Middle-come couples read to retire are just a relatively small part of the population, unfortunately.
What’s idiotic is your deliberately misconstruing everything I say whenever you can…we were talking about the general population of workers and you want to suddenly pivot out of nowhere to middle-income retired couples in particular.
That’s arguing in extremely bad faith. If you’ll continue in that vein, you will be ignored.
Lol. UBI puts money into everyone’s hands. That’s what the “U” means.
I didn’t misconstrue jackshit. I’m sorry your childish viewpoints are easily dismissed but ignoring me isn’t going to change that.
But please, tell me more about the “opt in” aspects of free money every month. What would cause someone to opt out of free money?
Let’s try to address some of these points.
His coming in third in Iowa is much less than a long shot IMHO. This is big field with several very established and others with portfolios that make sense. Is he that amazing orator who will inspire as soon as people hear him? Not from the little snips I listened to. Mayor Pete has much moree of a chance of coming out from back of the back on that basis than does this guy. Is his signature issue something that will trigger some “aha” epiphany among Iowa Democratic caucus goers, especially given that more than ever caucus goers and primary voters are most concerned with picking someone who can win? No.
Technology has always been aimed at efficiency of labor, “which means eliminating inputs, especially costly, slow, and error-prone human labor” - is this time different? No other disruptive technology has been but this could be the one. Still, the World Economic Forum is prognosticating it is not.
While I am not confident that this time will do the same as every other time I do not think there is any reason to be confident it won’t be.
I believe we have very good educational outcomes. SAT and ACT tests OTOH are increasingly recognized to be dumb with less predictive value than had been thought (with more schools not requiring them anymore) and prep programs are just another cost to the process that becomes obligatory to keep up. The ubiquity of test prep is yet another cost that the poorer student can less afford to absorb than the one from a family of more means. And I believe that humanities are part of producing those excellent outcomes. The United States has been extremely productive at producing intellectual property, for example. We create ideas and export them arguably better than any other culture on the planet. That is an outcome that matters.
I have not taken a position in support of free college btw. Affordable without crippling debt yes, but that is not the same as free. And investing in education is not only college and certainly not only the bricks and mortar dorm rooms football stadium big health club dueling departments approach.
Your post#124 acknowledges that $12K is not enough to “free anyone from the labor market” An unskilled worker cannot be middle class with that and it does not create a set of jobs middle class jobs. If, as you and Yang posit will be the case, there are few jobs to be had (especially for those without needed skills for the economy that exists) then how does that keep these people in a middle class?
Yang’s UBI puts money equally in the hands of those who need it and those who do not. (We can all use it.) It puts it in my hands as much as it puts it in someone desperate for a fast food job. Why would I turn it down? It does not pay for it with a greater progressive tax on those who do not need it. It pays for it with taxes that hit the working poor as hard as they hit me, they use trucked products, they use the internet, as much as a those in higher income brackets do. It’s got to be enough pennies per Google search and robot-truck mile to generate $12/K per person per year. Everyone ends up paying their share of that in in charges for searches and increased costs of trucked products (or products made of products that were trucked), the poor as much as the rich. You cannot give what you have not taken.
Thanks – sorry about all the rambling asides…curiously enough, I like Andrew all the more because he’s so focused and on-message, unlike myself oftentimes!
Aha, Mr. Science!! I’ve got nerd porn for you:
(BTW, I'm teasing you, of course; it's clear you know more than me and I think are older, even, and thus with more experience -- you may already know about First Past the Post Voting.)See, that’s just the funny thing, though; one of the most common compliments folks will pay to him – and this was the case for myself as well – is that he “speaks like a normal person!!” That he “doesn’t speak like a politician!”
I’m telling you, I was shocked as I analyzed my own growing interest and read others reporting on theirs. And being not “inspirational” has proven to be oddly inspirational to his fans!! I take this to mean that he’s not talking about “uniting” us and using “baby-talk” language like that – he’s just “telling it like it is.” I guess folks feel like they’re being preached at when a politician starts using flowery oration?
I seriously wonder if him being Asian means people just have this unconscious assumption that he’s harmless and therefore they can relax and their minds are thus more open and receptive!!
So did you see him speak to the Iowa Democrat Caucus (or whatever the official name is)?? Again, I don’t have the experience you do so maybe it was a very mild reception he’d actually received but it seemed to me that folks responded most strongly to his signature plan of UBI. It’s certainly the case in the YouTube comments of his videos (which, yes, aren’t necessarily by Democrats but that’s the beauty of it).
But what’s wrong with preparing, just in case, especially when the gains are good in themselves, regardless of the automation justification (which I’ve always felt to be a fig leaf anyway for “socialism,” despite the very clear and logical rationale presented)??
To simply say “it may not happen” seems like the logical equivalent of climate change denial – sure it may not but where’s the harm in being prepared, especially when the benefits are good in themselves even if there is no climate change???
Well, you raise a point below which is other than the ones I’d raised and I don’t think anyone under the Sisyphean burden of massive eternal debt would consider that sole point worth the cost – but let’s address it:
Perhaps – as you must know, your results depend on what you intend to measure. We can make things with less “predictive value” by fiat simply by massaging the P-value, never mind experiment design and so forth.
Also, I’ve noticed that whenever blacks and (to a smaller extent) hispanics can’t do something, that something is dropped as “not predictive” or, even, “racist.” It’s just an incredibly convenient coincidence, through whole decades, literally. Even the FDNY civil service exam was “racist” – though of course no civil service exam where (non-Asian) minorities predominate has been judged racist.
But I don’t even know why you raise this matter. Test scores were never a bone of contention in claims of bad educational outcomes. Sorry if I’ve lost the thread of the conversation and please kindly remind me if I have, but the claim of bad educational outcomes was menial labor jobs and massive lifelong undischargeable debt.
That’s Andrew’s position, AFAIK; he’s not absolutely against free college but he definitely believes in de-emphasizing college as the one thing everyone must have, like a high school education, in favor of entrepreneurship, the trades, or the arts.
So here’s the thing for me personally: I trust myself more than I trust the government. And I still consider myself a New Deal Democrat in many ways – but it’s like traffic lights: I don’t rely on traffic lights; I rely on my own eyes…but good functional traffic lights are still necessary.
So even if I’m not “middle class,” I know that a simply extra thousand a month in my pocket will provide me more freedom and opportunity than working somewhere for that same thousand, trading my time and thoughts and my very life for that same thousand.
Does that make sense to you? I mean, can you feel how important that is to me and other “Yang Gangers”??
Like instead of having a secretary type up all your correspondence as in the old days when companies had whole typists’ departments where all non-executive corporate communications were pooled for professional processing, you now have word processing software with what used to be called WYSIWYG functionality. Isn’t the latter better??
But okay, you want to talk “macroeconomics”…where will the middle class job for me come from if they’re all disappearing and I’m not gonna be able to live on $12K anyway…and here’s the source of your bewilderment: we’re not there yet in robo-apocalypse…the point of Yang’s program is to prepare us for it, to help us ordinary workers transition with minimal disruption…so for, as he says, five to ten years there will be jobs still, up to fifteen/twenty…but yes, each year, if not each quarter, will bring layoffs…why not prepare for the future with UBI instead of fighting the future with…what, exactly??? Job guarantees so we can slave away miserably as ever doing drudgery – guaranteed???
Do you not trust human ingenuity?? Then give it time, and the financial breathing room, to germinate and grow. That’s what UBI means to me – create the next Great American Novel, the next million-dollar app, the next business success story, or just work modestly as before but now without worrying about basic expenses (moving to a room, or another locale, etc. – the choice is yours!)…heck, create the next great Straight Dope Forum post if you so fancy!!
Don’t forget also that Andrew seeks to redefine the economy – our very understanding of work and value – and thus rewrite the social contract…so old notions like “middle class” and maybe even “jobs” will be as irrelevant and obsolete to what truly matters, our happiness and quality of life.
Unchain quality of life from money!
And I believe it’s possible – a lot more possible than having blacks and whites, men and women, straights and LGBTQIA, religious and atheist, etc., fight over what scraps remain…because you absolutely cannot hold back this nearly arrived revolution, and it’s more doubtful that we’ll deal successfully with it old-timey strategies such as job guarantees than just letting people figure it out for themselves – but with a direct financial safety net.
Andrew’s really counting on us to, paraphrasing the Buddha, be the authors of our own salvation…as someone who’s personally dealt with the dysfunction of government first-hand for many years, I’d rather count on myself. Just give me the tools.
It’s called “Universal [or Unconditional] Basic Income” – that’s the beauty of it: it’s a feature, not a bug.
Perhaps for the same reason you might return a purse with $12K in it – you don’t feel like you need it and believe someone else will derive greater utility from it than you.
And why’s that a problem? I support a Warren-style wealth tax but Andrew doesn’t for several reasons, the first of which is that it’s far harder to hide corporate VAT receipts than it is to hide personal income. In fact, he hopes to abolish federal income taxes one day if conditions allow!
It’s also an easier sell to everyone: Big Tech is disrupting the economy and eliminating entire professions; let Big Tech pay for it from the value in every robo-driven mile and every Google search.
So, no – it’s not a VAT on all; only on the biggest tech companies.
Rich enough for ya? 
Have you any idea how many miles are driven each hour in the U.S.A. – never mind American Google searches per second??
Yeah, it’ll be a lot – that’s the magic of the extreme efficiency that’s come to displace us all in some way or other.
Oh my…you do not pay for Google searches.
No: again, that’s the magic of the incredible efficiency upon us. Andrew says trucking alone will be a $168 billion savings every year – forevermore – with 100% adoption of robo-trucking alone…we can capture a sliver of that, and a sliver of Google searchers, a sliver here, a sliver there…
Surely you know that business makes money in the margins? Same deal here.
Stop thinking linearly; start thinking exponentially.
To my simple mind the reasoning for UBI goes like this:
Is there enough (food, shelter, healthcare) to go around?
Seems like the answer is yes.
If yes, should we do more, as sentient beings sharing a cooperative existence, to make sure all people have some kind of minimal safety net because it’s better/cheaper/more humane for society as a whole to do that?
That also seems like a yes.
Are we in fact doing enough to reach that end?
Seems like the answer is no.
Does UBI get us closer to that better world?
I think it does.
Will a few people sit at home eating Cheetos and playing video games all day instead of “working for a living” (assuming they could earn a living based on their skills, circumstances and location)?
Yep. No avoiding it.
Does that matter?
Not when you realize what is gained - freedom from economic anxiety for the vast majority of people who will use the opportunity to improve circumstances for their families and their communities.
I’m sorry this is nonesensical.
There is no magic here and there is no “free money for everyone!” If the trucking companies (to keep it in the form that you can likely understand the best) pay more per mile then the products end up costing more and ultimately the cost is paid for by every consumer without regard to their income or wealth. It is a little more indirect with internet use but it still holds.
Yes it increases the cost of adopting any new technology within the United States (and if this is to produce enough to fund $12K/yr per person by a lot) which might slow down adoption some … and raise prices of American products form export hurting us in trade.
If the idea is to tax corporations higher do it directly. Taxing technology only is however more likely to function as a sin tax, driving the firms that have been our strength and are our future away and putting the entire economy at a disadvantage.
A separate question -
Let’s assume that somehow Yang does attract a more significant following. Who do you think those voters would have been otherwise voting for? I’m getting the sense that any support he garners is coming out of those who might have been attracted to Sanders as the Big Idea person last time and otherwise this time.
The anecdotal evidence from his Facebook group is that he’s attracting voters from every part of the political spectrum, including Trump supporters. Everybody likes money.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.”
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!!)
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).
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.!!!
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.!!!
Hell yeah!! I’m actually a misanthrope and even I like Andrew!!!
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.
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!!
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.
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!!
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??
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???
Who do you currently prefer (say, Top Two) and why?
Much obliged!