Andrew Yang

Water Cooler
#1

I heard this guy on a podcast, running for President as a Dem. He was CEO/President of Manhattan Prep, with which some here may be familiar, from 2006 until its acquisition by Kaplan in 2011. Then he started Venture for America:

"After 2011, the company grew quickly moving from a $200,000 budget in 2011 to a $6,000,000 annual operating budget in 2017[11] and began operating in over 18 U.S. cities adding Kansas City, Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Charlotte, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Miami, Nashville, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, and St. Louis. Venture for America began running a Startup Accelerator in Detroit, launched a seed fund for fellows, and an investment fund for fellows.

In the summer of 2017, Andrew Yang stepped down as CEO of the company. At the time of his exit from the company, Venture for America had over 500 Fellows & alumni who had started 29 companies, raised over $40 million, and helped create over 2,500 jobs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang_(entrepreneur)

It seems that his platform is based around the idea that automation will erode long-term employment an a rapidly increasing rate, which will be catastrophic. UBI is a policy he’s floating in response, called the “Freedom Dividend” where US citizens between the age of 18 and 64 receive $1000/month funded by a VAT.

https://www.yang2020.com/

It is kind of nice to hear somebody addressing automation in a somewhat realistic manner. I do worry about some of the effects of UBI, but automation and the rapidly changing jobs landscape is an issue that needs to be addressed. Unemployed middle aged truckers are relatively unlikely to become computer programmers or nurse anesthetists. Some may, but the overwhelming majority will not. Also, if it is just a check everyone receives and there is no qualification criteria then it is a program the government can actually execute and there is no incentive to remain unemployed, like with welfare or disability. Just some thoughts. First politician I’d heard with a somewhat reasoned/informed approach to technology’s impact on jobs.

#2

this was discussed on a previous thread. i think its an excellent idea, but we need to first have a balanced budget before we start throwing away money. we should allocate money on things that will make people more productive.

#3

Ah that UBI guy. He’s delusional.

The USG is bankrupt. The population has nothing. And so it’s the corporations and .01% that have all the money, so if UBI doesn’t come from them, it doesn’t work. Full stop. And you’ll have to have a civil war against corporations (who will defend the rich) before you ever one penny. So end of discussion.

He brushes right over the CFs on the UBI thing, “bla bla a tax or something.” Doesn’t make any sense. Get ready for a lot more spinsters to emerge over the years selling the UBI scam. Always ask “and so the CFs will ultimately come from where again?” Silence, no specifics.

He also says that if you want UBI, just vote, and you can make it happen. Facepalm, corps control DC, they will pass UBI in the form of further cannibalization of the USG, which has a printing press…and speed the default, which is already sped up with the fake “tax cuts.”

Seen this movie before kids. :bulb:

#4

PA, it is interesting that is your response in light of the view that overall IQ is decreasing. What do you think the future billions of unemployed and unemployable people will do? What about when only the 0.1% are making any money at all? Given the pace of automation and the increased specialization of human jobs civilization at large is not on a sustainable course.

Given that the basic point of AI/automation is greater efficiency and less need for human labor, the obvious result is further wealth inequality. So, naturally you would need to take money from the 0.1% to pay for UBI, which is the effective outcome of a VAT.

I actually think it’s a coin flip on whether we have a situation where the “haves” just hang out in their luxurious bunkers with robot defenses while the world burns. Since most people seem to act out of fear or greed, that seems like a very likely scenario.

#5

How does this make any sense? How many people today actually do physically productive things like farming or building stuff? The rest are working on activities that arise to service people who do those things. If there was not a very large resource and time surplus in society, people wouldn’t work in industries like entertainment, fitness, sports, restaurants, or other things. Furthermore, no matter how automated things become, a huge amount of people are still working for further efficiency improvements. Increasing technology has only resulted in a bigger IT sector in terms of workforce, not a smaller one.

#6

well the main difference is that ai will eventually be able to do everything. teach ai to think like the top performers and everyone becomes useless. ubi will protect the useless from advancing technology. at the moment machines are faster thinkers but lack creativity, but i am sure even that will change!

anyways what is ubi. is it just food? shelter? happiness? well that will all vary. but its like a tiny handout so people dont lose their shit and cause a ruckus. there is no need for ubi as long as the majority is ok. but once ai forces structural changes then it is something that should be considered.

like think about the movie matrix, where we essentially become energy fodder for machines. even that can be considered ubi cuz at least they are housing you in a tube and you are alive in simulated world in blissfull happiness! lol.id prefer that over terminator where its outright genocide!

it is also another reason why capital is important to have. the people who will control these robots will be the rich (corporations). the people who will check the rich will be the government through taxation. and the people who will elect the government is the poor who benefit from promised redistribution!

#7

You are correct that automation is similar to the long-term shift away from agriculture and manufacturing’s share of employment. It also may help counter the decline in working age people as a share of population. However, just like the industrial revolution it is going to demand some radical changes. Things that came about as a result of the industrial revolution: 40 hour work week, limitations on child labor, high school for everyone, and, in no small part, the Civil War. The changes echoed through society all the way up to WW1 and the New Deal. So, it is not like the shift from agriculture to manufacturing did not result in massive societal and geopolitical changes.

Also, so far it appears people are not transitioning to new employment. As you probably know, labor force participation has actually fallen as the tech revolution has gotten going. And this is likely just the beginning due to the scalable nature of computer technology as opposed to the steam engine.

#8

Labor force participation has been falling because the percentage of people near retirement age has been increasing. A 65-year-old baby boomer is much more likely to retire than a 50-year-old, even if both are counted as part of the labor force.

The decline in labor force has nothing to do with increasing technology. In fact, technology has been increasing throughout the whole period in that graph. It wasn’t in the form of IT, but in mechanization that replaced human workers, for instance in factories, with machines.

Mr. Yang’s theory sounds plausible on paper, but there are no signs that it works in reality on a societal level.

#9

Nope, it’s fallen for working age too, apparently. Don’t have time to look for an updated chart of this type.

#10

There have been several experiments with it, both in America and abroad. So I think it has a little more data to analyze than just writings on paper.

#11

Of course, there is a need, and that need will eventually have to be addressed.

However you are never going to “just vote” and get corporate-fascism to stop cannibalizing the country and/or redistribute the profits of said cannibalization. UBI fails to address the root cause of the problem, which has to be addressed first.

Increasing technology sector employment, only speeds technological innovation, which furthers job elimination. Also, the avg human does not have sufficient IQ to work in tech, it is an outlier field and thus can never employ the masses.

Jobs will not transfer from “here to there” at they did in the past (agricultural to industrial), they will be net eliminated.

#12

ubi should be an easy vote. since everyone gets money. the rich will be the only one who hates it because they pay for everything.

the poor might be convinced to hate it since many are thinking of funding ubi by ending medicare and ss (2.5 trillion). there are 225m americans over 18. that’s 11k in ubi for all. just to clarify medicare and ss are bad investments since we are giving it to old sickly people, we are essentially prolonging the spending by funding it. there are 44m in medicare and 61m people getting social security. that’s about a 25k per old sick person. and they are living longer and longer. and with the baby boomers hitting old age. its getting exponentially worse! there are 72m baby boomers ranging from to 54 to 72. tehre are 64m gen xers ranging from 36 to 53.

there are 84m millenials and we’re all about the turn up so please give us ubi.

#13

I haven’t read much about UBI but to me, anything that is so “general” cannot be a good idea. Saying every American above age of 18 will receive $1,000/month sounds terribly inefficient. There needs to be some sort of allocation of resources to increase efficiency, and the goal should be long-term, not short-term. $1,000 a month is a short-term goal to help the needy get by. Instead, maybe focus on long-term investing, for example, making public education cheaper and more competitive so that we’ll have more educated people who will be able to get good jobs in the future.

#14

Sort of like how people voted and got social insurance, paid in trillions, and now as the big boomer wave hits…the ponzi is revealed.

Again, you’re not just going to vote, and bam get what you want. Never happens. After a vote for a person like this conman who says some vague stuff, there are ZERO protections built in that you actually get what you voted for. Goldman will author it.

#15

the us can definitely afford it. we just have to tax more. the average is about 35% of GDP for developed countries. At the US, all govt take about 26 percent of GDP, with trump tax laws its prolly lower. US GDP at 18.5 trillion, 10% is 1.8 trillion dollars. so we have a lot of leeway.

#16

The math does not support that. You would already have to raise taxes like 60% just to pay the coming boomer social insurance (in 2005 the models said taxes would need to be permanently doubled, but it’s worse now). No room for UBI this century. At least not until default, then you can build up another ponzi!

#17

we can actually do the math. let assume retirement age at 62 and that the other half of all baby boomers (36M) retire at this age. and that the number of current social security people today do not die (61M). So ~100m people! We can assume as well that current social security costs (1.25 trillion for 61m) are the same, so roughly 21k/per person, if we account for inflation its around $26k/person. so the cost is 2.6 trillion for social security in 2026, a rise of 1.35t.

A simple 10% raise in taxes easily covers it. since we would gain 1.8t. but we need to look at it at 2026 and you wanted a 60% tax. anyways thats a 35 percent pick up. if we adjust current budget for inflation of 18 trillion, by 2026 at 3% inflation. that’s 23 trillion. at a 35 percent marginal pick up, that’s 8 trillion. so wel within means!

so if we decided to get denmark on this, us can easily turn a profit. but the us is not a business. the whole point of government is to remain in power, so a deficit is always preferable!

#18

Apparently not. You can’t do math this complex on the back of a napkin, that’s why we have Excel. :bulb:

Well, 17 nobel laureates and 1200+ economists disagree. So you can go wipe your butt with that napkin. :grin:

#19

lol its not complex though. its actually very simple. i just did a base case scenario under a different tax regime. i mean if we are looking at status quo revenues at 3.5 trillion 20% of gdp, then its really bad.

one major concern is that there is less people supporting a larger amount of retirees, so a quick fix is to cut benefits or raise taxes. anyays over time people die, and there will be balance again. or robots to make up the difference! lol

#20

^ Postmodernist math.

Except the USG won’t survive the transition period, default is 2025-2035.

You just can’t collect trillions for decades, spend it all, and then magically come up with it when it’s due. #ponzi.

Even if they could increase total revenue as a % of GDP, from the current 18%, to 28%, for say 20yrs…it would crash consumption, and thus crash GDP, and thus they wouldn’t actually receive that revenue. There’s no way out now.