That’s fair. And while we’re 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.
We’ll see who survives the early debates. Yang is now almost halfway to the 65,000 donors needed to get a place on the stage. He’s up to 32,190 per the tracker on the Yang2020 website. See? Data driven!
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
That’s 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 can’t 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 society’s 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 isn’t Utopian thinking, it’s acknowledging that 19th century methods are inadequate for 21st century reality.
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.
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. :o )
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?)
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.
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 don’t 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.
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.
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 we’ll 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 won’t benefit. And let’s 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.
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.
Wouldn’t Unconditional Basic Income Just Cause Massive Inflation?
Some examples of UBI where inflation didn’t increase substantially.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Essentially, yes, but it’s probably larger, and it can be paid out over the year.
‘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.
Here is a five-minute segment from last night where Tucker Carlson discusses labor displacement due to automation with Andrew Yang.
He didn’t get a chance to go into his UBI proposal but he’s 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 “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit. Lots of good info in there straight from the man himself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.