6 ms·

I'm currently reading Yang's book The War on Normal People and it is kind of terrifying. I highly, highly recommend it in preparation for this presidential race

by beat 8y ago

I'm currently reading Yang's book The War on Normal People and it is kind of terrifying. I highly, highly recommend it in preparation for this presidential race, whether or not you're a Yang supporter. There is a great deal of food for thought. (full disclosure: I'm a Yang supporter and donated twenty bucks) So, a few observations about him as a candidate. First, I think he's the only candidate really looking outside the box. It seems to me the political debate in this country is basically liberals saying the solution to our problems is more 1960s welfare and 1970s regulation, and conservatives saying the solution is less 1960s welfare and less 1970s regulation. We're stuck with a 50 year old model for the domestic responsibilities of our government. Andrew Yang is one of us. He's from the startup community, and has seen up close how disruption works. He understands technology, and he understands numbers. And what he sees as a result of this understanding is grim - tens of millions of working-class and middle-class jobs slated for obsolescence in the next couple of decades, and no real alternatives in place for those about to lose their livelihoods. The social implications are terrifying. Don't like his UBI solution? Come up with something else, or commit to ignoring the problem until there are bread riots. Another thing that strikes me is how he comes across. He reminds me of two important recent politicians - Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders. Obama, because he's so clearly a nerd. It's such a rare pleasure to listen to a politician that I think is actually much smarter than me and not pretending otherwise. And Bernie, because Bernie's superpower isn't his policies - it's his integrity. You know deep down that Bernie isn't lying to you. I get that same vibe from Yang, and that's a very powerful thing these days. Anyway, just some observations.

normal_man 8y ago
The goal of government is to create the most stable, safe, and happy environment as possible for as much of the population as possible. What about the startup community, who obsessively chase endless growth, "innovation" and "disruption", makes you think they would be good at achieving that goal?
- beat 8y ago
  He's not saying that the push to growth-by-disruption is a solution. He's saying it's a problem, and we have to deal with it quickly, because it moves quickly. He's not saying we should run the country like a Silicon Valley startup. He's also not saying innovation should be banned or punished (coughcoughWarrencough). He's saying that it's coming, and it's going to mess up a lot of people's lives, and if we don't do something big to deal with that, we're going to have a revolution on our hands.
- sundbry 8y ago
  That's in fact not the stated purpose of the government at all. It is not a utilitarian construct.
  - beat 8y ago
    We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. There you go. Stated purpose of our government. And I think several of those clauses apply to using UBI as a solution to our rapid economic dislocations.
  - normal_man 8y ago
    What's it for then?
- chillacy 8y ago
  Check out his podcast with Joe Rogan or Sam Harris, he definitely understands that government is not the same as business, but he also understands markets and incentives (and perverse incentives) a lot better than most politicians imo.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
I like Yang, but I think the current partisan culture-war covers up how good he actually is. If Bernie (admittedly, my preferred candidate) had published a book called "The War on Normal People", a lot of us Millenials would be camping out at bookstores to get it like it was the last "Harry Potter" book all over again.
- beat 8y ago
  Reading Yang is an eye-opener, relative to Bernie's proposed solutions. Raising the minimum wage doesn't help if minimum wage jobs are being obliterated. Free college doesn't help someone who is 50 years old and isn't really up to starting their life over again. It's not that Bernie's ideas are bad (obviously, Yang adopted Medicare for All)... but they're incomplete. To my earlier criticism, they're just a particularly strong example of "1960s welfare, but more of it". I don't know if UBI is the solution. But I sure as heck don't know what else might be. That's why I want Andrew Yang in the debates. I very much doubt he'll win the nomination, and I have doubts about his ability to survive the brutality of a major-candidate status, but I want Democrats (and America) talking about both his fears and his solutions, because we really, really need to talk about this stuff.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    His ideas are very much needed in the party, especially the economic focused platform on middle America. Less identity politics, more attention to real issues: low labor participation rates even as GDP soars, rising suicide and opiate usage, a scarcity mentality eroding trust and optimism.
    - beat 8y ago
      All politics is identity politics. (And the politics of thinking that "identity" is for those people is privilege politics.) But that said, there's a distressing tendency for the "coastal elites" to sneer at the midwest working class, rather than recognize and sympathize with their struggles. Which is an identity problem in itself. Andrew Yang has his finger directly on the pulse of the malaise that led to Democrats losing PA, MI, OH, and WI. He counts the manufacturing job losses due to technology. But the GOP is offering someone to blame - immigrants, offshoring. It's hard to compete with someone who offers the customer a concrete enemy.
ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Andrew Yang is one of us. He's from the startup community, and has seen up close how disruption works. He understands technology, and he understands numbers. And what he sees as a result of this understanding is grim - tens of millions of working-class and middle-class jobs slated for obsolescence in the next couple of decades, and no real alternatives in place for those about to lose their livelihoods. The social implications are terrifying. Don't like his UBI solution? Come up with something else, or commit to ignoring the problem until there are bread riots. You could also just disagree with him about the problem. As a developer and founder, I think that most of what people are worried about with regard to automation putting everyone out of work in a decade is overblown. It’s essentially the exact same thing that’s always been said when fearmongering about how innovation and growth is about to destroy everything: “this time it’s different!” Maybe, but I’ll pass on implementing a huge, untested, disruptive “cure” for a problem that people have been saying is around the corner for 150 years. Not that there’s any real option of doing that. We can’t pass boring things that have widespread support, but we’re going to somehow magically pass things like UBI or single payer or the green new deal that would reshape the entire American economy and culture in unpredictable ways? OK. Climate change and automation and the health care crisis are great examples of how we politically cannot get ahead of big problems that require big solutions. It’s basically impossible politically. The best we seem to be able to do is react way too late. Or maybe I’m just cynical. But I’d love examples of big things we solved in advance that required big political constituencies to be built and were costly to voters.
- meowface 8y ago
  I think it's just a timescale calibration thing. It's probably not going to be a widespread problem in 10 years. Within 40 years, it almost definitely will be. Better to start preparing now, especially since it'll probably take a very long time to get anything like this passed.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Again, disagree. Forty years is enough time to adjust to increasing automation.

by beat 8y ago

normal_man 8y ago

The goal of government is to create the most stable, safe, and happy environment as possible for as much of the population as possible. What about the startup community, who obsessively chase endless growth, "innovation" and "disruption", makes you think they would be good at achieving that goal?

beat 8y ago
He's not saying that the push to growth-by-disruption is a solution. He's saying it's a problem, and we have to deal with it quickly, because it moves quickly. He's not saying we should run the country like a Silicon Valley startup. He's also not saying innovation should be banned or punished (coughcoughWarrencough). He's saying that it's coming, and it's going to mess up a lot of people's lives, and if we don't do something big to deal with that, we're going to have a revolution on our hands.
sundbry 8y ago
That's in fact not the stated purpose of the government at all. It is not a utilitarian construct.
- beat 8y ago
  We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. There you go. Stated purpose of our government. And I think several of those clauses apply to using UBI as a solution to our rapid economic dislocations.
- normal_man 8y ago
  What's it for then?
chillacy 8y ago
Check out his podcast with Joe Rogan or Sam Harris, he definitely understands that government is not the same as business, but he also understands markets and incentives (and perverse incentives) a lot better than most politicians imo.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

I like Yang, but I think the current partisan culture-war covers up how good he actually is. If Bernie (admittedly, my preferred candidate) had published a book called "The War on Normal People", a lot of us Millenials would be camping out at bookstores to get it like it was the last "Harry Potter" book all over again.

beat 8y ago
Reading Yang is an eye-opener, relative to Bernie's proposed solutions. Raising the minimum wage doesn't help if minimum wage jobs are being obliterated. Free college doesn't help someone who is 50 years old and isn't really up to starting their life over again. It's not that Bernie's ideas are bad (obviously, Yang adopted Medicare for All)... but they're incomplete. To my earlier criticism, they're just a particularly strong example of "1960s welfare, but more of it". I don't know if UBI is the solution. But I sure as heck don't know what else might be. That's why I want Andrew Yang in the debates. I very much doubt he'll win the nomination, and I have doubts about his ability to survive the brutality of a major-candidate status, but I want Democrats (and America) talking about both his fears and his solutions, because we really, really need to talk about this stuff.
- chillacy 8y ago
  His ideas are very much needed in the party, especially the economic focused platform on middle America. Less identity politics, more attention to real issues: low labor participation rates even as GDP soars, rising suicide and opiate usage, a scarcity mentality eroding trust and optimism.
  - beat 8y ago
    All politics is identity politics. (And the politics of thinking that "identity" is for those people is privilege politics.) But that said, there's a distressing tendency for the "coastal elites" to sneer at the midwest working class, rather than recognize and sympathize with their struggles. Which is an identity problem in itself. Andrew Yang has his finger directly on the pulse of the malaise that led to Democrats losing PA, MI, OH, and WI. He counts the manufacturing job losses due to technology. But the GOP is offering someone to blame - immigrants, offshoring. It's hard to compete with someone who offers the customer a concrete enemy.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago

Andrew Yang is one of us. He's from the startup community, and has seen up close how disruption works. He understands technology, and he understands numbers. And what he sees as a result of this understanding is grim - tens of millions of working-class and middle-class jobs slated for obsolescence in the next couple of decades, and no real alternatives in place for those about to lose their livelihoods. The social implications are terrifying. Don't like his UBI solution? Come up with something else, or commit to ignoring the problem until there are bread riots. You could also just disagree with him about the problem. As a developer and founder, I think that most of what people are worried about with regard to automation putting everyone out of work in a decade is overblown. It’s essentially the exact same thing that’s always been said when fearmongering about how innovation and growth is about to destroy everything: “this time it’s different!” Maybe, but I’ll pass on implementing a huge, untested, disruptive “cure” for a problem that people have been saying is around the corner for 150 years. Not that there’s any real option of doing that. We can’t pass boring things that have widespread support, but we’re going to somehow magically pass things like UBI or single payer or the green new deal that would reshape the entire American economy and culture in unpredictable ways? OK. Climate change and automation and the health care crisis are great examples of how we politically cannot get ahead of big problems that require big solutions. It’s basically impossible politically. The best we seem to be able to do is react way too late. Or maybe I’m just cynical. But I’d love examples of big things we solved in advance that required big political constituencies to be built and were costly to voters.

meowface 8y ago
I think it's just a timescale calibration thing. It's probably not going to be a widespread problem in 10 years. Within 40 years, it almost definitely will be. Better to start preparing now, especially since it'll probably take a very long time to get anything like this passed.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Again, disagree. Forty years is enough time to adjust to increasing automation.