Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
True, the value Google, Amazon, Apple, etc have added is immeasurable so let's not concern ourselves if they don't pay taxes. In fact let's cut taxes for all big tech firms while demanding more from ordinary citizens because ordinary citizens don't add any value to this country right.

I'm obviously capitalist myself but I don't understand apologists who defend everything big companies do via some twisting of "might is right" or "you get what you deserve" kind of philosophy.

I'm not defending them, per se. I'm defending their right to not have their stuff stolen because I know that they don't actually like that... and will pass that cost down to me, escape through exclusive government-backed loopholes, and/or stop producing great stuff. I actually can't stand almost every big business leader in this country. That doesn't give me the right to steal what they produced.

Again with no taxes thing. Yes, they paid no Federal taxes (they had an instant rebate for 2 years and this took care off a lot of it). There, is everyone happy I said it? They indirectly pay a ton to the government through online sales, infrastructure, and the massive amount of people they employ. C'mon, do we have to go through an Economics 101 course here?
 

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
Don’t waste your time with it, @iPeat is just trolling.

If @iPeat did any homework, just fifteen minutes even, he would know that no one including Yang is blaming anyone.

Automation is changing our economy, it’s a fact, and we’re not going backwards.

@iPeat looks at the government as the enemy and then applies that logic to us as if we think private sector is the enemy.

This line of thinking is archaic and tired.

Not even the CEOs of these tech companies agree with @iPeat LOLOL

They said they are totally willing to pay the taxes, because they see what is happening.

When automation causes mass displacement, it is no longer possible to operate using the previous model, it needs to adapt.

Yet @iPeat wants to go back to the Stone Age or something. It’s hard to tell exactly, because he throws out slanderous statements from left field.

“Amazon didn’t steal your money.”

Who said they did?????

They use OUR data FOR FREE to MAKE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES without paying us for it or even asking our permission.

They can make as much money and use as much automation as they want, just as long as US citizens are paid their share of the equity.

How is this so complicated to understand.

Look I'm sorry for being harsh with you before. The way you were speaking to me and others earlier in thread irked me. And, quite frankly, your level of cognitive dissonance truly had me believing you were a troll. My bad.
 

Collden

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
630
Again, this "scare tactic" is so tired. It's been used forever. It never winds up happening that way.

We have more technology now than ever before, by far, and the unemployment rate is the lowest it's ever been. I don't see your crisis. People will do what they always do - what's in their best interest. I don't have the arrogance to think I know what's best for someone else, or believe I can see the future. That's actually the whole point - stop controlling people and who knows what the next leap will be.
Unemployment is not the lowest ever, labor force participation has been steadily declining since 2000 and is now at the same level as the mid 1970s.
438B1E8D-9664-4EE9-B1E9-98E93AC829E8.png
 

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
Unemployment is not the lowest ever, labor force participation has been steadily declining since 2000 and is now at the same level as the mid 1970s.
View attachment 15093

Baby boomers are retiring. They're counted in that figure. Great to see people being able to exit the workforce and still be happy.
 

Collden

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
630
Baby boomers are retiring. They're counted in that figure. Great to see people being able to exit the workforce and still be happy.
Still declining if you only count the prime age labor force, particularly among men, very particularly among low-educated men.
F4E9BAEE-BC4A-4178-A65D-84297F4CC246.png
 

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
Still declining if you only count the prime age labor force, particularly among men, very particularly among low-educated men.
View attachment 15094

Maybe because they're being incentivized to stay home and become part of an increasing Welfare State? Maybe because illegal immigration disproportionately effects the minimally-educated adversely? Just a couple guesses. Also, how is this not an indictment of an inadequate public school system, as opposed to the effects of increasing automation technology?
 

Collden

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
630
Maybe because they're being incentivized to stay home and become part of an increasing Welfare State? Maybe because illegal immigration disproportionately effects the minimally-educated adversely? Just a couple guesses. Also, how is this not an indictment of an inadequate public school system, as opposed to the effects of increasing automation technology?
Male labor force participation has been declining since about 1950, which is incidentally when automation really started to kick off in various industries. I'd guess that the fraction of men attending college has increased during that time so it likely isn't due to poor education.

Low-skill jobs requiring no education are just the lowest hanging fruit for automation and thats why you don't see as much of an effect in people with higher education yet, fewer people have college degrees so they are in higher demand. If everyone had gotten college degrees I'm sure you'd see the same decline in them too though.
 

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
Male labor force participation has been declining since about 1950, which is incidentally when automation really started to kick off in various industries. I'd guess that the fraction of men attending college has increased during that time so it likely isn't due to poor education.

Low-skill jobs requiring no education are just the lowest hanging fruit for automation and thats why you don't see as much of an effect in people with higher education yet, fewer people have college degrees so they are in higher demand. If everyone had gotten college degrees I'm sure you'd see the same decline in them too though.


The 1950s is also when the idea of women entering the workplace started gathering steam in the mainstream view, which effectively doubled the labor force. Employers, at the time, could effectively pay the women less than the men, to get the some jobs done, so it's no wonder the male labor force started to decline (I have not looked at this data point. I'm taking your word).
 

Lee Simeon

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
494
Again, this "scare tactic" is so tired. It's been used forever. It never winds up happening that way.

We have more technology now than ever before, by far, and the unemployment rate is the lowest it's ever been. I don't see your crisis. People will do what they always do - what's in their best interest. I don't have the arrogance to think I know what's best for someone else, or believe I can see the future. That's actually the whole point - stop controlling people and who knows what the next leap will be.
Yang actually talked about this in his book. "The problem is that the unemployment rate is defined as as how many people in the labor force are loooking for a job but cannot find one. It does not consider people people who drop out of the workforce for any reason, including disability or simply giving up trying to find a job. If you get discouraged and stop looking for any reason, you no longer are considered "unemployed". The unemployment rate also does not take into account people who are underemployed- that is, if a college graduate takes a job as a barista or other role that does not require a degree. Conservative economist Nick Eberstadt says the unemployment rate "no longer serves as a reliable predictor of the numbers or proportions of people who are not working or for that matter, for those who are working". The unemployment rate is like checking how a party is going based on every one who is at the party. It does not take into account the people who were never invited to the party or could not get in. It also does not take into account the people who are in the wrong room at the party and having a bad time. The proportion of Americans who are no longer in the workforce and have stopped looking for work is at a multi decade high. There are presently a record 95 million working-age Americans, a full 37 percent of adults, who are out of the workforce. In 2000, there were only 70 million."
 

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
Yang actually talked about this in his book. "The problem is that the unemployment rate is defined as as how many people in the labor force are loooking for a job but cannot find one. It does not consider people people who drop out of the workforce for any reason, including disability or simply giving up trying to find a job. If you get discouraged and stop looking for any reason, you no longer are considered "unemployed". The unemployment rate also does not take into account people who are underemployed- that is, if a college graduate takes a job as a barista or other role that does not require a degree. Conservative economist Nick Eberstadt says the unemployment rate "no longer serves as a reliable predictor of the numbers or proportions of people who are not working or for that matter, for those who are working". The unemployment rate is like checking how a party is going based on every one who is at the party. It does not take into account the people who were never invited to the party or could not get in. It also does not take into account the people who are in the wrong room at the party and having a bad time. The proportion of Americans who are no longer in the workforce and have stopped looking for work is at a multi decade high. There are presently a record 95 million working-age Americans, a full 37 percent of adults, who are out of the workforce. In 2000, there were only 70 million."

I agree that the unemployment rate is an inaccurate statistic that only tells part of the story. However, I don't agree that automation is the reason those people aren't working. I'd think it's people retiring, and/or increasing reliance of government assistance.

If you could link to that data, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to take a closer look.
 

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
Yang actually talked about this in his book. "The problem is that the unemployment rate is defined as as how many people in the labor force are loooking for a job but cannot find one. It does not consider people people who drop out of the workforce for any reason, including disability or simply giving up trying to find a job. If you get discouraged and stop looking for any reason, you no longer are considered "unemployed". The unemployment rate also does not take into account people who are underemployed- that is, if a college graduate takes a job as a barista or other role that does not require a degree. Conservative economist Nick Eberstadt says the unemployment rate "no longer serves as a reliable predictor of the numbers or proportions of people who are not working or for that matter, for those who are working". The unemployment rate is like checking how a party is going based on every one who is at the party. It does not take into account the people who were never invited to the party or could not get in. It also does not take into account the people who are in the wrong room at the party and having a bad time. The proportion of Americans who are no longer in the workforce and have stopped looking for work is at a multi decade high. There are presently a record 95 million working-age Americans, a full 37 percent of adults, who are out of the workforce. In 2000, there were only 70 million."

Looking at the participation rates, I still don't see evidence of a massive robot takeover.

united-states-labor-force-participation-rate@3x.png


United States Labor Force Participation Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart

"Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 63.20 percent in September from 63.20 percent in August of 2019. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States averaged 62.99 percent from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 67.30 percent in January of 2000 and a record low of 58.10 percent in December of 1954."

(I don't know why that's in bolded font like that)

The BLS is sneaky. If you check the stats on their website, they only show the decline over the last 20 years. You have to dig to find data further back. If automation/technology increase = decreasing job opportunities, as Yang suggests, then why was there an all-time in 2000? There was more technology then than ever before that point. Yes, the LFPR has decreased roughly 4% from the all-time high since then, but I still don't see any evidence that automation is the reason for it.

NA-BN588_Benefi_G_20111005140904.jpg


Sure looks to me like the percentage of people receiving government benefits started rising at the same point that the LFPR started declining. Of course that brings us back to the chicken and egg situation.
 

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159
Looking at the participation rates, I still don't see evidence of a massive robot takeover.

View attachment 15099

United States Labor Force Participation Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart

"Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 63.20 percent in September from 63.20 percent in August of 2019. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States averaged 62.99 percent from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 67.30 percent in January of 2000 and a record low of 58.10 percent in December of 1954."

(I don't know why that's in bolded font like that)

The BLS is sneaky. If you check the stats on their website, they only show the decline over the last 20 years. You have to dig to find data further back. If automation/technology increase = decreasing job opportunities, as Yang suggests, then why was there an all-time in 2000? There was more technology then than ever before that point. Yes, the LFPR has decreased roughly 4% from the all-time high since then, but I still don't see any evidence that automation is the reason for it.

View attachment 15100

Sure looks to me like the percentage of people receiving government benefits started rising at the same point that the LFPR started declining. Of course that brings us back to the chicken and egg situation.

This was already explained.
Please watch Yang’s videos and visit his website.

The CEOs of these companies agree with Yang.

Amazon warehouses are wall to wall robots. Retail shops are going bankrupt.

Cars and trucks are already driving themselves.

There’s no better data than that.

You may not even find much data as it’s still in it’s infancy.

Yang is planning ahead.

Radical, I know...
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
even though any run of the mill internet blog will confirm that lowering taxes stimulate the economy:
I'm sure you can find lots of opinions saying that. The facts are another thing, though.

This isn't disputed. This isn't debated.
Sure it's disputed. The effects of tax cuts depend on who they go to (to what extent they are regressive vs progressive), how they are balanced with revenue (or not - adding large debt, which is likely to burden the economy), and what spending is being reduced to enable the tax cuts.

In general, there are almost always more effective ways to stimulate an economy than to give tax cuts on high incomes. Most of the US tax cuts in the current US admin have gone to the 1% (contrary to what they said would happen). They suggested that would help them increase wages, but that didn't happen. There were stock buy backs etc though.

So, you could increase an already high tax rate
It's relative, but they don't look like high rates to me, compared with what they've been in the past, or with what many other wealthy countries do.
So, that's 209 Billion every month, or 2.5 Trillion dollars spent every year in Helicopter money.
If by helicopter money you mean giving a little money to everyone, it's more likely to stimulate the economy than targetting large tax cuts mainly for the wealthiest 1% or less.
The money has to come from somewhere, for one.
I'm not in US, and I'm not advocating policy, and I don't know what realistic levels such policies could be run at in the short term. But it doesn't look particularly absurd compared with the reality of the way the current US economy is run.
Sure the money would have to come from somewhere. But if you are talking basic income, what people actually need to live, then that has to come from somewhere anyway. It's a matter of working out mechanisms. Progressive taxation can be one part of the mechanism. Obviously, that's in the opposite direction to the recent tax cuts, the bulk of which went to the wealthy. (It's funny how some of the deficit hawks can be so vigilant about spending that is clearly needed, but fall silent when it comes to putting 100s of billions in the pockets of a few who clearly don't need it. )

It has an extremely low minimum wage, and CEOs of big corporations can get paid several hundred times what their basic workers get.
Reduce inequality, and you reduce a major driver for many expensive problems.
Although, it does destroy the value of that currency and causes real assets to flow upwards towards those who issue the currency.
To some extent, this looks like an issue with allowing reserve bank functions to be handled (and profited from) by a private institutions. This seems a bizarre situation.
Hyperinflation is a problem. But I think a little inflation tends to remove more value from those with large savings than those with hardly any.
But hey, they gave 800 Billion to the bankers back in 2008, so what the hell, why not give this insane plan a shot?
From here, it looks a lot less insane to give the money to everyone, including those most harmed by the crash, than to specifically reward the institutions and people that created the problem (especially when the elected leadership don't dare to regulate them adequately to prevent repeats).

To play Devil's advocate, maybe homelessness and mental issues would be even worse if it wasn't for social security?
You don't have to play devil's advocate to observe that.
Another thing that would likely reduce poverty and homelessness would be paying people who work a living/family wage for a reasonable working week. If automation is reducing jobs, then reducing the standard work week (and incorporating reasonable vacation time, like most western countries do) might make sense too.


Scrap the worlwide Jewish banking system and
... Jewish financial mafia ...
This is the kind of anti-Jewish attitude that has emboldened the scapegoating and pogroms against Jews repeatedly over centuries. By all means look hard at the harm done by the financial institutions, and figure out how to change them/prevent it, but don't confuse it with anti-semitism. It's wrong, and it makes the job of solving it harder.
 
Last edited:

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
You can topple a king, but you can't topple an oligarchy.

You can topple a group, but you can't topple a nation. If you equate a group to a nation, the group becomes invincible. Any criticism leveled at the mafia is equated as criticism of the nation. This is how the mafia plays you and you allow them to continue to do harm with impunity.
 

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
This was already explained.
Please watch Yang’s videos and visit his website.

The CEOs of these companies agree with Yang.

Amazon warehouses are wall to wall robots. Retail shops are going bankrupt.

Cars and trucks are already driving themselves.

There’s no better data than that.

You may not even find much data as it’s still in it’s infancy.

Yang is planning ahead.

Radical, I know...

Technology has never lowered job numbers. This is the same scare tactic over and over. It only takes away a job title. People will find something else to do. It's like you think people are just mindless morons who can only "me drive truck," and when they can't, they just scratch their **** (only true if you put them on UBI).

They drive a truck because it's in their best interest, and if that job disappears, they'll do something else. Yes, it's tough on people to change jobs, but that's what's always happened. This might even give them an opportunity to pursue something their passionate about instead of mindless work. Radical, I know...

Stop claiming to see the future and forcing people to live in it. As long as the people (and markets) are as free as possible, increasing technology will effect the economy organically, like it always has.
 

jzeno

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
543
@tara

"Sure it's disputed. The effects of tax cuts depend on who they go to (to what extent they are regressive vs progressive), how they are balanced with revenue (or not - adding large debt, which is likely to burden the economy), and what spending is being reduced to enable the tax cuts."

Ceteris paribus assumption: All things being equal, if you lower taxes generally (ie, on all tax brackets) it will stimulate the economy. Trump did not balance the revenue and also did not reduce spending (he increased it) and we are still experiencing the greatest economy in several decades. Consumer confidence is at an all-time high. Consumer spending is 70% (2/3) of the US economy and unemployment is the lowest it's been in 50 years (U.S. adds 136,000 jobs in September, unemployment rate hits 50-year low) and GDP for 2018 grew at 3.1% (Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Annual 2018 (Initial Estimate) | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)) despite the Dems not passing the USMCA trade deal for US, Mexico and Canada. For reference we have 2x as much trade with Canada then China. Such a deal and similar progress would be monumental for the USA, but the Dems refuse to bring it to a vote (politics).

Generally speaking, (all things being equal) tax cuts stimulate the economy--as we are witnessing now. (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is Working for the Middle Class)

--

"Most of the US tax cuts in the current US admin have gone to the 1% (contrary to what they said would happen)."

TAX-rates-eg.jpg

Capture.PNG


Inaccurate. Marginal rates 2017 v 2018 and effective US tax rates. On average 1% v 30% for bottom and top earners. Higher earners pay more in taxes. The US tax code is progressive.

Compare these three scenarios:
  • A family of four with annual income of $73,000 (median family income) will see a tax cut of more than $2,058, a 58 percent reduction in federal taxes.
  • A single parent with one child with annual income of $41,000 will see a tax cut of $1,304, a 73 percent reduction in federal taxes.
  • 91 percent of taxpayers with annual income between $64,000 and $108,000 saw an average federal tax cut of $1,400 in 2018, according to the left of center Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy.
  • The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is Working for the Middle Class
--

"They suggested that would help them increase wages, but that didn't happen."

Inaccurate.
1. Wages Rise at Fastest Rate in Nearly a Decade as Hiring Jumps
2. Opinion | Faster Growth Is Paying Off for Low-Skilled Workers -- Wages rising faster for lowest earners compared to more skilled workers
3. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is Working for the Middle Class -- Nominal wages have grown by 3.4 percent over the last year, a ten-year high

Whether tax cuts have spurred the wage increases is debatable and a whole separate discussion, but wages are rising after 30 years of stagnating.

--

"Progressive taxation can be one part of the mechanism. Obviously, that's in the opposite direction to the recent tax cuts,..."

US tax rates are progressive.

"...the bulk of which went to the wealthy."

Also untrue.

Recap
1. Every bracket got tax breaks--not just top tax brackets in the US--and lower earners received a larger tax break than top earners.
2. Tax breaks are stimulating the US economy GDP to grow at 3.1% and in general, all things being equal, do stimulate the economy.
 
Last edited:

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159
Technology has never lowered job numbers. This is the same scare tactic over and over. It only takes away a job title. People will find something else to do. It's like you think people are just mindless morons who can only "me drive truck," and when they can't, they just scratch their **** (only true if you put them on UBI).

They drive a truck because it's in their best interest, and if that job disappears, they'll do something else. Yes, it's tough on people to change jobs, but that's what's always happened. This might even give them an opportunity to pursue something their passionate about instead of mindless work. Radical, I know...

Stop claiming to see the future and forcing people to live in it. As long as the people (and markets) are as free as possible, increasing technology will effect the economy organically, like it always has.

Tell it to Yang, they’re his ideas. You probably won’t though, because you’re just trolling.

LOL $12k is enough to sit around and scratch your butt?! Where do you live?!?! You are not able to testify as to what other people are thinking/feeling, so you should stop including things like this in your comments if you want to be taken seriously.

Alaska already has UBI (for years) from oil money, and it’s worked great. You’d know this if you actually did some homework and read Yang’s site. But you’re just here to express your emotions and to troll.

What exactly are these truck drivers going to do? And do they even want to? Yang addresses this on his website, please visit it.

The numbers are that retraining has a <15% success rate. So no ones thinking anyone are morons, history shows people are not as adaptable as you think. Either they can’t or don’t want to.

You’re arguments are exactly what Yang wants to avoid, because they haven’t been working. Doing the same thing expecting a different result is a sign of insanity/retardation. That’s not very Peat.

You: technology only changes the jobs available but never lowers them > people will find something else to do as they always have even though they don’t want to do it and the numbers show retraining doesn’t work > I’ll accuse you of thinking people are morons (weirdly injected emotional stmnt) > they’ll lose their job they like/that serves their interests but maybe they’ll get lucky and technology will create something they like even though technology doesn’t reduce jobs, it just makes new ones people like better, with better pay, working conditions, and location > let’s keep our fingers crossed

You do a lot of speculation about people for someone telling me not to. Your statements are vague and purely emotional opinion about what should be.

iPeat land....where the “free market” equates to being a slave to market forces ... but hey, at least jobs are never reduced, you’re just displaced and have a life event at 50 with a family and health problems, but at least you’ll get to learn a new trade from the ground up, and if you’re lucky you’ll actually like it!!
 

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159
@tara

Two headlines, two different stories:

Trump’s tax cuts helped billionaires pay less than the working class for first time | US economy | The Guardian

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is Working for the Middle Class | Americans for Tax Reform

It's disingenuous to say that the tax cuts "went to the 1%" when in actuality every single tax payer in America received a tax break. So what do you and others mean when you say "went to the 1%ers" when if you read the new tax code and compare the new tax brackets, you will see each and every tax bracket received a lower rate--not just the 1%. And the never which received the greatest break? Lowest earners--those earning below the US poverty line (below ~$20k/yr)

To say something so charged is just filled with ignorance. The whole "billionaires got a tax break at the expense of the middle class" is such a ridiculous trope under Trump that it's become comical. Not only is such a phrase, ridiculous in and of itself, but it shows gross negligence and the media is very complicit in attempting to confuse the effect of Trump's tax cuts.

Go to the source and compare 2016 v 2018 tax brackets before you make such an ignorant statement.

No, you just interpret things too literally.

The tax “breaks” increase take home pay for most people by roughly $100 per month. Ooooo hold the presses, that’s a life changing sum.

The underlying message, genius, is that tax cuts don’t change squat.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom