This. Warren is far more nuanced on these issues especially consumer debt than Yang. She's written multiple books on the subject matter in great detail. The whole Asian entrepreneur vibe Yang has going for him has made people assume a level of ingenuity and novelty to his ideas. He's a bright guy and I wouldn't have any problem voting him over Trump in a general election but the stuff he's been discussing what Warren has been discussing for decades in much greater detail. Warren understands these issues AND the political capital and maneuvering required to get these ideas actually implemented.
The dude has over 100+ policies on his site. A 1 hr interview is just a small sample size of his proposal. Look it up.
You mean Thomas Paine? MLK even talked about this before he was assassinated. Nice try there buddy boy.
I can't wait for the next debate. Let's see how Warren explains UBI and automation as well as Yang. I see you @fchowd0311 @Outlier
I searched ubi in the forums all I see are andrew yang threads. Where was the discussion beforehand @fchowd0311 @Outlier ??
That's pretty much the exact opposite of what my research into him has produced. Every policy and idea he has (and he has more than just about anyone) is rooted in fact. He's like a walking wikipedia article when he's on the campaign trail. So, "no real solutions" ain't it.
Warren is in my top 3 and I have no issue supporting her. She and Yang are the two technocrats in the race and their thinking is closely aligned. Yang said he was a Bernie voter before he got into the race and is a big fan of Warren, he just thinks their solutions could use a little updating and fine tuning. I think before it is all said and done their two platforms will start to meld together.
Putting aside who would be a better president between Yang and Warren (I like both decently enough), I actually get the feeling that Yang would have a greater appeal to Trump voters than Warren.
This is the bigger question than "who came up with UBI first" (which is a silly question to begin with). Yang elect-ability vs. Warren elect-ability. Particularly in OH, WI, PA, MI, VA, NC, AZ, FL, MN, IA. Yang and Bernie tie for the highest "Trump crossover voter" appeal, with about 10% of surveyed Trump voters saying they would support them over Trump in 2020. I'm not sure where Warren falls in that discussion, but I think her clear path to victory is boosting Democrat turnout over winning the swing voters. It's too early to have a completely mature discussion about it, but given how closely aligned the two are in policy, that should be the primary question we ask ourselves.
I guess I disagree on offshoring vs automation. Yes, they both help the 1% make crazy $ at the expense of everyone else, but the similarity ends right there. We are literally losing and are going to lose a ton of work roles that most people can inhabit. I agree $1k/mo is just a random hack, but what are you going to do when the literal majority of a population is less efficient and capable for a basic job than an AI or robot? I don't hear Warren talking about that. Sure, more equitable income will be great for those who still have jobs, but it seems to me, once most service jobs disappear, you have only a few choices: UBI Forcing/legislating a bunch of jobs to exist and shuttering the AI/automation that could easily replace them. (e.g. see Oregon gas pump attendants, a mandatory role where drivers can't pump their own gas.) "retraining" (which doesn't really work so far), and retraining for what, so everyone can become a titan of capital? new feudalism, feral bands of mud people, etc.
All of these choices involve some degree of market regulation - the core problem is that the simulacram of free markets that we have is inherently broken. Automation is a symptom, concentration of market power that allows that to happen at scale is the disease. You're right, value will be captured by a machine and people will be M/L'd out of employment. But if that power is not concentrated in an ever-decreasing share of the population/actors then you get a lot closer to "AI will change the nature of work" vision rather than the "AI will eliminate work" vision. Second, if you want jobs for people, a far greater emergency is the planetary disaster that is unfolding in real time before our very eyes. Like we are at the stage where half of us are going to have to freaking plant trees and stop taking planes like...anywhere. The Green New Deal is severely underrated as a jobs program - there's no scalable technology to automate a lot of the labor that will be required within the time frame that we have available.
Interesting email blast from Yang this morning. The bit about the "scripted fights" is particularly eyebrow raising.
Sure. Policies on his website, where he paid someone to write for him. But in interviews, he cant easily discuss these policies as he does with the UBI because he is all fluff.
What is eyebrow raising about that? Every commenter and most posters on this site was talking about it the next day.