worst of the far right in his day job.

Apofis 6y ago

That's going to do absolutely nothing. Small UBI is damn near worthless. You need to go toward at least minimum wage's worth per year to see any decent effects. Whoever figures out how to do full UBI on that level will be heralded as a messiah if they can actually put their plan in place and execute it.