Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-22-2019, 02:49 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post

While I'm also a Bernie Sanders fan, he gets really vague about UBI, based on these interviews that someone compiled on Medium.com. [On the Record: Bernie Sanders on Basic Income] I'd be interested to see the pros and cons of UBI vs $15/hr minimum wage and how realistic each would be and how it's predicted to help.
Yeah, so I found this very interesting, too -- and did some research and it would seem that Bernie's against U.B.I. the same way Marx himself was against it: U.B.I. doesn't address the underlying problem of capitalism but mere extends the expiration date of capitalism by proffering scraps to the exploited.

It seems to make sense theoretically but in practice I gotta say that a thousand a month for life would be infinitely much more useful to me than a guarantee that any job I get I'll make at least fifteen an hour.
  #102  
Old 02-22-2019, 02:51 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Welcome to the Straight Dope! Please familiarize yourself with the rules of the board and the registration agreement. Soliciting donations is not allowed without prior approval from the moderation team. As a result, I've edited your post and removed your signature.

[/moderating]
Um, you've deleted my whole message!! I had much more than just a donation link.
  #103  
Old 02-22-2019, 02:55 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Um, you've deleted my whole message!! I had much more than just a donation link.
Yes. I could not find a way to extract the rest of your message in a way that made sense. Feel free to repost the content sans seeking donations.
  #104  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:01 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think what you've written above is why I am interested in seeing Yang go far, even knowing his chances are slim to none. I want someone in the democratic party who has some business 'street cred' so to speak, and who has a good sense for what will and will not work. What I see in the Democratic party now is hard liberalism on one side and status quo, paternalistic Republican Lite on the other.
Hear, hear!! I'm also tired of being caught between the BLM drama queens and the Wall Street fellaters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think Yang makes a strong case against free college. Like him, I've seen no evidence that it would lead to better employment outcomes, and higher education itself is bloated with administration. It would take care of the problem of student debt, but that debt would be simply paid for by the taxpaying public. It seems like free college is a rather poor investment. On the other hand, perhaps partially subsidizing trade school programs or certain kinds of college programs might be a better way to go.
Indeed -- I've only been converted on this myself this very afternoon!!

I'm still against legalization of marijuana and statehood for Puerto Rico -- but whatever. I can live with those, however fitfully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I also agree with Yang on the minimum wage. I'd rather simply pay people a dividend or whatever you want to call it instead of forcing businesses to pay a cost for the sake of human welfare.
I agree that that's the more practical and realistic way of doing things -- at least for the foreseeable future when we still seem to need capitalism but clearly it's got its defects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post

Businesses probably should pay corporate taxes that go to a national welfare scheme, which would include healthcare costs and a pension program.
Well, there's no need for a pension with U.B.I., is there?? Though Yang's definitely for a government-backed single-payer healthcare system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm for a basic wage floor so that workers aren't outright exploited, but using that wage floor to make the market pay a livable wage is probably just going to make it harder for small businesses to compete and it could even raise inflation in the longer term.
So this is a very interesting -- if basically "academic" -- point because the Marxists say, IIRC, that a wage floor is exactly what will keep the exploitative system going, rather like making sure slaves are properly fed and given Sundays off.

I suspect this is why Bernie himself has shied from U.B.I. on several occasions throughout the years.
  #105  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:04 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Yes. I could not find a way to extract the rest of your message in a way that made sense. Feel free to repost the content sans seeking donations.
Um, seems weird you couldn't just delete that one line.

[deleted by Bone]

Last edited by Bone; 02-22-2019 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Calls to action seeking donations
  #106  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:08 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Um, seems weird you couldn't just delete that one line.

[deleted by Bone]
Again, I've edited your post because it was a call to action seeking donations. From the rules here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Calls to Action - Do not instigate members to take action for or against any issue or entity. Do not post phone numbers, email addresses or any other personally identifiable information of any entity in this regard. Threads calling for folks to take actions (political, charitable, personal, etc.) are prohibited unless there is prior approval from a moderator or administrator.
These were my instructions (see bolded part):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Yes. I could not find a way to extract the rest of your message in a way that made sense. Feel free to repost the content sans seeking donations.
Discussion about pros/cons of candidates, etc. are fine. Asking or directing people to donate is not fine. Don't do this.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 02-22-2019 at 03:09 PM.
  #107  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:11 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Kamala Harris is an establishment candidate. Same with Corey Booker. Yang is immediately shot down despite being well qualified and having actual policy proposals.
This is what I fear most, that we'll get the corporate blackface (yes, corporations doing blackface) we had with Obama, thereby preventing any meaningful positive change.
  #108  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:12 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Again, I've edited your post because it was a call to action seeking donations. From the rules here:


These were my instructions (see bolded part):

Discussion about pros/cons of candidates, etc. are fine. Asking or directing people to donate is not fine. Don't do this.

[/moderating]
Oh, okay, my apologies: for some reason I got it in my head that links were not allowed, not the message itself to donate (though yes you'd specified that).

Well, that solves the mystery of why my whole message was deleted!
  #109  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:19 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,189
Quote:
DavidChou
This is what I fear most, that we'll get the corporate blackface (yes, corporations doing blackface) we had with Obama, thereby preventing any meaningful positive change.
They help to hollowout their progressive policy positions and in turn pretend to be progressive.

Welcome to the YangGang my man.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.

Last edited by Ryan_Liam; 02-22-2019 at 03:19 PM.
  #110  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:20 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Nitpick, to qualify for the Democratic primary debates in June and July he needs to:

Receive at least 1% in 3 polls either nationally or in early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) between January 1 and mid-May;

or

Receive 65,000 individual donations, including at least 200 from 20 different states.

He’s got 16,000 donations to date and 130,000 followers on social media.

All the above is from an email sent to his donors, FYI.
Yeah so I'm unclear as to whether he's already qualified...'cause in two videos, including the Georgetown U. I'd cited earlier today, he states that he's already achieved the 1% name recognition -- though it's not certain whether he means that in the sense of qualifying due to, as you note, having achieved that on three separate polls or he's only achieved that on one poll or two somewhere....

Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
If he can get to the debate stage, debating skills not withstanding, his ideas will quickly galvanize people either for or against. I sincerely hope he gets a shot to make his case.
He held his own quite well, to my relief, against that guy Varney on Fox Business...there's a six-minute video on YouTube of put-down after put-down, but Andrew stayed focused and on-message -- though Varney's nowhere near as scathing as Trump so that's still a concern.

Last edited by DavidChou; 02-22-2019 at 03:21 PM.
  #111  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:25 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
They help to hollowout their progressive policy positions and in turn pretend to be progressive.
Yeah, I know Obama tried but even way in the beginning when I was even less experienced politically than I am now I had a feeling that he was basically a corporate candidate. (Yes yes Republicans blocked him at every turn but I believe he could have mounted a Bernie-style "insurgency" due to his popularity and just didn't 'cause being a good Clintonian corporate triangulator is just in his political DNA.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Welcome to the YangGang my man.
Hey, thanks! And thanks for starting this thread -- I was doing research on Yang and that's how I wound up here (though I'd heard of TSD before).
  #112  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:32 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Yeah, no, actually, I hope Yang stays away from the identity politics stuff...I mean it's obvious he's Asian but hopefully he develops some way of not getting bogged down in "p.c. culture" one way or the other...it's gonna be hard 'cause he's gotta seek the Dem nomination which has the big "traditional lefty" talking points that gotta be ritually acknowledged....
  #113  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:35 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89

Why Is Yang's Own Campaign Button Always Lopsided???


Not a biggie of course but I just gotta wonder -- why's his own campaign button worn on the lapel literally always lopsided??

I've seen over twenty Yang videos, from his own to Fox, Iowa TV, and New Hampshire TV and he's always got that thing on its side, LOL!
  #114  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:37 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Yeah, no, actually, I hope Yang stays away from the identity politics stuff...I mean it's obvious he's Asian but hopefully he develops some way of not getting bogged down in "p.c. culture" one way or the other...it's gonna be hard 'cause he's gotta seek the Dem nomination which has the big "traditional lefty" talking points that gotta be ritually acknowledged....
radio host asks him about giving extra money to African Americans
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #115  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:48 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Yeah, I saw that too!!

Andrew handled it okay, though the African-American host was being polite, too, in not pressing him on it...so again I'm just concerned ('cause hey a thousand bucks a month starting 2021 or so would help, yeah!) 'cause Warren, Booker, and Harris are already on record as being for ADOS Reparations and many blacks are gonna just want that, understandably enough, even though that'll be the kiss of death in the general election.
  #116  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:52 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
But I became a true believer just five days ago (and have been researching this guy and U.B.I. since then [that's how I found out about this forum and this thread]) when I noticed that in the YouTube comments even Trump supporters and, especially, white supremacists were saying they were supporting him for President -- all because of U.B.I.!!.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Hear, hear!! I'm also tired of being caught between the BLM drama queens and the Wall Street fellaters.
Might you be a Trump supporter?
  #117  
Old 02-22-2019, 04:01 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Might you be a Trump supporter?
Depends on what you mean by "supporter"...I do share the disdain for "p.c. culture" that many Trump people also express and I'm glad that his successful candidacy has forced establishment media to confront that.

I mean, BLM drama queens screaming at Bernie of all people??? Yeah, I'm glad Trump's undercut that to some degree. Just look at that Covington Catholic High School mess, never mind the Smollet drama.

I really hope Andrew manages to avoid all this...because it seems like there will be folks who want to pin him down on these issues in the Dem primary -- to the almost certainly fatal detriment of his general election performance.
  #118  
Old 02-22-2019, 06:30 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
I particularly like how Yang is framing the narrative outside the bounds of traditional Capitalism vs. Socialism. We need to take the best of both. It’s a nuanced argument, which may not play well in a national election driven by tweets and soundbites, but I’m guessing a lot of the electorate who reject Socialism outright will find a way to embrace a monthly $1,000 dividend.
  #119  
Old 02-22-2019, 08:12 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
That's my hope, too -- let's see if people really do vote against their own economic best interests!!!

The Yang candidacy will be a social science experiment for the ages...no clearer way to put it than, here, here's a thousand bucks each month for life....
  #120  
Old 02-23-2019, 01:55 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
That's my hope, too -- let's see if people really do vote against their own economic best interests!!!

The Yang candidacy will be a social science experiment for the ages...no clearer way to put it than, here, here's a thousand bucks each month for life....
Never underestimate the effectiveness of a straight cash bribe!

It is remarkable that somewhere in the last 150 years or so our species figured out ways to produce and distribute enough goods to provide every person on the planet with basic levels of food, water and shelter. We chose not to. We thought it more virtuous to have some people aggregate far more than they could ever consume while others literally starve. Future historians will expand what we condescendingly call the Dark Ages to include our own century.
  #121  
Old 02-23-2019, 07:59 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
I particularly like how Yang is framing the narrative outside the bounds of traditional Capitalism vs. Socialism. We need to take the best of both. It’s a nuanced argument, which may not play well in a national election driven by tweets and soundbites, but I’m guessing a lot of the electorate who reject Socialism outright will find a way to embrace a monthly $1,000 dividend.
Precisely! We need to have that conversation as a country, and win, lose, or draw, I'm glad that Yang is trying to get that message out. I mean, Bernie Sanders still lost, but we're still talking very seriously about Medicare for All and other progressive issues - and they're being taken seriously.

I think this is why Bernie was so unexpectedly popular - he did what Republicans have been doing for years, talking about how to put more money in everyone's pocket. Hillary was talking about...wind farms.

It doesn't matter how depraved Republicans can get, they always have one core issue that's very popular with all voters, regardless of background: tax cuts. They talk about putting money back into people's pockets. Bernie talked about it, but in a different way.

And now Andrew Yang is trying to fundamentally shift how we view what an economy should be. I'm not a linguist but IIRC, the word "economy" originates from the Greek word "oikos," which refers to the family and the family's property. The economic data tell us that our economy is growing, but ordinary people aren't benefiting from this expansion. The profiteers are. And that divide will only grow wider with automation. For generations, people have used wage-floor type jobs as a way to enter the workforce and get some basic training. For others, it's an income at least. There's been a time or two when I've used these jobs in between other 'real' jobs. But those jobs are in danger of being driven into extinction, and with it, so is economic mobility.

Last edited by asahi; 02-23-2019 at 08:00 AM.
  #122  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:18 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
That's my hope, too -- let's see if people really do vote against their own economic best interests!!!

The Yang candidacy will be a social science experiment for the ages...no clearer way to put it than, here, here's a thousand bucks each month for life....
The only aspect of this proposal I'm not quite sold on is the idea that everyone should receive this income, regardless of total wealth. Perhaps there should be a means-tested element. The danger, of course, is that it creates an incentive for fraud, but that already exists with the tax code and current welfare programs. Fraud is inevitable; just crack down on it when it occurs.

Fundamentally, I am a capitalist, but I think that capitalism must have a component of wealth redistribution for it to benefit everyone. If capitalism creates clear and obvious winners and losers, over time, it creates resentments that will ultimately lead to calls for socialism.
  #123  
Old 02-24-2019, 01:50 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
It is remarkable that somewhere in the last 150 years or so our species figured out ways to produce and distribute enough goods to provide every person on the planet with basic levels of food, water and shelter. We chose not to.
Yeah, there's a real yin-yang (no pun intended!) thing to it all: capitalism ushered in such industry (such diligent effort), but its motivation was "profit"...my greater hope for U.B.I. is that it'll help created that "human-centered capitalism" Andrew speaks of....

Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Future historians will expand what we condescendingly call the Dark Ages to include our own century.
By the same token, some future politicians will refer to our century as a Golden Age!

Anyway, by definition half of any group will be "below average" so it's not surprising that anytime in the past will be a "dark age"...but I do share your "pessimism," yeah.
  #124  
Old 02-24-2019, 02:11 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Precisely! We need to have that conversation as a country, and win, lose, or draw, I'm glad that Yang is trying to get that message out. I mean, Bernie Sanders still lost, but we're still talking very seriously about Medicare for All and other progressive issues - and they're being taken seriously.
My fear is that U.B.I. will get lost in the hodgepodge of policy proposals from this far more diverse field of Dem candidates. I don't know why reparations is on the agenda for many this season because that's just such a death-knell in the general election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It doesn't matter how depraved Republicans can get, they always have one core issue that's very popular with all voters, regardless of background: tax cuts. They talk about putting money back into people's pockets. Bernie talked about it, but in a different way.
My hope is that folks see how clearly Andrew's Freedom Dividend is money in their pockets in the most direct way possible. It's just so damned intuitive!

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
And now Andrew Yang is trying to fundamentally shift how we view what an economy should be. I'm not a linguist but IIRC, the word "economy" originates from the Greek word "oikos," which refers to the family and the family's property. The economic data tell us that our economy is growing, but ordinary people aren't benefiting from this expansion. The profiteers are. And that divide will only grow wider with automation. For generations, people have used wage-floor type jobs as a way to enter the workforce and get some basic training. For others, it's an income at least. There's been a time or two when I've used these jobs in between other 'real' jobs. But those jobs are in danger of being driven into extinction, and with it, so is economic mobility.
Yeah, I really like that, too -- his American Scorecard proposal.

I hope Andrew's able to successfully sell this, time and time again, staying on-message! I heard a recent interview with him on some Lars Larson Show where Andrew was getting interrupted way worse than he'd been by even Varney on Fox Business News...seemed like Andrew got deflected slightly a few times by the nearly non-stop lengthy harangues....

Last edited by DavidChou; 02-24-2019 at 02:12 AM.
  #125  
Old 02-24-2019, 02:22 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The only aspect of this proposal I'm not quite sold on is the idea that everyone should receive this income, regardless of total wealth. Perhaps there should be a means-tested element. The danger, of course, is that it creates an incentive for fraud, but that already exists with the tax code and current welfare programs. Fraud is inevitable; just crack down on it when it occurs.
Well, it's an opt-in system, meaning one has to actively sign up first -- so hopefully the billionaires will be like, not worth my time (though they have wealth managers who'll probably just sign them up anyway).

But the main thing is that Andrew wants it to be a right of adult citizenship, which will de-stigmatize it as a "hand-out" -- can't be a hand-out if even the rich are taking it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Fundamentally, I am a capitalist, but I think that capitalism must have a component of wealth redistribution for it to benefit everyone. If capitalism creates clear and obvious winners and losers, over time, it creates resentments that will ultimately lead to calls for socialism.
Well, that's basically what Marx said!

As for capitalist redistribution of wealth, in one of his videos, Andrew noted how the ol' bit about Henry Ford making sure his workers can afford his automobiles doesn't apply in this new economy where technological advances severely limit human labor participation...ergo, U.B.I. and the redefinition of economic understanding and economic policy you'd mentioned in the other post.
  #126  
Old 02-24-2019, 05:58 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Yang stresses how much money a UBI would inject into local markets, but I think there is a massive global impact waiting in the wings. Imagine how many more people would travel abroad or even retire overseas with $1,000 per month. That would fund a very comfortable lifestyle in much of the world and inject badly needed revenue into those economies as well.

Pushing 28K donors now...
  #127  
Old 02-24-2019, 06:37 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Yang stresses how much money a UBI would inject into local markets, but I think there is a massive global impact waiting in the wings. Imagine how many more people would travel abroad or even retire overseas with $1,000 per month. That would fund a very comfortable lifestyle in much of the world and inject badly needed revenue into those economies as well.
Travel aboard, yeah -- but retire overseas...that would go against helping local economies here, which is his justification for his Freedom Dividend. Though would you control that, exactly??

So I've had a few questions of this sort, fine-grained-details type of questions, such as does his VAT apply only to tech transactions like Google searches, corporations in general, or everyone including individuals buying potato chips?? I'd imagine the last, but in at least one video I recall him saying something that could be construed as the first.





Pushing 28K donors now...[/QUOTE]
  #128  
Old 02-24-2019, 09:11 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Travel aboard, yeah -- but retire overseas...that would go against helping local economies here, which is his justification for his Freedom Dividend. Though would you control that, exactly??

So I've had a few questions of this sort, fine-grained-details type of questions, such as does his VAT apply only to tech transactions like Google searches, corporations in general, or everyone including individuals buying potato chips?? I'd imagine the last, but in at least one video I recall him saying something that could be construed as the first.

Pushing 28K donors now...
[/QUOTE]

People travel and retire abroad now. This would impact the US only at the margins, but it could have a real impact on money flowing into many communities around the world.

Iím no expert but it sounds like heís intent on applying VAT to the high-tech industries whose returns have outstripped brick-and-mortar shops. He even calls the Freedom Dividend the ďtech checkĒ in one of his speeches.
  #129  
Old 02-24-2019, 02:56 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,189
People tend to look at the negative aspects of UBI and I get that, but how about the potential to release alot of Human productivity from the bounds of just securing basic needs, I mean, if I go with what Maslows hierarcy suggests, securing the basic physiological needs and some of the safety needs in the hierarcy would suggests that people would then be alot closer to realising their potential.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #130  
Old 02-24-2019, 03:14 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
People travel and retire abroad now. This would impact the US only at the margins, but it could have a real impact on money flowing into many communities around the world.
Okay, maybe if it's only kept to folks at the official age of retirement -- what's it now, 67 or something? -- then I guess that could be "manageable"...'cause otherwise, hell, I can certainly live quite nicely overseas on $1K/mo. alone and that'd make no sense as a lot of horny guys young (and old!) would be emigrating....

Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Iím no expert but it sounds like heís intent on applying VAT to the high-tech industries whose returns have outstripped brick-and-mortar shops. He even calls the Freedom Dividend the ďtech checkĒ in one of his speeches.
Yeah, that's what it sounds like at times, but in some videos such as with Varney on Fox Business News, IIRC, the you-just-gonna-tax-everyone complaint is put forth and he doesn't simply say "it's not everyone it's just tech companies" or "it's not people just corporations" so I dunno....
  #131  
Old 02-24-2019, 03:18 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
People tend to look at the negative aspects of UBI and I get that, but how about the potential to release alot of Human productivity from the bounds of just securing basic needs, I mean, if I go with what Maslows hierarcy suggests, securing the basic physiological needs and some of the safety needs in the hierarcy would suggests that people would then be alot closer to realising their potential.
Yeah, no, so I was doing research on Andrew and UBI in general which is how I wound up here (though, again, I did once know of The Straight Dope forums long ago)...and "research" means to me both pros and cons and I'm already sold on the pros so I'm curious as to possible cons -- especially with Andrew's particular implementation as the "Freedom Dividend"....

So I was curious about funding. VAT on corps, or even more narrowly tech corps, only?? That's like just perfect!! And how about income taxes on UBI??? I hope not -- that would sound dumb (though I know it has precedent)....

And overseas living? Even if limited to only retirement (as in, official-age retirement of 67 or whatever) that's still quite a dream...oh my!!

But nothing's perfect so what could be the downside???

Like, for example, just what are Andrew's chances of getting it passed in the first place??? He's promising to start giving everyone money in January 2021!!!
  #132  
Old 02-24-2019, 03:24 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
People tend to look at the negative aspects of UBI and I get that, but how about the potential to release alot of Human productivity from the bounds of just securing basic needs, I mean, if I go with what Maslows hierarcy suggests, securing the basic physiological needs and some of the safety needs in the hierarcy would suggests that people would then be alot closer to realising their potential.
And has it occurred to you that maybe a whole lot of people don't have that much potential and all UBI will do for them is free them from the labor market? I mean seriously, what treasure to humanity do you think await when people have a free grand per month?
  #133  
Old 02-24-2019, 03:54 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And has it occurred to you that maybe a whole lot of people don't have that much potential and all UBI will do for them is free them from the labor market? I mean seriously, what treasure to humanity do you think await when people have a free grand per month?
I really struggle to understand this attitude. One would think Christians especially could get behind the idea of the community coming together to ensure everyone in it is provided with the basic necessities of life. But they donít. Prosperity has become more important than charity. The mind wobbles.

Americans think wealth is a virtue. Itís not. Itís just a lot of money. Virtue is doing good, like looking after the least among us without scorn. Surely saving people from a life of privation and struggle is treasure enough to humanity.
  #134  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:06 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And has it occurred to you that maybe a whole lot of people don't have that much potential and all UBI will do for them is free them from the labor market? I mean seriously, what treasure to humanity do you think await when people have a free grand per month?
$12K won't free anyone from the labor market in most locales and situations (e.g., not living in mom's basement); it was deliberately set at this amount for that reason.

And the whole reason Andrew gave for UBI is that human labor will very soon be a very small part of overall labor, which will be taken over by ever better AI (IOW, very little jobs).
  #135  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:10 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
I really struggle to understand this attitude. One would think Christians especially could get behind the idea of the community coming together to ensure everyone in it is provided with the basic necessities of life. But they donít. Prosperity has become more important than charity. The mind wobbles.
So he's a "Christian," then??

Whatever happened to "worry not thy Father in Heaven will provide as He does for the sparrows"...only YHWH's sent UBI???

Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Americans think wealth is a virtue. Itís not. Itís just a lot of money. Virtue is doing good, like looking after the least among us without scorn. Surely saving people from a life of privation and struggle is treasure enough to humanity.
Andrew talked about the resistance against UBI being a psychological matter; I think in the recent Freakanomics episode he said that some psychologist (his brother?) told him that people's mindset of scarcity makes them deeply distrust UBI.

I could tell from that guys' rigid doctrinaire political correctness in the Bernie thread that he's got a mindset of scarcity which is why he feels like any acknowledgment of another POV means he's somehow losing something....
  #136  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
$12K won't free anyone from the labor market in most locales and situations (e.g., not living in mom's basement); it was deliberately set at this amount for that reason.

And the whole reason Andrew gave for UBI is that human labor will very soon be a very small part of overall labor, which will be taken over by ever better AI (IOW, very little jobs).
It will indeed let people leave the labor market. It would be very surprising if implementing UBI wouldn't lead to a big bump in early retirement.

Unless UBI, by dumping tonnes of cash into the economy, would also bump inflation. What has your research said on that aspect?

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-24-2019 at 04:14 PM.
  #137  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
... just what are Andrew's chances of getting it passed in the first place??? ...
If he is a numbers guy he knows it is essentially zero.

Pretty confident that he can be dismissed out of hand as not a serious candidate. So critiquing him on those grounds would be silly. But he wants his ideas to get a serious hearing and "running" can help get people discussing them. Fine. I'll join in.

No question that technological advances have been hollowing out the middle class, part of the first part of his premise. A few are moving up out of the middle ... some of the group with greater levels of education (not all of course) ... and more dropping down. The result is increasing wealth inequality made greater by the even greater move up of those already in the higher groups.

So let's move to part two - what to do about it?

He dismisses out of hand investing in education to prepare for the jobs to come. In general through history technological disruptions end up creating new jobs that are just different than the ones they displaced and that require new skills and knowledge. Arguing that this time really is different is a hard case to make when no other time has been. He doesn't even argue this time is different ... just that we suck at education. I'm not so sure that is an accurate assessment, but given he made his fortune as part of that system, a test prep company, I guess he's entitled to be a cynic. He seems like he'd prefer to just give up on preparing people as what he did prepare them for was dumb.

Is UBI enough to prevent un- or mismatched skilled and/or lesser educated people from falling out of the middle? Clearly no. It does not solve or meaningfully address the hollowing out middle problem. Is there really a need to give those in the upper income brackets this income? His site claims that the technology VAT would mean that "a wealthy person will likely pay more into the system than he or she gets out of it." but how does that follow? How would I as a doctor (maybe not "rich" but doing fine enough) pay more from a technology VAT than would a person creating web content, or someone selling their home built projects through internet sites? Why should I get this money? I mean I'll take it, but why to me? Because it is simpler to not means test? C'mon.
  #138  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:31 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It will indeed let people leave the labor market. It would be very surprising if implementing UBI wouldn't lead to a big bump in early retirement.
Well sure folks can retire early or decide to rent a cheap room somewhere and go on a diet...but the overwhelming vast majority of people simply aren't going to retire on an extra $12K a year. Many people get that amount in raises or especially bonuses but we've never seen an exodus from the workforce as a result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Unless UBI, by dumping tonnes of cash into the economy, would also bump inflation. What has your research said on that aspect?
1.
Inflationary pressure will be non-existent to negligible and temporary because consumables markets are very mature (i.e., highly efficient). This means that toilet paper, smartphones, clothing, software, etc. are easily scaled up to meet even massively increased demand, and it's these kinds of things that will wind up being bought.

2.
Price sensitivity and competition will also keep down inflation because people will still want the most bang for their bucks and businesses will still need to compete for those dollars.

3.
Everyone's incomes are rising at the same exact rate -- $1K/mo. -- so this should further keep a lid on inflation because people are richer than themselves, not each other, so it's not like someone's gonna buy up all the toilet paper in town or whatever.
  #139  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:51 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Well sure folks can retire early or decide to rent a cheap room somewhere and go on a diet...but the overwhelming vast majority of people simply aren't going to retire on an extra $12K a year. Many people get that amount in raises or especially bonuses but we've never seen an exodus from the workforce as a result.
Yes, they are. Many middle income couples want to pay off their home and have a decent cash flow after they quit working. An extra $2k a month guaranteed is a rather large change in the gameplan.

And you clearly don't get how idiotic it is to think that's equivalent to a raise or bonus. A $12k raise is not going to give you $12k for the rest of your damn life after retirement.
  #140  
Old 02-24-2019, 05:55 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
If he is a numbers guy he knows it is essentially zero.
So I'd thought as much -- but then (among other things) I came across a few videos where he makes his case based on the numbers...the most detailed accounting he's given is to some Californian Asian-American group...it's on YouTube, uploaded by "Ding Ding TV" (some ordinarily Chinese YouTube Channel)....

IIRC, his case is that he only needs 30K-40K Iowans' support to place Top Three and secure a chance at New Hampshire...et cetera...it's a long-shot, to be sure, but definitely doable.

And he's at 28K donors currently, with just one to two percent name recognition and even cheaper donors than Bernie's ($19 average to $27), coming out of nowhere at this early stage of the game. And, as per either the Bernie or Harris thread here, both Bill Clinton and Obama were just as unknown at this stage during their initial runs.

Are you still unimpressed? Why? I'm really curious. Mainly 'cause I like to imagine myself a realist and so would love to know all the angles of a situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So let's move to part two - what to do about it?

He dismisses out of hand investing in education to prepare for the jobs to come. In general through history technological disruptions end up creating new jobs that are just different than the ones they displaced and that require new skills and knowledge. Arguing that this time really is different is a hard case to make when no other time has been.
Well, no and here's why:

You can't compare an airplane to a bird, though they both fly. Absolutely different at every fundamental level of their respective constitutions (i.e., their very being).

That's what Andrew's arguing is happening. Because this new technology won't demand new labors for new positions -- the very nature of this technology is to eliminate positions.

This technology isn't designed to make things like previous technologies; it's designed for efficiency, which means eliminating inputs, especially costly, slow, and error-prone human labor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
He doesn't even argue this time is different ... just that we suck at education.
No, he very clearly does, all the time (as in the above) -- but he also argues that we suck at "education" (leaving aside the humanities scholars' umbrage at equating education with job-training) in the sense of people graduating to menial jobs with massive lifelong debt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I'm not so sure that is an accurate assessment,
How could it not be accurate in light of such terrible outcomes??

We say we have a shitty healthcare system due to the terrible outcomes. Do you not agree that our educational system provides terrible outcomes, too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
but given he made his fortune as part of that system, a test prep company, I guess he's entitled to be a cynic.
He would know.

I do too; I worked in the C-Suite of the Fortune 1 equivalent of an academic institution. I can't unsee the shit I've seen. You wanna talk cynical?? Literally any department with a budget -- which is of course all of them -- makes a mad scramble come March/April every year to spend out their budget on anything and everything because otherwise they'd receive less funding the next fiscal year on the logic that obviously they didn't need the money last year 'cause it was spent out so they surely don't need it this year....

I actually was all for free college ŗ la Bernie until I came to grips with Andrew's argument -- I was literally converted over a conversation with other "Yang Gangers" just yesterday....

First off, I'd still prefer both UBI and free college such as what Denmark offers its students ($900/mo. stipend and free tuition), IIRC -- but if it's a choice between the two, then of course UBI makes more sense, because I can always save for college on my own...you know, like how folks used to be able to do.

And honestly, as a student once, I remember how very cynically others (no, honestly never myself) would do their term papers literally two-hours before they're due or copy homework and answers to multiple-choice questions on tests...most of the students themselves don't actually want to be there. It's just the truth. People posturing and showboating in class when it's clear that they haven't read the material at all but professors too afraid to call them out due to allegations of racism...so the whole class would have to sit through some ill-informed or even totally uninformed harangue more appropriate for internet forums (heh) because these lowly adjuncts are afraid to interrupt someone pontificating about some oppression or other....

And the professors, cynically passing on people (grade inflation, etc.) due to misplaced sympathies or outright bribery, financial or, more commonly, sexual...really, it all reminds me of U.S. Army infantry OSUT/BCT ("basic training") -- what you learn isn't really the official curricula and what you actually get isn't what you had a right to expect based on the advertisement....

So discussing things over, reviewing Andrew's logic in conjunction with my own decades of experience in academia, suddenly a light bulb went off and I'm like, hey, yeah, that's right -- this is a very, very, very inefficient way to prepare for work, never mind inculcate morality and appreciation for culture...especially in this age of Web 2.0!

Why do you think free college is preferable to UBI in light of all that? Most folks just aren't cut out for college; why not free them to be entrepreneurs, artists, craftsmen and women, or learn on their own (most computer programmers are self-taught)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
He seems like he'd prefer to just give up on preparing people as what he did prepare them for was dumb.
Wow, now that's cynical -- of you. What's with the hate??

(This is not a moral judgment on my part; it's just what struck me and I'm intensely curious as to the motivation for such an uncharitable choice of words on your part.)

In fact, selling his company to Kaplan shows how successful it was; I've heard of Manhattan Prep -- they're famous...never realized it was his baby, founded by him!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Is UBI enough to prevent un- or mismatched skilled and/or lesser educated people from falling out of the middle? Clearly no.
Waaaaiiitt...how so????? Where was your argument that UBI can't prevent mis/unmatched skilled/educated people from "the middle" (class??)???

[QUOTE=DSeid;21505558]It does not solve or meaningfully address the hollowing out middle problem.

Sorry for missing it but I don't see where you "proved" that at all....

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Is there really a need to give those in the upper income brackets this income?
What do you mean by "giving" them income -- you mean UBI?

First off, it's opt-in, so they'll have to actively choose to participate by signing up first. Andrew's encouraging them to not take it or donate it, though what makes UBI "universal" or "unconditional" is the fact that literally everyone gets it (citizens, in Andrew's implementation) because this prevents any social stigma ("handout" put-downs) and may even decrease the chance of fraud.

And the upper income brackets pay so much more in progressive taxation -- which Andrew's not abandoning -- than they gain in $1K/mo. Remember the ol' truism about it not worth people like Bill Gates taking the time to bend down and pick up an errant hundred-dollar bill? Same principle.

Ultimately, their gain is not your loss at all. How do you lose with UBI?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
His site claims that the technology VAT would mean that "a wealthy person will likely pay more into the system than he or she gets out of it." but how does that follow? How would I as a doctor (maybe not "rich" but doing fine enough) pay more from a technology VAT than would a person creating web content, or someone selling their home built projects through internet sites?
I'd agree that his "sales copy" should be "tighter" -- I've actually e-mailed his campaign yesterday about a discrepancy on his own about-me page -- but the general idea is that every Google search and every robot-truck mile would be taxed -- a penny or even a fraction thereof, in all likelihood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Why should I get this money? I mean I'll take it, but why to me? Because it is simpler to not means test? C'mon.
Everything has a cost; as someone who's had to avail himself of food stamps and unemployment insurance I can tell you that it's a tremendously horrible process where they really really really don't want to help you and make you jump through a whole bunch of hoops to secure what little assistance they've mandated -- my tax dollars; I've been working since age 14, the legal minimum in my city -- only to repeat the process again due to clerical errors, lost paperwork (yup, still a lot of different pieces of papers involved), and other mysteries of municipal bureaucracy....

I know in the very depths of my being that welfare programs are just jobs programs for the workers staffing these facilities. And the non-profits that often run many social welfare facilities have had their share of scandals, usually involving graft and/or nepotism.

UBI puts the money directly in the hands of those who could use it. Why would you be against that? Why go through a high priest when you can pray to God yourself?? (That was the Protestant Reformation in essence.)
  #141  
Old 02-24-2019, 06:05 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, they are. Many middle income couples want to pay off their home and have a decent cash flow after they quit working. An extra $2k a month guaranteed is a rather large change in the gameplan.
Middle-come couples read to retire are just a relatively small part of the population, unfortunately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And you clearly don't get how idiotic it is to think that's equivalent to a raise or bonus. A $12k raise is not going to give you $12k for the rest of your damn life after retirement.
What's idiotic is your deliberately misconstruing everything I say whenever you can...we were talking about the general population of workers and you want to suddenly pivot out of nowhere to middle-income retired couples in particular.

That's arguing in extremely bad faith. If you'll continue in that vein, you will be ignored.
  #142  
Old 02-24-2019, 06:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
UBI puts the money directly in the hands of those who could use it. Why would you be against that? Why go through a high priest when you can pray to God yourself?? (That was the Protestant Reformation in essence.)
Lol. UBI puts money into everyone's hands. That's what the "U" means.
  #143  
Old 02-24-2019, 07:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Middle-come couples read to retire are just a relatively small part of the population, unfortunately.



What's idiotic is your deliberately misconstruing everything I say whenever you can...we were talking about the general population of workers and you want to suddenly pivot out of nowhere to middle-income retired couples in particular.

That's arguing in extremely bad faith. If you'll continue in that vein, you will be ignored.
I didn't misconstrue jackshit. I'm sorry your childish viewpoints are easily dismissed but ignoring me isn't going to change that.
  #144  
Old 02-24-2019, 07:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,449
But please, tell me more about the "opt in" aspects of free money every month. What would cause someone to opt out of free money?

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-24-2019 at 07:35 PM.
  #145  
Old 02-24-2019, 07:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,659
Let's try to address some of these points.

His coming in third in Iowa is much less than a long shot IMHO. This is big field with several very established and others with portfolios that make sense. Is he that amazing orator who will inspire as soon as people hear him? Not from the little snips I listened to. Mayor Pete has much moree of a chance of coming out from back of the back on that basis than does this guy. Is his signature issue something that will trigger some "aha" epiphany among Iowa Democratic caucus goers, especially given that more than ever caucus goers and primary voters are most concerned with picking someone who can win? No.

Technology has always been aimed at efficiency of labor, "which means eliminating inputs, especially costly, slow, and error-prone human labor" - is this time different? No other disruptive technology has been but this could be the one. Still, the World Economic Forum is prognosticating it is not.
Quote:
Developments in automation technologies and artificial intelligence could see 75 million jobs displaced, according to the WEF report "The Future of Jobs 2018." However, another 133 million new roles may emerge as companies shake up their division of labor between humans and machines, translating to 58 million net new jobs being created by 2022, it said. ...
While I am not confident that this time will do the same as every other time I do not think there is any reason to be confident it won't be.

I believe we have very good educational outcomes. SAT and ACT tests OTOH are increasingly recognized to be dumb with less predictive value than had been thought (with more schools not requiring them anymore) and prep programs are just another cost to the process that becomes obligatory to keep up. The ubiquity of test prep is yet another cost that the poorer student can less afford to absorb than the one from a family of more means. And I believe that humanities are part of producing those excellent outcomes. The United States has been extremely productive at producing intellectual property, for example. We create ideas and export them arguably better than any other culture on the planet. That is an outcome that matters.

I have not taken a position in support of free college btw. Affordable without crippling debt yes, but that is not the same as free. And investing in education is not only college and certainly not only the bricks and mortar dorm rooms football stadium big health club dueling departments approach.

Your post#124 acknowledges that $12K is not enough to "free anyone from the labor market" An unskilled worker cannot be middle class with that and it does not create a set of jobs middle class jobs. If, as you and Yang posit will be the case, there are few jobs to be had (especially for those without needed skills for the economy that exists) then how does that keep these people in a middle class?

Yang's UBI puts money equally in the hands of those who need it and those who do not. (We can all use it.) It puts it in my hands as much as it puts it in someone desperate for a fast food job. Why would I turn it down? It does not pay for it with a greater progressive tax on those who do not need it. It pays for it with taxes that hit the working poor as hard as they hit me, they use trucked products, they use the internet, as much as a those in higher income brackets do. It's got to be enough pennies per Google search and robot-truck mile to generate $12/K per person per year. Everyone ends up paying their share of that in in charges for searches and increased costs of trucked products (or products made of products that were trucked), the poor as much as the rich. You cannot give what you have not taken.
  #146  
Old 02-24-2019, 11:44 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Let's try to address some of these points.
Thanks -- sorry about all the rambling asides...curiously enough, I like Andrew all the more because he's so focused and on-message, unlike myself oftentimes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
His coming in third in Iowa is much less than a long shot IMHO. This is big field with several very established and others with portfolios that make sense.
Aha, Mr. Science!! I've got nerd porn for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

(BTW, I'm teasing you, of course; it's clear you know more than me and I think are older, even, and thus with more experience -- you may already know about First Past the Post Voting.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Is he that amazing orator who will inspire as soon as people hear him? Not from the little snips I listened to.
See, that's just the funny thing, though; one of the most common compliments folks will pay to him -- and this was the case for myself as well -- is that he "speaks like a normal person!!" That he "doesn't speak like a politician!"

I'm telling you, I was shocked as I analyzed my own growing interest and read others reporting on theirs. And being not "inspirational" has proven to be oddly inspirational to his fans!! I take this to mean that he's not talking about "uniting" us and using "baby-talk" language like that -- he's just "telling it like it is." I guess folks feel like they're being preached at when a politician starts using flowery oration?

I seriously wonder if him being Asian means people just have this unconscious assumption that he's harmless and therefore they can relax and their minds are thus more open and receptive!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Is his signature issue something that will trigger some "aha" epiphany among Iowa Democratic caucus goers, especially given that more than ever caucus goers and primary voters are most concerned with picking someone who can win? No.
So did you see him speak to the Iowa Democrat Caucus (or whatever the official name is)?? Again, I don't have the experience you do so maybe it was a very mild reception he'd actually received but it seemed to me that folks responded most strongly to his signature plan of UBI. It's certainly the case in the YouTube comments of his videos (which, yes, aren't necessarily by Democrats but that's the beauty of it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Still, the World Economic Forum is prognosticating it is not. While I am not confident that this time will do the same as every other time I do not think there is any reason to be confident it won't be.
But what's wrong with preparing, just in case, especially when the gains are good in themselves, regardless of the automation justification (which I've always felt to be a fig leaf anyway for "socialism," despite the very clear and logical rationale presented)??

To simply say "it may not happen" seems like the logical equivalent of climate change denial -- sure it may not but where's the harm in being prepared, especially when the benefits are good in themselves even if there is no climate change???

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I believe we have very good educational outcomes.
Well, you raise a point below which is other than the ones I'd raised and I don't think anyone under the Sisyphean burden of massive eternal debt would consider that sole point worth the cost -- but let's address it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
SAT and ACT tests OTOH are increasingly recognized to be dumb with less predictive value than had been thought (with more schools not requiring them anymore)
Perhaps -- as you must know, your results depend on what you intend to measure. We can make things with less "predictive value" by fiat simply by massaging the P-value, never mind experiment design and so forth.

Also, I've noticed that whenever blacks and (to a smaller extent) hispanics can't do something, that something is dropped as "not predictive" or, even, "racist." It's just an incredibly convenient coincidence, through whole decades, literally. Even the FDNY civil service exam was "racist" -- though of course no civil service exam where (non-Asian) minorities predominate has been judged racist.

But I don't even know why you raise this matter. Test scores were never a bone of contention in claims of bad educational outcomes. Sorry if I've lost the thread of the conversation and please kindly remind me if I have, but the claim of bad educational outcomes was menial labor jobs and massive lifelong undischargeable debt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I have not taken a position in support of free college btw. Affordable without crippling debt yes, but that is not the same as free.
That's Andrew's position, AFAIK; he's not absolutely against free college but he definitely believes in de-emphasizing college as the one thing everyone must have, like a high school education, in favor of entrepreneurship, the trades, or the arts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Your post#124 acknowledges that $12K is not enough to "free anyone from the labor market" An unskilled worker cannot be middle class with that and it does not create a set of jobs middle class jobs. If, as you and Yang posit will be the case, there are few jobs to be had (especially for those without needed skills for the economy that exists) then how does that keep these people in a middle class?
So here's the thing for me personally: I trust myself more than I trust the government. And I still consider myself a New Deal Democrat in many ways -- but it's like traffic lights: I don't rely on traffic lights; I rely on my own eyes...but good functional traffic lights are still necessary.

So even if I'm not "middle class," I know that a simply extra thousand a month in my pocket will provide me more freedom and opportunity than working somewhere for that same thousand, trading my time and thoughts and my very life for that same thousand.

Does that make sense to you? I mean, can you feel how important that is to me and other "Yang Gangers"??

Like instead of having a secretary type up all your correspondence as in the old days when companies had whole typists' departments where all non-executive corporate communications were pooled for professional processing, you now have word processing software with what used to be called WYSIWYG functionality. Isn't the latter better??

But okay, you want to talk "macroeconomics"...where will the middle class job for me come from if they're all disappearing and I'm not gonna be able to live on $12K anyway...and here's the source of your bewilderment: we're not there yet in robo-apocalypse...the point of Yang's program is to prepare us for it, to help us ordinary workers transition with minimal disruption...so for, as he says, five to ten years there will be jobs still, up to fifteen/twenty...but yes, each year, if not each quarter, will bring layoffs...why not prepare for the future with UBI instead of fighting the future with...what, exactly??? Job guarantees so we can slave away miserably as ever doing drudgery -- guaranteed?????

Do you not trust human ingenuity?? Then give it time, and the financial breathing room, to germinate and grow. That's what UBI means to me -- create the next Great American Novel, the next million-dollar app, the next business success story, or just work modestly as before but now without worrying about basic expenses (moving to a room, or another locale, etc. -- the choice is yours!)...heck, create the next great Straight Dope Forum post if you so fancy!!

Don't forget also that Andrew seeks to redefine the economy -- our very understanding of work and value -- and thus rewrite the social contract...so old notions like "middle class" and maybe even "jobs" will be as irrelevant and obsolete to what truly matters, our happiness and quality of life.

Unchain quality of life from money!

And I believe it's possible -- a lot more possible than having blacks and whites, men and women, straights and LGBTQIA, religious and atheist, etc., fight over what scraps remain...because you absolutely cannot hold back this nearly arrived revolution, and it's more doubtful that we'll deal successfully with it old-timey strategies such as job guarantees than just letting people figure it out for themselves -- but with a direct financial safety net.

Andrew's really counting on us to, paraphrasing the Buddha, be the authors of our own salvation...as someone who's personally dealt with the dysfunction of government first-hand for many years, I'd rather count on myself. Just give me the tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Yang's UBI puts money equally in the hands of those who need it and those who do not. (We can all use it.) It puts it in my hands as much as it puts it in someone desperate for a fast food job.
It's called "Universal [or Unconditional] Basic Income" -- that's the beauty of it: it's a feature, not a bug.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Why would I turn it down?
Perhaps for the same reason you might return a purse with $12K in it -- you don't feel like you need it and believe someone else will derive greater utility from it than you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It does not pay for it with a greater progressive tax on those who do not need it.
And why's that a problem? I support a Warren-style wealth tax but Andrew doesn't for several reasons, the first of which is that it's far harder to hide corporate VAT receipts than it is to hide personal income. In fact, he hopes to abolish federal income taxes one day if conditions allow!

It's also an easier sell to everyone: Big Tech is disrupting the economy and eliminating entire professions; let Big Tech pay for it from the value in every robo-driven mile and every Google search.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It pays for it with taxes that hit the working poor as hard as they hit me, they use trucked products, they use the internet, as much as a those in higher income brackets do.
So, no -- it's not a VAT on all; only on the biggest tech companies.

Rich enough for ya? ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It's got to be enough pennies per Google search and robot-truck mile to generate $12/K per person per year.
Have you any idea how many miles are driven each hour in the U.S.A. -- never mind American Google searches per second??

Yeah, it'll be a lot -- that's the magic of the extreme efficiency that's come to displace us all in some way or other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Everyone ends up paying their share of that in in charges for searches
Oh my...you do not pay for Google searches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
and increased costs of trucked products (or products made of products that were trucked), the poor as much as the rich. You cannot give what you have not taken.
No: again, that's the magic of the incredible efficiency upon us. Andrew says trucking alone will be a $168 billion savings every year -- forevermore -- with 100% adoption of robo-trucking alone...we can capture a sliver of that, and a sliver of Google searchers, a sliver here, a sliver there....

Surely you know that business makes money in the margins? Same deal here.

Stop thinking linearly; start thinking exponentially.
  #147  
Old 02-25-2019, 02:03 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
To my simple mind the reasoning for UBI goes like this:

Is there enough (food, shelter, healthcare) to go around?

Seems like the answer is yes.

If yes, should we do more, as sentient beings sharing a cooperative existence, to make sure all people have some kind of minimal safety net because itís better/cheaper/more humane for society as a whole to do that?

That also seems like a yes.

Are we in fact doing enough to reach that end?

Seems like the answer is no.

Does UBI get us closer to that better world?

I think it does.

Will a few people sit at home eating Cheetos and playing video games all day instead of ďworking for a livingĒ (assuming they could earn a living based on their skills, circumstances and location)?

Yep. No avoiding it.

Does that matter?

Not when you realize what is gained - freedom from economic anxiety for the vast majority of people who will use the opportunity to improve circumstances for their families and their communities.
  #148  
Old 02-25-2019, 05:59 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post

... Stop thinking linearly; start thinking exponentially.
I'm sorry this is nonesensical.

There is no magic here and there is no "free money for everyone!" If the trucking companies (to keep it in the form that you can likely understand the best) pay more per mile then the products end up costing more and ultimately the cost is paid for by every consumer without regard to their income or wealth. It is a little more indirect with internet use but it still holds.

Yes it increases the cost of adopting any new technology within the United States (and if this is to produce enough to fund $12K/yr per person by a lot) which might slow down adoption some ... and raise prices of American products form export hurting us in trade.

If the idea is to tax corporations higher do it directly. Taxing technology only is however more likely to function as a sin tax, driving the firms that have been our strength and are our future away and putting the entire economy at a disadvantage.
  #149  
Old 02-25-2019, 06:21 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,659
A separate question -

Let's assume that somehow Yang does attract a more significant following. Who do you think those voters would have been otherwise voting for? I'm getting the sense that any support he garners is coming out of those who might have been attracted to Sanders as the Big Idea person last time and otherwise this time.
  #150  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:55 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
A separate question -

Let's assume that somehow Yang does attract a more significant following. Who do you think those voters would have been otherwise voting for? I'm getting the sense that any support he garners is coming out of those who might have been attracted to Sanders as the Big Idea person last time and otherwise this time.
The anecdotal evidence from his Facebook group is that heís attracting voters from every part of the political spectrum, including Trump supporters. Everybody likes money.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017