Yang's argument is that we need to be working on and implementing the UBI now because automation is coming. You're not wrong about work being an integral part of American culture and mentality but refusing acknowledge and to adapt to the changing work environment would be catastrophic. 4 million manufacturing jobs have been replaced by automation in the last 4 years alone. Truck drivers seem to be next in line, followed by fast food and retail workers. Legal and medical service jobs will soon follow. So, many millions more members of society are going to lose their means in the coming years and his solution is to supplement their income, not fully replace it. $12k/year is hardly enough to survive on and Yang's hope is simply that it will be enough to encourage those who do lose their jobs to venture in to something else. Like open a bakery or become and artist. For those whose jobs aren't immediately replaced the $12k will provide a stimulus to the economy. This is an invalid argument but one that will undoubtedly be used by many. The dividend will only be for citizens over the age of 18. To think that people will come here to have babies and then wait 18 years to reap the benefits is silly. That sort of long term investment would be very far down the list of reasons people would come here.
From what I interpreted from AY's statements, he wants to redefine how we look at as work. He uses the example of motherhood where that the economic and market value of those individuals is zero even though everybody agrees that this work is essential for the future of everybody. With regards to immigration, whether you agree with him or not, migrants are being scapegoated even though automation is the reason for less jobs. When public companies provide a dividend to their stockholders, is that considered socialist or a type of welfare program? Americans are the share holders of this country, why is collecting dividends considered welfare?
Maybe fatal for his candidacy, but I still think UBI is a good idea, so I won't let Yang's political prospects bother me. Yang or not, we're seeing a lot more socialist policy accepted this cycle than ever in my lifetime. So I don't think the idea is going away, whatever people's visceral attachment to wage slavery is. As socialist policies go, I see two types -- the ones that try to augment the revenue side of the household P&L, and the ones that try to subsidize the expenses side of the P&L. I don't like the ones that subsidize expenses. Subsidies distort price signals, introduce principal-agent problems, and otherwise screw up the functioning of markets. Augmenting revenues just puts money in people's pockets and empowers them to make rational economic decisions in efficient markets. The counter-argument, of course, is that labor is a market and we'd distort it. Yeah, I'm okay with that. You know who pays for the inefficiency of labor markets? Capital. Regarding immigration, it looks like Yang isn't nearly as huggy-feely as a lot of other liberal candidates, maybe for this reason. He says he wants a secure border and immigration enforcement. If he got anywhere, I expect he'd really have to emphasize securing the border to prevent a nativist attack on UBI, and then he's going to leave some SJWs feeling resentful. Maybe that'd sink him. Just trying to give everybody healthcare made Obama a pariah to many, so I can only imagine the blowback if you hand out dollar bills.
Ryan98, I agree that Yang is right and we need to tackle this now. I guess I'm saying that most of America is too narrow minded or dumb to see the train coming, or they are in denial, or they've been lied to by Trump and desperate people will drink sand. As to the anchor babies, I gotta disagree with you there. I'm an immigrant and we came to the US with very little. The decision to uproot and come to the US was 100% a long play - it will be horribly difficult for the parents, but the kids will receive a US education and have better opportunities. If you tack on UBI, it's even a bigger no brainer.
I think most people would want to work on top of UBI. Then you could, like, own a car or a cell-phone plan. One could get even mildly creative and say UBI happens only after X years of citizenship. So, born and raised, it's ready for you at age 18 or 21 or whatever. If you immigrate legally at age 30 or whatever, then you don't get UBI until year X (whatever that is). That would seem to deflate the "incentive" model, which I agree with Rileydog could be real. I know this is just academic, of course, given our current political settings, but I still think it's important for people to think about. We just are not going to have jerbs for e'rbody.
Have considered the economic value to the local economy? Let's consider Houston's approx 1.7 adult individuals. That means you have $1.7 B/month to spend on the local businesses like day care, car/house repairs, little league, church, donations, etc. These businesses will need to hire more people. This is the prime example of trickle up economy. With 1K a month (2K for couples) Health insurance will be removed from the top of the list of concerns for both employee and employer Folks who can afford to get proper health care are normally healthier and more productive Its easier for couples to start their own business as insurance and portion of rent/mortgage is covered. The prime example of Capitalism is Monopoly. The game begins with everybody having money - not zero. EDIT: Math was off
This is what I'd worry about most along with his ability to handle foreign policy. His assumption appears to be that winning the presidency likely means his ideas have swept the country and would be undeniable by Congress. I may be oversimplifying his position, but I'm not sure I share in his optimism regardless. Keeping UBI untethered from all the above bureaucracy and limitations would be essential in order for it to work.
I would think that there could be some economic modeling done to demonstrate how UBI could work. People would of course disagree on where to set the dials and assumptions regarding human behavior in response to UBI. But modeling could help as a tool to help people visualize how a UBI world might look and operate. It would be a massive stepchange in this country. Like JV said, it is an important discussion to have and facilitates progress towards solutions.
Indeed, the idea is to sweep the country to FORCE change in congress. If not him, at!east this issue is now front and center and everybody should hear the idea out.
Don't know if you would accept Alaska as a model. Employment rate rose once it started and eliminated extreme poverty.
I hate to burst people's bubbles, but UBI is not happening any time in the near future in the US. It's been considered in a lot more liberal / socialist-leaning countries in Europe and been rejected there. Switzerland put it to a vote and it got obliterated. Finland did a little mini-experiment with it and didn't extend it and is already going in the opposite direction in a lot of their policies (putting more restrictions on aid). If it's going to happen anywhere, these are the kinds of places that will do it first, and it seems like it's a long ways away even there. If it happens in the US, it's probably a generation away. There are also still basic questions about the real long-term effects of automation. All of these same questions came up many times before (industrial revolution, for example), and the US worker adapted and prospered more than ever. It may be different this time, but I think it's going to take a long time for people to accept that. (NOTE: I'm not arguing against UBI. I'd love to see more experiments to see how it affects economies. I just am pretty certain that experiment is not going to happen in a country with 300MM people).
At the time when your parents moved to US, did they hold or had a perspective job that would compensate them at a better rate than a perspective job at the time of arrival to the US? And did they not feel oppressed in their country of origin? Only if those 2 conditions are satisfied, would their move qualify as a "long play", the way I see it. (incidentally, I'm also an immigrant and we don't feel my parents had a long play in mind, even though they had a good paying job at the time of their move). Sure, immigrants are hopeful for the future, but it is generally a human tendency to be hopeful of the future, especially when a big life change is being taken up. Sorry for being skeptical here.
It would probably take a highly industrialized country with high gdp per capita to implement this sort of thing. It is nothing more than another social security program. Like @bongman mentioned above, you can look at it as a form of a dividend for being a part of a highly developed economy that is starting to make forays into automation. If automation is devaluing one's labor to some extent (in the big scheme of thing), one is ought to be compensated/subsidized for it. It's not like automation is an invention and someone in particular (say corporations) should hold a patent to it and benefit from it. All should benefit. And I'm sure fear mongers like our current president will scream that it's unfair when some people are working and some are not (which is how he got elected in the first place), but what these people are forgetting is that there is an intrinsic value in working for many of us. It's an American religion. We are happy for it. UBI is not going to change that. edit: I didn't come up with the idea that capitalism is American religion.. I read of it somewhere and it sounded kinda cool. . Only Biden and Sanders can beat Trump. This is a waste of a thread. Haha. Jk
Agree - but it will also be a lot easier to try in a smaller, homogeneous country where there's less wealth inequality and also less cost-of-living differences to deal with (in the US, does someone in Kansas get the same as someone in New York City, etc). That's where those European countries like Switzerland and Finland come into play. Plus they are more economically liberal than the US and have populations likely more willing to experiment with it.
Yes, they were college educated and had good white collar jobs in finance and banking. They brought us here with little savings and no language skills. Zero prospects for anything approaching white collar professional work in the US. There was worry about potential socio-political unrest, but not extreme overt oppression. There is no question they would have had much more financial success back home. Their calculation was right. My brother sister and I got good college educations, two Law degrees, and all three of us are successful professionally and financiallyto an extent that would be much more difficult and unlikely in the motherland.
Alaska is as conservative as it gets. They seem to like it. Idk if u can factor in cost of living because LA would have a lot more spending money to jump start their local econom y - unfair for Kansas.. The purpose is trickle up economy
True - but Alaska is funded largely through oil revenues rather than taxes. And the amount is much smaller (like $2000/yr). Agree - it's a tricky thing. The flipside is that if it's supposed to support a baseline to live off of, you're giving Kansas people a much better baseline of life than people in LA. Or more generally, you'd be helping rural people cover more of their baseline life expenses than urban people.
Congrats on a successful career! The emotional duress under socio-political unrest may count as an indirect oppression. Hah. It was for my parents anyhow. Interestingly enough, they are just as happy with the blue color jobs, which is kind why I questioned your original premise. And let's assume that your parents had a long game in mind and were willing to suffer for it. Such parents are likely to actually make something of their kids, just like it was with you and your siblings. It is a studied and proven fact that white collar job immigrants attain the same level of success in the destination country on average (as a family line, anyway). Considering that many legal immigrants currently have to wait for 10-15 years before becoming citizens and jump through ridiculously tough hoops (asylum seekers have a very long wait to get citizenship too), I doubt that US is going to change any time soon and start giving out handouts to people.. This is just a fear mongering from people who have some ulterior agendas, I think.
You are correct and is called the oil check. Yang is taking it off from technology by taxing every automated process and calling it a tech check.
