The way they do it Germany is the companies and the government invest in it. The companies do so because they get skilled workers. Here the companies get unskilled workers with 4 year degrees that have nothing to do with the jobs that are actually available, are saddled with massive debt, have no skills, and expect a 100k salary.
Interesting that the candidate with the least name recognition and least chance to make any noise in the primaries has the most active thread. Go Clutchfans!
Andrew Yang is currently meeting the criteria necessary for him to be on the Iowa debate stage. Yang's UBI message will separate him from the other candidates, who if true to be told agree on 90+% of their platforms. Sanders and Warren will end up splitting the same core progressive votes. The others will split the same core moderate votes. Yang will own the UBI vote, since that is a bridge too far for the other candidates. It is not inconceivable that Yang is still standing after New Hampshire when half the field quits. If true (big if true), Yang will force the remaining candidates to address UBI, as well as his other ideas. Sanders had a similar effect in the 2016 race.
Good points regarding the unfortunate vote splitting ramifications, though the "UBI vote" might not extend much further than this thread.
In regards to your comment about the opioid crisis, with all due respect that is an extremely uneducated, simplistic view that ignores both the biomolecular nature of opioid addiction and the history of opioid addiction in this country. I'm glad that you find 130 deaths/day related to opioid overdose amusing, you can have a big old laugh while you research the issue for yourself, I'm not going to waste time rehashing readily available information. https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis Life expectancy as a macro statistic has been going down recently, but when you stratify by socioeconomic quintile you see that for the bottom half of the income distribution, life expectancy has been stagnant or declining for many years. Despite all of the advancements of available medical treatments, therapies, and technology the gains are almost negligible for the bottom half of Americans. Link: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44846.pdf Life expectancy doesn't even get into quality of life, which is an altogether different discussion. From a societal view, it is economically beneficial to have more healthy people leading healthy, productive lives. That's why it's beneficial for governments to invest in things like public health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5537512/ Lastly, austerity measures that you propose (or at least I believe you do, since you have issues with Medicare and by extension I am sure you don't like Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, the VA, HUD, etc etc) just end up hurting the economy (a false economy) in the long run in exchange for cutting spending in the short term. It's easy to forget that the New Deal (along with WW2) is what pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression. When government expenditures invest in the development of promising human and physical capital, it expands the potential growth potential of the economy at large in the long run. This doesn't mean that I believe that govt should be in charge of everything or should spend exorbitant amounts forever without regard to basic accounting responsibilities, it just means that the govt should spend money on things that have a positive ROI (education, research, healthcare, infrastructure, public health etc) and limit expenditures on non-performing assets. It is the responsibility of the private sector to feed off of the foundation built by the public sector and push the boundaries on what is thought to be possible. I try to look at everything from a governance point of view and what will benefit society at large. You tend to think of it from an individualistic perspective. That explains a lot of the differences in values we possess and how we approach policy ideas. There also seems to be a pattern in your posts of citing anecdotal evidence, rather than really trying to make sure that the stories you depend on are backed by real data. In regards to the first YT clip you posted, the presenter cites problems with people who abuse welfare, but presents no statistics indicating the extent of fraud or the monetary damages caused by welfare abuse. Instead, he basically says he knows he wouldn't work if he didn't have to work, and thus people with access to welfare are decentivized to pursue better lives. Now, of course there lazy a***holes everywhere, I've met quite a few of them, but I just have not seen widespread data out there that suggests people are abusing the social safety net en masse. Now, I am ready to entertain the notion that fraud rates reported by govt agencies may not be accurate, but the presenter did not cite any statistics that I can discuss. Instead, all I got was a lecture with some amusing stories here and there. The second clip had some cute text and clip art, no stats. Also, the dude has some really bloodshot eyes, hell that was tough watching all the way through. As with the Laffer curve, it implies that there is an optimal rate of taxation for maximizing revenue. I believe the same thing when it comes to inequality. Too little inequailty, and we've got a socialistic state where people are not incentivized to pursue greater things. Too much, and we've got a situation where socioeconomic mobility is more of a laughable dream than an achievable reality. Having govt policies that create an environment with an optimal level of inequality is tricky. In regards to your last statement of not being able to see how others can't adapt since you can. I can see where you are coming from. To some degree, I have had this mindset when it came to comparing myself to peers in the same field, friends from similar backgrounds etc. I have told others in organizations I have managed to stop whining, adapt, and figure things out in order to complete projects. However, I understand that this perspective is not applicable at a macro level, and is not a reasonable expectation to have of every single person in a population, it would simply be poor governance. Thanks for the discussion, it was interesting to see your perspective. I need to get back to my work that actually earns me a paycheck haha. But this was an enlightening conversation. If you do take anything from this conversation, please educate yourself on the opioid epidemic. It is one of the great public health crises of our time and your comments were a disservice to the complexity, pain, and challenges faced by both victims, families, and responders on the ground. I would also suggest using hard data to verify everything you believe. That approach has changed many of things I believe and has helped identify when people/politicans are just straight BSing.
Survived . How long was that transition period? What happen during that time? Major shift of labor and new wealth concentration. Wars followed by social safety programs around the globe. Seems like we are in another one of those phase of major shift of labor, power, and concentration of wealth. Growing nationalism and protectionism seems to be one of the response. And we are just on the cusp of that phase shift. Yes, I agree long term, employment is fine, but the transition is going to be disastrous for millions that no long have the skills. Ignore them at our own peril. In a way, UBI is forward looking thinking, and I think we do need some form of that to soften the transition, a 2nd wave of new social safety net if you will, but as or more importantly we need to have advance education for future job. Today high school won’t do it. So I agree on some form of free higher education for all.
Where did I say that it was amusing? My main point on this is -- isn't each individual responsible for what they consume? Did someone force opioid addicts to take that first hit/pill (whatever it is)? You are treating this "crisis" like it's a hurricane -- something that blows in and no one has control over. Just a few other quick replies: You either want to reduce the debt or you don't. To me, there is no bigger issue that we face than the debt. And we're taxed enough already. Yes indeed. No one will ever help you as much as you help yourself. I'll admit this is a tough one. Lived experiences vs. stats/larger trends. There are a lot of people that decry "anecdata." But the reply to this is -- a whole lot of truth gets lost in the stats. And, the truths you learn in your own life are very important -- more important, I would say, that general trends from stats that can be manipulated. Haha, I listen to videos as I do other things; I don't "watch" them. The content of the message is what's important, not how someone appears/looks. It was really WW2. The New Deal really didn't bring us out of the depression at all. That's not to say that there was no value to the New Deal; perhaps there was some merit to the short-term relief efforts. Now the interesting question is that WW2 was govt spending, writ large. So how was that govt spending better and more effective than the New Deal spending? That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed replies too. I'll continue to study your post and reply when I have more time. .
I can't help you if you don't want to take the time to read through the article I linked. Reducing the debt while maintaining the current tax can be done with decreased spending, that is a logical approach. The problem is when most people discuss decrease spending the target is always welfare and/or entitlement programs. Nobody really discusses cutting the bloated military budget for example. In addition, I agree that the current tax brackets can be argued as being taxed enough. However, I do think that we can create some new tax brackets with higher marginal rates for those making more than $1 million, $10 million, etc given the current levels of income and wealth inequality. Revenue can be directed to infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc There are multiple approaches to reducing the debt. And it can be solved through a combination of resource reallocation and cutting of expenditure. The question is what to cut, what to keep funded, and if/how to raise more revenue from the ultrawealthy in society. (and by ultrawealthy I refer to the 0.1%) Agree and Disagree. Individually it is our responsibility to take initiative and control of our lives wherever possible, but the reality is much of our existence is dictated by things we have no control over. Good parents, socioeconomic status, access to health, education, etc. It is our responsibility as a society to try and make sure that every new child born in this country has a legitimate chance at making a life for themselves. I am not saying we hand them a future, we just need to make sure we do our best to provide nurturing environments. Not really disagreeing, just saying this statement (along with your opioid sentiments) oversimplifies the complex reality we live by making everyone directly responsible for everything that has occurred in their lives. Stats/trend aren't the end all be all. You need people to accurately interpret data. Data without thoughtful/resourceful interpretation can never be turned into applicable wisdom. But respecting good data/interpretation is simply a sign of humility and the genuine manifestation of a desire to pursue truth. To recognize that your perspective is not necessarily correct, and to always be somewhat ready to change your opinion with the backing of data-driven evidence is a sign of intellectual maturity. Also, if you understand how stats can be manipulated (I work in the sciences reading extensive scientific literature is part of my job) then you can avoid the pitfalls. But i agree, data can be corrupted, manipulated, even unknowingly altered by human hands, but it is the best we have and it is important to respect good data. Ignoring data altogether, which from your previous posts you just sort of pay lip service to, is unwise and, for lack of a better term, lazy. Well that's disappointing, i thought you were initially trolling with that video. The content of that video was sh**. I would've been embarrassed to repost such unsubstantive garbage. No data, no nuance, no inquisitiveness or analysis. And ya, I'm trying to be mean here because that type of oversimplified, dogmatic, unsubstantiated BS an example of something that makes having a thorough, data-driven discussion difficult. I think we both need to do some more research here. Govt spending increases during wars distorts GDP. In addition, the primary goods produced during war (bombs, artillery, weapons) do not increase the standard of living in a country. Tough to say, this warrants an altogether separate discussion.
Still waiting on the solution for the hyper inflation feedback loop UBI will create. I check this thread with hope that I am wrong because I would like free money without consequences for our economy.
Again, monthly Inflation-adjusted UBI? Makes it pointless for companies to endlessly raise prices when the UBI taxes will just automatically stay on par with inflation. At some point, taxes need to raised on the wealthy, without the cost being passed onto the poor. I don't care if that tax is going to UBI or not, as long as its a significant tax increase that is going to benefit the people (healthcare, education, raised wages for *working class, improvement of environment/green energy). Ultimately, later down the road, UBI may very well become a necessity due to automation. Currently, 40% of the working population makes 20k or less per year, 30% makes 15k or less). If automation continues to take those incomes any lower (and all signs are screaming YES it will), then we will be in for very dark times as a nation.
Military spending is about 18% of the national budget. SS and Medicare/Medicaid are about 2/3ds of the national budget (about 67% IIRC). Talking about reducing military spending is avoiding the elephant in the room. Now, I think we can and should reduce military spending, while still maintaining our world leadership position. And we have to be careful -- I don't think any of us would like the consequence of the US losing its military leadership position in the world. I am disappoint. You were so high minded until now. Not sure which one you a referencing, probably the Blue Collar one. But in either case, IMO there is a place for videos that focus on anecdotal life experiences and related generalizations. Everything should not about a line on a graph. There is a place for useful generalizations. Here's one: "nothing good happens after midnight" (or 2 am whatever). If you're out and driving around after 2 am, that's asking for trouble. So, that's a good and very useful life generalization. WRT to WW2 spending, I have thought about this some more. I think the difference is that the New Deal focused on helping individuals (by and large), whereas the WW2 spending got business going again. When businesses got going, people got jobs again. Perhaps it's as simple as that. Lastly (for now) WRT to opioids -- yes, if a doctor prescribed first, then perhaps the consumer is something of a victim. Apologies, I have not read the article. I will get to it when I can.
As a point of reference, deep, deep red Alaska has had a type of UBI for the last 35+ years or so. Alaska has managed to not become a Socialist Shangri-La. But that is a fact. And does not fit with the conservative political narratives, so let's just call it what it is ... Fake News.
Andrew Yang has proposed two solutions, UBI and VAT, which addresses two real problems. One can argue about the merits of UBI and VAT, but what are the counter proposals from the other 2020 candidates?
I dont consider what Alaska does as UBI. Its a profit sharing program that varies dependent on the price of oil and needs of the state. It will eventually go away completely. If the entire country was owned by 95% of the government and was full of natural resources, then sure, the rest of the country can do that.
Yang wants to fund UBI partially from a "tech check" funded via a VAT that hits tax avoid-ers Amazon, Apple, etc.
Alaska is a dividend. UBI will always be a tax, regardless how you fund it. The consumer pays the tax, not the business. Always.
Nice try, but Dems would probably be more for UBI than conservatives who support UBI mainly if the UBI would cost out less than food stamps, welfare and unemployment insurance. Tally, does the typical conservo thing of sneaking in an attack on Medicare.
