Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 02-25-2019, 10:38 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
LTechnology 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. 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.
From what I've read of that report and what I've seen of Andrew Yang, they're saying the same thing. In fact, in one of his interviews, he gives an example of a potential future job, piloting self-driving vehicles remotely which is mentioned in this report as piloting drones.

This report also advocates for UBI in order to give workers the time to retool their skills and find new ways of working. The vision in this report notes that more workers will become freelancers, gig workers and contract workers, all giving rise for the need to stabilize their income and give them some type of reliable means of getting health insurance since many of those positions don't require employers to provide it at the moment.

From the linked report:

Quote:
For workers, there is an unquestionable need to take personal responsibility for oneís own lifelong learning and career development. It is also equally clear that many individuals will need to be supported through periods of job transition and phases of retraining and upskilling by governments and employers. For example, lifelong learning is becoming a rich area of experimentation, with several governments and industries looking for the right formula to encourage individuals to voluntarily undergo periodic skills upgrading.52 Similarly, while a fully-fledged universal basic income may remain politically and economically unfeasible or undesirable over the 2018Ė2022 period, some variants or aspects of the ideaósuch as providing a Ďuniversal lifelong learning fundí for individuals to draw on as neededómight receive increasing attention over the coming years.53 Solutions are likely to vary by country and to depend on local political, economic and social circumstances.
I'm seeing your cite as an affirmation of Yang's policies, not a criticism of them.
  #152  
Old 02-25-2019, 11:19 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
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.
So the problem is, folks will disagree.

Either they will simply say there isn't enough at all, or they will say that UBI is not a good way to get all that distributed.

The second argument, that UBI's not the mechanism to use, is the reason for all the other criticisms you'd listed.

Which is odd considering how they're so easily negligible, as you'd noted.

The only one that's tough is the "who's gonna pay for it?" rebuttal -- tough because it requires an extended knowledge chain (in the sense of a tool chain or supply chain) which most people don't have (namely, economics, business, technology, psychology, even ethics).
  #153  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:01 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I'm sorry this is nonesensical.
You're a science and numbers guy. You know the difference between "linear" and "exponential."

Your objections are often related to that difference, such as when you don't think that tech activity like robo-truck mileage and Google searches can sufficiently fund UBI -- details below.

And, you know what, in the light of day I have to apologize again for yet another long-winded and ultimately unhelpful reply to your previous post, likely confusing you if nothing else...I will absolutely be focused from now on. Please accept my apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
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.
There won't be inflation because price sensitivity and competition will still hold.

You do realize that Andrew graduated from Brown University with an economics degree, right? And is a successful entrepreneur so he knows business basics, at least?? And graduated from Columbia Law School, where he was an editor on the law review and learned corporate law -- so he definitely knows tax loopholes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
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.
No, because we're not talking commodities like soybeans (which, incidentally, China's been having a hard time getting other suppliers to fulfill, for example -- and that's friggin' soybeans, ferchrissake)...these are tech products and services, with genuinely Unique Value Propositions. You're comparing apples and whole planets.

Again, think "exponential," not "linear."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
If the idea is to tax corporations higher do it directly.
They don't pay taxes as it is.

The whole point of Andrew's Tech VAT is to resolve the Gordian Knot of legal-loophole whack-a-mole.

A Tech VAT is directly tied to data such as robo-truck miles and Google searches. Corporate executives can't hide those because then they'd have to say that business went down on their watch!

(The exclamation point is not to shout at you but to convey delight at the trap the habitual tax-dodgers would be in!!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
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.
1) Sin Tax: No, because you are taxing their core business activity or transaction, such as robo-truck miles and Google searches, and not some luxury ("sin") ultimately irrelevant to the business, and no tech company would have any incentive to pretend (hide) the level of their business (which will only grow).

2) Drive Away: No, because the United States is the place for a business to succeed -- tech companies have literally nowhere else to go. China?? Russia??? Israel????? No other country offers the same breadth and depth of legal protections, market size and quality (such as consumer spending levels, etc.), and cultural amenities for employees. Andrew's Freedom Dividend is to finally pay us citizen-shareholders our rightful gains from America, Inc.!!!
  #154  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:21 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
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.
Trump voters and Bernie Bros: Andrew's used the image of a horseshoe, while quickly discussing his data and strategy in response to the interviewer in some YouTube video, observing that the extremes, the ends of the horseshoe, converge.

So far in literally a week since I got the UBI fire lit under my ass causing me to do research online every hour I can, I'd say the Yang Gang so far is an eclectic mix of D&D nerds, Bernie Bros, tech fetishists, white supremacists, disgruntled PoliSci majors, slackers, a few retirees, some PoC (maybe mainly Asians??), and most recently a fiscal hawk who believes in UBI and thinks a case can be made tying it to the national debt crisis!!!

I asked the fiscal hawk for details but he wants to see Andrew first and talk about it with him in person (?!?!) first at an upcoming talk in Washington, NJ...so right now it's the usual motley crew of dreamers and idealists -- online, anyway; the Yang Campaign hasn't shared any data with anyone AFAIK.

This guy can really win. He's got a story that's perfect for the Zeitgeist -- no, not that son of immigrants shit though yeah he'll cop to that -- fighting the recently arrived tech apocalypse with an akido-like move that turns its technology on itself for us, the damned citizen-shareholders of America, Inc.!!!
  #155  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:29 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
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.
Hell yeah!! I'm actually a misanthrope and even I like Andrew!!!
  #156  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:31 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
From what I've read of that report and what I've seen of Andrew Yang, they're saying the same thing. In fact, in one of his interviews, he gives an example of a potential future job, piloting self-driving vehicles remotely which is mentioned in this report as piloting drones.

This report also advocates for UBI in order to give workers the time to retool their skills and find new ways of working. The vision in this report notes that more workers will become freelancers, gig workers and contract workers, all giving rise for the need to stabilize their income and give them some type of reliable means of getting health insurance since many of those positions don't require employers to provide it at the moment.

From the linked report:

I'm seeing your cite as an affirmation of Yang's policies, not a criticism of them.
Thanks for that. I really must stop with the stream-of-consciousness typing...makes me miss the most salient points.

Thanks again.
  #157  
Old 02-25-2019, 01:01 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Thanks for that. I really must stop with the stream-of-consciousness typing...makes me miss the most salient points.

Thanks again.
Welcome to the SDMB and thanks for posting! I'm enjoying your posts. You bring an enthusiasm and curiosity that is refreshing.
  #158  
Old 02-25-2019, 01:28 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
Welcome to the SDMB and thanks for posting! I'm enjoying your posts. You bring an enthusiasm and curiosity that is refreshing.
Thanks for the kind thoughts! Politics is actually new to me (though I've had opinions, sure) so I very much appreciate the experience of folks like you who've seen a whole lot more about so much more!!
  #159  
Old 02-25-2019, 02:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,308
Even the greatest ideas and policy proposals in history wouldn't be enough to get me to support Yang over most of the other Democratic candidates (though I'm sure I'd heartily support him over Trump). As much as anything else, the last two years have shown us that experience in public policy and politics really is very important to being president.
  #160  
Old 02-25-2019, 02:27 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As much as anything else, the last two years have shown us that experience in public policy and politics really is very important to being president.
1.
I don't see how you make that argument, since clearly all the preceding "experience in public policy and politics" is what got Trump elected!!

2.
So would you support Andrew on the ideas alone? Is your fear simply that he'll get chewed up by the opposition (D & R both) like Obama??

3.
Does holding an Economics degree from Brown, a JD from Columbia Law where he learned about taxes and loopholes and edited the law review, starting up a successful company that he sold for millions, then starting up a successful non-profit dedicated to entrepreneurship where he saw the innards of our tech apocalypse not qualify as "experience" better than pandering to fickle voters and activist-agitators???

4.
Who do you currently prefer (say, Top Two) and why?


Much obliged!
  #161  
Old 02-25-2019, 02:36 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
1.
I don't see how you make that argument, since clearly all the preceding "experience in public policy and politics" is what got Trump elected!!
That's not what I said -- I said "being president", not being elected president. Trump has been truly incompetent and awful at being president, and a big chunk of that awfulness is due to his lack of experience in public policy and politics in general. While Yang would probably be a lot better than Trump, his lack of experience would probably cause very significant problems in a wide variety of areas were he elected, just as it has Trump.

Quote:
2.
So would you support Andrew on the ideas alone? Is your fear simply that he'll get chewed up by the opposition (D & R both) like Obama??
I might support his ideas, and if I liked them, I'd advocate that those ideas be put into place. But I think lacking any political experience is such a huge negative in terms of the actual day-to-day job of being president, I'd be very unlikely to support Yang over most of the other candidates who have several years of elected experience in state/federal office.

Quote:
3.
Does holding an Economics degree from Brown, a JD from Columbia Law where he learned about taxes and loopholes and edited the law review, starting up a successful company that he sold for millions, then starting up a successful non-profit dedicated to entrepreneurship where he saw the innards of our tech apocalypse not qualify as "experience" better than pandering to fickle voters and activist-agitators???
Not in terms of the actual job of being president, IMO. "Being a smart guy" is not even close to enough to be a good president, IMO.

Quote:
4.
Who do you currently prefer (say, Top Two) and why?


Much obliged!
I'm leaning towards Amy Klobuchar, but I'm not even close to a final decision yet. At this point I believe she might have the best combination of electability, good ideas, and valuable experience. But I might change my mind.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-25-2019 at 02:37 PM.
  #162  
Old 02-25-2019, 02:45 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,186
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?
That's the point, UBI is premised on the fact the need for labour will shrink due to ever increasing automation, and the inability to train or re-skill all those people thrown out of a job who are middle aged or from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Also, yeah there will be people who will do nothing, but people do that already on welfare, but you know what? That's a small percentage of recipients, and alot of people would put time and effort into enhancing their local communities and family lives.

Quote:
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.
You don't get it after you are 64, but you'd of known that because you bothered to read his policy proposals, right?

As for your scoffing at the opt-in, it's in relation to either being a recipient of welfare or UBI, you can have one but not the other.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #163  
Old 02-25-2019, 03:10 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
That's the point, UBI is premised on the fact the need for labour will shrink due to ever increasing automation, and the inability to train or re-skill all those people thrown out of a job who are middle aged or from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Also, yeah there will be people who will do nothing, but people do that already on welfare, but you know what? That's a small percentage of recipients, and alot of people would put time and effort into enhancing their local communities and family lives.



You don't get it after you are 64, but you'd of known that because you bothered to read his policy proposals, right?

As for your scoffing at the opt-in, it's in relation to either being a recipient of welfare or UBI, you can have one but not the other.


Yangís original formation capped UBI at age 64 but he has changed that. Now there is no upper age limit. Shrewd move on his part not to alienate one of the largest and most reliable voting blocks in the country!

And for all the naysayers, he does a pretty good job of explaining how UBI will supplant a lot of current programs with VAT used to make up the balance of funds needed. We're already spending most of this money. Itís not about topping up existing welfare programs but replacing them where it makes sense. Think of how much admin could be eliminated if we did away with the majority of welfare programs and just handed people cash to spend as they see fit.
  #164  
Old 02-25-2019, 03:22 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not what I said -- I said "being president", not being elected president.
Yeah, no, I meant that all that preceding experience has lead to Trump, so, so much for experience!

IOW, all that experience lead to the disasters that lead to Trump. Yeah sure they "did some good" and "did the best they could" but the bottom line is that the economics and racial politicking (and I know these aren't solely the Presidents' fault) got so screwed up that we would up with Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
While Yang would probably be a lot better than Trump, his lack of experience would probably cause very significant problems in a wide variety of areas were he elected, just as it has Trump.
So this is what I'd actually like to discuss and was doing research on...can you detail what or how exactly you believe Andrew could fuck things up (and which things)??

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I might support his ideas, and if I liked them, I'd advocate that those ideas be put into place. But I think lacking any political experience is such a huge negative in terms of the actual day-to-day job of being president, I'd be very unlikely to support Yang over most of the other candidates who have several years of elected experience in state/federal office.
So you're not even gonna look a platform -- there must be political experience before proceeding??

Interesting...you don't work in H.R. by any chance, do you? ;-)

In addition to my initial statements on political experience, I'd like to respectfully remind you that the Framers of the Constitution specifically left out any such requirement for the Office of President. That's really important, I think, because it provides for the chance to radically rethinking of what politics ought to be concerned about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm leaning towards Amy Klobuchar, but I'm not even close to a final decision yet. At this point I believe she might have the best combination of electability, good ideas, and valuable experience. But I might change my mind.
Thanks -- if you'd like to discuss her further, I'd love to hear it at https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=871453 (because moderator hijacking, as you know)!
  #165  
Old 02-25-2019, 03:34 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
You don't get it after you are 64, but you'd of known that because you bothered to read his policy proposals, right?
So part of the reason I've been doing research and found this place is 'cause some of his proposals are currently vague or even contradictory, one example of the former being whether UBI would be paid to eligible citizens residing overseas, especially if indefinitely or permanently, and one example of the latter being this issue of age eligibility: Andrew's own site contains a discrepancy!!

His about-me page ("Andrew's Story") still lists this number of 64 but the about-UBI pGE ("What Is UBI?") simply states "over 18" (under the "Who would get..." heading). I e-mailed about this over the weekend but the copy remains discrepant as ever.

I'd bet "over 18" and not only until 64 because there's a recent video of him talking to Iowans at a cafe where he specifically stated that his policy's been updated to lifetime eligibility (over 18) due to feedback. However, the Guardian profile of him dated just yesterday still contains that "until 64" nonsense!

So I don't know if Andrew's staff is too busy or don't care or what but, yeah, I wish he would speak to the various nuances more. Like it was only with yesterday's Fox News interview that I learned that his Freedom Dividend would not be taxed -- but still would be counted as income during annual filing and thus possibly push one into a higher bracket.

I'd love to compile an Andrew Yang UBI Fact Sheet at some point but it's weird one doesn't already exist dealing pretty basic nuances like those!
  #166  
Old 02-25-2019, 03:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Yeah, no, I meant that all that preceding experience has lead to Trump, so, so much for experience!



IOW, all that experience lead to the disasters that lead to Trump. Yeah sure they "did some good" and "did the best they could" but the bottom line is that the economics and racial politicking (and I know these aren't solely the Presidents' fault) got so screwed up that we would up with Trump.
If you're saying that having experienced public servants in the White House caused Trump to be elected, then that's a pretty nonsensical assertion, IMO. The ones responsible for Trump's election are those that supported and voted for him, and to a lesser extent, those that didn't vote.




Quote:
So this is what I'd actually like to discuss and was doing research on...can you detail what or how exactly you believe Andrew could fuck things up (and which things)??
By not understanding the many complexities of how government functions. Which is one of the major ways Trump is failing. If you don't understand how relevant experience can be beneficial in an extremely complex organization like the US government, than I'm not sure how to explain it to you.



Quote:
So you're not even gonna look a platform -- there must be political experience before proceeding??



Interesting...you don't work in H.R. by any chance, do you? ;-)



In addition to my initial statements on political experience, I'd like to respectfully remind you that the Framers of the Constitution specifically left out any such requirement for the Office of President. That's really important, I think, because it provides for the chance to radically rethinking of what politics ought to be concerned about.


I'll look at his platform, but his lack of relevant experience is such a huge negative IMO that there's unlikely to be anything in his platform that could make up for it as compared to most other Democrats with experience.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-25-2019 at 03:40 PM.
  #167  
Old 02-25-2019, 03:46 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Yangís original formation capped UBI at age 64 but he has changed that. Now there is no upper age limit. Shrewd move on his part not to alienate one of the largest and most reliable voting blocks in the country!

And for all the naysayers, he does a pretty good job of explaining how UBI will supplant a lot of current programs with VAT used to make up the balance of funds needed. We're already spending most of this money. Itís not about topping up existing welfare programs but replacing them where it makes sense. Think of how much admin could be eliminated if we did away with the majority of welfare programs and just handed people cash to spend as they see fit.
Yeah, so that's another thing: I get the sense that Andrew, in fighting for name recognition, doesn't want to get too detailed right now for fear that it'll turn off different demographics unnecessarily...for example:

Tech VAT (he should really call it a Tech VAT instead of just VAT which makes it sound like we will all pay more taxes on every purchase) -- what else would be taxed besides robo-truck mileage and Google searches? Presumably automated phone attendants?? How about today's automated checkout registers? Future sex dolls??? ;-)

Freedom Dividend (it's such a great name): would it be paid to expats, temporary or permanent? Now that ex-prisoners are starting to get the right to vote, what will happen to Andrew's statement that current prisoners would forfeit their monthly UBI while incarcerated?? Also, many are incarcerated due to not being able to afford bail, even though they haven't yet had a trial -- what about them? Will their UBI also be forfeited, or applied to their commissary, or left in the bank account until possible conviction??

Now I don't fault him for not having such details available, exactly -- I just wish that they were.
  #168  
Old 02-25-2019, 04:06 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
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.
All of this makes me think you don't understand what inflation actually is. In what way will giving people $12K/year not cause inflation...price sensitivity and competition? That makes zero sense. It's like asking about monetary policy and getting a response that says brown bears are plentiful in Alaska.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
You do realize that Andrew graduated from Brown University with an economics degree, right? And is a successful entrepreneur so he knows business basics, at least?? And graduated from Columbia Law School, where he was an editor on the law review and learned corporate law -- so he definitely knows tax loopholes.
This is word salad. Because he was an editor on the law review, he definitely knows tax loopholes? Wut? Even if this were true, you've done nothing to show how it's relevant in any way. But it's not true. Neither is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
They don't pay taxes as it is.
That's not true either. Some companies with 0 or negative net income will pay no income tax, but that's not the same thing, and people don't need to go to Brown University to know that paying income tax only on income is a pretty straightforward concept - it's actually in the name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
A Tech VAT is directly tied to data such as robo-truck miles and Google searches. Corporate executives can't hide those because then they'd have to say that business went down on their watch!
More word salad. You say a "tech VAT" and then talk as if it would apply to Google searches. Unless you're using these terms in some non-standard way, this makes zero sense. Feel free to diagram out how a VAT would apply to a google search.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
This guy can really win. ...
Andrew Yang will not win. He can win, in the same way the molecules in my hand can align and allow me to phase through my table.
  #169  
Old 02-25-2019, 04:15 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you're saying that having experienced public servants in the White House caused Trump to be elected, then that's a pretty nonsensical assertion, IMO. The ones responsible for Trump's election are those that supported and voted for him, and to a lesser extent, those that didn't vote.

By not understanding the many complexities of how government functions. Which is one of the major ways Trump is failing. If you don't understand how relevant experience can be beneficial in an extremely complex organization like the US government, than I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

I'll look at his platform, but his lack of relevant experience is such a huge negative IMO that there's unlikely to be anything in his platform that could make up for it as compared to most other Democrats with experience.

I disagree that a person needs extensive government experience to be president. A competent senior executive from a major firm or a senior military commander ought to have a pretty good idea of what to expect, even if the scale is vastly larger. What they would lack, however, is an instant political network. Washington doesnít warm up quickly to outsiders as Trump has seen. Trump is having his ass handed to him not only because heís an incompetent executive but because he's too arrogant to acknowledge he doesnít know how to work the system. Not the administrative system, the political system. My guess is Trump despises McConnell just as much as he does Pelosi. And that the feelings are mutual. If Yang can acknowledge he needs the Democrat machine to implement his agenda, and can cozy up to them in a meaningful way, he ought to be successful.

I would hasten to add that senators and representatives have less executive experience than a CEO, so thatís not what gives them an inside track. Itís their connection to the Washington political machine.
  #170  
Old 02-25-2019, 04:21 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post

Andrew Yang will not win. He can win, in the same way the molecules in my hand can align and allow me to phase through my table.

About this time in the last presidential election cycle a lot of people made a very similar prediction about a fellow named Trump. You may have heard of him....
  #171  
Old 02-25-2019, 04:23 PM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you're saying that having experienced public servants in the White House caused Trump to be elected, then that's a pretty nonsensical assertion, IMO.
Okay, so maybe you're not aware of this but Trump is a symptom, not a cause...focusing on Trump is to miss the forest for the trees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The ones responsible for Trump's election are those that supported and voted for him, and to a lesser extent, those that didn't vote.
Well, "weather is not climate"...that's what I'm saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
By not understanding the many complexities of how government functions.
AI researchers used to think that AI can be achieved by feeding the computer lots and lots of data, all kinds of information about "life, the universe, and everything."

The prime hallmark of intelligence, these scientists eventually realized after decades of trial and error, is that it is fungible -- quickly sizing up the situation and adapting as necessary to accomplish goals.

This is the key which is allowing for the AI that Andrew's warning us has been disrupting the economy all along and will continue to do so exponentially. Exactly no candidate sees this, never mind understand it...or deal with it.

That is the greatest national security threat of all!

But to a career politician "checking boxes" and "punching tickets" it's incomprehensible.

"To a hammer every problem looks like a nail."

Or, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."

You won't get different results doing the same thing over and over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Which is one of the major ways Trump is failing.
Trump is not interested in governing. At all.

It's like when the laws of physics break down at the center of a black hole...you're actually not going to get any useful information referring to Trump.

Again, "weather is not climate"...I sincerely believe you're missing the forest for one weird plastic orange tree planted by some pranksters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you don't understand how relevant experience can be beneficial in an extremely complex organization like the US government, than I'm not sure how to explain it to you.
So here's the thing. Every President has acknowledged ex post facto that literally nothing prepared them for the office.

So that's the first truth to realize. That it's an illusion, a false idol, "experience."

The legacy of their policies have lead to Trump.

You think the Civil War really started in 1861??

Now why is it that software can perform better than human masters of the same tasks now??

It's not "experience."

This is Andrew's key insight into the tech apocalypse upon us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'll look at his platform, but his lack of relevant experience is such a huge negative IMO that there's unlikely to be anything in his platform that could make up for it as compared to most other Democrats with experience.
Thanks for conversing with me on this! I hope to see you at the "candidate comparison thread" to talk about Amy K.
  #172  
Old 02-26-2019, 01:00 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
About this time in the last presidential election cycle a lot of people made a very similar prediction about a fellow named Trump. You may have heard of him....
We're being trolled. Yes, by the forum moderator.

I'm only wondering what the connection is between Carnalk and Bone.
  #173  
Old 02-26-2019, 07:31 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Okay, so maybe you're not aware of this but Trump is a symptom, not a cause...focusing on Trump is to miss the forest for the trees.
Yes, Trump is a symptom -- the fix for the Trump symptom is to replace Trump. The larger problem -- a combination of various forms of bigotry (and tolerance for bigotry), pseudoscience, corruption and moneyed influence, corporate oligarchy, etc -- should be dealt with by robust progressive policies, including reforming money's influence in politics; fighting bigotry in insitutions, politics, society, and culture; improving the education system; higher wages; universal health care; labor rights; etc. IMO, an experienced and skilled progressive politician is more likely to make this happen than a very smart guy with zero experience in politics.

Quote:
AI researchers used to think that AI can be achieved by feeding the computer lots and lots of data, all kinds of information about "life, the universe, and everything."

The prime hallmark of intelligence, these scientists eventually realized after decades of trial and error, is that it is fungible -- quickly sizing up the situation and adapting as necessary to accomplish goals.

This is the key which is allowing for the AI that Andrew's warning us has been disrupting the economy all along and will continue to do so exponentially. Exactly no candidate sees this, never mind understand it...or deal with it.

That is the greatest national security threat of all!

But to a career politician "checking boxes" and "punching tickets" it's incomprehensible.

"To a hammer every problem looks like a nail."

Or, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."

You won't get different results doing the same thing over and over again.
This sounds like buzzword gibberish designed to make us think Yang is the only person who can accomplish this. Which sounds very similar to what Trump and his supporters said when criticized for his lack of political experience.

I don't buy it.
  #174  
Old 02-26-2019, 08:26 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,875

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
We're being trolled. Yes, by the forum moderator.

I'm only wondering what the connection is between Carnalk and Bone.
That's a warning. It is against the rules to refer to another poster as a troll, much less saying such of a moderator.

In addition, DavidChou, we have rules here at the SDMB. Despite being asked to read them and abide by them you have consistently failed to do so. Keep this up and your stay here will be short.

I realize you may think that this is some form of persecution due to your support of Andrew Yang and UBI. It is not. We've found over time that - should we wish to have adult conversations - random insults and ad hominems do not allow for such. Therefore we try to keep the sort of normal Internet behavior at a minimum.

One more and you'll be suspended for a period of time. I hope that's clear.
  #175  
Old 02-26-2019, 09:35 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance;21508553]That's a warning. It is against the rules to refer to another poster as a troll, much less saying such of a moderator.

In addition, DavidChou, we have rules here at the SDMB. Despite being asked to read them and abide by them you have consistently failed to do so. Keep this up and your stay here will be short.

I realize you may think that this is some form of persecution due to your support of Andrew Yang and UBI. It is not. We've found over time that - should we wish to have adult conversations - random insults and ad hominems do not allow for such. Therefore we try to keep the sort of normal Internet behavior at a minimum.

I don't have a persecution complex...where did you get that from?

I'll depart voluntarily; I was just doing research when I came upon this place. But what I see here is a lot of ad hominen-by-proxy* so...yeah, I knew there was a reason why I never bothered with politics. Too many contrived Zeno's Paradox games.




* Most notably, implying I'm a racist is okay -- just don't do it directly by plainly saying that I am. Or is "racist" not an insult whereas "troll" is?
  #176  
Old 02-26-2019, 10:04 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
!
So I don't know if Andrew's staff is too busy or don't care or what but, yeah, I wish he would speak to the various nuances more. Like it was only with yesterday's Fox News interview that I learned that his Freedom Dividend would not be taxed -- but still would be counted as income during annual filing and thus possibly push one into a higher bracket.
That's not how tax brackets work. For purposes of calculating your taxes, your income is broken up into sections, ie brackets, and a different percentage is applied to each section. eg your first $10k is taxed at say 10%, then $10k-20k at 20% and so on. In this example, if you earned $15k then you'd owe 10k@10%($1000)+5k@20%($1000)=$2000. If $5k "would not be taxed -- but still would be counted as income during annual filing" then you'd only have to pay taxes in the lower bracket.
  #177  
Old 02-26-2019, 11:18 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yes, Trump is a symptom -- the fix for the Trump symptom is to replace Trump. The larger problem -- a combination of various forms of bigotry (and tolerance for bigotry), pseudoscience, corruption and moneyed influence, corporate oligarchy, etc -- should be dealt with by robust progressive policies, including reforming money's influence in politics; fighting bigotry in insitutions, politics, society, and culture; improving the education system; higher wages; universal health care; labor rights; etc. IMO, an experienced and skilled progressive politician is more likely to make this happen than a very smart guy with zero experience in politics.

I admire your optimism and I share your sensibilities. And I still think Yang can surround himself with progressives to deliver his agenda. Thatís what good CEOs do, they delegate. I donít find it hard to imagine a President Yang with Bernie Sanders as health czar and Elizabeth Warren as campaign finance reform czar and Kamala Harris as attorney general and etc. Pick your favourite progressives.

Itís also notable that Yang is quite up front about the fact he is less concerned about winning the presidency than he is about solving problems. Career politicians donít have that kind of dispassionate viewpoint. They owe a debt of fealty to their party that does not encumber someone like Yang, who is running as a Democrat specifically because his odds are better that way than if he runs as a third-party candidate.
  #178  
Old 02-26-2019, 11:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
I admire your optimism and I share your sensibilities. And I still think Yang can surround himself with progressives to deliver his agenda. Thatís what good CEOs do, they delegate. I donít find it hard to imagine a President Yang with Bernie Sanders as health czar and Elizabeth Warren as campaign finance reform czar and Kamala Harris as attorney general and etc. Pick your favourite progressives.
This sounds like the argument of Trump and his supporters. I'm unconvinced.

Quote:
Itís also notable that Yang is quite up front about the fact he is less concerned about winning the presidency than he is about solving problems. Career politicians donít have that kind of dispassionate viewpoint. They owe a debt of fealty to their party that does not encumber someone like Yang, who is running as a Democrat specifically because his odds are better that way than if he runs as a third-party candidate.
I have no problem that he's running for the party nomination (unlike my problem with those like Howard Shultz who want to run 3rd party). I'm saying that he's unlikely to earn my support, based on his lack of experience. It's possible, but nothing he's said or done so far comes close to what it would take.
  #179  
Old 02-26-2019, 12:34 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This sounds like the argument of Trump and his supporters. I'm unconvinced.
Trump's style is to wing it and use force of personality to achieve his agenda; when he can be bothered to engage at all, that is. Yang has a data-driven approach. The two couldnít be more different in their management methods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I have no problem that he's running for the party nomination (unlike my problem with those like Howard Shultz who want to run 3rd party). I'm saying that he's unlikely to earn my support, based on his lack of experience. It's possible, but nothing he's said or done so far comes close to what it would take.

And this sounds like the unconvincing ďheís not qualifiedĒ argument from earlier in the thread. No one running has held a job anything like the presidency. Senator doesnít come close. Governor is a little closer but still miles away. Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share whom you consider to have the ďrightĒ experience?
  #180  
Old 02-26-2019, 12:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Trump's style is to wing it and use force of personality to achieve his agenda; when he can be bothered to engage at all, that is. Yang has a data-driven approach. The two couldn’t be more different in their management methods.
I'd vastly prefer Yang to Trump, but I'm unconvinced that Yang is a better choice than the other D candidates. Just saying some variation of "he'd be a great manager and decision maker!" over and over again won't cut it. For me to consider such an inexperienced candidate for president, they would have to show me some sort of absolutely incredible ability to lead and build consensus, in addition to great ideas. Just being a smart guy and a good businessman isn't close to good enough. And I don't buy that being separated from politics is an asset when it comes to the very complicated position of president.

Quote:
And this sounds like the unconvincing “he’s not qualified” argument from earlier in the thread. No one running has held a job anything like the presidency. Senator doesn’t come close. Governor is a little closer but still miles away. Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share whom you consider to have the “right” experience?
Most of the declared candidates so far have enough public policy and politics experience that I'll strongly consider them. From my reading of history, we've had several senators and governors who have turned out to be good presidents (and bad ones too). Being successfully elected senator or governor, especially from a state that's not hard red or blue, demonstrates some ability to navigate political environments and build political consensus.

All I'm saying is that such a candidate has a very high bar to clear to gain my support. That's my prerogative, and nothing I've seen in this thread comes anywhere close to meeting that bar. Maybe Yang will impress me in the debates. We'll see.

Another consideration -- putting a sane and reasonable politician in the WH is my highest priority. Without very strong evidence that an inexperienced candidate like Yang would have a better chance to win in the general than the other candidates, I'm much more inclined to go with the type of candidates that have won in the past -- generally, senators and governors. I'm not willing to throw the dice if there are less uncertain options available.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-26-2019 at 12:48 PM.
  #181  
Old 02-26-2019, 01:04 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'd vastly prefer Yang to Trump, but I'm unconvinced that Yang is a better choice than the other D candidates. Just saying some variation of "he'd be a great manager and decision maker!" over and over again won't cut it. For me to consider such an inexperienced candidate for president, they would have to show me some sort of absolutely incredible ability to lead and build consensus, in addition to great ideas. Just being a smart guy and a good businessman isn't close to good enough. And I don't buy that being separated from politics is an asset when it comes to the very complicated position of president.

Most of the declared candidates so far have enough public policy and politics experience that I'll strongly consider them. From my reading of history, we've had several senators and governors who have turned out to be good presidents (and bad ones too). Being successfully elected senator or governor, especially from a state that's not hard red or blue, demonstrates some ability to navigate political environments and build political consensus.

All I'm saying is that such a candidate has a very high bar to clear to gain my support. That's my prerogative, and nothing I've seen in this thread comes anywhere close to meeting that bar. Maybe Yang will impress me in the debates. We'll see.

Another consideration -- putting a sane and reasonable politician in the WH is my highest priority. Without very strong evidence that an inexperienced candidate like Yang would have a better chance to win in the general than the other candidates, I'm much more inclined to go with the type of candidates that have won in the past -- generally, senators and governors. I'm not willing to throw the dice if there are less uncertain options available.

Thatís fair. And while weíre in agreement that the top priority is to restore sanity to the presidency, that also strikes me as a depressingly low bar for electing someone to the highest office in the land.

Weíll see who survives the early debates. Yang is now almost halfway to the 65,000 donors needed to get a place on the stage. Heís up to 32,190 per the tracker on the Yang2020 website. See? Data driven!
  #182  
Old 02-27-2019, 12:15 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
All of this makes me think you don't understand what inflation actually is. In what way will giving people $12K/year not cause inflation...price sensitivity and competition? That makes zero sense. It's like asking about monetary policy and getting a response that says brown bears are plentiful in Alaska.
A universal basic income might actually work, but it would probably have to be means tested -- I don't think the economy benefits by giving more spending power to people who don't need it.

So we're back at the age-old problem of potentially incentivizing potential fraud in isolated cases and disincentivizing work -- but I can live with that. Don't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and all that.

Rather than having the multiple types of aid and assistance, perhaps we could just have a minimum income floor. Not a wage floor that puts small businesses (and larger ones) in the position of having to pay out higher wages and taxes for social welfare but rather, having a system in which everyone pays - with society's 'winners' paying the lion's share - into a more unified scheme of more singular transfer payments. (Sorry, that was a word salad, too).

What I mean is, instead of all these different aid programs, what if we just replaced it with minimum incomes? It would absolutely work, but that would mean cracking down on tax shelters, closing tax loopholes.

I admit that, right now, in the current climate, this is unicorn thinking. But that's only because we've become so politically corrupt and jaundiced that we can't even be trusted to promote things like the Magnitsky Act
  #183  
Old 02-27-2019, 02:05 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Rather than having the multiple types of aid and assistance, perhaps we could just have a minimum income floor. Not a wage floor that puts small businesses (and larger ones) in the position of having to pay out higher wages and taxes for social welfare but rather, having a system in which everyone pays - with society's 'winners' paying the lion's share - into a more unified scheme of more singular transfer payments. (Sorry, that was a word salad, too).

Thatís pretty much Yang's central thesis. Instead of making the mandatory minimum wage $15/hr give everyone a $6/hr raise (not funded by their employer). Streamline the million and one aid/support programs, cut out the admin, stop treating poor people like children and mandating what they can and canít spend their aid on and capture a small slice of the exploding tech revenues to help fund it. The wealth-multiplier effect of technology has blown past societyís ability to contain it, exacerbating income inquality at an accelerating rate. People moan about the handful who will get their UBI and sit around doing nothing. Yet no one scorns the rich people with capital to invest who do the exact same thing - sit around all day doing nothing while their money makes money for them. In America the idle rich are glorified and the idle poor are vilified.

UBI is just the tip of the spear. Yang is talking about fundamentally changing the conversation about how we view and measure success on a societal level. This isnít Utopian thinking, itís acknowledging that 19th century methods are inadequate for 21st century reality.
  #184  
Old 02-27-2019, 07:26 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
A universal basic income might actually work, but it would probably have to be means tested -- I don't think the economy benefits by giving more spending power to people who don't need it.

So we're back at the age-old problem of potentially incentivizing potential fraud in isolated cases and disincentivizing work -- but I can live with that. Don't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and all that.

Rather than having the multiple types of aid and assistance, perhaps we could just have a minimum income floor. Not a wage floor that puts small businesses (and larger ones) in the position of having to pay out higher wages and taxes for social welfare but rather, having a system in which everyone pays - with society's 'winners' paying the lion's share - into a more unified scheme of more singular transfer payments. (Sorry, that was a word salad, too).

What I mean is, instead of all these different aid programs, what if we just replaced it with minimum incomes? It would absolutely work, but that would mean cracking down on tax shelters, closing tax loopholes.

I admit that, right now, in the current climate, this is unicorn thinking. But that's only because we've become so politically corrupt and jaundiced that we can't even be trusted to promote things like the Magnitsky Act
Means testing tempers the effects of simplification. Instead of going through huge bureaucratic steps and then winding up with something like current welfare, which can act as a deterrent to work, better to adjust the tax rates to recoup the UBI income from high earners.
  #185  
Old 02-27-2019, 09:25 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Alexandria Occasio-Cortez is a real Congressperson. She's not a real presidential candidate (though she's more likely to become one at some point in the future than Yang is).
If we agreed on a good definition of "real" you'd have a bet! (Except that I'll likely be too old to pay off if/when AOC goes for the Big Job. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Let's not pretend for a moment that Andrew Yang and Donald Trump are remotely the same.

Dwight Eisenhower never held public office outside being a military commander and was arguably an effective president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Moreover, the so-called front-runners, except for Biden, are not particularly impressive. So someone's a senator for 5-8 years - so fucking what? How is that any more remarkable than being a serial entrepreneur?
I'll agree that Yang is as qualified as a random Senator or Congressman. Attorney-General of California and Mayor of Newark, OTOH, are big jobs. And, more important is the matter of perception. Voters and donors may, rightly or wrongly, treat a Senator as a more serious candidate than an entrepreneur they'd never heard of.

But why the repeated lack of love for Dwight D. Eisenhower? I think he was one of the most qualified Presidents ever. I think your readings of military history are deficient if you don't think Supreme Commander of the Allied Invasion of Europe was a very big, very tough job. (IIUC, Ike commanded well over 3 million soldiers and airmen. That's Million with an M. How many staffers work for Booker or Klobuchar again?)
  #186  
Old 02-27-2019, 09:30 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Means testing tempers the effects of simplification. Instead of going through huge bureaucratic steps and then winding up with something like current welfare, which can act as a deterrent to work, better to adjust the tax rates to recoup the UBI income from high earners.
Or, to avoid disruption of the current system, adjust the tax rates so the benefit goes away for high earners, but low earners are affected a bit too. We're already doing that for social security/medicare with an effective 15% or so tax rate on low earners (except it's more like 8% for those making close to the minimum wage because presumably their employers would not pay them their portion of the payroll tax.)

Then we can gradually adjust the brackets later.

The good news is this won't be a disincentive to work, because UBI studies have shown that recapture rates do not affect hours worked.

The bad news is that a UBI does reduce hours worked. Whether it is worth it or not is another matter. As a technocrat it's appealing to me for the extra labor pool we'd get from reduced bureaucracy.
  #187  
Old 02-27-2019, 05:05 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
From what I've read of that report and what I've seen of Andrew Yang, they're saying the same thing. In fact, in one of his interviews, he gives an example of a potential future job, piloting self-driving vehicles remotely which is mentioned in this report as piloting drones.

This report also advocates for UBI in order to give workers the time to retool their skills and find new ways of working. The vision in this report notes that more workers will become freelancers, gig workers and contract workers, all giving rise for the need to stabilize their income and give them some type of reliable means of getting health insurance since many of those positions don't require employers to provide it at the moment.

From the linked report:



I'm seeing your cite as an affirmation of Yang's policies, not a criticism of them.
The premise, I thought, was that there would be fewer jobs. Not not the jobs would be different and workers need time to retool. It explicitly ignores helping workers retool their skills.

I donít see UBI as the means to universal health coverage.

Nor do the already appropriately skilled, educated, and compensated need the stabilization.

What advantage, for the goals you cite, does UBI have over an expansion of the unearned tax credit coupled with universal healthcare coverage (however achieved)?

There is no complicated difficult cost to that tax credit structure and a step off with as income increases no more disincentives working harder for more than increases in marginal tax rates do now.


In my mind the big issue is the hollowing out of the middle in regards to wealth and therefore power. UBI (assuming magic money) at best shifts the same increasingly divergent distribution. In reality it likely does not do even that as most will end up paying for it in higher prices product costs as the VAT gets passed down.
__________________
Oy.
  #188  
Old 02-27-2019, 06:34 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
If we agreed on a good definition of "real" you'd have a bet! (Except that I'll likely be too old to pay off if/when AOC goes for the Big Job. )





I'll agree that Yang is as qualified as a random Senator or Congressman. Attorney-General of California and Mayor of Newark, OTOH, are big jobs. And, more important is the matter of perception. Voters and donors may, rightly or wrongly, treat a Senator as a more serious candidate than an entrepreneur they'd never heard of.

But why the repeated lack of love for Dwight D. Eisenhower? I think he was one of the most qualified Presidents ever. I think your readings of military history are deficient if you don't think Supreme Commander of the Allied Invasion of Europe was a very big, very tough job. (IIUC, Ike commanded well over 3 million soldiers and airmen. That's Million with an M. How many staffers work for Booker or Klobuchar again?)
There's no question that Eisenhower was qualified in terms of his understanding off governance and government, but he wasn't qualified in terms of having civilian political experience. He was, like Trump, used to being an autocrat. Of course that's where the similarities end.

It's not as though I'm saying Andrew Yang is the most qualified among the field or that we could have; I'm just saying that he's one of the few who's having a real discussion about the politics of the future.
  #189  
Old 02-27-2019, 06:37 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Thatís pretty much Yang's central thesis. Instead of making the mandatory minimum wage $15/hr give everyone a $6/hr raise (not funded by their employer). Streamline the million and one aid/support programs, cut out the admin, stop treating poor people like children and mandating what they can and canít spend their aid on and capture a small slice of the exploding tech revenues to help fund it. The wealth-multiplier effect of technology has blown past societyís ability to contain it, exacerbating income inquality at an accelerating rate. People moan about the handful who will get their UBI and sit around doing nothing. Yet no one scorns the rich people with capital to invest who do the exact same thing - sit around all day doing nothing while their money makes money for them. In America the idle rich are glorified and the idle poor are vilified.

UBI is just the tip of the spear. Yang is talking about fundamentally changing the conversation about how we view and measure success on a societal level. This isnít Utopian thinking, itís acknowledging that 19th century methods are inadequate for 21st century reality.
I think Yang realizes that we're potentially approaching a crisis of capitalism, and that with rapid increases in the advances of automation, we're going to enter a period of economic, social, and political shock. I think of Andrew Yang as being another Andrew Toffler, except that instead of writing books, he's trying to do something more concrete and trying to produce a meaningful national discourse.
  #190  
Old 02-28-2019, 03:08 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think Yang realizes that we're potentially approaching a crisis of capitalism, and that with rapid increases in the advances of automation, we're going to enter a period of economic, social, and political shock. I think of Andrew Yang as being another Andrew Toffler, except that instead of writing books, he's trying to do something more concrete and trying to produce a meaningful national discourse.
His drive to redefine the metrics of success really resonates with me. We keep coming up with all this marvellous tech that swells the GDP but the gains accrue to fewer and fewer people each time.

GM has about 180K employees and a $56B market cap
Tesla has about 45K employees and a $55B market cap
Uber has about 12K employees and a market cap estimated at $70-120B
Tomorrow weíll have a company with 1K employees and a $1T market cap

Our GDP looks great, and from the perspective of the investor class everything is going great, but the overwhelming majority of Americans wonít benefit. And letís not even get started on (perfectly legal) tax avoidance strategies used by big business...

The same with the record low unemployment in the US - how many people are working multiple jobs to get by? Why is the labor force participation rate in the low 60s%? Why is labor mobility at historic lows?

And why are suicide rates rising in the US? And why has average life expectancy in the US declined over the last three years?

A strong GDP can hide a multitude of sins.
  #191  
Old 02-28-2019, 04:30 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The premise, I thought, was that there would be fewer jobs. Not not the jobs would be different and workers need time to retool. It explicitly ignores helping workers retool their skills.

I donít see UBI as the means to universal health coverage.

Nor do the already appropriately skilled, educated, and compensated need the stabilization.

What advantage, for the goals you cite, does UBI have over an expansion of the unearned tax credit coupled with universal healthcare coverage (however achieved)?

There is no complicated difficult cost to that tax credit structure and a step off with as income increases no more disincentives working harder for more than increases in marginal tax rates do now.

In my mind the big issue is the hollowing out of the middle in regards to wealth and therefore power. UBI (assuming magic money) at best shifts the same increasingly divergent distribution. In reality it likely does not do even that as most will end up paying for it in higher prices product costs as the VAT gets passed down.
I don't think the answer is as black and white as more or fewer jobs. The number of jobs depends on the time frame and the industry of the job. Yang talks a lot about truck drivers, retail sales people and call center workers. Those are a few of the industries that will be hardest hit by robotics in the foreseeable forecasted future. Those industries make up a significant portion of the workforce.

Yang notes that the average truck driver is 49 years old with a high school education. For many people in that category, they likely won't be going back to school and getting a college education. Those people need a different solution.

Yang researched the government's success rate at retraining people like this. He found that the success rate was almost zero. That's why he's not advocating in investing in that solution. He says that the government is really good at sending out stuff to people. But doing something as complex as finding a new career for a person and retraining them at that career isn't something the government is very good at.

But giving people some money to cushion their landing and giving them a small bit of space to find something else could help.

In other fields, there's already more demand than supply. People who are highly skilled in specialized fields with STEM skills are highly sought. But those people are more likely to be subsidized by corporations who need their skills. The $12K/year could help with educational expenses.

Yes, UBI isn't related to universal health care, although Yang is also advocating for universal health care. My comment about insurance was about giving some buffer for health insurance, but I guess that might not apply since people might qualify for Medicaid in that position.

The biggest advantage of UBI over the tax credit is that everyone gets it. That gives people who need it more dignity. There was a study done where everyone in the village was given the same amount while in another village, only the people who needed it were given money. The self-esteem of the people in the village who were all given the same amount was higher than in the other village.

This may seem insignificant, but Yang found that there's a straight line from areas where robotics have replaced many jobs to the amount of voters voting for Trump. Those people don't want a handout. They want opportunities and the means to get more dignity. Those people are losing hope.

In the US, more people are dying from suicide than traffic accidents. It's surmised that this is partly due to the economic circumstances of some people. The economic indicators don't really reflect those people's reality. Giving those people some money with a bit of dignity might give them the space to try something different.

As for inflation, there's some theory and evidence that inflation wouldn't increase much with UBI.

Andrew Yang talks about why consumables wouldn't raise in price in relation to high cost drivers like healthcare, housing and education. Those high cost items are driven by other factors. Consumables would still be competitive due to increased efficiencies with robotics and other technologies.

Andrew Yang | UBI Doesn't cause Inflation (Freakonomics)

Scott Santens, a writer and advocate for UBI, fleshes out the arguments a bit more. One of his main arguments is that inflation won't likely increase because the injection of money is not new money injected into the economy, but existing money being redistributed. He also notes that even if UBI did cause inflation, it could be tied to a price index.

Some of Santens' work here.

Wouldnít Unconditional Basic Income Just Cause Massive Inflation?


Some examples of UBI where inflation didn't increase substantially.

Quote:
In 1982, Alaska began providing a partial basic income annually to all its residents. Until the first dividend, Alaska had a higher rate of inflation than the rest of the United States. But ever since the dividend was introduced, Alaska has had a lower rate of inflation than the rest of the United States.

A partial basic income was also provided in Kuwait in 2011, when every citizen was given $4,000. Fears of increasing inflation were rampant, as Kuwait already had high inflation. Instead of bad inflation getting worse, it actually got better, decreasing from record highs to under 4 percent.

Elsewhere, where basic income experiments have been actually tried and studied, the result in each case is increased entrepreneurship.
A study in Mexico shows that cash payments doesn't cause high price increases.

A new study debunks one of the biggest arguments against basic income


As an aside for those people who say that UBI will increase unemployment, that's not shown by a study and a case example.


Alaska's Universal Basic Income Doesn't Increase Unemployment



UBI Helps People Be More Productive And Work More, Study Claims


Quote:
ďIt is reasonable to expect an unconditional cash transfer, such as a universal income, to decrease employment,Ē Jones notes. ďA key concern with a universal basic income is that it could discourage people from working, but our research shows that the possible reductions in employment seem to be offset by increases in spending that in turn increase the demand for more workers.Ē
  #192  
Old 02-28-2019, 08:35 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
... Yang talks a lot about truck drivers, retail sales people and call center workers. Those are a few of the industries that will be hardest hit by robotics in the foreseeable forecasted future. Those industries make up a significant portion of the workforce.

Yang notes that the average truck driver is 49 years old with a high school education. For many people in that category, they likely won't be going back to school and getting a college education. Those people need a different solution. ...

<snip>

... The biggest advantage of UBI over the tax credit is that everyone gets it. That gives people who need it more dignity. ...

<snip>

... As for inflation, there's some theory and evidence that inflation wouldn't increase much with UBI. ...[/URL]
No doubt in my mind that in the foreseeable future there will be fewer jobs as truck drivers. That foreseeable future is as the technology for self-driving trucks matures and is able to replace the fleet ... which will take at least two decades even if the technology was mature today. For today and the nearer term, next decade or so, future there is a shortage of truck drivers and salaries are going up. That 49 year old will be retiring by the time the trucking robo-apocolypse hits and the pool of truckers already shrunk to meet the decreased need by fewer going into the line of work.

I know of no one who views a tax credit as an affront to their dignity.

Wang can say that technology will be driving down the costs of products by more than VAT would be increasing it, but it is nevertheless still true that the costs are the VAT amount more than they otherwise would be.
  #193  
Old 02-28-2019, 08:52 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
No doubt in my mind that in the foreseeable future there will be fewer jobs as truck drivers. That foreseeable future is as the technology for self-driving trucks matures and is able to replace the fleet ... which will take at least two decades even if the technology was mature today.
It would probably take 10-15 years before trucks become entirely self-driven, but we could experience disruption in half that time. One of the examples Yang alluded to in the Rogan podcast is the possibility that trucks drive themselves once their on the interstate, with human drivers taking them out of and into urban centers. Like you, I believe that we're a few years away from that scenario, but what can't be debated is that engineers are working on that technology now and it's inevitable because it has real potential to revolutionize interstate shipping.

Meanwhile, in many other fields, from call centers to shopping centers, automation, artificial intelligence, robotics, and ultra-modern technology are going to have an impact. And what current research already suggests is that while technology may not necessarily outright cause outright unemployment, it has already eliminated a lot of stable full-time jobs. We can already see that the stable 9-5 economy is, in many cases, being replaced or impacted by the gig economy, with people holding not one job but multiple part-time or temporary jobs. It used to be the high-school diploma holders could still find relatively good paying jobs, but that's harder now and in no small part due to AI and other tech.

All of that aside, I do agree with Bone that UBI when used in conjunction with other social programs and without means testing would cause inflation, and potentially dangerous levels of it. But if we could over time replace the patchwork of assistance and instead have incremental levels of guaranteed income, that's something that might actually be a point of compromise for conservatives. My thinking is, why not just say here's $12,000 (or more) a year per person, free healthcare, and a housing allowance. How you spend it all is your choice, but don't come to us if you run out at the end of the month.
  #194  
Old 02-28-2019, 09:00 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Means testing tempers the effects of simplification. Instead of going through huge bureaucratic steps and then winding up with something like current welfare, which can act as a deterrent to work, better to adjust the tax rates to recoup the UBI income from high earners.
That's certainly one avenue to take, but perhaps UBI could be graduated, like the income tax. You file your income taxes by April, and then by October of that year (assuming you file without an extension), your income rate is set for the next year. The IRS could investigate and punish fraud with UBI just like they could do now with tax fraud. Heck, we could even call it a year-round tax rebate, except that it would benefit the poorer and working class Americans primarily.

No system is perfect mind you, and income alone won't fix our problems. I'd like to explore the idea of having housing and transportation allowances in addition to UBI which could be adjusted for inflation.
  #195  
Old 02-28-2019, 09:48 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... what can't be debated is that engineers are working on that technology now and it's inevitable because it has real potential to revolutionize interstate shipping.

Meanwhile, in many other fields, from call centers to shopping centers, automation, artificial intelligence, robotics, and ultra-modern technology are going to have an impact. And what current research already suggests is that while technology may not necessarily outright cause outright unemployment, it has already eliminated a lot of stable full-time jobs. We can already see that the stable 9-5 economy is, in many cases, being replaced or impacted by the gig economy, with people holding not one job but multiple part-time or temporary jobs. It used to be the high-school diploma holders could still find relatively good paying jobs, but that's harder now and in no small part due to AI and other tech. ...
I do not at all debate that it is inevitable. The time course though matters.

I do not disagree with Heffalump and Roo that government programs to retrain middle aged non-college-educated workers for the jobs that keep them in the middle have not been great and likely would not be great. I do not see the fleet being replaced to great degrees within five to eight years even if the technology and regulatory infrastructure was mature today. Really in the next ten to fifteen years there is more of a risk of greater shortages of truckers than of too few trucking jobs. The Boomers are retiring by then and the less educated Gen X group is not the big bulge of people and should not exceed demand if the supply of new workers looking for those jobs is small. The bigger question is looking at the big bulge of Millennials and those younger.

Exactly right that HS degree only without other skills are going become even more increasingly dropped out of the middle in the future. We are seeing that now and without action it will get worse. Indeed even some college-educated but without family wealth will drop down.

UBI does not address wealth/power inequality at all. It does not give those who have or are soon to drop out of or who have never been in the middle the means to climb up into it and it simultaneously gives the very wealthiest even more wealth while it giving them just enough to barely live off of.

FWIW a graduated UBI is functionally an expanded income tax credit.
  #196  
Old 02-28-2019, 10:00 AM
chargerrich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,074
While I realize Mr. Yang's chances of becoming the POTUS are well below the Mendoza line, I do like his energy and many of his stances. While not a big fan of Universal Basic Income I think he was smart to rename it as a "Freedom Dividend" and he makes an above average argument for it.

I do think his heavy focus on "transportation" and automation - while not insignificant - is far enough out of the mainstream to keep him irrelevant.

That said, his attitude, energy and fresh approach to governing would be a welcome change. Maybe have him replace Rick "my degree is in raising cattle" Perry at the DOE.
  #197  
Old 02-28-2019, 12:01 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
UBI does not address wealth/power inequality at all. It does not give those who have or are soon to drop out of or who have never been in the middle the means to climb up into it and it simultaneously gives the very wealthiest even more wealth while it giving them just enough to barely live off of.
By itself, it doesn't- I agree. What UBI and other allowances could do, though, is to give individuals time and some limited resources to figure things out while they're trying to adapt to changing economic conditions. I think even more important than UBI is having a place to call home.

A key benefit of UBI (in my view anyway) is that it not only benefits the poorer, but through the enforcement of progressive taxation, it also puts limits on the power of the wealthy. When people talk about wealth distribution, they typically think of the economic effects, but it has political impact as well. Simply put, the rich, the corporations in our society need to be reined in -- the first step is to demand, without apology, policies that favor redistribution of wealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
FWIW a graduated UBI is functionally an expanded income tax credit.
Essentially, yes, but it's probably larger, and it can be paid out over the year.
  #198  
Old 03-01-2019, 11:07 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,186
'Conversation with the Candidate' with Andrew Yang: Online exclusive

He does alot of Q&A which is pretty good. He just surpassed 37,500 donations, up over 15k since the middle of February.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #199  
Old 03-02-2019, 03:51 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Here is a five-minute segment from last night where Tucker Carlson discusses labor displacement due to automation with Andrew Yang.

https://youtu.be/IotorCh7dPM

He didnít get a chance to go into his UBI proposal but heís laying the groundwork. Yang has gotten more exposure to date on Fox than on liberal media. That bodes well for his crossover appeal. It may not last, but for now any exposure is good exposure.

And a couple days ago Yang did an ďAsk Me AnythingĒ on Reddit. Lots of good info in there straight from the man himself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co..._presidential/
  #200  
Old 03-03-2019, 02:04 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
No doubt in my mind that in the foreseeable future there will be fewer jobs as truck drivers. That foreseeable future is as the technology for self-driving trucks matures and is able to replace the fleet ... which will take at least two decades even if the technology was mature today. For today and the nearer term, next decade or so, future there is a shortage of truck drivers and salaries are going up. That 49 year old will be retiring by the time the trucking robo-apocolypse hits and the pool of truckers already shrunk to meet the decreased need by fewer going into the line of work.
You may be right. Yang estimates a 10 year time frame for the truckers. The response I've seen him give is that the downside to creating UBI too early is negligible as compared to the catastrophe of doing it too late. The effects of job loss in several industries are being felt today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I know of no one who views a tax credit as an affront to their dignity.
I can't imagine anyone being immune to the constant insinuations that poor people are lazy, stupid, unmotivated, responsible for their own poverty, poor decision makers, along with a myriad of other negative allusions about them as a class.

It would be illogical for anyone to willingly choose to become a part of that highly stigmatized group of people if there was another better alternative. UBI is that better alternative.

The idea that anyone would happily join a highly stigmatized group, given better alternatives, is a false stereotype, IMO.

Perhaps if the culture, led by people like AOC, reveals the charade that people with money are morally superior, it wouldn't matter how the money is distributed. But that's decades away, if it ever happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Wang can say that technology will be driving down the costs of products by more than VAT would be increasing it, but it is nevertheless still true that the costs are the VAT amount more than they otherwise would be.
bold added. Was that a Freudian slip?

Not sure what the rest means. Yes, if the VAT is increased to redistribute the income, it will be increased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
Here is a five-minute segment from last night where Tucker Carlson discusses labor displacement due to automation with Andrew Yang.

https://youtu.be/IotorCh7dPM

He didnít get a chance to go into his UBI proposal but heís laying the groundwork. Yang has gotten more exposure to date on Fox than on liberal media. That bodes well for his crossover appeal. It may not last, but for now any exposure is good exposure.
Thanks for posting this. I really enjoyed it. I haven't seen Tucker Carlson be as amenable to any guest, much less one running as a Democrat. But I think Yang's ideas do play into Carlson's ideas about what he thinks is ailing the country. Carlson has maintained that the immigration issue is an economic one, not a racist one. This economic solution goes along with his theory.

Fox News has been kinder to Yang than the progressive media has been. Progressive media has mostly ignored him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
And a couple days ago Yang did an ďAsk Me AnythingĒ on Reddit. Lots of good info in there straight from the man himself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co..._presidential/
This was great. He answers a lot of questions that are posed in this thread. He really took the time to answer the questions in great detail.
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 07:59 AM.

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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017