patrick.net

His UBI scheme would cost $2 TRILLION a year, effectively increasing the national budget by 50%.

UBI is also another volley in the war on savers. Just like easy loans raise prices, this UBI will just cause prices to rise on rents, cars, and general merchandise, thus making the saver's accumulated funds worth less.

Biggest problem with UBI is that a lot of recipients would just spend it on painkillers, just like it is happening in depressed communities now. I doubt many would use it for self-improvement. Having said that, Yang seems like an honest and intelligent person

UBI / open borders / anchor babies. What could possibly go wrong!

Yang is a one-dumb-idea candidate, like Gary Johnston last time around.

You may remember that Gary Johnston's one-dumb-idea was federal legalization of marijuana. (It might be an OK idea, but that's not exactly high on my list and his dedicated voters were to stoned to get out to vote.) Best quote ever (paraphrasing): Johnston is pushing for legalizing marijuana, and the best example of why we shouldn't!

Charles Murray (yeah, the guy who can make snowflakes vaporize just with a mention of his name) is pushing UBI also, but he has some actual good ideas. For example, if you have babies, you don't get any more money. You have to (legally) care for your kid with the same UBI you get if you were single. Also, with DNA testing, "fathers" could be forced to give their UBI to their little bastards.

not underrated, he's a big reason why so many people watched the debates and said "fuck Democrats".

UBI would be great if...
• no UBI for illegal aliens
• no UBI for LEGAL aliens, greencard holders, etc
• no UBI for foreigners who became legal citizens
• cancel (retroactively) anchor baby policy (i.e.: like with almost all other countries' laws, anchor babies aren't automatically USA citizens)
• basically: UBI only for people born in the USA to legal citizens of the USA
• UBI replaces all other welfare ... social security, food stamps, section 8, etc.
• no UBI until you hit age 21
• parents don't get more UBI for having kids
• BOTH parents are required to sacrifice their UBI for any kids they have until the kid hits age 18 (derelict "fathers" nabbed with DNA testing)
• irresponsible parents lose their kids and are sent to jail until the kids reach age 21; kids get the parents' UBI

So, yeah, UBI sounds like a good idea! Too bad Andrew Yang isn't pushing my above points.

In practice, how would a UBI system stop fraud within itself? Many people are collecting Social Security on behalf of their dead parents, as many dead people vote. How would a UBI system stop fraudsters from collecting payment on behalf of dead people?

A UBI system would encourage fraud, and make it more profitable than usual.

I think Yang is actually a thoughtful guy who isn’t insane, but UBI is his “gimme” ticket that makes him stand out from the group. He’s riding that to the Left vote. Unfortunately it’s not the right direction. The Left just wants someone to beat Trump, not policy.

No, not even close...Trump is the most underrated.

d6rB says

Biggest problem with UBI is that a lot of recipients would just spend it on painkillers, just like it is happening in depressed communities now. I doubt many would use it for self-improvement. Having said that, Yang seems like an honest and intelligent person

If that is true, big pharma must be lobbying like crazy for UBI.

This is putting the horse before the carriage.

First, automate ALL jobs and then, Universal Basic Income kicks in, since no one will be able to make a living.

Right now, there are still jobs in banking, health care, and other areas which can maintain the current aggregate demand for goods and services.

Until robots/AI can do it all, or least 80%, UBI will fail.

Ubi will be the destruction of the human race. With no motivation and goals, humans suck. Artists and other life morons don’t understand this because most can’t make money doing what they want(hobby) and bemoan and wallow in self pity their entire lives about why someone won’t pay them to engage in their hobby.

komputodo says

If that is true, big pharma must be lobbying like crazy for UBI.

They did lobby for Obamacare - I talked with a Big Pharma Ass vice Pres for something in 2006, and he said that we will have a health reform in US soon, and his company is all for that. Obamacare gave them much higher profits than just painkillers. Interesting that no one on left seems to understand that both Big Pharma and Big Insurance was all for Obamacare...

Quigley says

I think Yang is actually a thoughtful guy who isn’t insane, but UBI is his “gimme” ticket that makes him stand out from the group. He’s riding that to the Left vote. Unfortunately it’s not the right direction. The Left just wants someone to beat Trump, not policy.

He had very interesting interviews with Ben Shapiro (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/07/andrew_yang_on_the_ben_shapiro_show.html) and also Joe Rogan.
Yang seems intelligent, honest, not particularly crazy, able to respectfully talk to people of other political persuasions, but he is definitely misguided.

Reality says

In practice, how would a UBI system stop fraud within itself? Many people are collecting Social Security on behalf of their dead parents, as many dead people vote. How would a UBI system stop fraudsters from collecting payment on behalf of dead people?

A theory is that UBI wouldn't encourage MORE fraud than other SS, welfare, or tax return fraud. In fact, there are fewer fraudulent ways to claim "qualifications" to receive UBI, since all citizens are entitled to it and it's much more straightforward. That's the theory, anyway.

There are some potentially good aspects of the system, that, I'm sure will not be pushed by the left. But we can always hope! Imagine what would happen if all the missing "fathers" out there forfeit their UBI to their DNA-certified kids. That's one heck of an incentive. There would be lines out the door at the vasectomy center!

komputodo says

No, not even close...Trump is the most underrated.

Trump is different becasue he's simultaneously the most over rated.

He was on a Sam Harris podcast a long time ago, and talked about how it would be funded. Ultimately it is a cost, but not nearly what it seems.

Part of it is that it replaces some other forms of aid, such as food stamps. And a proportion of welfare. THen also a "value added tax.

THere would be a "multiplier" as a lot of it goes in to the economy - and even jobs.

https://www.yang2020.com/blog/ubi_faqs/pay-universal-basic-income/

MY concern, is how much goes to "rents ?" Not just housing rents, but other rents as well.

Something like UBI is probably inevitable - but I don't see how it puts a dent in inequality.

Quigley says

His UBI scheme would cost $2 TRILLION a year

Now that they have the 'Universal Egregious Wealth And Bribery Multiplier Law' for Congress, it's time for some trickle down for the rest of us.

marcus says

Part of it is that it replaces some other forms of aid, such as food stamps. And a proportion of welfare.

Here's how all of these schemes (UBI, carbon rebate, etc.) die: they start as "everybody gets the same amount and every other form of aid is eliminated" and then quickly devolves into same old "great society" bullshit.

The 'Weenie Weeping' ploy draws LibbyFuck fake empaths like moths to a protest flame.

marcus says

Something like UBI is probably inevitable - but I don't see how it puts a dent in inequality.

Inequality is a red herring (sorry... originally wrote: "straw man"; thanks, Rin). Instead, citizens should be pushing for giving the poor a pathway out of poverty and a kick in the butt to do so. Unfortunately, many of the people in poverty are that way due to their own bad decisions and the structure of the current welfare system. The current welfare system encourages the bad behavior that results in poverty (e.g.: having more kids gives you more welfare; working longer and harder cuts your welfare in a 1-to-1 ratio in some cases). UBI isn't going to overcome bad decisions, but it will open more pathways for people who WANT to get out of poverty to do so and it doesn't actively encourage some of the bad decisions that lead to endless poverty in the first place.

That said, liberals/leftists will succeed in screwing up UBI to the point that it is worse than the current welfare system. They see UBI as just another way to funnel more money at potential voters.

SunnyvaleCA says

but it will open more pathways for people who WANT to get out of poverty to do so

Not really, because it isn't tied to some training program like being let's say a nurse assistant where there are plenty of jobs with the increasing age of the general population.

So with that in mind, currently, UBI would end up as a subsidy for increasing rent, food stuff, and legal/illegal drugs.

A better approach, prior to let's call it a full age of automation, circa 2035-2040, is a job training program where there are clear metrics to achieve along with an actual job at the end of the training.

And this doesn't mean STEM nonsense, which was Obama's stupidity, because as we all know, it's 3x harder to find a tech job (right experience, right education, right connections, etc) than one in healthcare where just about anyone can clean someone's bed pan.

Rin says

This is putting the horse before the carriage.

First, automate ALL jobs and then, Universal Basic Income kicks in, since no one will be able to make a living.

Right now, there are still jobs in banking, health care, and other areas which can maintain the current aggregate demand for goods and services.

Until robots/AI can do it all, or least 80%, UBI will fail.

While it’s true that automation is making progress in many types of work, we aren’t even close to making all jobs automated. It’s still cheaper and more practical to have people do most jobs. And somehow, even as automation replaces people, we are at historically low unemployment levels. Somehow, people are still required.

Certain jobs would be difficult to impossible to automate. Repair technicians, engineers, programmers, etc will always have work. A robot that can troubleshoot a machine and apply the correct fix is a LONG way in the future. When that happens, I will gladly hand over my job to the robot and retire. Probably won’t happen in my lifetime though.

SunnyvaleCA says

Unfortunately, many of the people in poverty are that way due to their own bad decisions

This.
My own parents made consistently poor financial decisions throughout their lives. Now they are sort of ok, but not at all prepared for retirement and well past the normal ages for that. I expect that the burden of supporting them in their old age will fall on us, their kids. But hey, they wanted to not save for retirement, rack up large credit card debts, take out equity loans on their house, buy stupid things, and “invest” in every MLM they heard about. My dad even did “Trump University” which was a total scam. The list of stupid ways they blew their money instead of investing or whatever is super long. But I’ll end up having to bail them out.

Some people will always be broke no matter how much money they make. I have several coworkers in this category. New $70k truck but can’t save cash for a down payment on a house... the list goes on.

Quigley says

It’s still cheaper and more practical to have people do most jobs. And somehow, even as automation replaces people, we are at historically low unemployment levels.

Right now, there's a lot of deadwood at places like State Street, MetLife, Blue Cross Blue Shield, never mind the local & state govts. These headcount heavy places will be the first targets for automation and I suspect that in 15 years, they'll be able to reduce headcount by 80% along with actuaries, auditors, and the general financial analyst.

So you don't need to automate all plumbers, electricians, handymen, etc, to create to drop in aggregate demand. You just need to torpedo a bunch of formerly stable white collar jobs and that in itself, will start the ball rolling.

Rin says

So with that in mind, currently, UBI would end up as a subsidy for increasing rent, food stuff, and legal/illegal drugs.

A better approach, prior to let's call it a full age of automation, circa 2035-2040, is a job training program where there are clear metrics to achieve along with an actual job at the end of the training.

Part of implementing UBI would be to get rid of all the other welfare subsidies. Section 8 vouchers increase rent (for the rest of us), for example. Other existing welfare handouts increase prices for the rest of us. People commonly extract cash from their food stamps from various fraudulent schemes.

As for job training, etc, that's again a heavy-handed government approach that doesn't really work in practice. If you're making $20k/year at McDonalds and receiving $20k/year in various welfare (food stamps, earned income tax credit, section 8), what's the point up "upgrading" to a $35k/year job and losing all your benefits? That's a disincentive to improve yourself. Even if you upgrade to $45k/year, you've added additional effort and responsibility; probably not seen as worth it to a large set of people.

With UBI, you get your $10k/year. If you upgrade your job you still get your $10k/year and whatever extra money you earn from the better job. That's the right incentive.

With UBI, if you pump out a few more kids, you do not get more welfare. Your $10k/year is for you and your kids to share. That's the right incentive.

If you "father" a bunch of kids, you get to share your $10k/year with them. (Single mother can force DNA tests and payment.) That's the right incentive.

Of course I'm dreaming about all of the above. Liberals remove all the "right incentive" stuff and it'll just be an additional handout that is means tested. You in the end it'll just be more free stuff for the unproductive.

SunnyvaleCA says

As for job training, etc, that's again a heavy-handed government approach that doesn't really work in practice. If you're making $20k/year at McDonalds and receiving $20k/year in various welfare (food stamps, earned income tax credit, section 8), what's the point up "upgrading" to a $35k/year job and losing all your benefits? That's a disincentive to improve yourself. Even if you upgrade to $45k/year, you've added additional effort and responsibility; probably not seen as worth it to a large set of people.

I think the point is not that large set of ppl.

Realize, the deadwood at State Street, MetLife, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and a slew of other govt positions are the white collar version of welfare, where the only difference is that the aforementioned have some 'college degree or certificate' so that HR folks allow their hiring. In reality, they're doing a job which a high schooler could perform, with few skills aside from talking BS.

If a form of UBI, between now and let's say 2045 (the year of high automation) gives a poor person a chance to transition into a $35K-$45K position, which can even include being let's say an apprentice plumber or some other trade, then that's an opportunity for someone who wasn't born into the right conditions.

If the rest don't want the training then so be it. They'll be the welfare/dole class version of that MetLife loser who only got that job because his parents sent him to college & asked someone in the firm to hire their loser offspring.

Rin says

If the rest don't want the training then so be it. They'll be the welfare/dole class version of that MetLife loser who only got that job because his parents sent him to college & asked someone in the firm to hire their loser offspring.

Trust me, when you transition from studying and working in engineering to the financial services sector, you really get the culture shock of seeing how many stupid and useless ppl there really are, out there.

Rin says

Trust me, when you transition from studying and working in engineering to the financial services sector, you really get the culture shock of seeing how many stupid and useless ppl there really are, out there.

I see those people every day. Not in finance here, but man there are boat loads of useless no skill people out there. They can't do shit, have no tools to do the job, and want to be paid like a fucking professional too.

No one else sees the financial disaster in government redistribution of wealth, eh?

I get why some politicians support this idiotic notion. Not sure why some of the rest of you do. Rin sort of has a point in the automation thing, though I still think thats rather a disaster, but we do have 55 years or of multigenerational poverty that is living breathing evidence in the projects that demonstrates how epically bad an idea government distribution of wealth is.

Happy to escort anyone who needs proof here:

SunnyvaleCA says

Rin says

So with that in mind, currently, UBI would end up as a subsidy for increasing rent, food stuff, and legal/illegal drugs.

A better approach, prior to let's call it a full age of automation, circa 2035-2040, is a job training program where there are clear metrics to achieve along with an actual job at the end of the training.

Part of implementing UBI would be to get rid of all the other welfare subsidies. Section 8 vouchers increase rent (for the rest of us), for example. Other existing welfare handouts increase prices for the rest of us. People commonly extract cash from their food stamps from various fraudulent schemes.

As for job training, etc, that's again a heavy-handed government approach that doesn't really work in practice. If you're making $20k/year at McDonalds and receiving $20k/year in various welfare (food stamps, earned income tax credit, section 8), what's...

The liberals say that there won't be any additional funds for pumping out kids, but you know when push comes to shove...we have to it is for the children.

SunnyvaleCA says

Inequality is a straw man

Wondering if you know what a "straw man argument" is.

If you say for example that my argument is a "straw man," it means that you're saying that I am mischaracterizing your argument, that I am more or less tearing apart a position that is not your position.

THat doesn't work here. I don't claim that you are in favor of inequality.

That's a freudian slip if I ever saw one...

Rin says

Not really, because it isn't tied to some training program like being let's say a nurse assistant

Yang believes sexes are a social construct.

marcus says

SunnyvaleCA says

Inequality is a straw man

Wondering if you know what a "straw man argument" is.

If you say for example that my argument is a "straw man," it means that you're saying that I am mischaracterizing your argument, that I am more or less tearing apart a position that is not your position.

THat doesn't work here. I don't claim that you are in favor of inequality.

You're right. I misspoke. Thanks for clearing that up! Would you go for: Red Herring? As in: claiming the goal is to eliminated inequality is leading the discussion elsewhere, when I'm saying the right discussion is lifting those on the bottom up.

Cousin!
SunnyvaleCA says

Thanks for clearing that up! Would you go for: Red Herring?

Yang is a homo

What always amazed me was.that the useless individuals always got paid higher than some.of.the.most talented workers.

This is from my phone: