Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: mcliu on October 01, 2019, 05:23:06 PM

Title: Andrew Yang
Post by: mcliu on October 01, 2019, 05:23:06 PM
What do you guys think of Andrew Yang?
He's obviously a really long shot. I actually thought it was all a gimmick ($1,000/month UBI, etc) at first, but after listening to the debates and a few of his speeches, I thought he actually defined some of the biggest problems pretty clearly (better than some of the leading candidates) and offered some interesting solutions..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkH0xGUgR0c
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on October 01, 2019, 08:08:15 PM
I really like him and most of his ideas. I think the Freedom Dividend is much better than government picking winners and losers.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on October 01, 2019, 10:54:32 PM
Here's how I think about it if I go by process of elimination:

Biden - old, about as out of touch as can be
Warren - totally polarizing, can't win over swing voters, can't trust a word she says #powwowchow plus her plans suck i.e. wealth tax would precipitate enormous capital flight
Sanders - totally polarizing, more authentic than Warren but his plans suck even more
Buttigieg - he's the mayor of a small town and I don't know why he's qualified nor do I really know what he stands for other than the same middle of the road Dem ideas
Harris - totally polarizing, her ideas are just the same ineffective Dem proposals, pretty much unelectable
All of the others will drop out soon because they're not catching on.

So by default, Yang seems like the best Dem option.  If you listen to his long form podcasts, he's a thoughtful person whether you agree with him or not.  If you're a conservative, listen to his Ben Shapiro interview on YouTube.  If you can't stand Shapiro, then listen to the 2hr Joe Rogan podcast.  If 1 hr is too long, then here's a 18 min video
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPyAKZWZFyk

I think it really, really makes sense to have someone who understands science and technology in the White House.  Also, where I agree with Yang most is that we need to de-emphasize GDP as the primary measure of prosperity.  GDP is going up but life expectancy is going down so it seems like a pretty flawed way of looking at our collective well-being.

I'm an independent who changed my registration just so I can vote in the primaries.  If you think Bernie or Warren will be disastrous you should do the same.

Full disclosure: I'm a Yang supporter because he's data driven and authentic.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 02, 2019, 06:36:14 AM
Quote
What do you guys think of Andrew Yang?
He's obviously a really long shot. I actually thought it was all a gimmick ($1,000/month UBI, etc) at first, but after listening to the debates and a few of his speeches, I thought he actually defined some of the biggest problems pretty clearly (better than some of the leading candidates) and offered some interesting solutions..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkH0xGUgR0c

When are people going to learn that guaranteed money by the government doesn't ever work? All it does is drive prices up.

Quote
I really like him and most of his ideas. I think the Freedom Dividend is much better than government picking winners and losers.

Individuals decide to be losers or winners, not the government. A better option for welfare would be a negative income tax (as a temporary solution). Yang often likes to misquote Friedman and MLK saying he has the same idea. It's not even close. Also for a guy who claims to be good at match he basically can't do math...

Here is a sample of his other proposals:
- He wants to further politicize the supreme court by putting in term limits which will guarantee appointment based on
  party affiliation.
- He has an irrational fear of automation (not a policy but utterly ridiculous imo)
- Put the government in media.
- Free marriage counseling for all
- Medicare for all
- Increase welfare for single parent with subsidies
- Forgive student debt
- Increase gun regulations
- He wants the government to come in and prop up failing malls to "revitalize" communities and give the impression of a
  solid local economy.
- Increase capital gains tax
- Early childhood education for all
- Paternal leave for both parents
- Federal govt subsidy for people who need to move for work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBt2OSL2Mw

That's a hard pass from me. Also I think his extreme fear of automation is a bit ridiculous.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on October 02, 2019, 11:02:14 AM
How would you rank the Dems?  To me, Bernie and Warren have the worst ideas.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 02, 2019, 11:32:33 AM
How would you rank the Dems?  To me, Bernie and Warren have the worst ideas.

I thought Bullock from Montana was reasonable on some things. I like Tulsi's foreign policy yet she is bat shit crazy on everything else. Quite honestly I don't really care about anyone who is still running. As I've said before they are all mirror images of each other. It's basically take your pick based on skin color and gender. Plus I don't think there is a chance in Hell any of them will win. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. They are all too extreme.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: mcliu on October 02, 2019, 12:01:47 PM
I don't think Yang fears automation. He's saying that automation is a) increasing the pace that old jobs (retail clerks, truck drivers) become irrelevant and b) creating a class of huge winners (Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc..). It's hard to see millions of 40/50/60 year old retail clerks and truck/taxi drivers retraining to become programmers.

I think Buffett's been hinting at this problem too. At his 2017 (could also be 2016?) annual meeting, he suggested whether the current redistribution system is fair in an extreme case where if a single person could push a button and produce all the goods of the economy.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal on October 02, 2019, 12:25:35 PM
After Biden, Yang would be my preferred choice. Only because Biden is a more predictable candidate since he's been around so long. But on substance, I actually like a lot of what Yang has to say.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cardboard on October 02, 2019, 12:27:15 PM
Hasn't ever occurred to you that there are enough problems to fix right now vs trying to fix those that may or may not arise?

Fear of automation has been there for decades if not a full century. Yet we are at full employment and I see no sign of lack of jobs, more the opposite.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 02, 2019, 12:41:40 PM
I don't think Yang fears automation. He's saying that automation is a) increasing the pace that old jobs (retail clerks, truck drivers) become irrelevant and b) creating a class of huge winners (Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc..). It's hard to see millions of 40/50/60 year old retail clerks and truck/taxi drivers retraining to become programmers.

I think Buffett's been hinting at this problem too. At his 2017 (could also be 2016?) annual meeting, he suggested whether the current redistribution system is fair in an extreme case where if a single person could push a button and produce all the goods of the economy.

Truck drivers aren't going anywhere. If anything the technology will simply aid them and increase safety. It will help over the road drivers with sleep deprivation, lane assist, braking, etc. I mean planes have been able to fly and land themselves for a long time now. Yet we keep hiring pilots. The logistics industry can't even develop software to properly define routes, yet somehow they are going to completely get rid of the driver?

Why would you listen to Buffett on technology?
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e 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.







Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza 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.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e 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%.



Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza 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.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cardboard 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?

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: mcliu 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.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal 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.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e 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.

 

 
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza 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.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza 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.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 03, 2019, 06:14:01 AM
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.

 

 

We live in a democratic republic. Not a democracy. UBI is not about fairness, it's about greed. If it were about fairness then it would be only directed at people in need.

"Why is it considered greed to want to keep money you earn yet it's not considered greed to want to take money you did not earn?" - Thomas Sowell

"The Transformation of charity into legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude" - Justice Scalia

Society needs to start looking at itself. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Helping your neighbor and working in your local community? Everyone wants to look to big daddy govt for a handout because it takes less work and effort to legislate from the bench than it does to walk next door and see how that old lady is doing. When in the end you have worse results with far more expense. It's a joke. This isn't the mentality of caring or fairness. It's the mentality of lets throw some slop to the pigs and hope they dont go hungry. Out of sight out of mind. The majority of people who advocate for this probably don't even give to charity or try to help people themselves. People on here are quite financially savvy. How many of you have taken someone under your wing, maybe helped them out financially with both money and decisions? Hell you could take 20k, write OTM puts and give the premiums you make to someone you know is in need. You wouldn't lose a dime and it would be far more cost effective than UBI. And if you have I applaud you because you're better than most.

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.” - Thomas Sowell

This same logic can be applied to charity as well. Gov't wast 1 out of every 2 dollars. That 10-15% I give every year will be cut in half and used in a less effective manner. It negates building relationships and building community. It removes that human aspect and dependence upon each other which also helps instill personal responsibility and accountability.

At the end of the day $1k won't be enough and people will ask for more and society will hear their plea and re-direct it to big daddy govt who will answer the call. Society will continue to degrade. Charity from gov't isn't always a good thing. Look at Africa, a nation which gets tons of charity from US startups etc. Toms shoes and companies alike are directly responsible for stiffing local businesses. Handouts don't create incentive, they create dependence which is the opposite of Capitalism. Even Yang himself said on JRE podcast that most people would probably just stash the money and not use it to contribute to the economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwIYgZZhehA

If that's what society wants then that's what society gets. I can live with it, but I think it's a mistake long term. If welfare is any type of track record then everyone should be scared of UBI and the unintended consequences. How about just lower taxes and let people keep more of what they earn?

Poverty is less than 1% across all races and genders in the US if you follow three rules
1.) Graduate HS
2.) Don't have a child in HS
3.) Take any full-time job upon graduation (minimum wage or not)
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Liberty on October 03, 2019, 11:07:06 AM
Nothing about his specific proposals, but Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him.

This podcast with him was a good listen:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/8-andrew-yang-dangerously-different-candidate-media/id1469999563?i=1000452045633
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 03, 2019, 11:21:45 AM
Nothing about his specific proposals, but Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him.

This podcast with him was a good listen:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/8-andrew-yang-dangerously-different-candidate-media/id1469999563?i=1000452045633

I agree that Yang is good hearted and seems to be genuine with good intentions. But that doesn't always translate to quality policies. Thirst for power often doesn't start until one has sampled it. Even Lincoln said that.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Liberty on October 03, 2019, 12:03:39 PM
Nothing about his specific proposals, but Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him.

This podcast with him was a good listen:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/8-andrew-yang-dangerously-different-candidate-media/id1469999563?i=1000452045633

I agree that Yang is good hearted and seems to be genuine with good intentions. But that doesn't always translate to quality policies. Thirst for power often doesn't start until one has sampled it. Even Lincoln said that.

When you're at the bottom of the barrel, anything would be an improvement. I can't believe that he could do worse even if he tried. And I believe that if his policies didn't work, he'd change them and try something else. We need more people like that, rather than those who think they have all the answers and that changing your mind is a vice.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: DTEJD1997 on October 03, 2019, 12:14:27 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.

 

 

We live in a democratic republic. Not a democracy. UBI is not about fairness, it's about greed. If it were about fairness then it would be only directed at people in need.

"Why is it considered greed to want to keep money you earn yet it's not considered greed to want to take money you did not earn?" - Thomas Sowell

"The Transformation of charity into legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude" - Justice Scalia

Society needs to start looking at itself. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Helping your neighbor and working in your local community? Everyone wants to look to big daddy govt for a handout because it takes less work and effort to legislate from the bench than it does to walk next door and see how that old lady is doing. When in the end you have worse results with far more expense. It's a joke. This isn't the mentality of caring or fairness. It's the mentality of lets throw some slop to the pigs and hope they dont go hungry. Out of sight out of mind. The majority of people who advocate for this probably don't even give to charity or try to help people themselves. People on here are quite financially savvy. How many of you have taken someone under your wing, maybe helped them out financially with both money and decisions? Hell you could take 20k, write OTM puts and give the premiums you make to someone you know is in need. You wouldn't lose a dime and it would be far more cost effective than UBI. And if you have I applaud you because you're better than most.

ďIt is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.Ē - Thomas Sowell

This same logic can be applied to charity as well. Gov't wast 1 out of every 2 dollars. That 10-15% I give every year will be cut in half and used in a less effective manner. It negates building relationships and building community. It removes that human aspect and dependence upon each other which also helps instill personal responsibility and accountability.

At the end of the day $1k won't be enough and people will ask for more and society will hear their plea and re-direct it to big daddy govt who will answer the call. Society will continue to degrade. Charity from gov't isn't always a good thing. Look at Africa, a nation which gets tons of charity from US startups etc. Toms shoes and companies alike are directly responsible for stiffing local businesses. Handouts don't create incentive, they create dependence which is the opposite of Capitalism. Even Yang himself said on JRE podcast that most people would probably just stash the money and not use it to contribute to the economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwIYgZZhehA

If that's what society wants then that's what society gets. I can live with it, but I think it's a mistake long term. If welfare is any type of track record then everyone should be scared of UBI and the unintended consequences. How about just lower taxes and let people keep more of what they earn?

Poverty is less than 1% across all races and genders in the US if you follow three rules
1.) Graduate HS
2.) Don't have a child in HS
3.) Take any full-time job upon graduation (minimum wage or not)

Castanza:

I would shout this from the rooftops X1000!

Fairly simple actions will keep the vast majority of people out of poverty.

I engage in helping/charitable actions/giving....but I could do 10X better than what I have.  I am embarrassed to admit this.  I would challenge other members of the board to increase their helping/charitable acts.  I certainly will.

Engagement with your neighbors/neighborhood and other citizens would go a long, Long, LONG way to improving society.

We are blessed to live in the time/place that we do.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on October 03, 2019, 04:47:23 PM
If ppl are saying, 'Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him', then I would argue by default he's the best candidate because none of the others fit that criteria especially the ability to change one's mind.  The rest of the field spews tiresome cliches and are what Howard Marks' deems as first level thinkers who can't conceive of 2nd, 3rd order effects.

It seems like a number of you are of the conservative/libertarian bent.  If that's the case, you should check out this video where Ben Shapiro interviews Yang.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHuRTvzMFw&t=1s

It's an excellent example of what we need more of.  Ppl of dissenting perspectives exchanging ideas in a civil manner.  It's nice to see that others in this thread have already checked out the Weinstein discussion which is also really good.  The two podcasts don't overlap topics.

In response to Castanza's long reply about personal responsibility, it feels like his stance boils down to 'work harder and you'll be fine'.  There's systemic generational poverty in the country and many ppl don't have access to good schools, libraries, or an internet connection.  People also forget in order to get a career they must get past gatekeepers.  Just like how not every Ivy League graduate will get a job at Goldman Sachs, not every poor person will get an opportunity in the corporate world even if they try.  There are already plenty of overqualified kids with college degrees working at Starbucks.  The gatekeepers to jobs judge you based on name, appearance, gender, age, accent, etc.  Prejudice such as age discrimination is a real thing.  From a company's perspective, would you hire a fresh graduate who's been playing with computers since childhood or a 50 year old laid off assembly line worker who has a new a degree in web design?  How about if this 50 year old trained to be a dental hygienist instead?  If you believe in capitalism, the incentive is to hire the person that increases your profitability and older ppl or poor people with accents lose.  My point is lumping all struggling ppl in one bucket is a gross over-generalization.  There are genuine systemic problems and the people being left behind are gravitating to worse and worse candidates.  Lecturing them about personal responsibility isn't going to change that trend.  I don't agree with all of Yang's policies but IMHO he's the best of the bunch.  I wish in conjunction with UBI he would eliminate the minimum wage but eliminating the min wage is politically unrealistic.  You have to deal with 'what is' and not 'what you think things should be'.  And the Number 1 reason to vote for Yang is because the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man with good hair!
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Spekulatius on October 03, 2019, 05:09:34 PM
Nothing about his specific proposals, but Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him.

This podcast with him was a good listen:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/8-andrew-yang-dangerously-different-candidate-media/id1469999563?i=1000452045633

I agree that Yang is good hearted and seems to be genuine with good intentions. But that doesn't always translate to quality policies. Thirst for power often doesn't start until one has sampled it. Even Lincoln said that.

When you're at the bottom of the barrel, anything would be an improvement. I can't believe that he could do worse even if he tried. And I believe that if his policies didn't work, he'd change them and try something else. We need more people like that, rather than those who think they have all the answers and that changing your mind is a vice.

I went to one of Andrew YoungĎs townhall meeting which was literally in a barn just a few miles from my house across the stateliness in NH this year this May. I feel his platform of universal basic income is weak and limiting but I kind of like this guy. Even got a photo with him and my son out of it.

I asked the question he intends to finance the $2-3 Trillion that his proposal would cost and I felt the answer Issas weak , a combo of digital tax, as well as savings from welfare and mental health programs. I donít think his math really checks out.

That being said, I do think think some value in the idea, of UBI as it decreases the hurdle to enter the labor force when on welfare. It could also be helpful as stimulus program when the economy goes into a crapper, because you give giving all the people a check will probably cause more spending than the third round of QE or a tax cut for the rich. Basically. Bush did the same thing during the 2001/2002 recession with his prorated tax rebate check, although it was probably too little to make a difference.

Young is just a one man show and itís a little rough on the details, but he clearly stated that he would be willing to compromise on many things, which I felt was genuine.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Liberty on October 04, 2019, 07:14:06 AM
Nothing about his specific proposals, but Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him.

This podcast with him was a good listen:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/8-andrew-yang-dangerously-different-candidate-media/id1469999563?i=1000452045633

I agree that Yang is good hearted and seems to be genuine with good intentions. But that doesn't always translate to quality policies. Thirst for power often doesn't start until one has sampled it. Even Lincoln said that.

When you're at the bottom of the barrel, anything would be an improvement. I can't believe that he could do worse even if he tried. And I believe that if his policies didn't work, he'd change them and try something else. We need more people like that, rather than those who think they have all the answers and that changing your mind is a vice.

I went to one of Andrew YoungĎs townhall meeting which was literally in a barn just a few miles from my house across the stateliness in NH this year this May. I feel his platform of universal basic income is weak and limiting but I kind of like this guy. Even got a photo with him and my son out of it.

I asked the question he intends to finance the $2-3 Trillion that his proposal would cost and I felt the answer Issas weak , a combo of digital tax, as well as savings from welfare and mental health programs. I donít think his math really checks out.

That being said, I do think think some value in the idea, of UBI as it decreases the hurdle to enter the labor force when on welfare. It could also be helpful as stimulus program when the economy goes into a crapper, because you give giving all the people a check will probably cause more spending than the third round of QE or a tax cut for the rich. Basically. Bush did the same thing during the 2001/2002 recession with his prorated tax rebate check, although it was probably too little to make a difference.

Young is just a one man show and itís a little rough on the details, but he clearly stated that he would be willing to compromise on many things, which I felt was genuine.

I don't have a strong opinion on UBI one way or the other.

It would certainly be cheaper than a lot of other things money is wasted on (wars), and it's hard to know how much it would cost because it would act as a pretty big economic stimulus that would end up in different places than when you give money to big banks (more in restaurants and construction and consumer goods and services, which generates value and tax dollars too).

I just like that he's thinking outside the box, facing hard challenges rather than shoving them under the rug, and isn't just playing the horse race, he's actually talking about ideas and about maintaining the economic engine (focus on R&D and STEM and entrepreneurship and people not being chained to their work because they can't afford to take a risk or leave).

IMO his kind of approach would generate a lot more wealth than it would cost, unlike many of the old guard that just want to keep things the same in the face of a rapidly changing world.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Liberty on October 04, 2019, 07:27:56 AM
If ppl are saying, 'Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him', then I would argue by default he's the best candidate because none of the others fit that criteria especially the ability to change one's mind. =

The only other candidate that I've heard in an interview and thought: "That's a reasonable person, sounds smart and competent and seems like she has good decision-making skills and integrity" was Tulsi Gabbard. I have absolutely no idea about her policies, never seen an official speech or debate, etc.. Just heard her on a podcast (which is probably a better way to get a feel for someone than some pre-written speech--listen to someone speak off-the-cuff for two hours about all kinds of questions and you get a decent feel...).
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on October 04, 2019, 03:35:37 PM
Yang is also much more realistic on climate change than all of candidates which appeals to a lot of centrists.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on October 06, 2019, 11:17:30 PM
Here's an interview with a very well spoken 67 y/o woman who worked hard, saved, played by the rules but is struggling.  This demographic is growing.  She points out that women her age worked in a time where they were paid less. There are also the homemakers who got divorced or outlived their husbands.  It's good food for thought about issues affecting everyday people.  If you have a short attention span, skip to the 7:39 min mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1KMjv4P9v4
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 11, 2019, 10:58:44 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJNws8XOAKQ

Again, Andrew Yang has good intentions and seems genuine. But I believe he is misguided in much of his thinking.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on October 16, 2019, 12:55:42 AM
@Castanza  The video you provide assumes that time will stand still and technology won't improve.  5G is just beginning to roll out.

If you believe in capitalism, then you should believe that there are armies of capitalists around the world working obsessively until they extract their pound of flesh from industries with fat margins.  In many industries, the most glaring expense line item is labor.

Anyway, Yang is having a livestream where he will answer questions for 10 hours straight this Friday the 18th.  You can share your views with him directly at Yang2020.com and maybe he'll respond.

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 16, 2019, 07:25:21 AM
@Castanza  The video you provide assumes that time will stand still and technology won't improve.  5G is just beginning to roll out.

If you believe in capitalism, then you should believe that there are armies of capitalists around the world working obsessively until they extract their pound of flesh from industries with fat margins.  In many industries, the most glaring expense line item is labor.

Anyway, Yang is having a livestream where he will answer questions for 10 hours straight this Friday the 18th.  You can share your views with him directly at Yang2020.com and maybe he'll respond.

No, I'm assuming technology will advance alongside humans as it always has. You're assuming that it will all of a sudden completely outpace and replace humans. That line of thinking is irrational and not well thought out. The only people saying this are the ones who have never done any of these jobs and have nothing but academic experience. As usual the people making these claims talk in broad and general terms and then completely ignore the vast amount of variables poking holes in their theories.

People will adapt and learn new skills or ways in which they can work with tech. Some guy who changed wagon wheels probably thought it was impossible to work on an automobile. Yet people have adapted and we have the mechanic profession. Think of how advanced an engine must have seemed to people back then. Yet here we are today where most people in the tech industry probably couldn't change their own oil or a tire for that matter. An engineer I work with hired a contractor to install a ceiling fan last week...People are becoming both smarter, dumber and lazier. There will be new needs and as a result new jobs for those who are smart and clever enough to figure it out. That is capitalism.

Pound of flesh works from the bottom up just like it does from the top down because it's driven by human motivation or lack there of.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on October 16, 2019, 08:10:47 AM
Yangís plan is capitalism but just not starting at zero. It allows for more risk taking which will help entrepreneurs and make the economy more dynamic. It really only hurts those individuals spending more than US$120k/yr. I rather a consumption tax over an income tax because it encourages savings over spending.

I also like shrinking the number bureaucrats that decide who decide all the winners and losers with welfare and disability payments. A way to recognize there needs to be a social safety net while shrinking the size of government is appealing. I realize total spending will be higher but there will be less red tape so the money will flow to the people who choose where best to allocate resources.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 16, 2019, 10:25:37 AM
Yangís plan is capitalism but just not starting at zero. It allows for more risk taking which will help entrepreneurs and make the economy more dynamic. It really only hurts those individuals spending more than US$120k/yr. I rather a consumption tax over an income tax because it encourages savings over spending.

I also like shrinking the number bureaucrats that decide who decide all the winners and losers with welfare and disability payments. A way to recognize there needs to be a social safety net while shrinking the size of government is appealing. I realize total spending will be higher but there will be less red tape so the money will flow to the people who choose where best to allocate resources.
Yang is trying to use the government and other peoples money to protect people from the free market. That is not capitalism...it's central planning.

What justification is there for anyone above the poverty line receiving this benefit (UBI)? I see none. People simply want to fund their poorly planned ideas/ambitions with the money of others. Look at immigrants and the contributions they make as entrepreneurs. 52% of all Silicon Valley businesses between 1995-2005 were immigrants. 

I agree that a consumption tax is better than an income tax. I also agree that the welfare system has way to much administrative bloat.

I think negative income tax is a much better strategy. It's less likely to create dependence and completely diminish incentive to better yourself.

ďBut how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.Ē - Frederic Bastiat

ďEveryone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.Ē - Frederick Bastiat

ďA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.Ē - Alexander Fraser Tytler

If this is what the people want then so be it. People think we can build a utopia, I'm doubtful.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on October 16, 2019, 01:45:35 PM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 16, 2019, 02:29:39 PM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on October 16, 2019, 02:50:31 PM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 16, 2019, 04:10:08 PM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on October 17, 2019, 01:36:05 PM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 17, 2019, 05:48:53 PM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on October 17, 2019, 07:35:37 PM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha

I mean it is basically what I'm saying.  I know it probably seems counter intuitive. If you take away the negative incentives then people might spend their time more productively. The hope is at least most will. For the top 1% it probably won't change their lives at all maybe hurt them a bit with the VAT tax. That being said, the stock market would probably do very well and the top 1% would be exposed to that. For the next 9%, it might make them feel better about their retirement or help their kid buy a house. For the next 90% it might transform a lot of their lives. Some might become deadbeats but for the people who have ambition and drive? It might give them the start up capital they need in a few years to take a chance at a business or get an education. The stress relief alone might make a significant difference to life spans. At the very least it would significantly reduce poverty.

I know its a very optimistic view but this idea is inspiring. I think there should be some sort of social safety net so why not make that net as free of bureaucracy as possible. That is free of as much waste as possible. Without anyone choosing winners and losers? Without stigma?

I am ready for abuse.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on October 18, 2019, 06:39:48 AM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha

I mean it is basically what I'm saying.  I know it probably seems counter intuitive. If you take away the negative incentives then people might spend their time more productively. The hope is at least most will. For the top 1% it probably won't change their lives at all maybe hurt them a bit with the VAT tax. That being said, the stock market would probably do very well and the top 1% would be exposed to that. For the next 9%, it might make them feel better about their retirement or help their kid buy a house. For the next 90% it might transform a lot of their lives. Some might become deadbeats but for the people who have ambition and drive? It might give them the start up capital they need in a few years to take a chance at a business or get an education. The stress relief alone might make a significant difference to life spans. At the very least it would significantly reduce poverty.

I know its a very optimistic view but this idea is inspiring. I think there should be some sort of social safety net so why not make that net as free of bureaucracy as possible. That is free of as much waste as possible. Without anyone choosing winners and losers? Without stigma?

I am ready for abuse.

Fair enough haha I think we can agree to disagree on what is constituted as waste. In general I see your point. I just think it's poor policy to create entitlements based on hopes that people will do something. Even Yang himself said on JRE that he thinks most people would just pocket the 1k a month. I think if you know that then you should reevaluate your policy. There is also the fact that all the other policies Andrew Yang wants would likely increase administrative bureaucracy. Govt funded marriage counseling, govt funded moving costs, etc.

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on October 18, 2019, 08:36:01 PM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha

I mean it is basically what I'm saying.  I know it probably seems counter intuitive. If you take away the negative incentives then people might spend their time more productively. The hope is at least most will. For the top 1% it probably won't change their lives at all maybe hurt them a bit with the VAT tax. That being said, the stock market would probably do very well and the top 1% would be exposed to that. For the next 9%, it might make them feel better about their retirement or help their kid buy a house. For the next 90% it might transform a lot of their lives. Some might become deadbeats but for the people who have ambition and drive? It might give them the start up capital they need in a few years to take a chance at a business or get an education. The stress relief alone might make a significant difference to life spans. At the very least it would significantly reduce poverty.

I know its a very optimistic view but this idea is inspiring. I think there should be some sort of social safety net so why not make that net as free of bureaucracy as possible. That is free of as much waste as possible. Without anyone choosing winners and losers? Without stigma?

I am ready for abuse.

Fair enough haha I think we can agree to disagree on what is constituted as waste. In general I see your point. I just think it's poor policy to create entitlements based on hopes that people will do something. Even Yang himself said on JRE that he thinks most people would just pocket the 1k a month. I think if you know that then you should reevaluate your policy. There is also the fact that all the other policies Andrew Yang wants would likely increase administrative bureaucracy. Govt funded marriage counseling, govt funded moving costs, etc.

Initially, I think most people will spend the money. 90% of people have bills to pay or have debt. After a while, people will use it build up emergency savings and retirement. That seems like a much more stable economy where people are less stressed and thus more productive. I do like the idea of having personal finance courses being part of high school curriculums.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on November 20, 2019, 02:32:57 PM
If it costs $80K/yr to house a prison inmate, would you support UBI of $12K/yr to incentivize people to stay out of jail?
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal on November 20, 2019, 02:43:04 PM
If it costs $80K/yr to house a prison inmate, would you support UBI of $12K/yr to incentivize people to stay out of jail?

Only question in regards to the effects of a UBI is how much NKE should one buy?
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Spekulatius on November 20, 2019, 03:45:19 PM
If it costs $80K/yr to house a prison inmate, would you support UBI of $12K/yr to incentivize people to stay out of jail?

Only question in regards to the effects of a UBI is how much NKE should one buy?

Or liquor store concessions and properties in the crummiest areas you can find.

I do think that UBI could be structured to reduce incarceration rate. At an incarceration cost of ~8x UBI, reducing the incarceration rate could help pay for part of the cost, at a net plus for society. These small time thugs often earn way less than minimum  wage salaries although I doubt they see it this way.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on November 20, 2019, 09:57:20 PM

If it costs $80K/yr to house a prison inmate, would you support UBI of $12K/yr to incentivize people to stay out of jail?


I do think that UBI could be structured to reduce incarceration rate. At an incarceration cost of ~8x UBI, reducing the incarceration rate could help pay for part of the cost, at a net plus for society. These small time thugs often earn way less than minimum  wage salaries although I doubt they see it this way.

Here's the breakdown for annual cost for 1 prisoner in CA:
Californiaís Annual Costs to Incarcerate an Inmate in Prison

2018‑19

Type of Expenditure
   

Per Inmate Costs

Security  $35,425
Inmate Health Care $26,665
Medical care $16,100
Psychiatric services $6,051
Pharmaceuticals $3,124
Dental care $1,389
Facility Operations and Records $7,687
Facility operations (maintenance, utilities, etc.) $4,610
Classification services $2,109
Maintenance of inmate records $794
Reception, testing, assignment $150
Transportation $24
Administration $4,840
Inmate Food and Activities $3,733
Food $2,119
Inmate employment and canteen $997
Clothing $362
Religious activities $135
Inmate activities $120
Rehabilitation Programs $2,478
Academic education $1,277
Cognitive behavioral therapy $742
Vocational training $459
Miscellaneous $375

Total  $81,203

This doesn't even include legal costs (public defender, judge, etc), law enforcement needing to capture criminal, OR the societal cost of the crime itself i.e the trauma of victims.  There's no question that some people are in jail because they're desperate for basic needs and they rob/shoplift.  Other costs include medical costs, property damage costs, etc if robbery goes wrong.

The 5 most common crimes in US are larceny/theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft, aggravated assault, & robbery

Larceny / Theft
Larceny-theft hits the top of the crime list, far outweighing any other crime. The numbers of larceny-theft in this country are staggering Ė more than 7 million reported each year, making up almost sixty percent of all reported crimes.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Spekulatius on November 21, 2019, 03:49:01 AM
Incarceration rates in the US are out of control - about 5-10x higher than other western democracies and much higher than Russia even. It’s a gigantic failure of the system, similar to health care cost.  Certainly high poverty rates contribute to this. I don’t think UBI is a solution to this (nor releasing prisoners indiscriminately as this has shown to rise crime rates), but it may have a positive impact.

 https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg  (https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 21, 2019, 05:39:25 AM
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha

I mean it is basically what I'm saying.  I know it probably seems counter intuitive. If you take away the negative incentives then people might spend their time more productively. The hope is at least most will. For the top 1% it probably won't change their lives at all maybe hurt them a bit with the VAT tax. That being said, the stock market would probably do very well and the top 1% would be exposed to that. For the next 9%, it might make them feel better about their retirement or help their kid buy a house. For the next 90% it might transform a lot of their lives. Some might become deadbeats but for the people who have ambition and drive? It might give them the start up capital they need in a few years to take a chance at a business or get an education. The stress relief alone might make a significant difference to life spans. At the very least it would significantly reduce poverty.

I know its a very optimistic view but this idea is inspiring. I think there should be some sort of social safety net so why not make that net as free of bureaucracy as possible. That is free of as much waste as possible. Without anyone choosing winners and losers? Without stigma?

I am ready for abuse.

Fair enough haha I think we can agree to disagree on what is constituted as waste. In general I see your point. I just think it's poor policy to create entitlements based on hopes that people will do something. Even Yang himself said on JRE that he thinks most people would just pocket the 1k a month. I think if you know that then you should reevaluate your policy. There is also the fact that all the other policies Andrew Yang wants would likely increase administrative bureaucracy. Govt funded marriage counseling, govt funded moving costs, etc.

Initially, I think most people will spend the money. 90% of people have bills to pay or have debt. After a while, people will use it build up emergency savings and retirement. That seems like a much more stable economy where people are less stressed and thus more productive. I do like the idea of having personal finance courses being part of high school curriculums.

Not saying you (safety) specifically.

Why is it some on this forum think people are mature enough to spend and utilize UBI effectively? Yet many of those same individuals think people would be unable to properly save in invest money stolen through means of social security, , medicare, income tax, etc.?

Also another "mistake" educated and generally above average intelligent people tend to make is assuming that all these "poor" people have the drive to do/create something successful. There is a hell of a lot of people that would rather not do anything and live a mediocre life.

@Spek, I think a good place to start is by decriminalizing drugs and fixing the lasting effects one has to deal with after they get out of prison (trying to get a job).

 To quote Dave Chappelle: "Why in the hell are we letting the government pay their bills with weed money while they have people locked up for trying to pay their bills with weed money?"
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on November 21, 2019, 06:22:20 AM
I think that most poor people are working very hard and most are just able to make ends meet.

Do you think that if someone is poor they must not be working hard enough? They might be true for someone with your intelligence, education, drive and upbringing but itís a high bar to set for society. We should all make the bar high for ourselves though.

The people who are not interested in improving themselves may continue to not improve themselves but at least they will have an incentive not to engage in criminal activity. Iím not saying they wonít but if they get caught they also lose their UBI while in prison. They also wonít have to spend their time trying to figure out how to game the system since there is no one to trick for them to stay on disability or whatever handout they found. Their time saved is also money saved by the bureaucracy that used to pick winners and losers.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 21, 2019, 06:47:06 AM
I think that most poor people are working very hard and most are just able to make ends meet.

Do you think that if someone is poor they must not be working hard enough? They might be true for someone with your intelligence, education, drive and upbringing but itís a high bar to set for society. We should all make the bar high for ourselves though.

The people who are not interested in improving themselves may continue to not improve themselves but at least they will have an incentive not to engage in criminal activity. Iím not saying they wonít but if they get caught they also lose their UBI while in prison. They also wonít have to spend their time trying to figure out how to game the system since there is no one to trick for them to stay on disability or whatever handout they found. Their time saved is also money saved by the bureaucracy that used to pick winners and losers.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are a lot of lazy people out there. Even though there are hard working blue collar people, it doesn't mean they would go put themselves through college studying CS if they had the money. Aptitude, drive, cultural association (friends and family life styles) are all things these political movements ignore. People often say this in the whole Truck driver/automation debate. They act as if every truck driver out there can be a programmer but they are simply being held back because of money and time. From the lifestyle perspective this is also interesting. Lifestyle choices (house type, neighborhood, vehicles, etc.) is very much a generational product. When I worked at UPS there were many guys I worked with who could easily afford to live in a nice culdesac neighborhoods, dive nice vehicles, get memberships to the local golf clubs etc. Yet most of them chose to live in their small run down house driving beater trucks and continuing to hangout at the local dirt floor bar with the people they grew up around. Why is that I was the only person out of 100 drivers (30ish who were college age) that chose to go to school?

I think this idea that if we just give people a handout that they will utilize it to "get out" of their current community is nonsense (in the majority of cases). People might pay bills or choose to save some of it. I'd be willing to bet people would continue to live their lives in the same lifestyles they are accustomed to and continue to hang around the same people they always have. Birds of a feather flock together. Money is not the primary motivator behind this.

I think negative income tax is better at producing incentive to better yourself than just hoping people don't engage in crime because they are getting 1k a month.

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on November 21, 2019, 09:01:25 AM
I disagree but we have already covered this ground
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cardboard on November 21, 2019, 02:20:36 PM
"I think this idea that if we just give people a handout that they will utilize it to "get out" of their current community is nonsense (in the majority of cases). People might pay bills or choose to save some of it. I'd be willing to bet people would continue to live their lives in the same lifestyles they are accustomed to and continue to hang around the same people they always have. Birds of a feather flock together. Money is not the primary motivator behind this. "

You are 100% correct Castanza. Give a million $ to a poor person and he or she will lose it all after a few years and end up in same original spot.

Managing one's personal affairs is key and you only care about what you saved through personal decision. I can't believe that we have to explain this to people on this board which tells me that a lot of them have been spoon fed to a large extent or have very little understanding of what poor people really are, what they do, where they live.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal on November 21, 2019, 02:32:45 PM
"I think this idea that if we just give people a handout that they will utilize it to "get out" of their current community is nonsense (in the majority of cases). People might pay bills or choose to save some of it. I'd be willing to bet people would continue to live their lives in the same lifestyles they are accustomed to and continue to hang around the same people they always have. Birds of a feather flock together. Money is not the primary motivator behind this. "

You are 100% correct Castanza. Give a million $ to a poor person and he or she will lose it all after a few years and end up in same original spot.

Managing one's personal affairs is key and you only care about what you saved through personal decision. I can't believe that we have to explain this to people on this board which tells me that a lot of them have been spoon fed to a large extent or have very little understanding of what poor people really are, what they do, where they live.

Cardboard

Exactly. in nature its referred to as Darwinism. In America, with humans, we fight fate and pretend that flushing resources down the toilet changes things. Outside of the rare outlier, it accomplishes nothing, except for maybe allowing some people a false sense of "feelgoodness"...
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on November 21, 2019, 04:14:14 PM
Incarceration rates in the US are out of control - about 5-10x higher than other western democracies and much higher than Russia even. Itís a gigantic failure of the system, similar to health care cost.  Certainly high poverty rates contribute to this. I donít think UBI is a solution to this (nor releasing prisoners indiscriminately as this has shown to rise crime rates), but it may have a positive impact.

 https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg  (https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg)

I imagine even the laziest of bums find a lifestyle of being caged like an animal as unattractive.  If you get released from prison and nobody will offer you a job and you have no money to buy food, what are you going to do? I think UBI could reduce recidivism especially in the "3 strikes you're out" states.  As mentioned it's $80K/yr to house an inmate.  Tax payers win for every person who stays out of prison.




 
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on November 21, 2019, 04:32:40 PM
"I think this idea that if we just give people a handout that they will utilize it to "get out" of their current community is nonsense (in the majority of cases). People might pay bills or choose to save some of it. I'd be willing to bet people would continue to live their lives in the same lifestyles they are accustomed to and continue to hang around the same people they always have. Birds of a feather flock together. Money is not the primary motivator behind this. "

You are 100% correct Castanza. Give a million $ to a poor person and he or she will lose it all after a few years and end up in same original spot.

Managing one's personal affairs is key and you only care about what you saved through personal decision. I can't believe that we have to explain this to people on this board which tells me that a lot of them have been spoon fed to a large extent or have very little understanding of what poor people really are, what they do, where they live.

Cardboard

Exactly. in nature its referred to as Darwinism. In America, with humans, we fight fate and pretend that flushing resources down the toilet changes things. Outside of the rare outlier, it accomplishes nothing, except for maybe allowing some people a false sense of "feelgoodness"...

I think the benefit of helping the 90%+ that need it will outweigh "the waste" on the 10%. It's not really waste, in my view. Most of these people are putting way more cost on the system because they need inefficient government agencies to take care of them. If every person above 18 has at least $1000 in income/month, maybe they can manage a household or maybe someone will be willing to provide a service that will help them have a more stable life.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 21, 2019, 05:26:40 PM
"I think this idea that if we just give people a handout that they will utilize it to "get out" of their current community is nonsense (in the majority of cases). People might pay bills or choose to save some of it. I'd be willing to bet people would continue to live their lives in the same lifestyles they are accustomed to and continue to hang around the same people they always have. Birds of a feather flock together. Money is not the primary motivator behind this. "

You are 100% correct Castanza. Give a million $ to a poor person and he or she will lose it all after a few years and end up in same original spot.

Managing one's personal affairs is key and you only care about what you saved through personal decision. I can't believe that we have to explain this to people on this board which tells me that a lot of them have been spoon fed to a large extent or have very little understanding of what poor people really are, what they do, where they live.

Cardboard

Exactly. in nature its referred to as Darwinism. In America, with humans, we fight fate and pretend that flushing resources down the toilet changes things. Outside of the rare outlier, it accomplishes nothing, except for maybe allowing some people a false sense of "feelgoodness"...

I think the benefit of helping the 90%+ that need it will outweigh "the waste" on the 10%. It's not really waste, in my view. Most of these people are putting way more cost on the system because they need inefficient government agencies to take care of them. If every person above 18 has at least $1000 in income/month, maybe they can manage a household or maybe someone will be willing to provide a service that will help them have a more stable life.

Why start at this end of the line? Why not reduce taxes? Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesnít work.

ďThe welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. Itís about the egos of the elites.Ē Sowell

ď
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on November 21, 2019, 05:27:52 PM
When I worked at UPS there were many guys I worked with who could easily afford to live in a nice culdesac neighborhoods, dive nice vehicles, get memberships to the local golf clubs etc. Yet most of them chose to live in their small run down house driving beater trucks and continuing to hangout at the local dirt floor bar with the people they grew up around.

@Castanza This is what small towns need which is more money circulating in their local economy.  No one is claiming that everyone is going to use money in a way people on this forum perceive as optimal.  But let's say, your ex-colleagues spend more money at the local dirt bar.  That extra money will go to the bar owner and tips for the bartender and waitresses.  Maybe business improves to the point where the owner hires an extra waitress.  How will the waitress use the extra money?  Maybe she's a single mom who needs to buy diapers or she pays off student loans or maybe she's "wastes" money at the local beauty salon.  Again, the money then circulates to a local business owner.  With each of these transactions, the government will recoup some money in taxes.
 
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on November 22, 2019, 11:05:59 PM
Interesting article on social mobility: US vs EUR, perceptions and reality.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 23, 2019, 06:13:41 AM
Interesting article on social mobility: US vs EUR, perceptions and reality.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country
So, the next question: Is UBI the right tool for this?
Social and income mobility concerns are nothing new but trends are worrisome. The gap (dream) has always been, so far, been bridged because there has always been a material amount of optimist poor individuals who felt like temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Interesting also because mobility in the US is going down along several angles. Geographic mobility (of which you appear to be a typical example) is significantly going down (there are many potential reasons for that and maybe there are a few common denominators here). Living in an area that is some kind of a hybrid between the US and Europe, this defining feature always stood out as a form of positive made-in-usa exceptionalism.

Interesting also because the immobility concept also shows up in the renewal of Corporate America:
https://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dynamism-in-Retreat.pdf

This whole immobility concept (from an evolutionary point of view) is not good news and helps to crystalize poor patterns:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/09/10/america-has-two-economies-and-theyre-diverging-fast/

Nature will eventually run its course and this may just be an uncomfortable transition but present (political) trends divert from constructive solutions as the distance between the two ideologies and lack of mobility to common grounds has triggered populists to take advantage of the divisiveness inherent to the formation of two immobile camps. A house divided upon itself cannot stand.

FWIW, I think UBI is not a good tool. In coming up to this conclusion, I tried to put biases aside and looked into some data. There are also "pilot-projects" going on which may contribute to more evidence either way. The most helpful reference that I found was:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/UBI-ESG-Memo-082319.pdf
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 23, 2019, 07:12:58 AM
UBI isnít a good tool because it doesnít solve the issue of accessibility to jobs. Itís simply going to prolong the problem with some temporary stimulus. Itís like giving morphine to a fatally wounded soldier. I also never get these EU comparisons. Many of these countries are the size of individual states in the US but with much higher populations. That means people are in general much closer in terms of proximity to new job opportunities. That is the primary issue in the US. There are areas which have abundance of jobs and areas which are desolate. Find a way to get 1:10 of the local population (depressed area) in middle class jobs added to depressed areas and I think that trend would change.

UBI seems like its trying to accomplish this artificially by pumping stimulus money into markets without actually increasing demand side economics. Demand for a new kitchen counter shouldnít come from a $1000 handout.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 23, 2019, 10:37:56 AM
UBI isnít a good tool because it doesnít solve the issue of accessibility to jobs. Itís simply going to prolong the problem with some temporary stimulus. Itís like giving morphine to a fatally wounded soldier. I also never get these EU comparisons. Many of these countries are the size of individual states in the US but with much higher populations. That means people are in general much closer in terms of proximity to new job opportunities. That is the primary issue in the US. There are areas which have abundance of jobs and areas which are desolate. Find a way to get 1:10 of the local population (depressed area) in middle class jobs added to depressed areas and I think that trend would change.

UBI seems like its trying to accomplish this artificially by pumping stimulus money into markets without actually increasing demand side economics. Demand for a new kitchen counter shouldnít come from a $1000 handout.
For the longest time before the 1980s, Americans used to move to more productive and opportunity-filled areas. Data shows that this has changed with a net movement signifying a migration to stagnation. Why? Some people say that this is due to a differential in housing costs but I find the explanation incomplete and not satisfactory (more a correlated input than a cause). Of course, a monolithic answer is saying that too much government is the cause and simply reducing the government size will do the trick.

Take the following with a grain of salt as the input is coming from a stupid Canadian, with only a limited understanding of the American psyche, who, as a kid, learned about your great country through the eyes of Kurt Vonnegut. Interestingly, Mr. Vonnegut possibly suggested a bi-partisan approach because at least one of his books describes the risks of extreme equality while many others points to various risks related to a certain kind of aristocracy. In a funny but profound way, Mr. Vonnegut indicated that one of the fundamental untruths underlying the American Experience was that it was easy to make money. Easing, you have been but it has become disproportionately easy only for a small minority.

And the jobs. It is felt that jobs are plentiful but the quality of jobs has been going down and there is also a disconnect at that level. Forgetting the personal vs collective responsibility conundrum for a minute, your system, somehow, has a hard time producing high quality jobs, a situation, if corrected, would make any discussion about UBI largely irrelevant. Of course, the populace feels that and people, somehow, are looking for explanations. But the answer will somehow come through competition even if there are present competitive pressures to avoid this.
https://qz.com/1752676/the-job-quality-index-is-the-economic-indicator-weve-been-missing/?
The above suggests investing in infrastructure but I would submit that the plan will need to include a will (collective) to restructure and to become more productive, at least on a relative basis.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Spekulatius on November 23, 2019, 07:32:42 PM
Interesting article on social mobility: US vs EUR, perceptions and reality.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country

Probably the best means to a social mobility is to create more equal access to good education. In the US, Access to angoss Education correlates way more with income (starting with income of thr parents) then in most countries in Europe. This starts with well to do folks living in better schools instructors, leading to better education, private  schools etc, access to good colleges and it just starts to compound.
In the past, not having a college education, has not prevented social mobility, but now, I think it is quite difficult for someone with just a high school degree to climb up the social ladder.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on November 24, 2019, 10:38:23 AM
Spek, I would agree, and maybe include healthcare as a close second.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on November 24, 2019, 02:52:26 PM
Interesting article on social mobility: US vs EUR, perceptions and reality.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country

Probably the best means to a niece higher oscillator mobility is to create more equal access to good education. In the US, Access to angoss Education correlates way more with income (starting with income of thr parents) then in most countries in Europe. This starts with well to do folks living in better schools instructors, leading to better education, private  schools etc, access to good colleges and it just starts to compound.
In the past, not having a college education, has not prevented social mobility, but now, I think it is quite difficult for someone with just a high school degree to climb up the social ladder.

UBI will allow more poor kids to afford post secondary education. A lot of poor kids decide to work instead of post secondary education so they can help out at home but with their parents collecting an extra $24k a year, that might not be necessary.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on November 24, 2019, 09:04:40 PM
If you're going to talk about social mobility, Yang supports free marriage counseling because the stats show that kids who grow up in 2 parent households overwhelmingly have better outcomes.  They graduate from high school/college at higher rates and less of them go to jail.  He thinks of marriage counseling as an investment.  Again, it costs $80K/yr to house an inmate and every kid that stays out of jail is a win for taxpayers.  In addition, you have more kids graduating HS/college and they go on to earn higher incomes which mean less poverty and more tax revenue.

Combine free marriage counseling with UBI and you reduce the odds of people divorcing since most households live paycheck to paycheck and money is the number one thing couples fight about.

Yang thinks of spending money in terms of return on investment.  Another policy he proposes is spending more money maintaining national parks so we can avoid catastrophic wildfires.  He's by far the most rational thinker out of all the candidates.



Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 25, 2019, 06:03:07 AM
If you're going to talk about social mobility, Yang supports free marriage counseling because the stats show that kids who grow up in 2 parent households overwhelmingly have better outcomes.  They graduate from high school/college at higher rates and less of them go to jail.  He thinks of marriage counseling as an investment.  Again, it costs $80K/yr to house an inmate and every kid that stays out of jail is a win for taxpayers.  In addition, you have more kids graduating HS/college and they go on to earn higher incomes which mean less poverty and more tax revenue.

Combine free marriage counseling with UBI and you reduce the odds of people divorcing since most households live paycheck to paycheck and money is the number one thing couples fight about.

Yang thinks of spending money in terms of return on investment.  Another policy he proposes is spending more money maintaining national parks so we can avoid catastrophic wildfires.  He's by far the most rational thinker out of all the candidates.

All of these policies are based on assumptions that humanity will react in a specific way to specific inputs. He is using correlation to determine causation and then trying to create policy to address the "causation". That is a fools errand....Let me guess all these policies below will outweigh the costs of 80k a year for a prisoner? That is absurd to try and argue that. There is NO way of knowing that any of these policies would be effective.


- UBI
- Free marriage counseling for all
- Medicare for all
- Increase welfare for single parent with subsidies
- Forgive student debt
- Increase capital gains tax
- Early childhood education for all
- Paternal leave for both parents
- Federal govt subsidy for people who need to move for work

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 25, 2019, 01:16:26 PM
If you're going to talk about social mobility, Yang supports free marriage counseling because the stats show that kids who grow up in 2 parent households overwhelmingly have better outcomes.  They graduate from high school/college at higher rates and less of them go to jail.  He thinks of marriage counseling as an investment.  Again, it costs $80K/yr to house an inmate and every kid that stays out of jail is a win for taxpayers.  In addition, you have more kids graduating HS/college and they go on to earn higher incomes which mean less poverty and more tax revenue.

Combine free marriage counseling with UBI and you reduce the odds of people divorcing since most households live paycheck to paycheck and money is the number one thing couples fight about.

Yang thinks of spending money in terms of return on investment.  Another policy he proposes is spending more money maintaining national parks so we can avoid catastrophic wildfires.  He's by far the most rational thinker out of all the candidates.
I've spent some time lately on updating the data file on catastrophic wildfire "management" and the potential impact on a specific investment and a conclusion that was found to be self-evident is that free market failures do occur and you need government 'intervention' in some selected cases but, governance failure will not work under any right or left orientation. Even under a good framework, investing other people's money is weaved with the possibility of altering the threshold for effectiveness since the noble intention may result in unintended consequences. Simply throwing money at it will not do the trick even if a rational thinker says so.

There is a significant amount of data that has been produced and analyzed by the Forest Service and other related agencies. To make a long story short, for many reasons, most of which should have been handled under an appropriate platform of federal governance, logging and other natural activities were actively transferred to ressources dedicated to fire suppression which, through the fuel effect and human nature consequences led to the self-feeding loop of poor incentives. All that reinforced by public authorities encouraging building in fire-prone areas while blunting market forces (appropriate building materials, poor zoning rules, inadequate property tax, shield from adequately priced insurance and utilities etc). So the percentage of the total budget going to fire suppression keeps on increasing. Are you surprised?

So the message now has become:
-There's a funding crisis and we need more money to fight the fires and maintain national parks.
Where will this end?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45005.pdf
https://www.opb.org/news/article/wildfire-forest-service-budget-suppression-portion/

My conclusion: This is an area where both market and government have terribly failed. Each has a role to play but the government has the ability to write the rules and to put in place an appropriate governance in place.
Simplistic solutions such as take a rake or blindly throwing money just won't cut it, not even helicopter money.


Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on November 26, 2019, 12:36:02 AM
All of these policies are based on assumptions that humanity will react in a specific way to specific inputs. He is using correlation to determine causation and then trying to create policy to address the "causation". That is a fools errand....Let me guess all these policies below will outweigh the costs of 80k a year for a prisoner? That is absurd to try and argue that. There is NO way of knowing that any of these policies would be effective.


- UBI
- Free marriage counseling for all
- Medicare for all
- Increase welfare for single parent with subsidies
- Forgive student debt
- Increase capital gains tax
- Early childhood education for all
- Paternal leave for both parents
- Federal govt subsidy for people who need to move for work


Aren't assumptions about human behavior the underpinning of any policy or political/economic philosophy?  I think we can all agree it's in everyone's interest to help children grow up in a better environment so that they stay out of trouble and graduate at higher rates.  Here's how Yang would fund UBI with lower healthcare costs and lower incarceration rates in the "reduced poverty expenses" bucket.  Here's a link to the original pic if graphic below is too big: https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/bduopg/an_updated_version_of_the_infographic_i_made/

(https://i.redd.it/52fegq9y0ns21.png)


Also, have you noticed that Bernie openly wants to ban billionaires?  He has a real shot at winning.  What strikes me as foolish is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.   If wealth inequality persists or increases, don't you think there will be many more anti-capitalist candidates?  The 'have nots' outnumber the 'haves' by at least a factor of 4 to 1.  If the fortunes of working class paycheck 2 paycheck voters don't improve, then we're going to get worse and worse candidates/policies which is scary because we already have someone who behaves like a 5 y/o and doesn't have the self restraint to refrain from tweeting and who ran on a the platform of "we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it".

 
@Cigarbutt  Thanks for the reference material on wildfires.  I didn't read the first publication but skimmed the 2nd article.  Yang obviously doesn't favor blindly spending and hoping for the best.  What I got out of the article is that there is a bureaucracy, incentives are misaligned, and that lobbyists have made the situation worse.  If you ever hear him speak, he's all about realigning incentives for market participants to do what's best for people and not profit.

The question is "Who would you want solving our problems?"  The
inept politicians who form policy based upon polls and are indebted to special interest groups or a data driven guy who hasn't taken any corporate money and has the humility to change his mind when the data contradicts the original hypothesis?
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 26, 2019, 04:19:44 AM
^Your question is very relevant.
Politics is messy and eventually the 'right thing' (after trying everything else {Churchill}) will get done but there is, eventually, a price to pay for those attempts, a cost that will be discovered after the fact. And I wonder about those costs now.
When I got close to graduation, we were 'forced' to take an ethics class and, at the last one-on-one meeting with a mentor, I was told: Ideally you have to be competent and nice (humanity) but you have to be competent first.
I would say collective competence and humanity come in cycles and sometimes both combine in a very disappointing way.
But thanks for the reply. This thing is evolving and I have a feeling that we'll need all the help we can get.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 26, 2019, 06:36:09 AM
All of these policies are based on assumptions that humanity will react in a specific way to specific inputs. He is using correlation to determine causation and then trying to create policy to address the "causation". That is a fools errand....Let me guess all these policies below will outweigh the costs of 80k a year for a prisoner? That is absurd to try and argue that. There is NO way of knowing that any of these policies would be effective.


- UBI
- Free marriage counseling for all
- Medicare for all
- Increase welfare for single parent with subsidies
- Forgive student debt
- Increase capital gains tax
- Early childhood education for all
- Paternal leave for both parents
- Federal govt subsidy for people who need to move for work


Aren't assumptions about human behavior the underpinning of any policy or political/economic philosophy? I think we can all agree it's in everyone's interest to help children grow up in a better environment so that they stay out of trouble and graduate at higher rates.  Here's how Yang would fund UBI with lower healthcare costs and lower incarceration rates in the "reduced poverty expenses" bucket.  Here's a link to the original pic if graphic below is too big: https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/bduopg/an_updated_version_of_the_infographic_i_made/

Also, have you noticed that Bernie openly wants to ban billionaires?  He has a real shot at winning.  What strikes me as foolish is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.   If wealth inequality persists or increases, don't you think there will be many more anti-capitalist candidates?  The 'have nots' outnumber the 'haves' by at least a factor of 4 to 1.  If the fortunes of working class paycheck 2 paycheck voters don't improve, then we're going to get worse and worse candidates/policies which is scary because we already have someone who behaves like a 5 y/o and doesn't have the self restraint to refrain from tweeting and who ran on a the platform of "we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it".
 
@Cigarbutt  Thanks for the reference material on wildfires.  I didn't read the first publication but skimmed the 2nd article.  Yang obviously doesn't favor blindly spending and hoping for the best.  What I got out of the article is that there is a bureaucracy, incentives are misaligned, and that lobbyists have made the situation worse.  If you ever hear him speak, he's all about realigning incentives for market participants to do what's best for people and not profit.

The question is "Who would you want solving our problems?"  The
inept politicians who form policy based upon polls and are indebted to special interest groups or a data driven guy who hasn't taken any corporate money and has the humility to change his mind when the data contradicts the original hypothesis?

The difference is Yang's policies are attempting to be proactive based on half cooked causation. Banking on something that is anti-human by depending on people to make the best choices isn't sound policy. If you took $1000 of your own money every month, randomly selected someone out of the phone book and then anonymously gave them them money; how many times do you think it would take before someone used that money in an effective manner? This demographic would be anyone from the poorest of the poor to Frank the Tank frat boy, to the richest businessman in town. That doesn't seem like a smart bet to make. If Yang is so willing to change his mind then why hasn't he changed his mind on UBI? He himself even said most people would waste their UBI money (JRE Podcast). It makes no sense that we are targeting everyone. I would be much more on-board with UBI if it only targeted those below or at the poverty line.

I don't think we should be creating policies that make it easier for the masses to extort the few. UBI opens the door for mass coercion. Humans are flawed selfish greedy pricks. Any system that allows us to project these emotions on a large scale has already failed. I believe that it partly what the Founding Fathers wanted to protect against. It becomes especially dangerous when you can say "look, this is being moral, we are helping the poor and the needy by lending them a hand." It begins to sound a lot like another system and ideology that has ravaged many countries.

You cannot give people liberty by degrading the liberty of others. When $1000/m isn't enough (and it won't be) ask yourself this. Which direction will the policy go? No entitlement has ever gone away. So say we go to 2k a month. That 2.1T becomes 4.2T and then people will say "we just need a little more!" Then we have 5.3T and so on....

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: mcliu on November 26, 2019, 08:55:59 AM
There'll probably be new tax rules/mechanisms so that if Jeff Bezos gets his $1,000 it'll all get taxed.
I think Alaska PFD dividends are subject to federal taxes. So if you're in a higher tax bracket..
The effect would be that people with less income or living in poverty would get most of the UBI and reduce poverty.

Impact of Alaska PFD:
https://iseralaska.org/2019/06/what-we-know-about-the-effect-of-the-pfd-on-socio-economic-well-being-and-what-more-we-could-learn/
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 26, 2019, 09:21:38 AM
There'll probably be new tax rules/mechanisms so that if Jeff Bezos gets his $1,000 it'll all get taxed.
I think Alaska PFD dividends are subject to federal taxes. So if you're in a higher tax bracket..
The effect would be that people with less income or living in poverty would get most of the UBI and reduce poverty.

Impact of Alaska PFD:
https://iseralaska.org/2019/06/what-we-know-about-the-effect-of-the-pfd-on-socio-economic-well-being-and-what-more-we-could-learn/

correct me if I'm wrong but his current plan is everyone between the ages of 18-64 will receive UBI. The only area where people will receive less (as stated by Yang) is if they are receiving entitlements elsewhere (and I imagine this will change). I'm not worried about the 1% getting 1k a month, that's trivial. I'm worried about funding peoples entertainment budget/gadget wish lists, which is exactly what the majority of people will use it for.

We live in a society where the growing generation has the mindset of (live now vs save for later). Millennials will either use the money responsibly and then blow an equal amount of their income or save their income and blow the "freedom dividend." Sorry, but the govt shouldn't be in the business of buying kegs for frat parties, paying for concert tickets and funding backpacking trips to Europe.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on November 26, 2019, 10:30:34 AM
The whole thing about UBI is that itís Universal so income testing defeats the purpose.

People who spend the money on frivolous things will get hit by the VAT tax which taxes consumption versus savings. I prefer a VAT tax to a wealth tax or higher income taxes.

Also, I think this system will have significantly less waste than paying for the legions of bureaucrats that are currently administering a social welfare system that does not seem to be obtaining positive outcomes. This bureaucracy is also not incentivizing itís recipients to find other income because of the clawbacks inherent in income testing. Plus it doesnít reward people who are working inside the home (taking care of kids, sick or elderly).

I see UBI as a Libertarian social safety net. Iím sure you will ridicule me for that comment. I do think society needs a safety net but I also think government should let people make their own capital allocation decisions. Each individual knows their own needs and I rather tax payer dollars not pay some bureaucrat to decide what those are. 

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Ross812 on November 26, 2019, 11:14:58 AM
The whole thing about UBI is that itís Universal so income testing defeats the purpose.

People who spend the money on frivolous things will get hit by the VAT tax which taxes consumption versus savings. I prefer a VAT tax to a wealth tax or higher income taxes.

Also, I think this system will have significantly less waste than paying for the legions of bureaucrats that are currently administering a social welfare system that does not seem to be obtaining positive outcomes. This bureaucracy is also not incentivizing itís recipients to find other income because of the clawbacks inherent in income testing. Plus it doesnít reward people who are working inside the home (taking care of kids, sick or elderly).

I see UBI as a Libertarian social safety net. Iím sure you will ridicule me for that comment. I do think society needs a safety net but I also think government should let people make their own capital allocation decisions. Each individual knows their own needs and I rather tax payer dollars not pay some bureaucrat to decide what those are.

Good observation about the "universal" part of UBI.

I like Buffett's approach to giving away money to his children:

ďYou should leave your children enough so they can do anything, but not enough so they can do nothing.Ē

I think we should approach UBI the same way. It should be a meaningful amount to reduce suffering and allow the people who want to better themselves to do so while not being so much it encourages people to leave the workforce. The current system disincentivizes going back to work right now with income cutoffs and something is very much not working. I doubt it was the lower 4 quintiles of people on the income ladder becoming lazy since 1980. Like it or not, the bulk of this country's prosperity has gone to the top 20% in the last 40 years and it is going to come back and bite us if we continue to accept the status quo. 
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 26, 2019, 01:12:24 PM
Quote
The whole thing about UBI is that itís Universal

This is exactly the wasteful part. There is no reason for it. It goes beyond just replacing current welfare system and expands it by putting everyone on welfare. 

Negative income tax is preferable imo because the way it is structured it creates some margin of safety for tax payers. It hedges against what UBI doesn't (which is assuming people will do the right thing) and is constrained to individual effort. If someone wants to be lazy and "milk" the system, they are limited to what they can get based on their income. You can technically say the same thing about NIT but the scale is much lower since it's limited in scope. Coercion is not Libertarian. However, there is clearly a need for some forced coercion in society. But extending that coercion beyond what is necessary is dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM&t=13s

@Ross: the government is not mommy and daddy and I certainly do not want to live in a world where we are considered children of the government. Do you give your neighbors kids allowance? Because that is effectively what you're advocating for.

As I've said before, I could be more supportive of UBI if it wasn't universal. It's not difficult to see the unintended consequences of welfare. Should we really believe that UBI will negate these unintended consequences simply by concentrating the money supply through policy?

https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.html?chapter_num=4#book-reader

https://mises.org/wire/4-new-reasons-fear-universal-basic-income

I think UBI is a dangerous path to go down....Say we implement it and we have it for 7 years. Leading up to the next presidential election what do you think presidential candidates will promise the masses? Cuts to UBI? Not a chance....Increases to UBI? Without a doubt. Once this is implemented there is no going back.

I'd be willing to bet this "pool" of money gets abused just like Social Security.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Spekulatius on November 26, 2019, 06:48:21 PM
I am not sure they UBI is the way to go but perhaps there is a way to find out. The US has a great advantage that with its size and diversity within 50 states a lot of economic experiments take place or could be designed to find out what works and what doesnít. I could imaging like distributing $1000 randomly (via lottery?) in one group and comparing it to a control group that gets nothing  could give some insights. Of course  itís not that same thing than giving UBI to everyone, but I bet one could get some insight. Or one could give UBI to a local cluster like a village.

I think a lot of changes should be tested in a small scale, before getting widely implemented. I think experimental economists and sociologists could deign many smart experiments that give us a lot of idea what works and what the effects might be.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on November 26, 2019, 08:53:27 PM
I am not sure they UBI is the way to go but perhaps there is a way to find out. The US has a great advantage that with its size and diversity within 50 states a lot of economic experiments take place or could be designed to find out what works and what doesnít. I could imaging like distributing $1000 randomly (via lottery?) in one group and comparing it to a control group that gets nothing  could give some insights. Of course  itís not that same thing than giving UBI to everyone, but I bet one could get some insight. Or one could give UBI to a local cluster like a village.

I think a lot of changes should be tested in a small scale, before getting widely implemented. I think experimental economists and sociologists could deign many smart experiments that give us a lot of idea what works and what the effects might be.

I hate to beat a dead horse but nobody has responded to concerns about growing populist sentiment.  We have an immature narcissist who controls the nukes because of populism.  Trump probably would have lost in 2016 to a Democratic socialist (who wants to ban billionaires) had Clinton not rigged the Dem primary.  Populism is going to get worse at these levels of wealth inequality.  Am I the only one concerned about this?

I support UBI because I can't think of a better method to help the working class in the swing states.  Their communities are poor and there's no free market incentive for any corporation to set up shop. There's no money to be made hence no jobs, the population gets older, young people move out, residents get poorer, and the towns keep deteriorating.  Even if you're ok with letting those towns completely disintegrate, we still have the electoral college framework and the remaining citizens still have the power to vote and they'll become even more receptive to candidates with more radical messages.

If there's a way to break this cycle, I would love to hear it.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on November 26, 2019, 09:25:10 PM
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on November 27, 2019, 07:13:34 AM
I am not sure they UBI is the way to go but perhaps there is a way to find out. The US has a great advantage that with its size and diversity within 50 states a lot of economic experiments take place or could be designed to find out what works and what doesnít. I could imaging like distributing $1000 randomly (via lottery?) in one group and comparing it to a control group that gets nothing  could give some insights. Of course  itís not that same thing than giving UBI to everyone, but I bet one could get some insight. Or one could give UBI to a local cluster like a village.

I think a lot of changes should be tested in a small scale, before getting widely implemented. I think experimental economists and sociologists could deign many smart experiments that give us a lot of idea what works and what the effects might be.

I mean California tried single pay healthcare and it failed before it even got out of the gate. Silicon Valley is a primary "target fund" through vat taxes for many of the proposed policies (ubi etc.) So if California can't do it on their own how can we expect to do it at scale? It can be debated that they could have pushed forward with the plan and consolidated the funding channels. But it was quite clear it was going to be very very expensive.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on November 27, 2019, 10:10:47 PM
I hate to beat a dead horse but nobody has responded to concerns about growing populist sentiment.  We have an immature narcissist who controls the nukes because of populism.  Trump probably would have lost in 2016 to a Democratic socialist (who wants to ban billionaires) had Clinton not rigged the Dem primary.  Populism is going to get worse at these levels of wealth inequality.  Am I the only one concerned about this?

I support UBI because I can't think of a better method to help the working class in the swing states.  Their communities are poor and there's no free market incentive for any corporation to set up shop. There's no money to be made hence no jobs, the population gets older, young people move out, residents get poorer, and the towns keep deteriorating.  Even if you're ok with letting those towns completely disintegrate, we still have the electoral college framework and the remaining citizens still have the power to vote and they'll become even more receptive to candidates with more radical messages.

If there's a way to break this cycle, I would love to hear it.
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.

@LC Thanks for acknowledging the growing threat of populism.  Not sure why everyone else is avoiding the subject like the plague.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 28, 2019, 07:58:07 AM
...
@LC Thanks for acknowledging the growing threat of populism.  Not sure why everyone else is avoiding the subject like the plague.
After all, this is not a Politics Board and I suspect that the motivation for most to come here is to make money, a motive which, by itself, is not a bad thing. But I would be careful with generalizations. Civic engagement can take many forms.

Anyways, your political inputs are thought-provoking and your reference to the plague made me think of a book The Plague, which I read a while back. If you haven't read it already, you may find it interesting. Camus tended to underline the absurdity of situations but I guess he could be labeled as an uncomfortable optimist. In The Plague novel, a form of populist and hysteric upheaval takes place with, initially, a collective denial and a focus on individualistic issues. However, the selfish obsession eventually gives way to an acknowledgment for the need to develop collective responsibility and, in the end, the populace goes back to its normal routine, almost as if nothing happened. In the concluding section, the narrator comes forward and suggests that there is more to praise than to condemn in humans.

Happy Thanksgiving and I wish {at least} universal and basic happiness to all during those turbulent times.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on December 18, 2019, 02:45:28 PM
I thought of a more straightforward (and hopefully more convincing) way to express my support of UBI.  In short, 10 to 20 years from now I donít want to find that the U.S. has devolved into conditions present in countries like India, China, Mexico, or South Africa which result from wealth inequality. 

In India, 73% of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1%.  The richest family lives in a billion dollar house while millions live in open sewer slums.  India also has the most people living in modern slavery.  In China, scamming and counterfeiting are commonplace.  People go to such extremes such as flinging themselves in front of cars to extort a payoff.  In Mexico, average people are kidnapped and held for ransom.  In South Africa, armed robberies and car jackings are so prevalent that even the wealthiest citizens fear for their safety.  As an example, a celebrity athlete mistakenly shot his model girlfriend because he was paranoid about intruders. 

I support UBI to avoid the further erosion of civility. Recently, a poor inner-city 14 year old is suspected to have stabbed a female college student in a robbery gone bad in greater NYC.  The victim was originally from Charlottesville, Virginia.  These are real costs measured in human life not dollars which hopefully most citizens wonít experience directly but the probabilities will rise if conditions worsen.

In economic terms, I think of UBI as a necessary tax to maintain poor rural and inner city areas to avoid negative externalities.  Simply, UBI is paid to keep the entire neighborhood from going to hell.  Off the top of my head, hereís a partial list of externalities which in my subjective view are influenced by wealth inequality and populism.

    ē Idiotic, corrupt, narcissistic, criminal, and/or murderous leaders are swept into power by angry mobsĖ [fill in the blank with examples throughout different time periods and geography].
    ē The worst examples in human cost include WW2 and the Stalin and Mao regimes.  Over 70 million died in WW2 and tens of millions died under both Stalin and Mao.
    ē I donít think our current situation is anywhere as dire as the stated examples because people arenít starving but they are a frame of reference for what is possible when social cohesion disintegrates.
    ē Presently, we have Trump.  IMO his worst effects are perpetrating lies and normalizing the mentality that winning is the only goal and that cheating is ok as long as you donít get caught.  You could go on and on about all of Trumpís downsides that are impossible to quantify.
    ē Deterioration of public discourse and the absurdity of alternative facts
    ē Current and potential stupid/counterproductive policies
        ◦ [fill in the blank]
        ◦ I put the $15 min wage in this category.
        ◦ Potential dumb policies include but not limited to -  Building a wall and having Mexico pay for it, Federal Jobs Guarantee, Wealth Tax, Reparations for slavery, etc.  Even the mention of reparations raises expectations of future stupid policies.
    ē Declining life expectancy.  Record levels of suicides, depression, stress, mental illness.
    ē The opioid epidemic.
    ē Mass shootings.  Duck and cover drills that stress out parents/children but havenít saved lives. 
    ē Metal detectors everywhere.  Longer wait times at public events, airports etc because of metal detectors and getting frisked. 
    ē Deterioration of our environment i.e. lead in drinking water
    ē Neglected infrastructure where there are more potholes that lead to more vehicle repairs.
    ē Political gridlock, bureaucracy, corruption
    ē A dumber population causing things like measles to return because idiots think vaccines cause autism. 
    ē A dumb electorate that elects dumb congress people across the political spectrum.
    ē A society where frivolous lawsuits and scamming exist so average people need to buy Umbrella Insurance policies.
    ē You get the point. Extreme wealth inequality causes difficult to quantify externalities for everyone that donít remain contained to poor areas.


Thought experiment:  What if the poorest counties of Mississippi, Alabama, and New Mexico deteriorate into the complete lawlessness found in 3rd world countries by 2030? Letís say things get so bad that gangs start hijacking vehicles carrying anything of value and carjackings occur more regularly.  What will happen to the cost of shipping and how will that percolate through the greater economy?  In a country where there are already 390 million guns in circulation how much more security will be needed in public places?  What would the effects be on general and mental health?  Ultimately, what would be the cost in human lives?

If you think Iím being overly dramatic, is it really that difficult to imagine Rodney-King magnitude riots during the next recession?  Or more frequent Oklahoma City bombings?  Also ask: Is it more likely in 10 years that the poorest communities will have their downtowns revitalized or that those communities will continue to decline into shantytowns?

Bottomline, I think people who have the ďmoochers donít deserve UBIĒ mentality are missing the big picture.  If poor areas keep deteriorating then we will ALL pay a bigger HUMAN cost.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Packer16 on December 18, 2019, 05:40:54 PM
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.

I think you are missing an important aspect of the electoral college.  The electoral college (like other mechanisms such as the filibuster & a supermajority to amend the constitution) ensure that governance is by a super majority.  This requires convincing more than a party of individuals to support a measure but a bi-partisan coalition to legislate and administrate.  IMO I think this is one of the hidden genius of the founders.

Packer   
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Spekulatius on December 18, 2019, 06:12:59 PM
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.

I think you are missing an important aspect of the electoral college.  The electoral college (like other mechanisms such as the filibuster & a supermajority to amend the constitution) ensure that governance is by a super majority.  This requires convincing more than a party of individuals to support a measure but a bi-partisan coalition to legislate and administrate.  IMO I think this is one of the hidden genius of the founders.

Packer

Unfortunately , election of Supreme Court judges can be done my a simple majority, which imo is a big flaw in the constitution. Germany has a 2/3 supermajority , which means consensus is necessary. This prevents any party hacks from getting into a position.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on December 18, 2019, 06:28:09 PM
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.

I think you are missing an important aspect of the electoral college.  The electoral college (like other mechanisms such as the filibuster & a supermajority to amend the constitution) ensure that governance is by a super majority.  This requires convincing more than a party of individuals to support a measure but a bi-partisan coalition to legislate and administrate.  IMO I think this is one of the hidden genius of the founders.

Packer

The Electoral College guarantees no such thing. It is the Twelfth Amendment which defines the process for electing a President. Briefly scoped:

The Twelfth Amendment requires the House of Representatives to go into session immediately to vote for a president if no candidate for president receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president. Each state delegation votes en bloc ó each delegation having a single vote; the District of Columbia does not get to vote. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., at present, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.


This Amendment can just as easily be extended to a popular vote as it was extended to the EC vote.

The Electoral College is a means of distributing votes to States rather than Individuals, essentially rewarding geographic capital rather than human capital. And there are other inherent discriminations towards populous States within the EC process (related to how Representatives are divided) but this is getting into minutiae.

Personally I believe it is to our nation's peril for not changing our system of election to reflect changes within our society. And we are seeing such perils in modern metrics (income inequality) and even metrics traditionally applied to the third world: infant mortality, maternal mortality, child mortality rates.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cigarbutt on December 18, 2019, 08:18:31 PM
^The issue of the Electoral College is perhaps emblematic of the challenge ahead.

A majority of citizens would prefer direct representation over the Electoral College but the elected class knows better. And the bipartisan coalition dynamics tainted with populism has meant that within this majority point of view, there is also growing divisiveness as to the outcome for the College with one end of the spectrum increasing its support to reform it and the other end of the spectrum increasing its support to maintain it.

Then people wonder why the ordinary citizen feels the disconnect, why the newer generation questions the capitalism model and are more and more confortable with reforms that would impose forced redistribution and why impeachment procedures are the new normal.

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on December 19, 2019, 07:52:54 AM
I don't think the EC is the issue that should be focused on. I think it works pretty much as intended (no perfect but good). The primary issue is why have we allowed the power of the executive branch to balloon so much? Why does a single position (President) currently have so much power? It was never intended to be this way. The individuals who have been in charge of protecting the constitution over the past 100 years have been extremely neglectful when it comes to enforcing the restriction of powers of the executive branch. There is a reason it has become our largest branch of government (which it was never intended to be).

That being said I think popular vote is a bad path to go down. It allows for mob rule in most cases. Not in all cases as seen in the GWB election where he won the popular vote without winning any major metropolitan areas. The notion that urban cities would rule the country are not entirely true, but the idea that there would be no leverage is also unfounded. It's difficult to have a system that works perfectly every election cycle. That's why imo the best approach is to reduce the power of the govt which helps to flatten the defects in the election processes.

I have always admired the executive branch of Switzerland. They basically have seven presidents and each is in control of a department within the executive branch. They have a very effective system which decentralizes the power but also gives citizens a very effective way of petitioning government on proposed laws and changes.

@LC when you talk about things like infant mortality one needs to be very careful about the definition of infant mortality. The US for example registers any baby that shows signs of life. Many countries don't include infants under 500g who are also not at least 22 weeks along in their gestation period. I'm not saying the rate in the US is the lowest, but if you were to compare apples to apples it would be much more inline with "modern countries" than you are portraying. What is interesting is that advances in prenatal and post natal care are actually increasing the numbers in infant mortality (specifically when comparing to the definition being used to report). If you look at Canada in the early 2000's you saw a spike in the infant mortality rate. This can party be attributed to fertility programs which increase the number of twins being born (which are much higher risk for death). Advances in technology also made it possible to deliver premature babies at a higher rate. This flooded the "live birth" statistics with much higher risk babies thus increasing the infant mortality number.

Same thing can be said about suicides (comparing suicide by gun vs suicide in general) Japan has an overall higher suicide rate than the US per 100k yet they have basically zero suicide by gun and zero gun deaths in general. Same with the definition of "mass shootings".

Moral of the story is definitions and how countries report on said definitions matters. Especially when comparing them against each other in an attempt to sway policy.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Spekulatius on December 19, 2019, 12:41:48 PM
^The issue of the Electoral College is perhaps emblematic of the challenge ahead.

A majority of citizens would prefer direct representation over the Electoral College but the elected class knows better. And the bipartisan coalition dynamics tainted with populism has meant that within this majority point of view, there is also growing divisiveness as to the outcome for the College with one end of the spectrum increasing its support to reform it and the other end of the spectrum increasing its support to maintain it.

Then people wonder why the ordinary citizen feels the disconnect, why the newer generation questions the capitalism model and are more and more confortable with reforms that would impose forced redistribution and why impeachment procedures are the new normal.

The parties like the system ( winner takes all) because it guarantees that no new competition ever will gain hold.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 12, 2020, 01:56:01 PM
On the topics of unemployment, wage growth, and UBI:

Quote
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/01/08/low-unemployment-isnt-worth-much-if-the-jobs-barely-pay/

53 million workers ages 18 to 64óor 44% of all workersóearn barely enough to live on. Their median earnings are $10.22 per hour, and about $18,000 per year. These low-wage workers are concentrated in a relatively small number of occupations, including retail sales, cooks, food and beverage servers, janitors and housekeepers, personal care and service workers (such as child care workers and patient care assistants), and various administrative positions.

 it would be a mistake to assume that most low-wage workers are young people just getting started, or students, or secondary earners, or otherwise financially secure:

Two-thirds (64%) of low-wage workers are in their prime working years of 25 to 54.
More than half (57%) work full-time year-round, the customary schedule for employment intended to provide financial security.
About half (51%) are primary earners or contribute substantially to family living expenses.
Thirty-seven percent have children. Of this group, 23% live below the federal poverty line.
Less than half (45%) of low-wage workers ages 18 to 24 are in school or already have a college degree.
Full report here: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/201911_Brookings-Metro_low-wage-workforce_Ross-Bateman.pdf

One response to the report that I saw was the following:

Quote
A UBI starting at $1,000/month would effectively be a $6.15 wage increase, lifting the median wage of $10.22/hr to $16.38/hr, while cushioning any period of disruption, unemployment, or time spent in education with unconditional monthly cash transfers. Combine that effect for any adults living together.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal on January 12, 2020, 02:50:10 PM
One item I do believe in, that does greatly diverge from many of my other principle beliefs in terms of being logically consistent, would be a basic level income/wage/credit. How to implement it, I do not have an answer. I think it should somehow be done via a tax refund like program and eligibility requirement contingent upon working a minimum number of hours/days/weeks or whatever. Perhaps similar to the conditions required to transfer real estate derived income from passive to earned; IE the onus must be on the person making the claim and parameters rather steep.

There is a point where we will need to tackle the fact that the wealth divide is enormous. That you have a guy like Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions without even thinking because on a whim he wants to be President...when many of the folks walking down the filthy streets he gets stretch limo'd around, would kill one another fighting over a $10 bill on the floor.

If nothing else, why should the government consistently be the only ones to piss away our taxes? Maybe start giving it to people who need it at 100 cents on the dollar rather than at 62c or whatever is left after it slimes its way through the corrupt distribution chambers of our social welfare programs.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on January 12, 2020, 03:06:04 PM
One item I do believe in, that does greatly diverge from many of my other principle beliefs in terms of being logically consistent, would be a basic level income/wage/credit. How to implement it, I do not have an answer. I think it should somehow be done via a tax refund like program and eligibility requirement contingent upon working a minimum number of hours/days/weeks or whatever. Perhaps similar to the conditions required to transfer real estate derived income from passive to earned; IE the onus must be on the person making the claim and parameters rather steep.

There is a point where we will need to tackle the fact that the wealth divide is enormous. That you have a guy like Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions without even thinking because on a whim he wants to be President...when many of the folks walking down the filthy streets he gets stretch limo'd around, would kill one another fighting over a $10 bill on the floor.

If nothing else, why should the government consistently be the only ones to piss away our taxes? Maybe start giving it to people who need it at 100 cents on the dollar rather than at 62c or whatever is left after it slimes its way through the corrupt distribution chambers of our social welfare programs.

Don't you think adding eligibility requirements to UBI besides something simple like age, is just adding levels of bureaucracy?

Adding requirements for working a certain number of hours just makes sure the money doesn't go to anyone that needs it the most.

With UBI, it actually takes away from the argument to institute a minimum wage which might lead to fuller employment and potential work for those who might otherwise be less desired as employees because of lower perceived productivity.

I like to think of UBI being the social safety net being distributed to everyone evenly. It lets the people decide how they want to spend it themselves which is why many Libertarians favor it. It also avoids having the government pick winners and losers based on criteria that endears them to their political base.

It would be nice to have the GOP on board to negotiate the shutting down of countless government welfare programs that UBI could replace. That could shrink government headcount in a meaningful way.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal on January 12, 2020, 03:16:04 PM
I dont disagree, I just cant bring myself to giving support to providing MORE free stuff to lazy bums who dont deserve it. The gist of my "program requirements" would mainly be, "show you're doing what you can". Otherwise we'd just be giving more and more to bums who refuse to get jobs or contribute to society and the only people that benefit in that case are shareholders of Nike.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on January 12, 2020, 03:23:13 PM
I dont disagree, I just cant bring myself to giving support to providing MORE free stuff to lazy bums who dont deserve it. The gist of my "program requirements" would mainly be, "show you're doing what you can". Otherwise we'd just be giving more and more to bums who refuse to get jobs or contribute to society and the only people that benefit in that case are shareholders of Nike.

I would say that was true if there were a bunch of other welfare programs they could apply for. This sets a cap and doesn't give any incentives to avoid work like most welfare programs do now. It also removes the stigma since everyone is getting the same benefit.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal on January 12, 2020, 04:05:52 PM
I dont disagree, I just cant bring myself to giving support to providing MORE free stuff to lazy bums who dont deserve it. The gist of my "program requirements" would mainly be, "show you're doing what you can". Otherwise we'd just be giving more and more to bums who refuse to get jobs or contribute to society and the only people that benefit in that case are shareholders of Nike.

I would say that was true if there were a bunch of other welfare programs they could apply for. This sets a cap and doesn't give any incentives to avoid work like most welfare programs do now. It also removes the stigma since everyone is getting the same benefit.

Thats the thing though, there are already welfare programs that exist for most that wouldn't qualify. Disability for instance. But people who choose not to work because instead of contributing to society they rather smoke pot and play Xbox, or folks who game the system by working off the books and claiming unemployment, etc....shouldnt get another dime.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on January 12, 2020, 05:42:14 PM
I dont disagree, I just cant bring myself to giving support to providing MORE free stuff to lazy bums who dont deserve it. The gist of my "program requirements" would mainly be, "show you're doing what you can". Otherwise we'd just be giving more and more to bums who refuse to get jobs or contribute to society and the only people that benefit in that case are shareholders of Nike.

I would say that was true if there were a bunch of other welfare programs they could apply for. This sets a cap and doesn't give any incentives to avoid work like most welfare programs do now. It also removes the stigma since everyone is getting the same benefit.

Thats the thing though, there are already welfare programs that exist for most that wouldn't qualify. Disability for instance. But people who choose not to work because instead of contributing to society they rather smoke pot and play Xbox, or folks who game the system by working off the books and claiming unemployment, etc....shouldnt get another dime.

Exactly, we need to reduce or eliminate those other welfare programs. With UBI you don't need to care if someone chooses not to work. Everyone is getting the same benefit.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 12, 2020, 06:26:21 PM

Thats the thing though, there are already welfare programs that exist for most that wouldn't qualify. Disability for instance. But people who choose not to work because instead of contributing to society they rather smoke pot and play Xbox, or folks who game the system by working off the books and claiming unemployment, etc....shouldnt get another dime.
What percentage of people on welfare programs "deserve it" and what percentage do not?
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: cherzeca on January 12, 2020, 10:14:11 PM
If there is to be a basic income guarantee, wouldn't it make sense to eliminate all other social welfare programs like SNAP and Medicaid, and use the money from those programs to pay this income to people directly?  just ensure that all people have the right to receive sufficient money to pay for food and health care or whatever it is that they would rather have other than food and healthcare
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on January 13, 2020, 06:58:29 AM
UBI does not address total welfare spending. Itís not reducing the total cost which is what we should be after (alongside recusing those who are in welfare)

UBI comes across to me as a bad parent. Itís not much different than a parent giving in to a kid who is being a brat and buying them that price of candy in the checkout line so they stop making a scene for 10 minutes.

I believe the physiological meaning and motivation behind how someone has obtained money is extremely important for a society. Itís what moves the world forward. The idea of working and achieving something is very important. I donít think UBI helps to achieve this. Welfare should work towards a solution that make people feel enthralled to earn and save and be productive.

ďA working man is a happy man. An idle man is a most unhappy man.Ē - Ben Franklin
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 13, 2020, 07:37:20 AM
Quote
I believe the physiological meaning and motivation behind how someone has obtained money is extremely important for a society. Itís what moves the world forward. The idea of working and achieving something is very important. I donít think UBI helps to achieve this. Welfare should work towards a solution that make people feel enthralled to earn and save and be productive.

The psychological biases on this thread are incredible. I would guess that those on this forum are on average "better off" than the average American. But your reply, and Greg's, seem to imply that we all "worked hard for it", further implying that the "less well-off" simply have not worked enough for it.

Well the facts as I will now repeat here simply do not support this:

Quote
53 million workers ages 18 to 64óor 44% of all workersóearn barely enough to live on. Their median earnings are $10.22 per hour, and about $18,000 per year. These low-wage workers are concentrated in a relatively small number of occupations, including retail sales, cooks, food and beverage servers, janitors and housekeepers, personal care and service workers (such as child care workers and patient care assistants), and various administrative positions.

 it would be a mistake to assume that most low-wage workers are young people just getting started, or students, or secondary earners, or otherwise financially secure:

Two-thirds (64%) of low-wage workers are in their prime working years of 25 to 54.
More than half (57%) work full-time year-round, the customary schedule for employment intended to provide financial security.
About half (51%) are primary earners or contribute substantially to family living expenses.
Thirty-seven percent have children. Of this group, 23% live below the federal poverty line.
Less than half (45%) of low-wage workers ages 18 to 24 are in school or already have a college degree.

These people ARE working, probably much more than you or I. And yet they have less and less to show for it. The problem is not that people aren't working. As Trump will loudly tout, unemployment is very low. The problem is that in many cases working a full time job simply isn't enough to live on.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal on January 13, 2020, 07:40:23 AM
LC it is not a stretch to say some work harder than others, and that some dont work at all. How do you come up with a criteria? IDK and its probably a poor use of my time to try. But it shouldn't be a stretch to say willfully unemployed people who refuse to seek employment or who cant pass a drug test shouldn't be getting freebies.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 13, 2020, 07:57:51 AM
Well that's the exact question I posed to you here:
https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/andrew-yang/msg392532/#msg392532


Now I would argue the 53 million working people who barely earn the poverty line (i.e. the benefit) far outweighs the crack addicts and welfare frauds (i.e. the cost).

Here are some recent statistics to support my argument:

Quote
The US Department of Labor reported that 1.9% of total unemployment insurance (UI) payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program.[47] In 2012, it reported the figure as 2.67%.[48]

In Florida, from July to October 2011, cash welfare recipients were drug-tested, with advanced notice, and only 2.6% of the tests came back positive. Thus, 97.4% of recipients who chose to partake in the testing program were not using any kind of illegal or illicit drugs. Of the 2.6% who tested positive, most people tested positive for marijuana

Improper payments were estimated to be 3.6% of the total payments of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in fiscal year 2003. In FY 2004, the number was 0.53% for the Social Security Administration, 5.07% for the Unemployment Insurance program of the Department of Labor, and 0.64% for their compensation program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.[7]
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: DTEJD1997 on January 13, 2020, 09:49:59 AM
Hey all:

I learned a shocking thing about employment the other day.

Here in Detroit, we've got a shocking shortage of workers for the Post Office.

I queried the Post Master about how much they pay.  He chuckled and told me that a good number of the workers at his location make MORE than he does.  ????? how is that even possible????

OVERTIME

If a postal worker shows up to work and is willing to work 10+ hour days, they can make over $100k a year.  This is with paid vacation, pension, and excellent healthcare.  Educational requirement is a high school diploma.  Training time is a couple of days.

It turns out that the Post Office can't hire enough people.  Plenty of people try to get in, but they have to pass 4 tests/hurdles.

The first one is a general aptitude test for basic mathematics, reading comprehension and such.
The second one is a criminal background check.
The third is a drug test.
The fourth is an in person interview for personality/suitability.

Here in Detroit somewhere between 80% and 90% of applicants can't pass all 4 hurdles.  The difficult ones are the aptitude test and drug test.

It is sad that the vast majority of the population can't pass the requirement for these good jobs.

I knew the Post Office jobs were good, but I had no idea how good they were if you are willing to work overtime.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on January 13, 2020, 01:16:18 PM
No one has responded to my 12/18 post.  I can only assume that either people were so overwhelmed by its sublime reasoning and had no retort OR no one bothered to read it.

I argue UBI is necessary to prevent the entire neighborhood from going to hell because if we let our poorest communities disintegrate into shantytowns then we will pay more in HUMAN costs.



I thought of a more straightforward (and hopefully more convincing) way to express my support of UBI.  In short, 10 to 20 years from now I donít want to find that the U.S. has devolved into conditions present in countries like India, China, Mexico, or South Africa which result from wealth inequality. 

In India, 73% of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1%.  The richest family lives in a billion dollar house while millions live in open sewer slums.  India also has the most people living in modern slavery.  In China, scamming and counterfeiting are commonplace.  People go to such extremes such as flinging themselves in front of cars to extort a payoff.  In Mexico, average people are kidnapped and held for ransom.  In South Africa, armed robberies and car jackings are so prevalent that even the wealthiest citizens fear for their safety.  As an example, a celebrity athlete mistakenly shot his model girlfriend because he was paranoid about intruders. 

I support UBI to avoid the further erosion of civility. Recently, a poor inner-city 14 year old is suspected to have stabbed a female college student in a robbery gone bad in greater NYC.  The victim was originally from Charlottesville, Virginia.  These are real costs measured in human life not dollars which hopefully most citizens wonít experience directly but the probabilities will rise if conditions worsen.

In economic terms, I think of UBI as a necessary tax to maintain poor rural and inner city areas to avoid negative externalities.  Simply, UBI is paid to keep the entire neighborhood from going to hell.  Off the top of my head, hereís a partial list of externalities which in my subjective view are influenced by wealth inequality and populism.

    ē Idiotic, corrupt, narcissistic, criminal, and/or murderous leaders are swept into power by angry mobsĖ [fill in the blank with examples throughout different time periods and geography].
    ē The worst examples in human cost include WW2 and the Stalin and Mao regimes.  Over 70 million died in WW2 and tens of millions died under both Stalin and Mao.
    ē I donít think our current situation is anywhere as dire as the stated examples because people arenít starving but they are a frame of reference for what is possible when social cohesion disintegrates.
    ē Presently, we have Trump.  IMO his worst effects are perpetrating lies and normalizing the mentality that winning is the only goal and that cheating is ok as long as you donít get caught.  You could go on and on about all of Trumpís downsides that are impossible to quantify.
    ē Deterioration of public discourse and the absurdity of alternative facts
    ē Current and potential stupid/counterproductive policies
        ◦ [fill in the blank]
        ◦ I put the $15 min wage in this category.
        ◦ Potential dumb policies include but not limited to -  Building a wall and having Mexico pay for it, Federal Jobs Guarantee, Wealth Tax, Reparations for slavery, etc.  Even the mention of reparations raises expectations of future stupid policies.
    ē Declining life expectancy.  Record levels of suicides, depression, stress, mental illness.
    ē The opioid epidemic.
    ē Mass shootings.  Duck and cover drills that stress out parents/children but havenít saved lives. 
    ē Metal detectors everywhere.  Longer wait times at public events, airports etc because of metal detectors and getting frisked. 
    ē Deterioration of our environment i.e. lead in drinking water
    ē Neglected infrastructure where there are more potholes that lead to more vehicle repairs.
    ē Political gridlock, bureaucracy, corruption
    ē A dumber population causing things like measles to return because idiots think vaccines cause autism. 
    ē A dumb electorate that elects dumb congress people across the political spectrum.
    ē A society where frivolous lawsuits and scamming exist so average people need to buy Umbrella Insurance policies.
    ē You get the point. Extreme wealth inequality causes difficult to quantify externalities for everyone that donít remain contained to poor areas.


Thought experiment:  What if the poorest counties of Mississippi, Alabama, and New Mexico deteriorate into the complete lawlessness found in 3rd world countries by 2030? Letís say things get so bad that gangs start hijacking vehicles carrying anything of value and carjackings occur more regularly.  What will happen to the cost of shipping and how will that percolate through the greater economy?  In a country where there are already 390 million guns in circulation how much more security will be needed in public places?  What would the effects be on general and mental health?  Ultimately, what would be the cost in human lives?

If you think Iím being overly dramatic, is it really that difficult to imagine Rodney-King magnitude riots during the next recession?  Or more frequent Oklahoma City bombings?  Also ask: Is it more likely in 10 years that the poorest communities will have their downtowns revitalized or that those communities will continue to decline into shantytowns?

Bottomline, I think people who have the ďmoochers donít deserve UBIĒ mentality are missing the big picture.  If poor areas keep deteriorating then we will ALL pay a bigger HUMAN cost.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: nodnub on January 13, 2020, 03:23:48 PM
I agree, I think we need to do more to help people at the bottom of the ladder.  Even if just for my own selfish reason of maintaining stability in the US and other 1st world democracies. 

I'm not sure if UBI will accomplish that.

The public education system has been undermined so much that some high school graduates can hardly read, write and do basic math required for a job in construction.

Is it possible that UBI will further separate those who can/do succeed in our system and those that fail (for whatever reason: lack of development and training, lack of opportunity, mental health issues, addiction issues, lower raw intelligence, no trained work ethic, etc).   Sure they will have a basic income, but won't they want much more and still be resentful of the more successful?   What is the expression: "the devil makes work for idle hands"?

I think we need to find ways to build strong communities where everyone is engaged in some occupation and able to contribute in accordance with their abilities.  Those with lesser abilities are better off doing something than nothing.





No one has responded to my 12/18 post.  I can only assume that either people were so overwhelmed by its sublime reasoning and had no retort OR no one bothered to read it.

I argue UBI is necessary to prevent the entire neighborhood from going to hell because if we let our poorest communities disintegrate into shantytowns then we will pay more in HUMAN costs.


I thought of a more straightforward (and hopefully more convincing) way to express my support of UBI.  In short, 10 to 20 years from now I donít want to find that the U.S. has devolved into conditions present in countries like India, China, Mexico, or South Africa which result from wealth inequality. 

In India, 73% of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1%.  The richest family lives in a billion dollar house while millions live in open sewer slums.  India also has the most people living in modern slavery.  In China, scamming and counterfeiting are commonplace.  People go to such extremes such as flinging themselves in front of cars to extort a payoff.  In Mexico, average people are kidnapped and held for ransom.  In South Africa, armed robberies and car jackings are so prevalent that even the wealthiest citizens fear for their safety.  As an example, a celebrity athlete mistakenly shot his model girlfriend because he was paranoid about intruders. 

I support UBI to avoid the further erosion of civility. Recently, a poor inner-city 14 year old is suspected to have stabbed a female college student in a robbery gone bad in greater NYC.  The victim was originally from Charlottesville, Virginia.  These are real costs measured in human life not dollars which hopefully most citizens wonít experience directly but the probabilities will rise if conditions worsen.

In economic terms, I think of UBI as a necessary tax to maintain poor rural and inner city areas to avoid negative externalities.  Simply, UBI is paid to keep the entire neighborhood from going to hell.  Off the top of my head, hereís a partial list of externalities which in my subjective view are influenced by wealth inequality and populism.

    ē Idiotic, corrupt, narcissistic, criminal, and/or murderous leaders are swept into power by angry mobsĖ [fill in the blank with examples throughout different time periods and geography].
    ē The worst examples in human cost include WW2 and the Stalin and Mao regimes.  Over 70 million died in WW2 and tens of millions died under both Stalin and Mao.
    ē I donít think our current situation is anywhere as dire as the stated examples because people arenít starving but they are a frame of reference for what is possible when social cohesion disintegrates.
    ē Presently, we have Trump.  IMO his worst effects are perpetrating lies and normalizing the mentality that winning is the only goal and that cheating is ok as long as you donít get caught.  You could go on and on about all of Trumpís downsides that are impossible to quantify.
    ē Deterioration of public discourse and the absurdity of alternative facts
    ē Current and potential stupid/counterproductive policies
        ◦ [fill in the blank]
        ◦ I put the $15 min wage in this category.
        ◦ Potential dumb policies include but not limited to -  Building a wall and having Mexico pay for it, Federal Jobs Guarantee, Wealth Tax, Reparations for slavery, etc.  Even the mention of reparations raises expectations of future stupid policies.
    ē Declining life expectancy.  Record levels of suicides, depression, stress, mental illness.
    ē The opioid epidemic.
    ē Mass shootings.  Duck and cover drills that stress out parents/children but havenít saved lives. 
    ē Metal detectors everywhere.  Longer wait times at public events, airports etc because of metal detectors and getting frisked. 
    ē Deterioration of our environment i.e. lead in drinking water
    ē Neglected infrastructure where there are more potholes that lead to more vehicle repairs.
    ē Political gridlock, bureaucracy, corruption
    ē A dumber population causing things like measles to return because idiots think vaccines cause autism. 
    ē A dumb electorate that elects dumb congress people across the political spectrum.
    ē A society where frivolous lawsuits and scamming exist so average people need to buy Umbrella Insurance policies.
    ē You get the point. Extreme wealth inequality causes difficult to quantify externalities for everyone that donít remain contained to poor areas.


Thought experiment:  What if the poorest counties of Mississippi, Alabama, and New Mexico deteriorate into the complete lawlessness found in 3rd world countries by 2030? Letís say things get so bad that gangs start hijacking vehicles carrying anything of value and carjackings occur more regularly.  What will happen to the cost of shipping and how will that percolate through the greater economy?  In a country where there are already 390 million guns in circulation how much more security will be needed in public places?  What would the effects be on general and mental health?  Ultimately, what would be the cost in human lives?

If you think Iím being overly dramatic, is it really that difficult to imagine Rodney-King magnitude riots during the next recession?  Or more frequent Oklahoma City bombings?  Also ask: Is it more likely in 10 years that the poorest communities will have their downtowns revitalized or that those communities will continue to decline into shantytowns?

Bottomline, I think people who have the ďmoochers donít deserve UBIĒ mentality are missing the big picture.  If poor areas keep deteriorating then we will ALL pay a bigger HUMAN cost.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cardboard on January 13, 2020, 04:43:32 PM
"But your reply, and Greg's, seem to imply that we all "worked hard for it", further implying that the "less well-off" simply have not worked enough for it."

Worked hard on something valuable. Makes sense now?

Cardboard
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: mcliu on January 13, 2020, 05:46:17 PM
IMO, it's not only about working hard. Most of us can work 24 hours a day and we still can't compete with those born into an elite family.
We've just started at the middle while the elites and their children start at the top.

I think those at the very bottom may feel the same way about those in the middle/upper-middle.
There should be a mechanism to fix this. It may be UBI, or it may not.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on January 13, 2020, 06:40:34 PM
Well that's the exact question I posed to you here:
https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/andrew-yang/msg392532/#msg392532


Now I would argue the 53 million working people who barely earn the poverty line (i.e. the benefit) far outweighs the crack addicts and welfare frauds (i.e. the cost).

Here are some recent statistics to support my argument:

Quote
The US Department of Labor reported that 1.9% of total unemployment insurance (UI) payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program.[47] In 2012, it reported the figure as 2.67%.[48]

In Florida, from July to October 2011, cash welfare recipients were drug-tested, with advanced notice, and only 2.6% of the tests came back positive. Thus, 97.4% of recipients who chose to partake in the testing program were not using any kind of illegal or illicit drugs. Of the 2.6% who tested positive, most people tested positive for marijuana

Improper payments were estimated to be 3.6% of the total payments of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in fiscal year 2003. In FY 2004, the number was 0.53% for the Social Security Administration, 5.07% for the Unemployment Insurance program of the Department of Labor, and 0.64% for their compensation program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.[7]

LC you make a lot of assumptions about my stances. I have never said that poor people donít work hard. But I would argue that your assumption that everyone would be rocket scientists if they had a little extra money in their pockets is laughable.

1) Have you ever been poor?

2) Have you ever worked a blue collar job for an extended period of time?

3) Have you ever associated with the lower class or lived alongside them for an extended period of time?

If the answer to those three questions is no then quite honestly I donít give a lot of merit to your views on it. You can cite all the stats you want, but I can assure you those stats are not anywhere near encompassing of reality that exists. This is the issue with many academics in my opinion. As with everything we build two camps when the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. But the fact remains and will remain that people are inclined to be lazy if given the opportunity.

To go along with what DTEJD1997 said about postal workers. I have seen a similar thing happen in my short time at UPS. Probably close to 50 people walked away from an 80-100k a year job because they didnít want to work hard.

Go talk to anyone who runs a blue collar business (welding, construction, landscaping, carpentry) and they will tell you how difficult it is to find good people to do a job and be consistent.

Again, we absolutely need a system which helps the poor and needy. No doubt about it. But it needs to be one that build incentive and makes individuals feel like they are gaining something. Perhaps something that rewards consistency and dedication?
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 14, 2020, 12:43:49 PM
"But your reply, and Greg's, seem to imply that we all "worked hard for it", further implying that the "less well-off" simply have not worked enough for it."

Worked hard on something valuable. Makes sense now?

Cardboard

Ohhhhhhhh I get it - so according to you, 44% of all US workers simply aren't working on something valuable. That makes sense!  ::)

Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 14, 2020, 01:08:41 PM

LC you make a lot of assumptions about my stances. I have never said that poor people donít work hard. But I would argue that your assumption that everyone would be rocket scientists if they had a little extra money in their pockets is laughable.
Well what a load of baloney as I've ever read it. First, show me where I make that assumption. And second, when you post stuff like

"UBI comes across to me as a bad parent. Itís not much different than a parent giving in to a kid who is being a brat and buying them that price of candy in the checkout line so they stop making a scene for 10 minutes.

I believe the physiological meaning and motivation behind how someone has obtained money is extremely important for a society. Itís what moves the world forward. The idea of working and achieving something is very important. I donít think UBI helps to achieve this. Welfare should work towards a solution that make people feel enthralled to earn and save and be productive.

ďA working man is a happy man. An idle man is a most unhappy man.Ē - Ben Franklin


That seems to me a total implication that the poor are poor because they aren't working.

Quote
1) Have you ever been poor?

2) Have you ever worked a blue collar job for an extended period of time?

3) Have you ever associated with the lower class or lived alongside them for an extended period of time?

If the answer to those three questions is no then quite honestly I donít give a lot of merit to your views on it. You can cite all the stats you want, but I can assure you those stats are not anywhere near encompassing of reality that exists. This is the issue with many academics in my opinion. As with everything we build two camps when the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. But the fact remains and will remain that people are inclined to be lazy if given the opportunity.
Ah I see - factual data is useless, anecdotal stories are how we should design our social policies. And it's shocking (SHOCKING!) that those stories happen to benefit those like you... ::)


Quote
To go along with what DTEJD1997 said about postal workers. I have seen a similar thing happen in my short time at UPS. Probably close to 50 people walked away from an 80-100k a year job because they didnít want to work hard.
Well again there is some nonsense afoot because the starting salary for a USPS worker is something like 30,000/year. I guess these anecdotal stories also include 70K in overtime work. Here's one more of those silly stats:

According to the American Postal Workers Union, clerks' salaries depended on their service grade. Level 3 employees in the lowest spot on the pay scale earned $25,657 to start. The bureau reported the nation's 65,040 postal clerks overall averaged $52,860, or $25.41 an hour.


Quote
Go talk to anyone who runs a blue collar business (welding, construction, landscaping, carpentry) and they will tell you how difficult it is to find good people to do a job and be consistent.
That's odd because there's tons of South American guys in my neighborhood who do great work for reasonable prices. Hell, one of my roofer's wife drove by during lunch with coolers of tacos, tamales, rice and beans, etc. Lunch was great (even the neighbors came out and bought some) and they did an excellent job (4 buildings in 2 days!).

It's a wonder the real estate market can grow at all:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2019/07/18/robust-us-housing-market-continues-to-expand-amid-recession-jitters/#1dcce92b3298

Quote
Again, we absolutely need a system which helps the poor and needy. No doubt about it. But it needs to be one that build incentive and makes individuals feel like they are gaining something. Perhaps something that rewards consistency and dedication?
Well I partly agree, but again we have 44% of the workforce who are barely above the poverty line. More than half who work full time, year round. A third who have children.

But apparently they lack consistency, dedication, and the right incentives? Well, you tell me what incentives they are lacking because your beliefs about how a welfare program should be structured does not align with reality.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on January 14, 2020, 02:03:49 PM

LC you make a lot of assumptions about my stances. I have never said that poor people donít work hard. But I would argue that your assumption that everyone would be rocket scientists if they had a little extra money in their pockets is laughable.
Well what a load of baloney as I've ever read it. First, show me where I make that assumption. And second, when you post stuff like

"UBI comes across to me as a bad parent. Itís not much different than a parent giving in to a kid who is being a brat and buying them that price of candy in the checkout line so they stop making a scene for 10 minutes.

I believe the physiological meaning and motivation behind how someone has obtained money is extremely important for a society. Itís what moves the world forward. The idea of working and achieving something is very important. I donít think UBI helps to achieve this. Welfare should work towards a solution that make people feel enthralled to earn and save and be productive.

ďA working man is a happy man. An idle man is a most unhappy man.Ē - Ben Franklin


That seems to me a total implication that the poor are poor because they aren't working.

Quote
1) Have you ever been poor?

2) Have you ever worked a blue collar job for an extended period of time?

3) Have you ever associated with the lower class or lived alongside them for an extended period of time?

If the answer to those three questions is no then quite honestly I donít give a lot of merit to your views on it. You can cite all the stats you want, but I can assure you those stats are not anywhere near encompassing of reality that exists. This is the issue with many academics in my opinion. As with everything we build two camps when the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. But the fact remains and will remain that people are inclined to be lazy if given the opportunity.
Ah I see - factual data is useless, anecdotal stories are how we should design our social policies. And it's shocking (SHOCKING!) that those stories happen to benefit those like you... ::)


Quote
To go along with what DTEJD1997 said about postal workers. I have seen a similar thing happen in my short time at UPS. Probably close to 50 people walked away from an 80-100k a year job because they didnít want to work hard.
Well again there is some nonsense afoot because the starting salary for a USPS worker is something like 30,000/year. I guess these anecdotal stories also include 70K in overtime work. Here's one more of those silly stats:

According to the American Postal Workers Union, clerks' salaries depended on their service grade. Level 3 employees in the lowest spot on the pay scale earned $25,657 to start. The bureau reported the nation's 65,040 postal clerks overall averaged $52,860, or $25.41 an hour.


Quote
Go talk to anyone who runs a blue collar business (welding, construction, landscaping, carpentry) and they will tell you how difficult it is to find good people to do a job and be consistent.
That's odd because there's tons of South American guys in my neighborhood who do great work for reasonable prices. Hell, one of my roofer's wife drove by during lunch with coolers of tacos, tamales, rice and beans, etc. Lunch was great (even the neighbors came out and bought some) and they did an excellent job (4 buildings in 2 days!).

It's a wonder the real estate market can grow at all:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2019/07/18/robust-us-housing-market-continues-to-expand-amid-recession-jitters/#1dcce92b3298

Quote
Again, we absolutely need a system which helps the poor and needy. No doubt about it. But it needs to be one that build incentive and makes individuals feel like they are gaining something. Perhaps something that rewards consistency and dedication?
Well I partly agree, but again we have 44% of the workforce who are barely above the poverty line. More than half who work full time, year round. A third who have children.

But apparently they lack consistency, dedication, and the right incentives? Well, you tell me what incentives they are lacking because your beliefs about how a welfare program should be structured does not align with reality.

1.) The only thing Iím implying is that creating policy which neglects how people act is just plaid stupid. Socialism looks great on paper (academic level) it fails when you introduce human sociology and psychology. Who is ignoring reality? Iím not the one who advocates for policies which ignore reality. I advocate for policies which allow for the least amount of coercion on a mass scale BECAUSE human behavior will always be the fly in the ointment. 

2.) You have this idea of cosmic justice and social justice that is really nothing more than totalitarianism concealed as compassion. You seem to have no problem investing in companies which donít pay their workers a livable wage. Did you happen to pay those roofers more than what they priced the job at? Probably not

3.) If you canít see how UBI is nothing more than a ďplease be quiet allowanceĒ from big daddy government then I donít know what else to tell you. Let me at least ask you this. Say we implement UBI, what do you think the odds are that people will ask for a higher UBI within 10 years? How do we scale UBI? Because even a modest increase would be an enormous amount.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on January 14, 2020, 02:32:38 PM

LC you make a lot of assumptions about my stances. I have never said that poor people donít work hard. But I would argue that your assumption that everyone would be rocket scientists if they had a little extra money in their pockets is laughable.
Well what a load of baloney as I've ever read it. First, show me where I make that assumption. And second, when you post stuff like

"UBI comes across to me as a bad parent. Itís not much different than a parent giving in to a kid who is being a brat and buying them that price of candy in the checkout line so they stop making a scene for 10 minutes.

I believe the physiological meaning and motivation behind how someone has obtained money is extremely important for a society. Itís what moves the world forward. The idea of working and achieving something is very important. I donít think UBI helps to achieve this. Welfare should work towards a solution that make people feel enthralled to earn and save and be productive.

ďA working man is a happy man. An idle man is a most unhappy man.Ē - Ben Franklin


That seems to me a total implication that the poor are poor because they aren't working.

Quote
1) Have you ever been poor?

2) Have you ever worked a blue collar job for an extended period of time?

3) Have you ever associated with the lower class or lived alongside them for an extended period of time?

If the answer to those three questions is no then quite honestly I donít give a lot of merit to your views on it. You can cite all the stats you want, but I can assure you those stats are not anywhere near encompassing of reality that exists. This is the issue with many academics in my opinion. As with everything we build two camps when the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. But the fact remains and will remain that people are inclined to be lazy if given the opportunity.
Ah I see - factual data is useless, anecdotal stories are how we should design our social policies. And it's shocking (SHOCKING!) that those stories happen to benefit those like you... ::)


Quote
To go along with what DTEJD1997 said about postal workers. I have seen a similar thing happen in my short time at UPS. Probably close to 50 people walked away from an 80-100k a year job because they didnít want to work hard.
Well again there is some nonsense afoot because the starting salary for a USPS worker is something like 30,000/year. I guess these anecdotal stories also include 70K in overtime work. Here's one more of those silly stats:

According to the American Postal Workers Union, clerks' salaries depended on their service grade. Level 3 employees in the lowest spot on the pay scale earned $25,657 to start. The bureau reported the nation's 65,040 postal clerks overall averaged $52,860, or $25.41 an hour.


Quote
Go talk to anyone who runs a blue collar business (welding, construction, landscaping, carpentry) and they will tell you how difficult it is to find good people to do a job and be consistent.
That's odd because there's tons of South American guys in my neighborhood who do great work for reasonable prices. Hell, one of my roofer's wife drove by during lunch with coolers of tacos, tamales, rice and beans, etc. Lunch was great (even the neighbors came out and bought some) and they did an excellent job (4 buildings in 2 days!).

It's a wonder the real estate market can grow at all:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2019/07/18/robust-us-housing-market-continues-to-expand-amid-recession-jitters/#1dcce92b3298

Quote
Again, we absolutely need a system which helps the poor and needy. No doubt about it. But it needs to be one that build incentive and makes individuals feel like they are gaining something. Perhaps something that rewards consistency and dedication?
Well I partly agree, but again we have 44% of the workforce who are barely above the poverty line. More than half who work full time, year round. A third who have children.

But apparently they lack consistency, dedication, and the right incentives? Well, you tell me what incentives they are lacking because your beliefs about how a welfare program should be structured does not align with reality.

1.) The only thing Iím implying is that creating policy which neglects how people act is just plaid stupid. Socialism looks great on paper (academic level) it fails when you introduce human sociology and psychology. Who is ignoring reality? Iím not the one who advocates for policies which ignore reality. I advocate for policies which allow for the least amount of coercion on a mass scale BECAUSE human behavior will always be the fly in the ointment. 

2.) You have this idea of cosmic justice and social justice that is really nothing more than totalitarianism concealed as compassion. You seem to have no problem investing in companies which donít pay their workers a livable wage. Did you happen to pay those roofers more than what they priced the job at? Probably not

3.) If you canít see how UBI is nothing more than a ďplease be quiet allowanceĒ from big daddy government then I donít know what else to tell you. Let me at least ask you this. Say we implement UBI, what do you think the odds are that people will ask for a higher UBI within 10 years? How do we scale UBI? Because even a modest increase would be an enormous amount.

All the wide scale "welfare" we have seen has been based on certain conditions being met. As soon as conditions are introduced, people are incentivized to change behavior. If it's really hard to qualify for a lot of these programs the incentives might become skewed to incentivize people to stay on welfare and not seek other income.

I think most people will not think UBI is enough income and will be encouraged to pursue other sources of income and now might have the capital and flexibility to do so. But if they don't at least they are incentivized to not go to prison so they can keep collecting their Freedom Dividend.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 14, 2020, 02:42:32 PM
Quote
1.) The only thing Iím implying is that creating policy which neglects how people act is just plaid stupid. Socialism looks great on paper (academic level) it fails when you introduce human sociology and psychology. Who is ignoring reality? Iím not the one who advocates for policies which ignore reality. I advocate for policies which allow for the least amount of coercion on a mass scale BECAUSE human behavior will always be the fly in the ointment.

It's difficult for me to buy into a policy which makes social aid contingent on factors of someone's choosing. This problem is not just affecting the stoners and fraudsters (as Greg put it). When a problem affects 45% of the working population, the contingencies and conditions are simply bullshit. It's a systematic problem that will not be solved with contingent solutions.

Quote
You have this idea of cosmic justice and social justice that is really nothing more than totalitarianism concealed as compassion. You seem to have no problem investing in companies which donít pay their workers a livable wage. Did you happen to pay those roofers more than what they priced the job at? Probably not

I mean, the insurance company paid them, I had zero involvement. But I paid the guy's wife $20 bucks for a lunch she charged me $9 for, and tossed the guys a pack of smokes and some beer, so... maybe? Hey if it makes you feel better I almost always tip 30+% (as should everyone who has ever worked in food or drink service, which I did for years FYI)

But really your argument is a non-sequitur. I invest in Berkshire, I'm sure there are divisions which pay people barely nothing. I am in no position to change that. I would if I could. We have elected officials who legislate minimum wages and other regulations, which are supposed to reign in the anti-social externalities of a majority capitalist system.

And, if you think a piece of legislation that is 1 voted on by hundreds of representative members of society, 2 signed by a freely-elected President, and 3 which escapes the inevitable Supreme Court case happens to be totalitarianism, well then we should all be grateful that the horror of actual totalitarian societies has faded from memory.

Quote
3.) If you canít see how UBI is nothing more than a ďplease be quiet allowanceĒ from big daddy government then I donít know what else to tell you. Let me at least ask you this. Say we implement UBI, what do you think the odds are that people will ask for a higher UBI within 10 years? How do we scale UBI? Because even a modest increase would be an enormous amount.
Oh I agree there are definitely problems with UBI. Hell, it's not really a great solution, it's certainly not my first or even fifth choice. A great solution would not allow 45% of our working citizens to be living at the poverty line in the first place. Reforms to education, healthcare, immigration, taxation...all these things would be great and would have (in my estimation) helped prevent this problem in the first place.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Nell-e on January 14, 2020, 04:28:23 PM
I agree, I think we need to do more to help people at the bottom of the ladder.  Even if just for my own selfish reason of maintaining stability in the US and other 1st world democracies. 

I'm not sure if UBI will accomplish that.

The public education system has been undermined so much that some high school graduates can hardly read, write and do basic math required for a job in construction.

Is it possible that UBI will further separate those who can/do succeed in our system and those that fail (for whatever reason: lack of development and training, lack of opportunity, mental health issues, addiction issues, lower raw intelligence, no trained work ethic, etc).   Sure they will have a basic income, but won't they want much more and still be resentful of the more successful?   What is the expression: "the devil makes work for idle hands"?

I think we need to find ways to build strong communities where everyone is engaged in some occupation and able to contribute in accordance with their abilities.  Those with lesser abilities are better off doing something than nothing.





No one has responded to my 12/18 post.  I can only assume that either people were so overwhelmed by its sublime reasoning and had no retort OR no one bothered to read it.

I argue UBI is necessary to prevent the entire neighborhood from going to hell because if we let our poorest communities disintegrate into shantytowns then we will pay more in HUMAN costs.


I thought of a more straightforward (and hopefully more convincing) way to express my support of UBI.  In short, 10 to 20 years from now I donít want to find that the U.S. has devolved into conditions present in countries like India, China, Mexico, or South Africa which result from wealth inequality. 

In India, 73% of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1%.  The richest family lives in a billion dollar house while millions live in open sewer slums.  India also has the most people living in modern slavery.  In China, scamming and counterfeiting are commonplace.  People go to such extremes such as flinging themselves in front of cars to extort a payoff.  In Mexico, average people are kidnapped and held for ransom.  In South Africa, armed robberies and car jackings are so prevalent that even the wealthiest citizens fear for their safety.  As an example, a celebrity athlete mistakenly shot his model girlfriend because he was paranoid about intruders. 

I support UBI to avoid the further erosion of civility. Recently, a poor inner-city 14 year old is suspected to have stabbed a female college student in a robbery gone bad in greater NYC.  The victim was originally from Charlottesville, Virginia.  These are real costs measured in human life not dollars which hopefully most citizens wonít experience directly but the probabilities will rise if conditions worsen.

In economic terms, I think of UBI as a necessary tax to maintain poor rural and inner city areas to avoid negative externalities.  Simply, UBI is paid to keep the entire neighborhood from going to hell.  Off the top of my head, hereís a partial list of externalities which in my subjective view are influenced by wealth inequality and populism.

    ē Idiotic, corrupt, narcissistic, criminal, and/or murderous leaders are swept into power by angry mobsĖ [fill in the blank with examples throughout different time periods and geography].
    ē The worst examples in human cost include WW2 and the Stalin and Mao regimes.  Over 70 million died in WW2 and tens of millions died under both Stalin and Mao.
    ē I donít think our current situation is anywhere as dire as the stated examples because people arenít starving but they are a frame of reference for what is possible when social cohesion disintegrates.
    ē Presently, we have Trump.  IMO his worst effects are perpetrating lies and normalizing the mentality that winning is the only goal and that cheating is ok as long as you donít get caught.  You could go on and on about all of Trumpís downsides that are impossible to quantify.
    ē Deterioration of public discourse and the absurdity of alternative facts
    ē Current and potential stupid/counterproductive policies
        ◦ [fill in the blank]
        ◦ I put the $15 min wage in this category.
        ◦ Potential dumb policies include but not limited to -  Building a wall and having Mexico pay for it, Federal Jobs Guarantee, Wealth Tax, Reparations for slavery, etc.  Even the mention of reparations raises expectations of future stupid policies.
    ē Declining life expectancy.  Record levels of suicides, depression, stress, mental illness.
    ē The opioid epidemic.
    ē Mass shootings.  Duck and cover drills that stress out parents/children but havenít saved lives. 
    ē Metal detectors everywhere.  Longer wait times at public events, airports etc because of metal detectors and getting frisked. 
    ē Deterioration of our environment i.e. lead in drinking water
    ē Neglected infrastructure where there are more potholes that lead to more vehicle repairs.
    ē Political gridlock, bureaucracy, corruption
    ē A dumber population causing things like measles to return because idiots think vaccines cause autism. 
    ē A dumb electorate that elects dumb congress people across the political spectrum.
    ē A society where frivolous lawsuits and scamming exist so average people need to buy Umbrella Insurance policies.
    ē You get the point. Extreme wealth inequality causes difficult to quantify externalities for everyone that donít remain contained to poor areas.


Thought experiment:  What if the poorest counties of Mississippi, Alabama, and New Mexico deteriorate into the complete lawlessness found in 3rd world countries by 2030? Letís say things get so bad that gangs start hijacking vehicles carrying anything of value and carjackings occur more regularly.  What will happen to the cost of shipping and how will that percolate through the greater economy?  In a country where there are already 390 million guns in circulation how much more security will be needed in public places?  What would the effects be on general and mental health?  Ultimately, what would be the cost in human lives?

If you think Iím being overly dramatic, is it really that difficult to imagine Rodney-King magnitude riots during the next recession?  Or more frequent Oklahoma City bombings?  Also ask: Is it more likely in 10 years that the poorest communities will have their downtowns revitalized or that those communities will continue to decline into shantytowns?

Bottomline, I think people who have the ďmoochers donít deserve UBIĒ mentality are missing the big picture.  If poor areas keep deteriorating then we will ALL pay a bigger HUMAN cost.

Many people across the country live in small towns with struggling economies and downtowns/shopping malls that are abandoned with shuttered buildings and broken windows everywhere.  Hereís a good short video showing what some of these dilapidated downtowns look like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K86gJMXB2Bg

If you agree that itís in no oneís interest for these communities to disintegrate into shantytowns, then we should either renovate or demolish rundown areas.  The question then is - Should the federal government or private industry do the work?   I would prefer private industry but in current conditions thereís no profit incentive for private business to get involved because the residents are poor.

Thatís why I favor UBI.  The policies of tax cuts for the rich or college loans for everyone are solutions that brought us to our current situation.  Other proposals on the table include a Federal Jobs Guarantee, higher minimum wages, free college, free daycare, etc.  These proposals are truly wasteful and the ones we need to avoid.  Sadly, itís also the direction the political climate is blowing towards.

With UBI, thereís optionality.  Residents can pool their resources and decide what to do with their own communities.  It gives local entrepreneurs a chance to start businesses to renovate old buildings or locals might decide that they would rather let national chain stores (i.e. Walmart, CVS, Lowes) come in and upgrade their downtown.  At the very least, when residents have money thereís an incentive for private industry to engage again.  The hope is that communities will revive their downtowns or at least upgrade the aesthetics of their surroundings that theyíll feel better about life which results in better outcomes related to areas like the local economy, crime, health and education.  Weíre in trial and error territory and UBI seems like the best option.  Obviously, itís not going to be 100% effective as some communities/individuals will use their funds better than others.  No policy is 100% effective.  Many people who get tax breaks donít spend it wisely either.  However, tax breaks are less effective for small towns where people already pay low rates and the local economies have weak job markets.

@nodnub, in direct response to your post
"I think we need to find ways to build strong communities where everyone is engaged in some occupation and able to contribute in accordance with their abilities.  Those with lesser abilities are better off doing something than nothing."

I think step 1 is to make poor communities FEEL better about their environment which will provide a foundation for better outcomes.


Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Gregmal on January 14, 2020, 04:28:48 PM
The UBI is really the only solution because anything more complex or sophisticated, and thus better fitting, is not feasible given all the red tape and bullshit posturing that always has to occur in order for anything to get done.

Its part of the reason private sector does things better. Government officials need something to tout in one giant 5-6 word headline so they can bring it back to their idiot constituents and those idiots can understand it. Free stuff is easier to explain than "available to those that need it and are doing enough to warrant it", even though conceptually we know both are pretty much the same except the latter would be more precise and a better use of funds.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cardboard on January 14, 2020, 05:30:41 PM
"The UBI is really the only solution because anything more complex or sophisticated, and thus better fitting, is not feasible given all the red tape and bullshit posturing that always has to occur in order for anything to get done. "

Better solution is no government at all or a system that steal from ones pocket to exchange it for a vote from someone else then grab a good chunk in the process.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: DTEJD1997 on January 14, 2020, 08:23:52 PM
Quote
To go along with what DTEJD1997 said about postal workers. I have seen a similar thing happen in my short time at UPS. Probably close to 50 people walked away from an 80-100k a year job because they didnít want to work hard.
Well again there is some nonsense afoot because the starting salary for a USPS worker is something like 30,000/year. I guess these anecdotal stories also include 70K in overtime work. Here's one more of those silly stats:

According to the American Postal Workers Union, clerks' salaries depended on their service grade. Level 3 employees in the lowest spot on the pay scale earned $25,657 to start. The bureau reported the nation's 65,040 postal clerks overall averaged $52,860, or $25.41 an hour.


Oh Ok, so what my local post master told me is incorrect?  That there are several clerks working at that postal station that were/are making about $120k a year?  That he is lying to me?

I don't think so...you aren't going to make that your 1st year out, but 5 years into the postal service you most DEFINITELY can.  According to https://www.nalc.org/news/body/paychart-11-24-18.pdf

A city clerk hired after 2013 with about 5 years into the service is going to have a baseline salary of about $50k a year, or about $25/hour.  That is for about a 2k hour year.  What if you are willing to work 2,700 (or more) hours a year?  What if you are willing to cluster those overtime hours, say from Thanksgiving to Christmas?  Every hour after 8 in a day is paid at 1.5x time, every hour after 40 in a week is paid at 1.5x time.  Every hour after 10 in a day OR after 50 a week is paid at x2 time.  There are also Sunday & holiday super special pay rates.  So if you are willing to "bust ass", you most certainly can make 6 figures (or close) working at the Post Office.  You also get paid vacation time, Health, vision & Dental, pension, and you also have union representation.

This kind of money goes a LONG way in the Detroit/Michigan area.  If you are making $75k a year, you own & insure cars, can own a house(s), have vacations, big screen TV's, interweb access, go out to eat, and so on.

Point is, a lot of people SHOULD be able to qualify for this job.  The fact that so many are NOT able to is a problem with the education system and also personal responsibility.

If people are educated properly, have a good family/mentoring/tutoring, stay out of expensive skools, work hard, stay off drugs/alcohol/gambling, don't have children out of wedlock, don't have run ins with the law, the vast majority should be able to attain a middle class standard of living.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 14, 2020, 10:02:58 PM
Quote
Oh Ok, so what my local post master told me is incorrect?  That there are several clerks working at that postal station that were/are making about $120k a year?  That he is lying to me?
Well I wouldn't dare call your local postmaster a liar. We know what happens when you piss off the postman. But I'd say you are misrepresenting your case. Are we talking about a postal clerk who has been there 10 years? Or a new hire off the street?

Quote
A city clerk hired after 2013 with about 5 years into the service is going to have a baseline salary of about $50k a year, or about $25/hour.
New hires for CCA positions in the link you provide start at 39,600/year per Table 2 which is post-2013. It will take them aprox. seven 46-week periods to reach the pre-2013 starting salary of 50,000. Base salaries have shrunk 20% from pre-2013 hires.

Anyways, you're working say, 55 hour weeks to make 80K. Absolutely can happen, I have no doubt about that. But it's a heavy ask, is dependent on your managers, and a host of other factors. For example here's a review I felt was seemingly balanced:

Quote
Pros
As a City Carrier Assistant (CCA) you can work a lot of overtime but they try to keep you from working too many hours because of the double overtime pay. The pay is progressive, so it gets better the longer you stay. The TSP match of 4% and 1% employer contribution is great but you can't get that until you go full career.

Cons
If you're a veteran stay away. During INDOC they say that they care about veterans but nothing is further from the truth. Vets can make more money and get treated with respect at a whole lot of other companies. You'll get all of the crap routes and they rotate you in a way that you can never learn a route. Since you don't learn a route, they have an easy excuse to get rid of you because they say "you're too slow". You'll see, some CCA's on probation get to stay on the same routes over and over, those will be the ones that make it. If they don't like you they will definitely get rid of you within the 3-4 month probation period. You can be faster than some of the career people but still get canned. CCA's don't really have any job security because you can be released after 3-4 months of probation. After that probation period, you're a little safer from not getting let go. After probation, you'll need to wait for someone to retire before you make career. If you're in a small office, chances are you'll be waiting a long to to go career. If you're in a big office then the more likely you'll be making career in under 2 years. Also, if you have carpal tunnel then stay away from this job. Casing mail takes a toll on your fingers and wrists due to the repetitive movement.

The point is this isn't as straightforward as you represent it to just work 50-60 hours and make 75-80K. There's a reason the average USPS salary is 65K, and that number includes all the clerks working there 15 years pulling six figures.

And it's not like this is an easy job. I mean, you've heard the term, "going postal"...

Quote
If people are educated properly, have a good family/mentoring/tutoring, stay out of expensive skools, work hard, stay off drugs/alcohol/gambling, don't have children out of wedlock, don't have run ins with the law, the vast majority should be able to attain a middle class standard of living.
Or stated differently: "If everyone was born into a middle class lifestyle".

A couple of points:
Unlike some folks on this forum, you actually know what the hood is like. You think the majority of these kids have the type of environment you're talking about? Hell no.

And I absolutely think the lack of education and a strong support system is a huge root cause of the problems facing the working class. But changing that culture cannot be legislated.

Also, let's not pretend there aren't people who make a killing by exploiting these weakness. Hell, our president should be re-titled to the "Slumlord-in-Chief".

Finally, I think your point is a hard point to make: that the labor market is so inefficient that 50 million people or almost half of all labor market participants are getting it all wrong. If that's the case, well then we've got much bigger problems than UBI.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: LC on January 14, 2020, 10:11:04 PM
Another inconsistency, where is the outrage at the Fed's financial welfare? They have been backstopping asset prices for years now with QE, slashed rates, and now repo injections. The real welfare queens are all of us with substantial asset holdings.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Castanza on January 15, 2020, 06:01:17 AM
The UBI is really the only solution because anything more complex or sophisticated, and thus better fitting, is not feasible given all the red tape and bullshit posturing that always has to occur in order for anything to get done.

Its part of the reason private sector does things better. Government officials need something to tout in one giant 5-6 word headline so they can bring it back to their idiot constituents and those idiots can understand it. Free stuff is easier to explain than "available to those that need it and are doing enough to warrant it", even though conceptually we know both are pretty much the same except the latter would be more precise and a better use of funds.

I would be much more on board with UBI if it was only for those below the poverty line. If the goal is to life people out of one class and into another then why are we subsidizing every class? Surely $1000 in your hands (or anyone on this board) every month is advantageous over the guy making 25k a year. While Daryl the factory worker is spending it on groceries and gas everyone else will simply be contributing to wealth building. Every couple will be able to fully fund Roth IRA's. Maybe it's time to radically raise the Social Security collections age?

How will corporations react to this? Will we see further wage growth stagnation because they know that people are getting an extra 12k a year? Potentially leading to more government involvement in private business. What will happen to prices (rent and potentially consumer items). What will this do to the loan industry? There is no doubt that predatory lending will accelerate knowing there is 1k every month to work with. Then what happens in a slow down when you have millions of loans built on the premise of free guaranteed government money?

Unintended consequences are a huge concern that should be addressed. I just think we can do better than UBI and shouldn't settle. But yeah as you said, it has to be something that is marketable to the masses so you can get the votes. A plan that requires commitment and hard work likely wont ever pass.
Title: Re: Andrew Yang
Post by: Cigarbutt on January 15, 2020, 06:29:45 AM
Whatever is done should not screw up the market system but the potential threat here is that the redistribution to decent citizens who have limited skills has not been working out (progressively less and less so) in an efficient way. The government is the problem but also the solution. I understand that messing around with personal responsibility is wrong until proven otherwise but for those benefitting from the system to a disproportionate degree, it may useful to think of necessary reforms as an investment to preserve Ďourí market system.

It seems to me that measured reforms regarding negative income tax, paid apprenticeships and others should be pro-actively supported by all people that benefitted from QE and other similar measures and reasonable reforms timely applied seem to be superior to simply waiting that Ďothersí decide that UBI, helicopter money or modern monetary theory changes need to be imposed somehow.

Unsustainable balances tend to balance over time but ways to achieve that have varied. I like the way Mr. Ray Dalio thinks about this topic and recently, unfortunately, have come to the conclusion that whatís oncoming will be eventful. Good luck to all. This too shall pass.