Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

[iPeat]

Making UBI unconditional is the key to avoiding the welfare trap. People on welfare stay on welfare because working a minimum wage does not in any way improve their situation, whereas with UBI, any additional income only improves your situation so there is far less incentive to just lie on the couch as compared with means-tested welfare.

People who choose to do nothing will still be on bare subsistence level and at the absolute bottom of the social hierarchy, very few are going to be content to remain there. UBI would offer a tremendous amount of employee freedom to engage in just the amount of wage work that suits your situation. Not many people would like to work 50 hours a week every week as a street sweeper or garbage man, but if its something you could easily engage in part-time to supplement your income then the barrier to entering employment is greatly reduced.

Rather than having half the population overworked and the other half on welfare, UBI would make it easier to redistribute the workload evenly across the population through part-time employment.

Are you assuming the economy will stay the way it is after everyone gets an unearned $12k/year? Just at a fundamental level, you have to assume that the cost of your labor will go down drastically and the price of goods will go up drastically.

If corporations are supposedly fitting the bill for UBI, they will pass that cost along to the consumer and goods go up. If you someone can instantly do your job for $12k less than you, labor costs go down.

UBI is a great way to make lots more poor, struggling people, and massively increase dependency on big brother.


Also, how is anyone able to believe that UBI would be unconditional? There are thousands of years of political history to prove that the second you give government power, they use it, then abuse it.

 

[Collden]

Are you assuming the economy will stay the way it is after everyone gets an unearned $12k/year? Just at a fundamental level, you have to assume that the cost of your labor will go down drastically and the price of goods will go up drastically.

If corporations are supposedly fitting the bill for UBI, they will pass that cost along to the consumer and goods go up. If you someone can instantly do your job for $12k less than you, labor costs go down.

UBI is a great way to make lots more poor, struggling people, and massively increase dependency on big brother.


Also, how is anyone able to believe that UBI would be unconditional? There are thousands of years of political history to prove that the second you give government power, they use it, then abuse it.

When people have socioeconomic support that permit them to choose their employment rather than be forced into it due to threat of starvation or homelessness, employers must maintain wages at reasonable levels to attract workers.

If UBI is unconditional there is no dependency on big brother since the government has no power to take your income away.

 

[iPeat]

When people have socioeconomic support that permit them to choose their employment rather than be forced into it due to threat of starvation or homelessness, employers must maintain wages at reasonable levels to attract workers.

If UBI is unconditional there is no dependency on big brother since the government has no power to take your income away.

If you're making an argument for the poor, then give them a guaranteed minimum income like MLK suggested. People who aren't poor don't need to steal the product of other people's labor.

Employers need to attract qualified workers who provide value to their company, not part-time aspiring hobbyists. You could even make the argument that qualified, productive people will probably be even better off ...at the expense of the poor (all taxes affect the poor disproportionately).

UBI will not be unconditional. In theory, sure.

 

[Collden]

UBI has to be unconditional, given to every citizen regardless of situation, otherwise it is just the same old welfare system with all its problems.

Some companies will want dedicated long-term employees, others can do just fine with part-time workers. Companies that want the former can come to a contractual agreement same as now. When employees have more power of choice, companies simply have greater incentives to make fairer deals to make the contract mutually attractive.

 

[yerrag]

I can't imagine a UBI world. Sure, those who will benefit most from it will be those who can be good stewards of this godsend. Those who will be harmed will be those who don't know how to use the money.

Just like the many dependents in the Philippines who do nothing but go to malls and spend money on small pleasures in the malls, while their father or mother or sister or brother toil in other countries as Overseas Filipino Workers in Saudi Arabia, the EU, Australia, United States etc., or as seamen. There is also people helped who use the money wisely to improve their lives - set up a business, or go to school to develop an employable skill.

I think most of the proponents here see the benefit from the standpoint of responsible use of the UBI, and because of the possibility of good effects, are willing to give this idea their support. But from the standpoint of human nature, as laid out in McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y, there will always be people that are well-motivated and there will be more people less motivated. X is well-motivated and Y isn't. X doesn't need supervison and Y does. What do you think happens when 90 percent of people simply go and spend on useless "necessities?" What is the return to the government or to society on this "investment" if you will. Won't this be just the same kind of waste that going to war is, where munitions and weapons and vehicles are destroyed and rendered useless, not to mention the human toll? The absurdity is that this kind of activity is called a boost to the economy, like they are short of better ideas. This is make work, or rather make "useless work."

Andrew Yang simply uses the prospect of automation as a foil to push this idea. Robots and AI will slowly weave itself into our economy, and society will adapt to it, UBI or not. UBI is just about the same as the unions' practice of featherbedding in response to automation. Featherbedding has failed because it's made industries uncompetitive. Besides, it's mired also in corruption, as it's really too subjective to apply the idea. But UBI is worse. Robots and AI aren't out in full force, and Yang is positioning this solution ahead of the problem. He may convince many that he's this visionary, and that he's ahead of his time, but in reality he's just making an excuse for making more waste of resources. Just as every good intention gets mangled beyond recognition by politicians as great ideas become mired in corruption and problems are kicked down the road. Yeah, the future generation can't vote so we'll just vote to let them deal with the debts we at the present time amass. A societal pyramid scheme, and UBI isn't solving society's problems. The writing is already on the wall from inception - it's an idea only policy wonks at strategic think tanks blessed with advanced degrees can cook up.

It's only because the government is so dysfunctional and because people have gotten so inured to being manipulated, as helpless as Ray Peat would put it, that there really isn't hope that we can right the ship. So we are grasping at straws and inventing ideas that will be a magic bullet. It ain't going to work. But hope lies eternal, and we keep hoping someone invents a scheme that can't be called harebrained. Sorry to break the bubble!

 

[iPeat]

I agree that the people

UBI has to be unconditional, given to every citizen regardless of situation, otherwise it is just the same old welfare system with all its problems.

Some companies will want dedicated long-term employees, others can do just fine with part-time workers. Companies that want the former can come to a contractual agreement same as now. When employees have more power of choice, companies simply have greater incentives to make fairer deals to make the contract mutually attractive.

I agree that the people need as much power if choice as possible. The only proven way to do that is to get the government off their back, not have it control their paychecks.

 

[Collden]

I can't imagine a UBI world. Sure, those who will benefit most from it will be those who can be good stewards of this godsend. Those who will be harmed will be those who don't know how to use the money.

Just like the many dependents in the Philippines who do nothing but go to malls and spend money on small pleasures in the malls, while their father or mother or sister or brother toil in other countries as Overseas Filipino Workers in Saudi Arabia, the EU, Australia, United States etc., or as seamen. There is also people helped who use the money wisely to improve their lives - set up a business, or go to school to develop an employable skill.

I think most of the proponents here see the benefit from the standpoint of responsible use of the UBI, and because of the possibility of good effects, are willing to give this idea their support. But from the standpoint of human nature, as laid out in McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y, there will always be people that are well-motivated and there will be more people less motivated. X is well-motivated and Y isn't. X doesn't need supervison and Y does. What do you think happens when 90 percent of people simply go and spend on useless "necessities?" What is the return to the government or to society on this "investment" if you will. Won't this be just the same kind of waste that going to war is, where munitions and weapons and vehicles are destroyed and rendered useless, not to mention the human toll? The absurdity is that this kind of activity is called a boost to the economy, like they are short of better ideas. This is make work, or rather make "useless work."

Andrew Yang simply uses the prospect of automation as a foil to push this idea. Robots and AI will slowly weave itself into our economy, and society will adapt to it, UBI or not. UBI is just about the same as the unions' practice of featherbedding in response to automation. Featherbedding has failed because it's made industries uncompetitive. Besides, it's mired also in corruption, as it's really too subjective to apply the idea. But UBI is worse. Robots and AI aren't out in full force, and Yang is positioning this solution ahead of the problem. He may convince many that he's this visionary, and that he's ahead of his time, but in reality he's just making an excuse for making more waste of resources. Just as every good intention gets mangled beyond recognition by politicians as great ideas become mired in corruption and problems are kicked down the road. Yeah, the future generation can't vote so we'll just vote to let them deal with the debts we at the present time amass. A societal pyramid scheme, and UBI isn't solving society's problems. The writing is already on the wall from inception - it's an idea only policy wonks at strategic think tanks blessed with advanced degrees can cook up.

It's only because the government is so dysfunctional and because people have gotten so inured to being manipulated, as helpless as Ray Peat would put it, that there really isn't hope that we can right the ship. So we are grasping at straws and inventing ideas that will be a magic bullet. It ain't going to work. But hope lies eternal, and we keep hoping someone invents a scheme that can't be called harebrained. Sorry to break the bubble!

A lot of what we think of as "human nature" is just socially induced dysfunction though. The welfare system is what creates learned helplessness, it is a system that discourages you from actively working to improve your situation and find inner strength, since you are rewarded for becoming more helpless and punished for taking initiative.

UBI is fundamentally different from welfare in being totally unconditional. It does not reward sloth (since your UBI is the same whether you are lazy or not) nor punish you for taking initiative (since doing so only improves your situation). It incentivizes industriousness while simultaneously providing the support needed to make good choices.

 

[tankasnowgod]

UBI is fundamentally different from welfare in being totally unconditional. It does not reward sloth (since your UBI is the same whether you are lazy or not) nor punish you for taking initiative (since doing so only improves your situation). It incentivizes industriousness while simultaneously providing the support needed to make good choices.

Even Yang's public proposal isn't unconditional. He states that anyone already receiving $1000 or more from government programs like Social Security and Welfare would not get a UBI check. He also states that prisoners would not receive UBI. If such a proposal were ever to pass (which I think is pretty unlikely, at least in the next decade), it would likely have many more conditions.

 

[Collden]

Even Yang's public proposal isn't unconditional. He states that anyone already receiving $1000 or more from government programs like Social Security and Welfare would not get a UBI check. He also states that prisoners would not receive UBI. If such a proposal were ever to pass (which I think is pretty unlikely, at least in the next decade), it would likely have many more conditions.

Just started reading his book now so I'm not sure what his exact vision is, but might be that making the income partially conditional is a way to transition into a new system, since it would not be such a radical departure from the current welfare model.

It is nevertheless exciting that a major presidential candidate can campaign with this as his main policy. I think the AI revolution will transform society at least as much as the industrial revolution did, and just like capitalism co-evolved with industry, the AI revolution will also necessitate some kind of major change in our economical system.

 

[iPeat]

Just started reading his book now so I'm not sure what his exact vision is, but might be that making the income partially conditional is a way to transition into a new system, since it would not be such a radical departure from the current welfare model.

It is nevertheless exciting that a major presidential candidate can campaign with this as his main policy. I think the AI revolution will transform society at least as much as the industrial revolution did, and just like capitalism co-evolved with industry, the AI revolution will also necessitate some kind of major change in our economical system.

See? You're already making concessions for the unconditional nature of this policy. It will never be unconditional. Period. Why do you want the government to have that much power over its people?

Capitalism didn't evolve from anything (if anything it's devolved). It's basic common sense and the only way for humans to deal with each other and progress in a mutually-beneficial society without killing each other and stealing each other's stuff. I make a basket - you want the basket - you give me what I want for the basket. We both walk away happy - Capitalism. No threats. No force. No theft.

Frogs that don't jump out of hot water scare the hell out of me. Especially when they want to turn the heat up and force you to join them.

AI? Really? Even the people creating AI are scared to death of it. How many overlords do you need?!

 

[rei]

All modern countries already have convoluted and complex social security systems and bureaucracies, a UBI would make it fair and end up costing less by eliminating huge amount of unnecessary social sector jobs. Someone mentioned Finland's UBI experiment, and the propaganda that is heard about it in global media is ridiculous. The experiment was such a success that one of the largest political parties+smaller ones started work for getting it nationwide and permanent.

UBI is the only morally acceptable way to prevent people from using drugs, purchasing prescription meds, own weapons etc. It would be a voluntary income in trade for loss of some basic human rights. A salary for following all the arbitrary laws. But there should always be the option to opt out and be on your own responsibility.

Losing your UBI could in certain cases be a much stronger deterrent of crime than the threat of jail sentence.

I think Yang has some good ideas but he does not come across as very smart with his arguments, or maybe he is trying to keep it simple for a simple audience?

 

[MetabolicTrash]

It would be a voluntary income in trade for loss of some basic human rights.

What basic human rights are lost when a basic income is implemented? Nobody is forcing anyone to use it if they wish not to. Anyone dependent on it forever because they never manage to make their own way given the financial help has only their own weight to pull up for the most part. I don't know why some even see this as the government having power than people when ideally the opposite is what you'd expect it to be. It's up to people to do well with the UBI -- it isn't the UBI's "fault" if people make poor decisions/stay stuck dependent on it indefinitely and entirely. I can't see how any basic human rights are "traded up" in place of it.

It seems some people are approaching the topic of basic income/its constituents from preconceived angles or biases toward certain ways in which it would or could work, rather than looking at the system from a general point of view and not presuming "how everything is" or will be when said UBI is taking effect.

 

[rei]

You get income, you give up some human rights, i referenced some of them.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

You get income, you give up some human rights, i listed some of them.

The only thing you said was, "UBI is the only morally acceptable way to prevent people from using drugs, purchasing prescription meds, own weapons etc. It would be a voluntary income in trade for loss of some basic human rights."

UBI would not prevent people from using drugs or owning weapons. Where do you get that idea from? How is that taking away basic human rights?

People still have the right to use it or not and do whatever they want to pretty much with it.

 

[rei]

...

human rights are things like private property, bodily autonomy, physical safety, right to travel. All these are infringed upon in most societies. Drug laws, prescription meds, gun laws are the most serious infringements on these rights, but most laws do infringe on some of them. So if this is to be morally acceptable, it must be compensated by a salary. this is UBI. You can choose to take it and follow all the shitty laws, or not take it and be on own responsibility gaining immunity from most shitty laws like "purchasing of prescription meds without prescription"

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

I can't imagine a UBI world. Sure, those who will benefit most from it will be those who can be good stewards of this godsend. Those who will be harmed will be those who don't know how to use the money.

Just like the many dependents in the Philippines who do nothing but go to malls and spend money on small pleasures in the malls, while their father or mother or sister or brother toil in other countries as Overseas Filipino Workers in Saudi Arabia, the EU, Australia, United States etc., or as seamen. There is also people helped who use the money wisely to improve their lives - set up a business, or go to school to develop an employable skill.

Just because someone works their a$$ off, it doesn't mean that's the only way to go about things. Of course, nothing wrong with working, as long as you're engaged in something that is interesting for you. Doing repetitive jobs that you hate for a boss that you hate, to get just enough money to buy food and not live on the streets is a terrible life.

The problem with employable skills is that many of those are useless: picture a doctor examining you and saying " your cholesterol is high, take these statins!". Just because the system values something, it doesn't mean you'll help people, it also doesn't mean you won't harm people. And doctors get paid good money to basically either do nothing or just make things worse. Same thing with teachers: you won't be allowed to talk about the absurdity of membrane pumps or the organized structure of water inside cells without making your students realize that so many things that they've been taught about genetics and biology isn't accurate. Sure, if your job is fixing computers, for example, then it's obvious whether or not the computer was fixed correctly. Same thing with carpentry, there is less space for theories that don't work, which isn't the case with medicine( with the exception ER and surgery) or school or college.

I think most of the proponents here see the benefit from the standpoint of responsible use of the UBI, and because of the possibility of good effects, are willing to give this idea their support. But from the standpoint of human nature, as laid out in McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y, there will always be people that are well-motivated and there will be more people less motivated. X is well-motivated and Y isn't. X doesn't need supervison and Y does. What do you think happens when 90 percent of people simply go and spend on useless "necessities?" What is the return to the government or to society on this "investment" if you will. Won't this be just the same kind of waste that going to war is, where munitions and weapons and vehicles are destroyed and rendered useless, not to mention the human toll? The absurdity is that this kind of activity is called a boost to the economy, like they are short of better ideas. This is make work, or rather make "useless work."

I question the word motivated. Some behaviors are seen as motivated by society, while others are seen as unmotivated. Who defines that? Somebody who sleeps 5 hours a day and works 50 hours a week minimum would be seen as motivated by most people that I know, while someone who sleeps 9 hours a day everyday and makes sure to pay attention to things such as bowel movement regularity and proper nutrition is seen as "somebody who has too much free time". So the health conscious person should be supervised to make sure that they don't relax even once a day or pay attention to their own health? That's a great way to turn them into slaves. I do understand that you're concerned with how people spend their money, and, yeah, if someone doesn't have too much money, then surely they need to prioritize food, water and rent first, then, if there is some spare money, then they can spend on less urgent necessities. Also, sick people are just trying to feel better by buying things, since buying can be pleasurable, but it won't last, since their metabolism is so low. Also, the money wouldn't disappear, as Yang said, it would be used very quickly for basic necessities or not, and it would re-enter the economy.

The idea that we need to give back to the government is something I really disagree with. The government should be serving us, but we what we see is the exact opposite. People getting paid by simply being part of a country is the minimum that the government should do. Instead we are just slaves that give up a third of our day, 5 times a week for just for a paycheck. We are already giving way too much to the government, it doesn't need any more.

Andrew Yang simply uses the prospect of automation as a foil to push this idea. Robots and AI will slowly weave itself into our economy, and society will adapt to it, UBI or not. UBI is just about the same as the unions' practice of featherbedding in response to automation. Featherbedding has failed because it's made industries uncompetitive. Besides, it's mired also in corruption, as it's really too subjective to apply the idea. But UBI is worse. Robots and AI aren't out in full force, and Yang is positioning this solution ahead of the problem. He may convince many that he's this visionary, and that he's ahead of his time, but in reality he's just making an excuse for making more waste of resources. Just as every good intention gets mangled beyond recognition by politicians as great ideas become mired in corruption and problems are kicked down the road. Yeah, the future generation can't vote so we'll just vote to let them deal with the debts we at the present time amass. A societal pyramid scheme, and UBI isn't solving society's problems. The writing is already on the wall from inception - it's an idea only policy wonks at strategic think tanks blessed with advanced degrees can cook up.

He adressed this bit in the video: AI won't slowly enter the economy, it has already entered it. What about Amazon? Their work force is basically AI, which is much cheaper and efficient than people at these repetitive jobs. This isn't identical to featherbedding, where you basically hire way more people than necessary. Featherbedding is what is going on nowadays, with people doing jobs that machines could do for us. I see it all the time in my country. Lots of cashiers who just sit there all day looking like they wanna run away and never come back. Almost all of them have bloated bellies, btw. AI would rid people of working unnecessarily, and it would reduce featherbedding. Also, Yang said that society will not adapt to it well, it will just lead to massive unemployment, since who would hire people to do a job that a machine can do faster, more efficiently, with less mistakes, etc.?

How is giving people money akin to spending money on war? War is terrible and pointless, most of the time. Politicians literally do almost nothing and get paid extremely well. Politicians don't even use buses or any public transport in country, they like to travel by helicopter or by plane. Where does this money come from? And why 25% of my country's population is poor while working when politicians can just sit in a room with air conditioning all day and do nothing and get paid 10 times more? Banks are certainly not solving society's problems either.

It's only because the government is so dysfunctional and because people have gotten so inured to being manipulated, as helpless as Ray Peat would put it, that there really isn't hope that we can right the ship. So we are grasping at straws and inventing ideas that will be a magic bullet. It ain't going to work. But hope lies eternal, and we keep hoping someone invents a scheme that can't be called harebrained. Sorry to break the bubble!

Lol don't worry, my bubble has been broken a long time ago, and I certainly don't think the government will simply become friends with the people, even if it's giving them money. There will still be fluoride in the water. I'm just enjoying this topic, because it makes me think of how good the government could be in theory.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

...

human rights are things like private property, bodily autonomy, physical safety, right to travel. All these are infringed upon in most societies. Drug laws, prescription meds, gun laws are the most serious infringements on these rights, but most laws do infringe on some of them. So if this is to be morally acceptable, it must be compensated by a salary. this is UBI. You can choose to take it and follow all the shitty laws, or not take it and be on own responsibility gaining immunity from most shitty laws like "purchasing of prescription meds without prescription"

Great point

 

[MetabolicTrash]

...

human rights are things like private property, bodily autonomy, physical safety, right to travel. All these are infringed upon in most societies. Drug laws, prescription meds, gun laws are the most serious infringements on these rights, but most laws do infringe on some of them. So if this is to be morally acceptable, it must be compensated by a salary. this is UBI. You can choose to take it and follow all the shitty laws, or not take it and be on own responsibility gaining immunity from most shitty laws like "purchasing of prescription meds without prescription"

Okay, but not sure what this specifically has to do with UBI in particular, rather than imagining it as a "trade off." Maybe I'm not picturing this in the right way, but doesn't sound like this makes good sense to me in how you're trying to draw up a comparison between laws and basic income and trade offs for some reason.

People (I don't think) who are pro-UBI generally see it as a trade off with basic human rights, so maybe you're looking at this from a different subject/angle of topic.

Plus Yang's UBI isn't being proposed as a conditional under obligation to obey laws any more than that obligation rests on people by default, UBI or not.

I don't disagree with your points in general, but don't make much sense out of your comparison with it to UBI as some sort of conditional/human rights/law-abiding thing. I think what you're trying to say is maybe that -- given these circumstances -- UBI "makes up" for it. I guess that makes sense, but definitely struck me as a bit odd in the way you're putting it all together/emphasizing it. I consider it that way because I don't look at it as trading anything away for something else -- that sounds flawed. The point is not to look at it as something you're "giving away" in exchange for unfavorable conditions, but something you gain and work off from for the better.

 

[rei]

I was only mentioning some arguments for ubi, not reviewing andrew's program. In fact it looks almost as if set up to fail.

 

[iPeat]

UBI is the only morally acceptable way to prevent people from using drugs, purchasing prescription meds, own weapons etc.

Yes. Because people on Welfare don't do any of those things, it'll surely work when we apply it to everyone.