Author Topic: Andrew Yang  (Read 5441 times)

Nell-e

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2019, 12:43:32 PM »

I don't think there is a chance in Hell any of them will win.

Whoever is the D-nominee has a very real chance of winning just by virtue of 2 ppl being left in the general election.  2016 was decided by thousands of votes in swing states.  Therefore, Sanders and Warren have a very good chance of winning.  They're the ones with momentum.  To me, the earlier you can eliminate both of them, the better.

Yang's foreign policy stance is non-intervention like Tulsi.  Automation is here and it's going to accelerate.  When the next recession hits, call center workers, retail workers, and fast food workers are going to be hit hard as companies focus on spending in down times.  I find it interesting that Trump voters who support him as being farsighted in his war on China because of IP theft are also the same ones downplaying the effects of automation.  Technology will displace millions of repetitive blue and white collar jobs.  It's not if.  It's a matter of when.

The problem is that economically challenged voters in swing states hold the keys to our political future.  The more they fall behind, the more they'll look towards candidates like Sanders.  Traditional Dems see govt institutions as the way to help these voters but past programs have been ineffective.  Tax cuts don't help if you're not paying taxes.  Yang's Freedom Dividend seems like the best way to help the economically challenged swing state voters.









Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2019, 12:53:50 PM »

I don't think there is a chance in Hell any of them will win.

Whoever is the D-nominee has a very real chance of winning just by virtue of 2 ppl being left in the general election.  2016 was decided by thousands of votes in swing states.  Therefore, Sanders and Warren have a very good chance of winning.  They're the ones with momentum.  To me, the earlier you can eliminate both of them, the better.

Yang's foreign policy stance is non-intervention like Tulsi.  Automation is here and it's going to accelerate.  When the next recession hits, call center workers, retail workers, and fast food workers are going to be hit hard as companies focus on spending in down times.  I find it interesting that Trump voters who support him as being farsighted in his war on China because of IP theft are also the same ones downplaying the effects of automation.  Technology will displace millions of repetitive blue and white collar jobs.  It's not if.  It's a matter of when.

The problem is that economically challenged voters in swing states hold the keys to our political future.  The more they fall behind, the more they'll look towards candidates like Sanders.  Traditional Dems see govt institutions as the way to help these voters but past programs have been ineffective.  Tax cuts don't help if you're not paying taxes.  Yang's Freedom Dividend seems like the best way to help the economically challenged swing state voters.

A plumber is much less likely to be automated out of a job than a programmer. Are fast food workers and grocery store clerks considered blue collar? That's part of the issue right there. Why is fear mongering with automation for jobs which should not be considered careers? These jobs should be filled by retired people, students, or stay at home moms looking for some supplemental income.

Nell-e

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2019, 01:06:15 PM »
Ok, I'll abstain from the labels blue and white collar jobs.  Repetitive jobs whether they are cognitive or manually labor intensive will be automated away.

There's no fear mongering.  It's stating the current situation.  In 2015, Trump supporters were downplaying the unemployment numbers because of the participation rate.  Participation rate is still low.  Unemployed manufacturing workers in swing states have not found new jobs.  Life expectancy down because of suicides and drug overdoses.  So what's the solution?  Typical full of shit politicians say we should retrain displaced workers but the re-training success rate is 0 to 15%.




Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2019, 01:26:39 PM »
Ok, I'll abstain from the labels blue and white collar jobs.  Repetitive jobs whether they are cognitive or manually labor intensive will be automated away.

There's no fear mongering.  It's stating the current situation.  In 2015, Trump supporters were downplaying the unemployment numbers because of the participation rate.  Participation rate is still low.  Unemployed manufacturing workers in swing states have not found new jobs.  Life expectancy down because of suicides and drug overdoses.  So what's the solution?  Typical full of shit politicians say we should retrain displaced workers but the re-training success rate is 0 to 15%.

If people want a job then they need to work on themselves. It's called capitalism....I mean does it really matter if fast food workers and retail clerks get automated away? Society needs a fire lit under its ass. They don't need to be coddled, because ultimately the 1k wont cover enough expenses to make it worth it. People will simply ask for more once they become dependent on big daddy govt.

Plus it's probably cheaper to move your factory to China than it is to replace all your workers with automated processes.

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3306
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2019, 01:55:10 PM »
"So what's the solution?  Typical full of shit politicians say we should retrain displaced workers but the re-training success rate is 0 to 15%."

Can't see how handing out $1,000/month for doing nothing accomplishes anything. It certainly isn't a solution. Most people want to be useful, have a good future and not sit at home collecting subsistance like income.

And regarding income equality, on what planet do these socialists live on? Freebies have to be paid by someone you know?

It is like this LC that believes that no matter what policies are by the administration that is has no effect on the economy!!! History is filled with failed nations that came down due to bad economic policies.

The same people that spend countless hours trying to figure out what this CEO has done and will do? How much cash is the business generating, how is it allocated? What is the debt level, ratings, etc.? But, when it comes to the government none of that matters. Are you ok?


mcliu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2019, 02:35:59 PM »
From what I've seen, the $1,000/month UBI isn't meant to replace your job/income. The stats show almost half of American families (working families) are struggling to make ends meet and don't even have a few hundred $ in case of emergencies. The UBI will help these people shore-up their finances.

Is it really socialism? I doubt anyone on this investment forum believe in socialism.. It's more about fairness and taking care of the less fortunate. In some ways, the system is skewed to the rich. ex. Amazon became a trillion-dollar company but have barely paid any income taxes..

Hasn't Alaska been paying a $2k oil dividend for decades?

I do see how this can go very wrong if not implemented properly. ex. People will just keep voting for a bigger UBI.

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2521
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2019, 02:38:52 PM »
I rather give every working family with income under say $250K $1,000 per month than continue to dump money into all these other garbage social welfare ideas and programs. Just give people the money and let them spend it. If they still can't make ends meet then they deserve to be where they are.

This is a large enough sum that it really could stimulate many different areas. Heck, plenty of places, that $1000 could more than pay for one's housing.

Nell-e

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2019, 03:39:39 PM »
We live in a democracy with an electoral college process.  U.S. has 325m ppl.  70% of workers live paycheck to paycheck, 48% can't afford an unexpected $500 emergency as seen in last year's govt shutdown.  The subset of this demographic who live in the swing states control our political future and they are gravitating toward candidates like Trump & Bernie.

I care about the debt and neither of these candidates is fiscally responsible.  If you support Trump's policies, fine.  But if you think he's the best leader for enacting the policies then I don't know how to convince ppl who tolerate a lazy narcissistic person who acts like a 5 y/o.  To me, Bernie is the worst Dem option given policies on Fed Jobs Guarantee (FJG) and Wealth Tax.  Warren's policies about as bad plus she's more polarizing.  I really would like to avoid both of them.  Biden would be more of the same.  My best guess is that the demographic who determines our political future will keep voting in their perceived self interest.  So what's the best solution out of this cycle?

Opponents of UBI have not proposed a better solution.  They just criticize.  FJG and Wealth tax would be disastrous.  That's socialism and the outcome we MUST avoid.  I have no idea what Republicans propose to help the swing voters who live paycheck to paycheck (the deplorables or Romney's 47%) other than tax cuts and deregulation.
 The swing state small towns have been economically decimated so if we let the market's invisible hand do its thing, they're going to get worse because it's unprofitable to set up shop in a town with no money.  So the cycle of brain drain will continue but the electoral college will persist and the remaining deplorables will vote in their self interest and we're going to get worse and worse candidates.  All of these candidates will be fiscally irresponsible.

UBI isn't about fairness.  It's about pragmatism.  I'm open minded to another way out of this vicious voting cycle if anyone suggests it.  A possibility is if a candidate lies their way into office promising the deplorables all the things they want and then enacts fiscally responsible policies but that candidate would get voted out of office in 1 term and the chances of that candidate getting anything done in a divided congress is close to nil.

 

 

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2019, 05:49:10 AM »
From what I've seen, the $1,000/month UBI isn't meant to replace your job/income. The stats show almost half of American families (working families) are struggling to make ends meet and don't even have a few hundred $ in case of emergencies. The UBI will help these people shore-up their finances.

Is it really socialism? I doubt anyone on this investment forum believe in socialism.. It's more about fairness and taking care of the less fortunate. In some ways, the system is skewed to the rich. ex. Amazon became a trillion-dollar company but have barely paid any income taxes..

Hasn't Alaska been paying a $2k oil dividend for decades?

I do see how this can go very wrong if not implemented properly. ex. People will just keep voting for a bigger UBI.

Did you even watch the video I posted in my original response? You have a lot of misconceptions about how this works. It's not "fair" that you're forcing people to give money to others. That is called cosmic justice and it always fails. You can't legislate the unfairness of life away.

The thing about UBI is it completely ignores the unintended consequences. I think there will be many negative things that happen as a result.

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2019, 05:52:31 AM »
I rather give every working family with income under say $250K $1,000 per month than continue to dump money into all these other garbage social welfare ideas and programs. Just give people the money and let them spend it. If they still can't make ends meet then they deserve to be where they are.

This is a large enough sum that it really could stimulate many different areas. Heck, plenty of places, that $1000 could more than pay for one's housing.

Greg I agree that people need help. But not in the form of UBI. And certainly not everyone. The poor need to be targeted and I think negative income tax is a far more efficient manner to do this. It gives them a lump sum and removes the majority of administration costs.