Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Yang's UBI is opt in, so nobody has to give up their current benefits if they still want them. If people love these programs more that $1,000 per month, the safety net won't be touched. Second, the social safety net can be gutted now anyways. The UBI doesn't change that likelihood.
But let's talk about this as if the UBI would flat out replace the social safety net down the line. So what? Who cares? Every single person on earth would prefer unrestricted cash to the bullshit program they are currently on. A safety net program tells you where you can and can't spend the money. Cash let's you spend it how you want. I don't imagine you to be in the "I don't trust poor people to make good decisions" camp. Current programs involve a ton of bureaucracy and case monitoring. People on the programs live in fear of losing them and feel stigmatized by being on these programs in the first place. A UBI would eliminate all of that.
The poverty trap due to safety nets does exist. I prefer us having a strong safety net rather than ignoring those among us that are struggling... of course, but Yang is presenting a superior 3rd option. If a waitress makes $22,000 a year and is on a cash-like safety net program that affords her $7,000 extra per year that will help her as long as she is making 25k or less... if she is up for a promotion to manager that will have her making $28k a year, she comes out in a worse situation after taking the promotion. This example is at the margins, but we don't want to disincentive poor people from advancing up the ladder in this way. Every conversion from poverty to middle class will require this jump out of the safety net where you lose the $7,000 in this example. And it is hard to receive a bump in pay equivalent to that loss. Now I realize I've cooked up a bit of a strawman here because in some programs you would transitionally lose your benefits as you slowly earn more. But it is absolutely frustrating as hell to take on more and more responsibility, feel like you are making more and moving up, just to realize that you are losing portions of your safety net as you advance.
If you have a universal basic income, you completely eliminate any incentive to stay on as a waitress instead of moving up to manager. There is no reason to get sneaky with your reporting or try to find loopholes. You aren't stigmatized for being on welfare since everyone receives it. This is the future we need to get to as quickly as possible as more and more jobs get eliminated.
While the $1,000 per month is the most important reason, I have seen a ton of people saying that they would be #YangGang even without the UBI, and I am one of them.
He is a data driven problem solver. He doesn't need to abide by party lines. He simply tries to find the best answers to problems by analyzing the stats and finding a the most sensible solution. This instantly sets him apart from every other candidate and excites a lot of people including myself.
But here is another way I can explain why I love Yang's vision and the UBI:
Over the course of the last decade, I myself have been caught up in the rat race. I've always been on a journey with the goal of reaching a place that is void of financial stress. I thought that if I removed that burden, I could just have fun in life and improve my relationships with friends and family while donating money to causes I cared about.Thats all I thought I wanted out of life.
So I lived paycheck to paycheck throughout college. Graduated. Didn't know what to do with a Poli Sci degree. Went back and got 2 Masters degrees. Shitload of student loans. Got an unpaid internship with the Jacksonville Jaguars. Then I made big moves to get a $10 per hour coordinator position with the Jags. After a year, I made another big move and got promoted to Manager where I was moved to a $40,000 salary. All throughout this process I was being moved off of my parents "safety net" (extremely privileged to even have my middle class parents that paid my car and health insurance until I was 26 or so). The hand-me-down car I had from the 90s broke down and I now have a car payment. My dad put more and more of my bills on me as I progressed as he should have. I have now paid all of my bills for the last two years. But as I was moving up, I was still living paycheck to paycheck regardless.
Then... I got my first bonus. 15k dropped into my bank account at once, and I was effectively done with the rat race that I had been in for 7 years or so. This may not be a ton of money to others, but it was / is to me. I am no longer stressed about being able to afford life.
But after 2 years of thoroughly enjoying financial freedom, I've realized that the rat race was actually beneficial in a sense that it distracted me from the fact that I have no true passion. I don't have active hobbies. I have passive hobbies as in I like to watch / listen to what other people are doing and creating (sports, music, TV, etc). I'm a consumer. Now that I have financial freedom, I am able to more deeply search for ways I can make an impact on this world before I die.
The problem is, as we all know, a ton of people die in that rat race. They never win and get out of it like I did. They didn't have the assistance I had. And by the way, if I chose to get married and have kids, I 'd be thrusted right back in it based on my current salary.
Yang is trying to get everyone to where I am currently at, ASAP. We all need to be able to clearly think about what would provide meaning to us. We need to redefine what jobs are and what their value is to your life. The current problem is that as automation eliminates a ton of manufacturing, truck driving, call service, retail, and clerical jobs, the passion projects that do provide meaning in peoples lives are considered risky because they aren't properly valued by the market. So the UBI doesn't just help poor people - it encourages someone in a similar situation to me to take a leap. It's a transitional cushion that would put artists and entrepreneurs in a better position to pursue their dreams.
Bernie's plan for the bleak future approaching us is a Federal Jobs Guarantee and $15 per hour minimum wage. This vision is much, much darker than a UBI that, by the way, will increase from $1,000 over time. With a Federal Jobs guarantee, you are looking at a future of everyone working for the Government and doing things that they don't necessarily want to do with their lives. Why would that be superior to giving people the foundation to be able to chase the dreams they want to chase? Similarly, what does $15 minimum wage do for someone making $16 but still can't afford a $400 unexpected bill? And this is before mentioning the practical problems of the implementation of these programs. The UBI / Yang vision is one that I believe would be a jump-start for creativity and freedom from the machine, where I think Bernie's plan for the tech revolution paints a very dark picture where people are still beholden to shitty government jobs or the same terrible jobs they currently have but now just pay them better. That isn't the long-term answer in my opinion.
So yes - The $1,000 per month is the most simple way to explain why Yang is doing as well as he is, but it is deeper than that. Every one of his policies makes sense in the context of his vision. In the next 50 years or so we are going to experience an unprecedented amount of job loss due to automation / tech. How can we get ahead of this inevitable problem and actually turn this situation into a positive? How can we re-evaluate some of the values that have come to define our country?
If you are interested in hearing him out, I recommend listening to his 3 hour interview with Joe Rogan. That interview launched the YangGang into existence. So even if you disagree with him, you could understand the YangGang by watching that.
Yang wants to fund his UBI, at least partly, through a VAT - which is an inherently regressive scheme.
You talk about the rat race that people are living in - and I think your experience working for the NFL perfectly illustrates the systemic problem. Sure, you'd love to have an extra $12 grand a year. But you work for an organization that made close to $17B in revenues last year. That's a perfect example of the shit that Bernie is talking about with worker exploitation for the billionaires at the top.
you reduce Bernie's plan to a Federal jobs guarantee and minimum wage, but that is a woefully incomplete picture of his plan. Of all the candidates, Bernie has the best platform for all workers - increasing union membership, federal workers union, banning at will employment, repealing right to work, making it easier to strike, giving workers a place on company governing boards. these are all things that bring more systemic change than just UBI. I mean, giving people a $1000 doesn't really mean people are free from "the same terrible jobs." A bigger issue is the stagnation of wages for "normal people" and exponential growth of salaries for the CEO class. UBI doesn't really address that and ultimately won't be enough to counteract the systemic issue of inequality in the laborforce.
The loss of jobs due to automation and AI is vastly overrated as well. People said the sky was falling during the industrial revolution. Yes, some jobs will be lost due to automation, but that means new jobs can be created in other fields/sectors and using different skill sets. MIT has been doing a huge, interdisciplinary study on the future of work. read the report here. Some of their major finding are that the US labor force is actually shrinking due to low birth rates and immigration policy, and with an aging population there is a trend toward job scarcity, and the biggest threat to worker prosperity is inequality, not automation, and a key to the future is recognizing workers as stakeholders (sounds sorta socialist, amiright?)
Ultimately, I think Bernie and Yang have a similar idea in that they want to help the working class, and Yang's central tenet seems to be to give them $1000 and Bernie wants to empower them by giving them a seat at the table and holding the billionaires accountable.
The VAT is regressive, but only when it isn't paired with Yang's UBI. That combination with improve the buying power of the bottom 94%. Additionally, he plans to ramp the VAT up on luxury goods while exempting consumer staples (diapers, basic foods, etc.).
Regarding your call-out of the 1st industrial revolution and new jobs being created... The first industrial revolution resulted in Universal Highschool, mass riots that killed dozens of people and caused billions in damage. This new wave is estimated to happen 2-3 times quicker than that one. Amazon is closing 30% of malls in the next four years. AI will replace call center workers soon. Automated trucks and cars are on the way. Self-serve kiosks will replace tons of register jobs. Up to 40% of the most common jobs in America could very well dissapear in the next decade or two.
There is something important to point out about new jobs being created. Where will these jobs be located and what skills will be required to perform them? Say we get automated trucks this decade. Do you think the 3.5 million truck drivers will relocate to SF or Seattle to perform the new job that helps guide and control the automated trucks? The new tech jobs will be for new people that don't expect to be paid as much as a 55 year old guy whose entire identity has been tied to driving a truck for the last 30 years.
One area where I think I'm quite different from you on much of what else your saying is that I am not as angry at inequality of outcome as you are... IF... everyone has a comfortable foundation where they have a chance to pursue their dreams. I don't hate Shad Khan if I am able to live a quality life. I have never believed that this country does provide that foundation simply "because freedom." But I do think that a move to UBI gets us closer to that reality. Also, the UBI will empower workers and Unions. It will be easier to go on strike with that cushion. It will be easier for a mistreated waitress to get out from under her abusive boss, or her abusive boyfriend at home.
Does Yang have a plan to stop every landlord from raising the rent by $1,000 a month?
This is my greatest concern about UBI (rent increase specifically). I don't think Yang's answer on this is great. Either I'm not convinced by it or I'm not understanding it. Not sure which.
But it doesn't stop me from wanting to fight for it while trying to find that answer.
I'd rather have health care than 12 grand a year. A significant number of people, myself included, are going to have to pay more than 12 grand a year in medical bills, and I don't want people to continue to have to ration their care, as I have, in any way, weighing their health vs every other aspect of life, like housing (which should also be a right and costs more than 12 grand a year for a lot of people).
I would gladly have my taxes go up the possible 3% it would go up to have my Medicaid expansion (I'm self-employed, and my earned income allows me into an exchange) - so that I can receive mental health treatment from more doctors and expand my reach from what I would call "push everyone in" clinics that exist in urban and rural areas.
And ultimately the major weight of mid to post primary season for Sanders will be; how do we pick up enough seats to enact dramatic tax changes. It is literally the only losing clause he has that isn't more mired in perceived "pure socialism" angle. The same though applies to all the other candidates and they will need to whip support to enact any legislation other than the status quo. Only Sanders and Warren have it in them; and Warren's campaign seems to melting off a bit. So let's start beating this down to what is really on the table - union organization rights, voters rights, reversing executive orders, having judiciary control, winning at least 4 seats in the Senate, keeping the House which doesn't really seem deeply in question, and Medicare 4 All legislation and implementation. The next pieces being changing tax and practices towards agricultural and manufacturing industries, legislating away loopholes and traps within federal systems for the poor and middle class, and generally opening the gate to re-constructing America while dis-engaging military involvement.
The problem we have is that the ideas are so big, and all so real, that conveying that down to a few sentences is impossible.
I'd rather have health care than 12 grand a year. A significant number of people, myself included, are going to have to pay more than 12 grand a year in medical bills, and I don't want people to continue to have to ration their care, as I have, in any way, weighing their health vs every other aspect of life, like housing (which should also be a right and costs more than 12 grand a year for a lot of people).
I would gladly have my taxes go up the possible 3% it would go up to have my Medicaid expansion (I'm self-employed, and my earned income allows me into an exchange) - so that I can receive mental health treatment from more doctors and expand my reach from what I would call "push everyone in" clinics that exist in urban and rural areas.
3% raise to pay for all my allergy/asthma meds which right now I have to fight with the insurance to even cover.
Yang wants to fund his UBI, at least partly, through a VAT - which is an inherently regressive scheme.
You talk about the rat race that people are living in - and I think your experience working for the NFL perfectly illustrates the systemic problem. Sure, you'd love to have an extra $12 grand a year. But you work for an organization that made close to $17B in revenues last year. That's a perfect example of the shit that Bernie is talking about with worker exploitation for the billionaires at the top.
you reduce Bernie's plan to a Federal jobs guarantee and minimum wage, but that is a woefully incomplete picture of his plan. Of all the candidates, Bernie has the best platform for all workers - increasing union membership, federal workers union, banning at will employment, repealing right to work, making it easier to strike, giving workers a place on company governing boards. these are all things that bring more systemic change than just UBI. I mean, giving people a $1000 doesn't really mean people are free from "the same terrible jobs." A bigger issue is the stagnation of wages for "normal people" and exponential growth of salaries for the CEO class. UBI doesn't really address that and ultimately won't be enough to counteract the systemic issue of inequality in the laborforce.
The loss of jobs due to automation and AI is vastly overrated as well. People said the sky was falling during the industrial revolution. Yes, some jobs will be lost due to automation, but that means new jobs can be created in other fields/sectors and using different skill sets. MIT has been doing a huge, interdisciplinary study on the future of work. read the report here. Some of their major finding are that the US labor force is actually shrinking due to low birth rates and immigration policy, and with an aging population there is a trend toward job scarcity, and the biggest threat to worker prosperity is inequality, not automation, and a key to the future is recognizing workers as stakeholders (sounds sorta socialist, amiright?)
Ultimately, I think Bernie and Yang have a similar idea in that they want to help the working class, and Yang's central tenet seems to be to give them $1000 and Bernie wants to empower them by giving them a seat at the table and holding the billionaires accountable.
The VAT is regressive, but only when it isn't paired with Yang's UBI. That combination with improve the buying power of the bottom 94%. Additionally, he plans to ramp the VAT up on luxury goods while exempting consumer staples (diapers, basic foods, etc.).
studies from the tax policy center show that without an acoompanying tax credit for low income households, even a limited-scope VAT has the nearly the regressive tax burden on low income people. I couldn't find anywhere that Yang is offsetting his VAT with a refundable tax credit. So even with "more money in their pocket" - the tax burden disproportionately affects the poor.
Regarding your call-out of the 1st industrial revolution and new jobs being created... The first industrial revolution resulted in Universal Highschool, mass riots that killed dozens of people and caused billions in damage. This new wave is estimated to happen 2-3 times quicker than that one. Amazon is closing 30% of malls in the next four years. AI will replace call center workers soon. Automated trucks and cars are on the way. Self-serve kiosks will replace tons of register jobs. Up to 40% of the most common jobs in America could very well dissapear in the next decade or two.
Universal high school sounds great. maybe someone shold propose to make college, trade school, and work training programs free! I don't see how riots 150 years ago has any relation to today; especially when the name of those rioters has become a pejorative for people afraid of technological advance. Yes, those jobs you mention could be automated; that does not mean that net jobs just disappear. Jobs are not a fucking zero sum game - I really think you should read that report from MIT. AI and Machine learning and automation are rapidly changing how we work. you cite amazon, but that MIT study actually uses them as a case study for how robots can augment workers and the increase in productivity along their supply chains actually CREATED jobs. (->not that i'm specifically defending amazon; they are shining example of why we need stronger labor)
There is something important to point out about new jobs being created. Where will these jobs be located and what skills will be required to perform them? Say we get automated trucks this decade. Do you think the 3.5 million truck drivers will relocate to SF or Seattle to perform the new job that helps guide and control the automated trucks? The new tech jobs will be for new people that don't expect to be paid as much as a 55 year old guy whose entire identity has been tied to driving a truck for the last 30 years.
new jobs will be created where ever people are starting and running businesses and need workers? Where would the truck drivers move and work under Yang's plan? surely they aren't gonna live off $12k a year, right? like, this seems asinine.
re: pay - maybe we need to empower workers so that when they enter these new tech jobs they can get paid a living wage? I'm not really sure what your point is with that last sentence..
One area where I think I'm quite different from you on much of what else your saying is that I am not as angry at inequality of outcome as you are... IF... everyone has a comfortable foundation where they have a chance to pursue their dreams. I don't hate Shad Khan if I am able to live a quality life. I have never believed that this country does provide that foundation simply "because freedom." But I do think that a move to UBI gets us closer to that reality. Also, the UBI will empower workers and Unions. It will be easier to go on strike with that cushion. It will be easier for a mistreated waitress to get out from under her abusive boss, or her abusive boyfriend at home.
Ultimately, with inequlity comes the centralization of power; and if you think things really are bleak for the future you should sure as shit be hoping someone addresses that somehow.
1. I'm a little confused here. Say the VAT acts as a 10% sales tax from the perspective of the consumer. You would have to spend $10,000 per month in order for that 10% hit to outweigh the fact that you have now have an additional $1,000 cash in your pocket from Yang. Can you show me examples where you believe this helps a rich person more than a poor person. I think it's quite the opposite since rich people won't even notice the $1,000 hitting their bank account whereas the poor person will use it on car repairs they have been putting off or something else that is critically important.
2. I didn't add enough context to why I talked about riots. A lot of people say, "hey, we've been through industrial revolutions before, so no big deal!" What I'm doing with those examples is reminding you that it was a big deal then and it is a big deal now. Yang is more interested in funneling more people to trade schools and lowering the cost of college tuition by forcing schools to reduce their student : administrative ratio down to what that ratio was in the 90s along with canceling student loan debt. I'm of the mindset that college is over-prescribed as it is.
3. I previously said that I get that new jobs can be created from progress, but they are different jobs for different people. What happened to the manufacturing workers over the last 15 years is a clear example of this (50% left workforce, 25% filed for disability, drug overdoses and suicides spiked). I am happy to read that report tonight. If it's an extensive report I won't be able to while at work. But again in the example of Amazon, if they are responsible for closing 30% of malls across the country, and they continue lining their fulfillment centers with robots, we aren't going to end up with an increase in job opportunity for the people who worked at those malls.
4. You asked about Yang's plan for the truckers. I mentioned this to Meatball earlier, but the idea is that the $12k (and however much you have been able to save from the UBI before your job is taken) serves as a transitional landing pad. It isn't your endgame. But if you want to open up Bar / Restaurant, maybe that makes more since now that an additional $60 Million is being pumped into your community MONTHLY. Additionally, he wants to appoint Andy Stern to be a Trucking Czar that would oversee the transition as Truck Drivers begin to lose their jobs. Again, the $1,000 month is the foundation, but it isn't the silver bullet to all problems.
Each time that a version of UBI is tested, we do see improvements in wealth inequality, childhood success rate, etc... again it's a foundation that we should all have as citizens... to build on top of. It is not a "here's your 1k now stfu."
Yeah, I was coming on here to ask if there are any studies about how UBI would handle the inevitable inflation that goes along with it. Y'all touched on this by asking about landlords increasing rent by $1000.
I understand that it's not an equal additional $1000 for all citizens because it replaces other programs that would represent income for people. But an increase of $1000 a month for every person would mean demand would skyrocket for a lot of shit. That's cool for many goods IF they can be mass-produced fairly easily. And it would be very good for a lot of entrepreneurships and new services. But in the short term, I feel like prices would also skyrocket and inflation would be incredibly high. I guess capitalism would eventually work it all out, but that also just means that the uber wealthy would just take most of our money eventually like they always do.
Yeah, I was coming on here to ask if there are any studies about how UBI would handle the inevitable inflation that goes along with it. Y'all touched on this by asking about landlords increasing rent by $1000.
I understand that it's not an equal additional $1000 for all citizens because it replaces other programs that would represent income for people. But an increase of $1000 a month for every person would mean demand would skyrocket for a lot of shit. That's cool for many goods IF they can be mass-produced fairly easily. And it would be very good for a lot of entrepreneurships and new services. But in the short term, I feel like prices would also skyrocket and inflation would be incredibly high. I guess capitalism would eventually work it all out, but that also just means that the uber wealthy would just take most of our money eventually like they always do.
It's really ONLY rent that would be a major concern when it comes to inflation though. You would see some inflation immediately after the UBI hit the skreets, but over time things would continue to get cheaper as processes become more efficient as they have for the last 20 years or so. Additionally, Yang would tie his UBI to inflation. So if there was a major increase in inflation in year 1, the $1,000 would increase along with it.
Another reason that there wouldn't be inevitable inflation is because the VAT is funding it. Most all of the money is just being recycled through the economy.
Yeah, I was coming on here to ask if there are any studies about how UBI would handle the inevitable inflation that goes along with it. Y'all touched on this by asking about landlords increasing rent by $1000.
I understand that it's not an equal additional $1000 for all citizens because it replaces other programs that would represent income for people. But an increase of $1000 a month for every person would mean demand would skyrocket for a lot of shit. That's cool for many goods IF they can be mass-produced fairly easily. And it would be very good for a lot of entrepreneurships and new services. But in the short term, I feel like prices would also skyrocket and inflation would be incredibly high. I guess capitalism would eventually work it all out, but that also just means that the uber wealthy would just take most of our money eventually like they always do.
It's really ONLY rent that would be a major concern when it comes to inflation though. You would see some inflation immediately after the UBI hit the skreets, but over time things would continue to get cheaper as processes become more efficient as they have for the last 20 years or so. Additionally, Yang would tie his UBI to inflation. So if there was a major increase in inflation in year 1, the $1,000 would increase along with it.
Another reason that there wouldn't be inevitable inflation is because the VAT is funding it. Most all of the money is just being recycled through the economy.
I guess there could be legislation that goes along with the UBI that would try to regulate things like rent control.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Dec 13, 2019 23:52:19 GMT -5
I had been seeing people online recently saying that "soon you'll start seeing the media trying to portray Bernie as anti-Semitic" and I kind of wrote it off as exaggerating because....I mean....I try to have some optimism.
Then this.
Really hope more mainstream sources don't start pushing it but I'm done being surprised
The Examiner is half a step from the federalist. They are trash
Yeah, I'm just concerned that it will creep into more "legit" news sources. Even if they soften it a bit it's just bullshit
I am leaning to the belief that no legit, mainstream news source is not going to call someone who's family died in the Holocaust, Anti-Semitic. But we are living in the darkest timeline so all bets are really off at this point.
According to a new poll in Flanders, the far right and right party combined would make up for 49%. I'm fucking done with this shit. Hilarious btw that far left is almost surpassing the lefts at this point cause they're also (like Dems and libs) are going to much towards the rights.
For reference: Far right (27%) right (22%) Democrats (11%) Greens (11%) Libs (10%) Left (9%) Far Left (8%)
Luckily in Wallonie and Brussels, more people would vote green/left..
Last Edit: Dec 14, 2019 11:03:40 GMT -5 by Bing - Back to Top
Any thoughts on Bernie retracting his endorsement of Cenk?
I know already I already said this exact thing in the chat, but TYT sucks. Bernie's reasoning for unendorsing Cenk also sucks. His statement was just super weak all around.
Hmm. Interesting. Bernie's actions have indeed been what you might call "weak sauce". He would likely be "pwned" in a one-on-one debate with a very smart person such as Andrew Yang. I would much rather a sizable portion of his would-be "voters" instead vote for a Libertarian in order to ensure that he not ever be president.