Precisely! We need to have that conversation as a country, and win, lose, or draw, I’m glad that Yang is trying to get that message out. I mean, Bernie Sanders still lost, but we’re still talking very seriously about Medicare for All and other progressive issues - and they’re being taken seriously.
I think this is why Bernie was so unexpectedly popular - he did what Republicans have been doing for years, talking about how to put more money in everyone’s pocket. Hillary was talking about…wind farms.
It doesn’t matter how depraved Republicans can get, they always have one core issue that’s very popular with all voters, regardless of background: tax cuts. They talk about putting money back into people’s pockets. Bernie talked about it, but in a different way.
And now Andrew Yang is trying to fundamentally shift how we view what an economy should be. I’m not a linguist but IIRC, the word “economy” originates from the Greek word “oikos,” which refers to the family and the family’s property. The economic data tell us that our economy is growing, but ordinary people aren’t benefiting from this expansion. The profiteers are. And that divide will only grow wider with automation. For generations, people have used wage-floor type jobs as a way to enter the workforce and get some basic training. For others, it’s an income at least. There’s been a time or two when I’ve used these jobs in between other ‘real’ jobs. But those jobs are in danger of being driven into extinction, and with it, so is economic mobility.
The only aspect of this proposal I’m not quite sold on is the idea that everyone should receive this income, regardless of total wealth. Perhaps there should be a means-tested element. The danger, of course, is that it creates an incentive for fraud, but that already exists with the tax code and current welfare programs. Fraud is inevitable; just crack down on it when it occurs.
Fundamentally, I am a capitalist, but I think that capitalism must have a component of wealth redistribution for it to benefit everyone. If capitalism creates clear and obvious winners and losers, over time, it creates resentments that will ultimately lead to calls for socialism.
Yeah, there’s a real yin-yang (no pun intended!) thing to it all: capitalism ushered in such industry (such diligent effort), but its motivation was “profit”…my greater hope for U.B.I. is that it’ll help created that “human-centered capitalism” Andrew speaks of…
By the same token, some future politicians will refer to our century as a Golden Age!
Anyway, by definition half of any group will be “below average” so it’s not surprising that anytime in the past will be a “dark age”…but I do share your “pessimism,” yeah.
My fear is that U.B.I. will get lost in the hodgepodge of policy proposals from this far more diverse field of Dem candidates. I don’t know why reparations is on the agenda for many this season because that’s just such a death-knell in the general election.
My hope is that folks see how clearly Andrew’s Freedom Dividend is money in their pockets in the most direct way possible. It’s just so damned intuitive!
Yeah, I really like that, too – his American Scorecard proposal.
I hope Andrew’s able to successfully sell this, time and time again, staying on-message! I heard a recent interview with him on some Lars Larson Show where Andrew was getting interrupted way worse than he’d been by even Varney on Fox Business News…seemed like Andrew got deflected slightly a few times by the nearly non-stop lengthy harangues…
Well, it’s an opt-in system, meaning one has to actively sign up first – so hopefully the billionaires will be like, not worth my time (though they have wealth managers who’ll probably just sign them up anyway).
But the main thing is that Andrew wants it to be a right of adult citizenship, which will de-stigmatize it as a “hand-out” – can’t be a hand-out if even the rich are taking it!
Well, that’s basically what Marx said!
As for capitalist redistribution of wealth, in one of his videos, Andrew noted how the ol’ bit about Henry Ford making sure his workers can afford his automobiles doesn’t apply in this new economy where technological advances severely limit human labor participation…ergo, U.B.I. and the redefinition of economic understanding and economic policy you’d mentioned in the other post.
Yang stresses how much money a UBI would inject into local markets, but I think there is a massive global impact waiting in the wings. Imagine how many more people would travel abroad or even retire overseas with $1,000 per month. That would fund a very comfortable lifestyle in much of the world and inject badly needed revenue into those economies as well.
Travel aboard, yeah – but retire overseas…that would go against helping local economies here, which is his justification for his Freedom Dividend. Though would you control that, exactly??
So I’ve had a few questions of this sort, fine-grained-details type of questions, such as does his VAT apply only to tech transactions like Google searches, corporations in general, or everyone including individuals buying potato chips?? I’d imagine the last, but in at least one video I recall him saying something that could be construed as the first.
People travel and retire abroad now. This would impact the US only at the margins, but it could have a real impact on money flowing into many communities around the world.
I’m no expert but it sounds like he’s intent on applying VAT to the high-tech industries whose returns have outstripped brick-and-mortar shops. He even calls the Freedom Dividend the “tech check” in one of his speeches.
People tend to look at the negative aspects of UBI and I get that, but how about the potential to release alot of Human productivity from the bounds of just securing basic needs, I mean, if I go with what Maslows hierarcy suggests, securing the basic physiological needs and some of the safety needs in the hierarcy would suggests that people would then be alot closer to realising their potential.
Okay, maybe if it’s only kept to folks at the official age of retirement – what’s it now, 67 or something? – then I guess that could be “manageable”…'cause otherwise, hell, I can certainly live quite nicely overseas on $1K/mo. alone and that’d make no sense as a lot of horny guys young (and old!) would be emigrating…
Yeah, that’s what it sounds like at times, but in some videos such as with Varney on Fox Business News, IIRC, the you-just-gonna-tax-everyone complaint is put forth and he doesn’t simply say “it’s not everyone it’s just tech companies” or “it’s not people just corporations” so I dunno…
Yeah, no, so I was doing research on Andrew and UBI in general which is how I wound up here (though, again, I did once know of The Straight Dope forums long ago)…and “research” means to me both pros and cons and I’m already sold on the pros so I’m curious as to possible cons – especially with Andrew’s particular implementation as the “Freedom Dividend”…
So I was curious about funding. VAT on corps, or even more narrowly tech corps, only?? That’s like just perfect!! And how about income taxes on UBI??? I hope not – that would sound dumb (though I know it has precedent)…
And overseas living? Even if limited to only retirement (as in, official-age retirement of 67 or whatever) that’s still quite a dream…oh my!!
But nothing’s perfect so what could be the downside???
Like, for example, just what are Andrew’s chances of getting it passed in the first place??? He’s promising to start giving everyone money in January 2021!!!
And has it occurred to you that maybe a whole lot of people don’t have that much potential and all UBI will do for them is free them from the labor market? I mean seriously, what treasure to humanity do you think await when people have a free grand per month?
I really struggle to understand this attitude. One would think Christians especially could get behind the idea of the community coming together to ensure everyone in it is provided with the basic necessities of life. But they don’t. Prosperity has become more important than charity. The mind wobbles.
Americans think wealth is a virtue. It’s not. It’s just a lot of money. Virtue is doing good, like looking after the least among us without scorn. Surely saving people from a life of privation and struggle is treasure enough to humanity.
$12K won’t free anyone from the labor market in most locales and situations (e.g., not living in mom’s basement); it was deliberately set at this amount for that reason.
And the whole reason Andrew gave for UBI is that human labor will very soon be a very small part of overall labor, which will be taken over by ever better AI (IOW, very little jobs).
Whatever happened to “worry not thy Father in Heaven will provide as He does for the sparrows”…only YHWH’s sent UBI???
Andrew talked about the resistance against UBI being a psychological matter; I think in the recent Freakanomics episode he said that some psychologist (his brother?) told him that people’s mindset of scarcity makes them deeply distrust UBI.
I could tell from that guys’ rigid doctrinaire political correctness in the Bernie thread that he’s got a mindset of scarcity which is why he feels like any acknowledgment of another POV means he’s somehow losing something…
If he is a numbers guy he knows it is essentially zero.
Pretty confident that he can be dismissed out of hand as not a serious candidate. So critiquing him on those grounds would be silly. But he wants his ideas to get a serious hearing and “running” can help get people discussing them. Fine. I’ll join in.
No question that technological advances have been hollowing out the middle class, part of the first part of his premise. A few are moving up out of the middle … some of the group with greater levels of education (not all of course) … and more dropping down. The result is increasing wealth inequality made greater by the even greater move up of those already in the higher groups.
So let’s move to part two - what to do about it?
He dismisses out of hand investing in education to prepare for the jobs to come. In general through history technological disruptions end up creating new jobs that are just different than the ones they displaced and that require new skills and knowledge. Arguing that this time really is different is a hard case to make when no other time has been. He doesn’t even argue this time is different … just that we suck at education. I’m not so sure that is an accurate assessment, but given he made his fortune as part of that system, a test prep company, I guess he’s entitled to be a cynic. He seems like he’d prefer to just give up on preparing people as what he did prepare them for was dumb.
Is UBI enough to prevent un- or mismatched skilled and/or lesser educated people from falling out of the middle? Clearly no. It does not solve or meaningfully address the hollowing out middle problem. Is there really a need to give those in the upper income brackets this income? His site claims that the technology VAT would mean that “a wealthy person will likely pay more into the system than he or she gets out of it.” but how does that follow? How would I as a doctor (maybe not “rich” but doing fine enough) pay more from a technology VAT than would a person creating web content, or someone selling their home built projects through internet sites? Why should I get this money? I mean I’ll take it, but why to me? Because it is simpler to not means test? C’mon.
Well sure folks can retire early or decide to rent a cheap room somewhere and go on a diet…but the overwhelming vast majority of people simply aren’t going to retire on an extra $12K a year. Many people get that amount in raises or especially bonuses but we’ve never seen an exodus from the workforce as a result.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, they are. Many middle income couples want to pay off their home and have a decent cash flow after they quit working. An extra $2k a month guaranteed is a rather large change in the gameplan.
And you clearly don’t get how idiotic it is to think that’s equivalent to a raise or bonus. A $12k raise is not going to give you $12k for the rest of your damn life after retirement.
So I’d thought as much – but then (among other things) I came across a few videos where he makes his case based on the numbers…the most detailed accounting he’s given is to some Californian Asian-American group…it’s on YouTube, uploaded by “Ding Ding TV” (some ordinarily Chinese YouTube Channel)…
IIRC, his case is that he only needs 30K-40K Iowans’ support to place Top Three and secure a chance at New Hampshire…et cetera…it’s a long-shot, to be sure, but definitely doable.
And he’s at 28K donors currently, with just one to two percent name recognition and even cheaper donors than Bernie’s ($19 average to $27), coming out of nowhere at this early stage of the game. And, as per either the Bernie or Harris thread here, both Bill Clinton and Obama were just as unknown at this stage during their initial runs.
Are you still unimpressed? Why? I’m really curious. Mainly 'cause I like to imagine myself a realist and so would love to know all the angles of a situation.
Well, no and here’s why:
You can’t compare an airplane to a bird, though they both fly. Absolutely different at every fundamental level of their respective constitutions (i.e., their very being).
That’s what Andrew’s arguing is happening. Because this new technology won’t demand new labors for new positions – the very nature of this technology is to eliminate positions.
This technology isn’t designed to make things like previous technologies; it’s designed for efficiency, which means eliminating inputs, especially costly, slow, and error-prone human labor.
No, he very clearly does, all the time (as in the above) – but he also argues that we suck at “education” (leaving aside the humanities scholars’ umbrage at equating education with job-training) in the sense of people graduating to menial jobs with massive lifelong debt.
How could it not be accurate in light of such terrible outcomes??
We say we have a shitty healthcare system due to the terrible outcomes. Do you not agree that our educational system provides terrible outcomes, too?
He would know.
I do too; I worked in the C-Suite of the Fortune 1 equivalent of an academic institution. I can’t unsee the shit I’ve seen. You wanna talk cynical?? Literally any department with a budget – which is of course all of them – makes a mad scramble come March/April every year to spend out their budget on anything and everything because otherwise they’d receive less funding the next fiscal year on the logic that obviously they didn’t need the money last year 'cause it was spent out so they surely don’t need it this year…
I actually was all for free college à la Bernie until I came to grips with Andrew’s argument – I was literally converted over a conversation with other “Yang Gangers” just yesterday…
First off, I’d still prefer both UBI and free college such as what Denmark offers its students ($900/mo. stipend and free tuition), IIRC – but if it’s a choice between the two, then of course UBI makes more sense, because I can always save for college on my own…you know, like how folks used to be able to do.
And honestly, as a student once, I remember how very cynically others (no, honestly never myself) would do their term papers literally two-hours before they’re due or copy homework and answers to multiple-choice questions on tests…most of the students themselves don’t actually want to be there. It’s just the truth. People posturing and showboating in class when it’s clear that they haven’t read the material at all but professors too afraid to call them out due to allegations of racism…so the whole class would have to sit through some ill-informed or even totally uninformed harangue more appropriate for internet forums (heh) because these lowly adjuncts are afraid to interrupt someone pontificating about some oppression or other…
And the professors, cynically passing on people (grade inflation, etc.) due to misplaced sympathies or outright bribery, financial or, more commonly, sexual…really, it all reminds me of U.S. Army infantry OSUT/BCT (“basic training”) – what you learn isn’t really the official curricula and what you actually get isn’t what you had a right to expect based on the advertisement…
So discussing things over, reviewing Andrew’s logic in conjunction with my own decades of experience in academia, suddenly a light bulb went off and I’m like, hey, yeah, that’s right – this is a very, very, very inefficient way to prepare for work, never mind inculcate morality and appreciation for culture…especially in this age of Web 2.0!
Why do you think free college is preferable to UBI in light of all that? Most folks just aren’t cut out for college; why not free them to be entrepreneurs, artists, craftsmen and women, or learn on their own (most computer programmers are self-taught)?
Wow, now that’s cynical – of you. What’s with the hate??
(This is not a moral judgment on my part; it’s just what struck me and I’m intensely curious as to the motivation for such an uncharitable choice of words on your part.)
In fact, selling his company to Kaplan shows how successful it was; I’ve heard of Manhattan Prep – they’re famous…never realized it was his baby, founded by him!!
Waaaaiiitt…how so??? Where was your argument that UBI can’t prevent mis/unmatched skilled/educated people from “the middle” (class??)???
[quote=“DSeid, post:137, topic:829555”]
It does not solve or meaningfully address the hollowing out middle problem.
Sorry for missing it but I don’t see where you “proved” that at all…
What do you mean by “giving” them income – you mean UBI?
First off, it’s opt-in, so they’ll have to actively choose to participate by signing up first. Andrew’s encouraging them to not take it or donate it, though what makes UBI “universal” or “unconditional” is the fact that literally everyone gets it (citizens, in Andrew’s implementation) because this prevents any social stigma (“handout” put-downs) and may even decrease the chance of fraud.
And the upper income brackets pay so much more in progressive taxation – which Andrew’s not abandoning – than they gain in $1K/mo. Remember the ol’ truism about it not worth people like Bill Gates taking the time to bend down and pick up an errant hundred-dollar bill? Same principle.
Ultimately, their gain is not your loss at all. How do you lose with UBI?
I’d agree that his “sales copy” should be “tighter” – I’ve actually e-mailed his campaign yesterday about a discrepancy on his own about-me page – but the general idea is that every Google search and every robot-truck mile would be taxed – a penny or even a fraction thereof, in all likelihood.
Everything has a cost; as someone who’s had to avail himself of food stamps and unemployment insurance I can tell you that it’s a tremendously horrible process where they really really really don’t want to help you and make you jump through a whole bunch of hoops to secure what little assistance they’ve mandated – my tax dollars; I’ve been working since age 14, the legal minimum in my city – only to repeat the process again due to clerical errors, lost paperwork (yup, still a lot of different pieces of papers involved), and other mysteries of municipal bureaucracy…
I know in the very depths of my being that welfare programs are just jobs programs for the workers staffing these facilities. And the non-profits that often run many social welfare facilities have had their share of scandals, usually involving graft and/or nepotism.
UBI puts the money directly in the hands of those who could use it. Why would you be against that? Why go through a high priest when you can pray to God yourself?? (That was the Protestant Reformation in essence.)