I know he’s come up on this forum before regarding UBI but here’s a good discussion with Yang’s take on UBI
ps - if i were a presidential candidate i would do all I could to get on podcasts. Where else can you spend three hours talking about your views. I need Tulsi to get back on JRE
I had a pretty solid opinion about Yang after he was on Sam Harris. That is I thought he made some good points about not having a plan for the acceleration of AI/ loss of labor for people to do, BUT I thought it was too early to start talking about such extreme anti-capitalistic solutions when the crisis still is decades off. I found him to be a bit of a fearmonger.
However, since then I have further educated myself on the bigger picture of the American version of capitalism. I am interested if my opinion will change if I hear him out a second time… stand by!
One of the biggest supporters of UBI is Jeff Bezos, who runs a company that famously doesn’t pay taxes. How exactly will gov afford UBI? The impact of technology on jobs is nearly impossible to gauge. The jobs apocalypse has been predicted many times, yet more people are working today than ever. Consider the humble bank teller, who has long been predicted to be extinct, yet we have more bank tellers today than ever.
Bezos is a a supporter of UBI??? Really? Doesn’t he realize Amazon is the one of the main ones who will pay for it.
amazon generates no taxes because they have so many losses from previous years. bezos salary is only 80k. his net worth is 140b and most of it is from investments in amazon that will only be taxes when sold! so neither him or his firm is the one paying!
I am about half way through the JRE interview. AY is very agreeable at first listen. He is even tempered and makes logical points. He almost had me me convinced that it is not too soon to start a “freedom dividend” because all that money will get pumped into communities and it will start circulating, creating new local opportunities…and so on. Kind of set things up before the crap hits the fan. This way there will be a soft transition from the jobs being lost to AI and the local upstarts that can provide new jobs. But wait a minute… whats to say people won’t just go on Amazon and spend the extra money on stuff made by robots and delivered by robots? The UBI will not necessarily stay in communities and there is a good chance it goes right back into automated industries.
I want UBI to be a fix to this problem because it would be so clean and simple, but the problem is more complex. I am with AY in that he wants to start using different measures to track “success” such as worker productivity, citizen health, and the like. That said, just throwing money at people is not going to hit the target. I mean, $1000 a month is a nice safety blanket at first, but when the money does not stay in the community and no new opportunities come up…then what?
I got a phone number for Andy Yang from my local Honda dealer: he may be able to get a power steering unit for my 2001 Honda S2000, which Honda no longer manufactures.
It might be a different Andy Yang. I don’t know for sure as I haven’t phoned him yet.
giving poor people money, will ensure that the things poor people value will go up. rich people who want to become rich will need to figure out how to profit from that while at the same time providing a service to what poor people value. the government will then take the money from the rich again to give to poor to perpetuate the cycle.
There is something deeply cynical about a system where companies cut people and increase robotics and technology to become more profitable and therefore more attractive to investors, who are often pension funds, who are effectively many of the people getting cut.
ubi is a subsidy for all poor/rich/young/old/healthy/sick. as oppose to ss/medi, which is a subsidy for the weak, weak defined by old age and poor health.
of course at the end of the day, the rich will pay for this. and the people who need it most (sick poor old people) will receive less of it.
people getting cut from the labor force dur to automation is progress. the idea that people should work because work fulfills them is retarded and sad. efficiency and profit and reinvesting that profit to make things better for all is what we ought to do.
but we dont really know whether rich people investing it or spending it will result in a far better world than how the government will spend it.
you should look at it like you have a huge family. how would you want your estate distributed? should it be equal? should it be to the oldest? should it be to the smartest?
False.
Labor Force Participation
Brain I expected so much more from you. That’s a horrible chart to quantify how many people are working now compared to the past.
http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm
Malee is right. Well, in absolute terms he is. More people are employed now than ever before. But your point is well taken. It could be even better.
I assumed he meant participation rate, since the absolute number is nonsensical given population change. OMG, there are more people dying today than ever! Humanity is in an extinction scenario!
You guys are an embarrassment. The denominator of labor force participation rate is the essentially entire population over 16 and the numerator is everyone who is both working or looking for work within that group. So the denominator includes retirees of all ages since there is no upper cap and the numerator does not. So, boomers. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/labor-force-participation-rates-projected-to-decline-in-the-coming-decade.htm
“After reaching its historical peak at 67.1 percent in 2000, the labor force participation rate for all workers (age 16 and over) is projected to decline to 61.0 percent in 2026. The decline in the rate is largely the result of the aging population, as more and more workers move into higher age groups that tend to have lower participation rates.”
False. Participation rate is declining across age cohorts, except for boomers , who need to work longer because they can’t afford to retire. BLS is saying that aging of boomers drives their projections. I look at the actual history, not the projections.
Age 20-24: 76.8% employed in 1996, only 70.5% in 2016
Age 25-34: 84.1% employed in 1996, only 81.6% employed in 2016
Age 65 to 74: 17.5% employed in 1996, 26.8% employed in 2106
Ok, now you just need to apologize for embarrassing yourself so we can begin the healing process. Your argument lacked logic before and now you’re attempting to save it with less logic. What you said above does not make what I wrote “False”. So the conclusion does not follow from the points made.
The Ted post (also from the BEA) you linked to literally opens with as much in the first sentence:“In 2019, the last of the baby boomers will reach age 55 and transition into age groups with much lower labor force participation rates. Due in large part to an aging population, the labor force participation rate for all workers (age 16 and over) is projected to decline to 61.0 percent in 2026.”
Yet somehow, in your confused state, you posted that exact link in response to me saying: “After reaching its historical peak at 67.1 percent in 2000, the labor force participation rate for all workers (age 16 and over) is projected to decline to 61.0 percent in 2026. The decline in the rate is largely the result of the aging population, as more and more workers move into higher age groups that tend to have lower participation rates.” …and said “False”. At this point, you should log off, go home, and reassess your life. It is true that participation rates for younger demographics are somewhat lower than in 1996 (cherry pick much?). But what is your point? Some buckets have seen increasing participation older folks while other have dropped, that still a very healthy job market. You argued there was a jobpacalypse, now you’re arguing that fewer 24 year olds are working and more 65 year olds are? If there’s a decline in jobs, why is it just a mix shift? The main driver in the participation rate is mathematically and factually that boomers are aging from a bucket with +80% participation rate into one with ~25% participation rate, even if that rate is up from ~15%.
I declare victory over BWYF. SAD.
First, it’s a BLS article, the series is called TED: The Economics Daily.
Second, you are talking about the BLS projections. Not actual facts. Projections. What is one of the only things they can accurately predict? People aging. So, they project a decline as boomers age out of the work force. Duh. Obviously boomers have a predictable effect. What is not predictable is what is happening in the younger age cohorts
The fact is that labor force participation has declined across demographics measuring in 1996, 2006 and 2016. Somebody said it was at the highest ever, which is why I even posted at all. That is false.
I’m sorry you cannot understand the difference between projections and historical data, that the decline in labor force participation (which was the only reason for the post) has multiple drivers and must resort to belittling remarks when the facts aren’t in your favor. I pity your coworkers.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Lol, I’m sorry you can’t do basic analysis and pity your coworkers. Maybe if you put more thought into your remarks you wouldn’t be so embarrassed about them. Also, I’m aware of where the article came from.
Even ignoring the projections the biggest driver in the past 10 years has also been the older boomers transitioning to retirement, just as the rise in aggregate population level labor force participation in the 90’s was measurably driven by the entry of boomers into the work force. These are basic facts, not projections, measurable facts. You’re literally looking at a chart of boomer driven growth demographics.
As far as your claim that Malee said the labor force participation rate being higher than ever, he did not, that actually is “False”. He clearly said more people are working now than ever (not a higher proportion of the population) and then you wrongly applied aggregate work force participation rate statistics while ignoring the boomer demographic.
The BLS has been abundantly clear about the driver of that surge in the 90’s and the recent downtrend since 2000 in HISTORIC data, not projections. While there is a mix shift, it is the boomer trend driving the aggregate.
Sorry for your loss.
Oh, lol, you got me, I wrote BEA when I meant BLS 
We are done here, guessing from the lack of material counterpoints, failure to grasp basic historic economic data and backpedaling. Thanks for the new chart of the boomer demographic. LOL