27 ms·

What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

254 points by Reedx 7y ago

beastcoast 7y ago
The problem with UBI is that most versions of it would essentially liquidate social services that people would normally receive. UBI only makes sense in addition to the other parts of a comprehensive safety net (universal housing and healthcare), not as a replacement.
- skybrian 7y ago
  The conservatives into UBI are hoping for that but at least with Yang's plan there was the choice of continuing with old benefits if they are higher. Although this choice is probably pretty easy mathematically, it's kind of a terrible choice to have to make, so after a while the plan changed to saying it would stack on top of some other benefits. (But none of this matters because whatever Congress might do would be different.)
- bavell 7y ago
  Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that gives me cash which I can use for anything? I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life. E.g. What good are food stamps when I have no gas (or car) to get to the store? There are some social services that are necessary and beneficial but these should be built on top of a UBI foundation for maximum effectiveness.
  - monadic2 7y ago
    UBI still does not provide health care.
    - bavell 7y ago
      Right. It also doesn't address climate change. Or gay rights, regime-change wars, or gender discrimination. It just provides every American with increased economic freedom. It's a good thing my doctor accepts USD :)
      - monadic2 7y ago
        > It's a good thing my doctor accepts USD :) That $1000 check will only cover the ride to the hospital before tax.
  - puzzledobserver 7y ago
    Ohh, but then the UBI recipient may use it to purchase something that Big Brother doesn't want them to buy... like using SNAP to buy hot food. On a more serious note, yes. Beyond basic necessities like healthcare and education, that the government would like to micromanage lives of welfare recipients feels demeaning in the extreme.
  - asdf9240 7y ago
    > I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life. Some people do not get good enough education and do not know how to effectively allocate resources. > There are some social services that are necessary and beneficial but these should be built on top of a UBI foundation for maximum effectiveness. Do you mean the other way around? Necessary social services should be the foundation with UBI built on top of it. Social services can do some things better than UBI can even when assuming everyone uses their UBI completely rationally.
    - derrick_jensen 7y ago
      Exactly. If you knew how to best allocate resources in your life, you probably wouldn't be in a situation where you need UBI.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that gives me cash which I can use for anything? Because we'll have an issue when you spend your UBI on anything and then need assistance with rent, food etc pp.
  - theklub 7y ago
    How many people would take UBI, buy drugs, alcohol, hell go down to the casino every month and blow it all in 30 seconds....
- godelski 7y ago
  Most people receive far less than $1k/mo. Yang's plan was to allow the option so that if you were one of the few that did receive more, you wouldn't have to give that up.
  - devcpp 7y ago
    Median income in the USA in 2017 was is $31,099/year.
- alkibiades 7y ago
  you don’t explain why. i think the opposite. that it should only work as a replacement. part of the draw is it’s more efficient than existing programs
cgrealy 7y ago
I'm not sure there's a "what if" at all, more like a "when will". At some point, a UBI will become a necessity. The most likely other options are a dystopian nightmare or a complete overhaul of our basic economic principles (i.e. a post-scarcity Star Trek-esque society)
- kosievdmerwe 7y ago
  For the most part I agree, but the important fact is that that point might not be now. Just because you might know the end point, doesn't mean you can skip the steps in between or try to get there too quickly. That can lead to disaster as you'll probably not have the right conditions or supporting structures in place.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    Our current pandemic and the economic consequences certainly will make more people open to UBI. Once the recovery starts, look for businesses to invest heavily in automation so they're not caught in a labor crunch again when their human labor get sick, quarantined, or ineffective due to social distancing. This may cause a permanent shift in labor demand that never again comes close to matching the labor supply. Or maybe it'll end up like other revolutions with new currently unknown jobs opening up over time.
    - RedneckBob 7y ago
      Check out the "Future of Work" where they cover the top 5 most popular jobs and how they are in danger. The self driving trucks shock the human truck drivers in the diner. Makes me sad to see their faces when they realize just how far along and how good the self driving trucks have become: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4 UBI will become a necessity because the alternative will not be pretty.
      - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
        Self driving trucks probably are going to be considered a national security issue going forward. We can't have cargo sitting around waiting for humans in a health crisis. That will indeed be a huge gut punch to that segment of the labor market. The only slightly silver lining is that trucking has very high turnover so the number put out of their jobs will be less than you might think. What will hurt though will be the loss of opportunity to be a truck driver, even if only for a few years.
aazaa 7y ago
The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty stores were the topic of concern. COVID-19 has brought with it store shortages, which no doubt is a massive shock to most Americans. Nobody knows when those shortages will end. Imagine what could happen if you dropped a grand in everyone's pocket every month. Also imagine the humanitarian crisis that would result by trying to suppress consumer inflation through price controls.
- eachro 7y ago
  I wonder if there are any economic studies on whether social security increased inflation when it was first enacted. It's not the ideal comparison because of the sheer scale of UBI vs social security but it would be something to get notion of the impact.
  - jrhurst 7y ago
    Hard to tell. We'd have to ping similar programs in order countries because there was massive depression on the value of the dollar than.
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    Why would it increase inflation? An equal amount of money is taken out of taxes. There’s no new money being created.
    - somebodythere 7y ago
      It's not just the net money supply that results in inflation, it's also the prospensity for it to be spent, and on what it is spent (inelastic/elastic demand curve goods and services) which determines the amount of inflation. If you took 100 dollars out of the pocket of every American and gave it to Warren Buffett, that would most likely be deflationary.
timw4mail 7y ago
I don't see how a universal basic income could be sustainable in any way. You either have debt hyperinflation, or you have taxes high enough that the universal basic income is meaningless.
- bumby 7y ago
  I think some are advocating for a value added tax with certain categorical exemptions. My limited understanding is this would make necessity purchases more secure while making discretionary “luxury” purchases more expensive
  - paulmd 7y ago
    VAT is kind of a bad tax scheme. It's regressive and discourages consumption (which, like it or not, is the engine that drives our economy). It's better just to have income and wealth taxes.
    - jnordwick 7y ago
      > which, like it or not, is the engine that drives our economy no it doesnt. the US consumes a lot, but you are mistaking an accounting identity with something causal. if people decided to consume less, that means they are putting off current consumption for future consumption and saving those resources for investment to allow that to happen. don't worry - they'll consume at some point when they feel it is in their best interest (and if they don't, they basically just gave us a bunch of free labor). all economies everywhere are driven by production. human desire is pretty much endless - you rarely have to incentive consumption. when people have the resource (ie, they produced), they will naturally consume. the only way that long term standards of living improve is by increasing productivity (this is something virtually every economist agrees to). that is done by increasing capital stocks, machinery, technology. those are all production oriented activity.
    - bumby 7y ago
      Isn’t the point of the categorical exemptions to avoid it being regressive? I.e., it skews the tax toward those consuming non-essentials? I agree that it may discourage consumption. It’s not clear to me that this is fundamentally a bad thing, at least in terms of conspicuous consumerism
grecy 7y ago
We don't have to entirely speculate, we can look at existing evidence. Australia has the most liberal welfare in the world. Anyone over 18 can get $984 per month, and up to another $242 in rent assistance. [1] It has nothing to do with your previous employment history, or being fired, or anything like that. In fact, you can get it if you've never had a job in your life. You need to be "actively looking for work" which in reality means fill out a few job applications and forms every week. It's easy, I've done it. You can't live a glamorous life, but you can certainly live. Especially if you get 3-4 people in a cheap rental, you'll have enough money to surf everyday, or watch TV, or smoke weed or do whatever else you want. Yes, there are people that do exactly that, and probably will for all time. Has it ruined the Australian economy? nope. Has there been rampant inflation? nope. I know it's not exactly UBI because if you have a paying job you can't get this money. So it's not "extra" money for everyone, but money for those that can't/won't or don't find paying work. It's interesting because it shows what percentage of people choose to sit around and do nothing with their lives and get free money - not that many [2]. When you dig into the numbers and take out age pensioners, people with disabilities and students (who get paid to go to university), you see that about 1.2 million Australian get welfare payments, which is just less than 5% of the population. Keep in mind Australia has extremely low violent crime rates, and has one the highest happiness indexes in the world, and Melbourne is often voted the world's most livable city (or it comes in 2nd). [4] Here's a great breakdown of how Australia spends it's welfare money [3] Please, look at what other countries are doing and learn from it, don't just endlessly speculate about all the terrible ways UBI (or something like the above) might destroy things. [1] https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-how-does-australia-stack-up/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-h... [2] http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-half-to-two-thirds-of-the-australian-population-receiving-a-government-benefit-41027 http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-half-to-two-thirds-o... [3] https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/australias-welfare-2017/contents/summary https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/australia... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Liveability_Ranking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Liveability_Ranking
- RedneckBob 7y ago
  Good post. Yang provides additional answers in the FAQ he prepared for his POTUS run: - https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ Aside from COVID-19, we have the 4th industrial revolution in progress now. Just take a look at these truck driver's faces once they realize just how far self driving trucks are: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4
dmix 7y ago
Didn’t George W Bush send a cheque out to every American? I figured that’s what Romney had in mind more than full scale UBI.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Yes and most of it was spent on paying off debt rather than buying tvs and iPods to stimulate the economy. I know I put my check into my savings account and didn't think about it again.
  - look_lookatme 7y ago
    Isn't that the biggest goal right now? Maintaining a healthy banking and housing system by subsidizing rent, mortgages, debt payments etc? $1000 a month doesn't seem like a stimulus, it seems like a bridge to the other side.
    - dfxm12 7y ago
      Better than $1000 would be codified protections for tenants or borrowers. Yes, this doesn't have to be an either-or thing, but I'd still want to have the law on my side. I guess what I mean is that in order to fix, as Yang says, the biggest winner take all economy, you have to do something different than just throw money at it (lest the winners take that, too). The goal should be to address why we're here in the first place to make sure it doesn't happen again (at least not to this level), and not to just barely get by and bounce right back to being one inconvenience away from ruin.
- bhl 7y ago
  Yes, there were a tax rebates in 2001 and 2008 which served as a natural experiments for studying consumer spending in response to a fiscal stimulus. The timing of cheques sent were pseudo-randomized on last four digits of social security number. See [1] and [2]. They're sort of dreary reads, but the TLDR of both is that consumption on non-durable goods increases the most, and has the largest impact on those with low-income or don't have access to credit. [1] Household Expenditure and the Income Tax Rebates of 2001. https://www.nber.org/papers/w10784.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w10784.pdf [2] Consumer Spending and the Economic Stimulus Payments of 2008. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16684.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w16684.pdf
bluedino 7y ago
>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck; almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money. I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but 78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it together.
- manicdee 7y ago
  While a significant portion of that 78% might be people who think a monthly income of X means they can service debts with monthly costs of X, there are also people for whom basic cost of living (mostly rent) is most of their income. An example would be someone working in the valley area who doesn’t earn enough to afford to move to cheaper accommodation (along with associated increase in commuting costs). It’s not their inability to control spending, it’s the requirement to be geographically close to their place of work. If there were more jobs available in the backwoods, there would be the real possibility of moving there to reduce the cost of living to a smaller portion of income.
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  The median household discretionary income -- i.e. money you can waste on whatever -- in the US is more than $1,000/month. Per the official government statistics. That is after all ordinary household expenses. People in higher percentiles have considerably more. I am skeptical that 78% of Americans are "living paycheck to paycheck" unless that has been defined so loosely as to lose all useful meaning.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    I assume that it means they’re spending rather than saving that discretionary income, and don’t have a buffer available of more than a single pay period (usually 2 weeks). That money may also be committed to long-term contracts with service providers and not readily available for redirection. It’s sometimes a reflection of financial priorities rather than raw income.
- creddit 7y ago
allovernow 7y ago
The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life. That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. There's a point where it becomes unethical and/or counterproductive...but where that point is perhaps remains to be seen.
- sesteel 7y ago
  In order for capitalism to work, money has to change hands. Typically, money changes hands for an item or service of perceived value. Again, typically, there is a profit calculated into that transaction. That small fraction which constitutes the profit is often wealth transferring from one person to another. Over time, that wealth coalesces into fewer and fewer hands. There are many ways to combat this pooling of wealth into the hands of the few, but none of the traditional ways appear to work in the face of automation. Capitalism will fail if people do not have money to spend.
  - lukifer 7y ago
    We exchange value based on price discovery; but prices are determined by leverage, which is heavily tilted by pre-existing capital. One doesn't notice this at a micro-transaction level (how many shoes for how many chickens), but once one zooms out to the balance of power between labor and capital, one clearly holds all the cards ~90% of the time.
- 93po 7y ago
  There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.
  - allovernow 7y ago
    Billionaires skim like .5-2% in margins off the top of the companies and relationships they build. People get paid throughout. This is nonsense.
ajay_sibri04 7y ago
Can we get political crap off of here?
m3nu 7y ago
This would be a kind of monetary stimulus. Helicopter money. Could be more effective than lowering interest rates further.
olivermarks 7y ago
Congress woman Tulsi Gabbard (the Clinton blacklisted presidential candidate) took on Yang's UBI initiative after he ran out of money and dropped out of the presidential race. Gabbard introduced HRes 897 last Thursday and has been vocal about providing an urgent $1k per month UBI payment for the projected 10 million US citizens who will lose their jobs. The DNC in their wisdom have again chosen to blank Gabbard and focus on AOC and Romney thinking about doing the same thing, although I believe there are now co sponsors and momentum for HRes897. https://actionnetwork.org/letters/include-ubi-in-the-economic-stimulus-plan-for-covid-19?source=direct_link& https://actionnetwork.org/letters/include-ubi-in-the-economi...
- JeremyBanks 7y ago
  Tulsi is going on Fox to complain about not being allowed in the debates despite having ~0 support. She is not a good-faith actor, and blacklisting her is entirely appropriate.
  - imafish 7y ago
    Well, blacklisting is absolutely undemocratic. But it is fair to not have her in the debates when she does not meet the requirements.
    - charwalker 7y ago
      I think they mean that if a Democratic candidate is going on the (known to the left wing as pure propaganda and lies) right wing network of choice to make their case then they are not arguing in good faith and simply looking to score points with people who will never vote for her anyway. It's disingenuous and she had next to 0 support anyway.
      - olivermarks 7y ago
        Here's the sequence of events with Tulsi Gabbard's presidential campaign which is important if you believe in running a fair democracy, my fundamental point here. Gabbard resigned as a rising star DNC VP in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders over Mrs Clinton who had bought the party off with a cash infusion (largely raised by Weinstein) on the agreement she had control of party strategy and messaging, and could include multiple super delegates at the convention. Congreswoman Gabbard announced her grass roots funded presidential campaign and has run it from a mini van with volunteers, a very small paid staff and ~$1m budget. Gabbard got great traction - most searched for via Google - in the first two TV show Q & sixty second answer commercial TV 'debates' and destroyed the Harris campaign with her debating skills in November. Throughout the campaign, and massively increased in 2020, the DNC media has either subsequently ignored her or run negative messaging to undermine her credibility. The DNC knows reform would come if Gabbard got control. The DNC changed their debate rules to allow 55x billionaire Bloomberg to 'run' and debate as a presidential candidate, spending incredible sums to obliterate Sanders and others before pulling out again. The corporate puppet candidates Buttigieg, Klobochar (and subsequently Warren afterwards) pulled out just before Super Tuesday - and after tens of thousands had cast their postal ballots - to endorse Biden, the DNC's preferred candidate. The debate rules were changed again by the DNC after Gabbard won two delegates to exclude her. The only media Gabbard gets coverage on is Fox News and internet shows and podcasts. There is a massive disinformation campaign she is constantly fighting (Russian asset, Assad and Modi supporter etc) that undermines her fundamental anti war pro diplomacy platform. My point: if the DNC give hundreds of millions in free positive media coverage to their preferred candidates and blacklist/ blackout positive coverage of other candidates is it any surprise Gabbard has done so badly, or other future and past candidates? Many many people don't even know she is in the presidential race on ballots that still list long suspended campaigns from Harris and others. The DNC rely on name recognition and positive media messaging to amplify their preferred candidates. This is not democracy or a level playing field. The Gabbard platform positions: www.tulsigabbard.org
jakeogh 7y ago
An authoritarians' dream; trivially tied to some version of a social credit score. We see you didnt pay your fine... no problem!
kova12 7y ago
I think his most compelling policy is not UBI, but giving the people money to spend on politics. This country is suffocated by special interests, which create draconian laws for all of us to follow just so that they can collect a little bit ore money. Just filing the taxes alone is a monumentally frustrating experience. This needs to be streamlined, but it will never be until corporations are stripped from their lobbying.
- Fellshard 7y ago
  Anything that generates a feedback loop where politicians give you tax money to spend on politicians has an instant smell to me. There may be other ways to accomplish this, but that feedback loop stinks to high heaven on initial examination.
  - droopyEyelids 7y ago
    You might want to try a neti pot, because you seem to be missing the smell of the government giving billions to large corporation in a way that accomplishes the same feedback loop you're mentioning. That is the way the system has been working for decades. For example, airlines have been doing stock buybacks with all their profits for the last several years, and now they don't have the money to weather 2 months of coronavirus, so they'll need a bailout. Then, watch for more stock buybacks and executive bonuses. You're right it smells, but it's time that graft was extended to the people of this country, who will actually spend it and help the economy a bit, rather than sending it indirectly to the bank accounts of the wealthiest people in the country.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      Nowhere in what I said have I defended similar feedback loops. They stink no matter what form they take, and two wrongs don't make a right.
  - bavell 7y ago
    You mean the entirety of corporate America? All those tax loopholes? Agreed, I think they stink as well. Good thing Yang's Democracy Dollars idea has no strings attached unlike that sticky lobbyist cash.
Proziam 7y ago
My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous 'compromises'), and then followed by a repeal and whatever subsequent chaos comes out of it. I don't want to imagine what would happen to the folks who find themselves reliant on UBI if it were to go down that path.
- glaive123 7y ago
  God forbid people get money to take care of their lives. Because we can afford it.
  - Proziam 7y ago
    I assume you misread what I wrote, or implied some opinion that hasn't been stated. I want people to have enough money to live reasonable and modern lives. What I DO NOT want is for UBI to become a political weapon and for the people who rely on it to have it taken away suddenly. That is a serious risk to that system that doesn't get enough attention. It could happen due to financial collapse or for political reasons. But no matter why it happens, the damage would be absolutely horrific.
    - Melting_Harps 7y ago
      > I want people to have enough money to live reasonable and modern lives. What I DO NOT want is for UBI to become a political weapon and for the people who rely on it to have it taken away suddenly. Personally speaking, as a proponent of UBI, I reluctantly accept that the first versions of it will have to be state-based. If only to be able to learn from its mistakes and iterate from them to refine them further. This is one of the reasons I'm such a cryptocurrency enthusiast, after the wake of the financial crisis and massive unemployment in Iceland they deployed, and subsequently failed, with aurora coin to try and experiment with UBI. Had we gotten more information from it would have helped to be able to have a decentralized version of it by now, but it was too much for such a poorly backed project to surmount. > That is a serious risk to that system that doesn't get enough attention. It could happen due to financial collapse or for political reasons. But no matter why it happens, the damage would be absolutely horrific. I think this is inevitable and not a question of if but when it will occur, UBI will not be the biggest contributing factor to the 'system' failing, either: it will have been an outcome of centuries of needless war, currency corruption and Market manipulation, ecological destruction and climate change. its just a matter of time. At least having this in place prepares us as Species for what lies ahead, the status quo cannot be maintained, this much has to be accepted. The transition is definitely terrifying, but the idea of getting this right has so much potential and worth the sacrifice when you realize just how broken the 'system' really is. I think this what most don't understand when they see the Greta Thurnberg led Gen Z revolts happening all around the World, and they're dropping out of school to protest; this system is already doomed if you cannot convince the future generation play along anymore.
monadic2 7y ago
Yang was right in the sense that UBI is going to make more and more sense moving forward. I am still unclear how this would intersect with e.g. healthcare needs, which I believe is fundamentally an easier problem to solve for greater immediate effect.
- godelski 7y ago
  I think the idea here is that people that are sick can actually take time off. If you've worked in these kinds of jobs you show up to work sick because you can't miss a day, because you can't have a smaller paycheck. So a little more money eases this and gives more leverage to workers.
  - dfxm12 7y ago
    $1000/mo gives you some leverage, but at the end of the day, not being tied to your job just so you can have decent and affordable health insurance gives you more. This doesn't even talk about stuff money can't buy, like mandatory paid sick leave. Instead of trying to just "ease this", why not try to eliminate it?
    - godelski 7y ago
      I get frustrated with answers like this. It sets up an __OR__ question when one didn't exist. I mean the discussion is about Andrew Yang's UBI. He also supported single payer. Why is this an __OR__ discussion? We don't have to fight when we're on the same side.
buzzkillington 7y ago
Why he isn't: Suggested income: $12,000 US Population: $327,200,000 Total cost for first year: $3,926,400,000,000 Total government expenditure for US: $3,800,000,000 So we would need to shut down everything the government does to afford his UBI. I personally don't feel like going for free market ICBM solutions is the best way to run an army, but each to their own.
- JCharante 7y ago
  Aren't there restriction like only for citizens 18+ and under Yang's policy it'd be you either take UBI or other subsidies you qualify for.
  - buzzkillington 7y ago
    UBI only works when it isn't universal, basic or income. At that point you have invented a worse welfare state.
- paulmd 7y ago
  wow, what a strawman you've built there. that US government expenditure is a constantly changing number, when the government wants to buy some ICBMs they don't go cut food stamps correspondingly, they just increase the amount of government expenditure.
- dillondoyle 7y ago
  The first source I could find puts 2008 crisis programs at 5.7% of GDP (it says output I assume gdp), and New Deal at 40%. [1] Call it 130MM households in the US. Exclude top 5% ~123M. For 6 months stimulus 1k/house = 738B. Doesn't sound like enough really for what we're facing. Less than 2008 stimulus. only ~3.6% of GDP. This interview with Jason Furman has some other good comparisons+context and other back of napkin maths [2] If we're talking permanent UBI lowering or even cutting benefits programs (to be replaced by UBI) could get it somewhat close to budget neutral - if you cut a lot [3]. But IMHO would never be able to cut social security etc enough to make a difference, gross tax revenue would have to be raised somehow - but not by a shocking amount. 1 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/which-bigger-2009-recovery-act-fdr-new-deal https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/which-big... 2 https://www.vox.com/2020/3/13/21177850/coronavirus-covid-19-recession-stock-market-economy-jobs-stimulus https://www.vox.com/2020/3/13/21177850/coronavirus-covid-19-... 3 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-basic-income-plan-would-pay-1320-per-month.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-bas...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
blackrock 7y ago
Just build more homes! Build apartment high rises and condominium complexes, that people can own, with 15 years of work. Why should we be forced to work for 30 years as a slave to pay off some bank’s mortgage? It’s not our damn fault, that politicians are inept and can’t do the right thing, by providing affordable homes. Socialize the housing market. This is a basic human right, but the greed of capitalism is forcing everyone to pay insane prices for their housing.
redis_mlc 7y ago
There is a precedent to this situation. During the Great Depression/Dust Bowl in the 1920's, government officials were adamantly opposed to giving cash or food to citizens. Moral hazard, and all that. The result was that: - there were food riots - some Americans starved to death - Washington, D.C. was occupied by protesters living in tent cities, and the military had to intervene to prevent government buildings from being stormed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oxymoran 7y ago
He was right. He was right before the pandemic and he’s even more right now. Whenever this ends, it’s going create even more incentive for employers to automate. Some of these jobs are going to disappear over the next few weeks and they may never come back.
drenginian 7y ago
No surely a trickle down would work better?
JDiculous 7y ago
One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel about slavery. UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong to society, you are deserving of a modest respectable standard of living, and you are entitled to some of the proceeds of the wealth generated by the land with which you've been excluded.
- lanevorockz 7y ago
  I believe you haven't worked with homeless people much, but the problem with homeless is NOT poverty. People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief. Hard problem to solve and it wouldn't be fixed by universal income. We tried convincing homeless people to go into shelters or to at least care a bit for themselves ( free self catered infrastructure like showers ). Best solution so far is a social one where people help them find a new sense of achievement and a place in society. Drugs is also a big problem and probably where all the money from universal income would go to.
  - rorykoehler 7y ago
    While I agree I think Ubi would help regardless.
  - pnutjam 7y ago
    You are talking about a small percentage of the homeless, plenty of poor people would be helped by this and saved from becoming homeless. They could afford to stay in their rural hometown instead of making their way to the cities where they can currently get help.
  - JDiculous 7y ago
    Yes UBI would not "fix" homelessness or poverty, but it dramatically improves things. > People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief. What an insulting generalization of homeless people. Is that how you rationalize it in your head - these people find "relief" in sleeping on the sidewalk because they couldn't find their place in society? Did you ask those homeless people why they didn't want to go to the shelter? I remember speaking with a 60+ year old homeless woman in NYC once who told me she refused to go to the shelter because it was filled with crazy people. Also you have to check out of the shelter every day, and if you don't check back in by a certain time, then they can't let you in. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many would prefer to sleep on the streets than deal with that. > Best solution so far is a social one where people help them find a new sense of achievement and a place in society. This is why I'm a proponent of a jobs guarantee. Anyone who wants to work should not be denied the opportunity to do so. > Drugs is also a big problem and probably where all the money from universal income would go to. Yes, because all homeless people are drug addicts right? /s
teyc 7y ago
I was trying to think of parallels with the programming world, and perhaps this analogy might make sense to some people. Sometimes, the software we maintain accumulates so much tech debt that it becomes very difficult to make any headway. By setting aside some development time to address these issues, we enable developers to gain velocity again. In a similar way, sometimes we see poor people make illogical economic choices, simply because of a cash crunch. When people are poor, they have too many competing priorities that require urgent attention, and they find themselves caught in a series of wicked choices. A Harvard study suggests that poverty causes 13 point drop in IQ. The right level of UBI may actually improve the way energy and capital is deployed. It also protects a lot of small employers from economic shocks by smoothing out the velocity of money. Many readers are rightly concerned about the moral hazard introduced through redistribution of wealth. However, seen through the lens of tech debt and investment, UBI is relatively straight forward way of investing in the future.
Intermernet 7y ago
The combination of UBI and universal health care would mean that combating a pandemic would be much easier than it currently is. Everyone stays at home and self isolates for 2 weeks. Curve flattened. Bills payed. Ah well, it's a pity the side effects apparently include some McCarthyist caricature of communism /s
altcognito 7y ago
UBI is fundamentally right, my biggest issue with this approach is that this is the last step before eliminating support for the poor altogether. No longer hampered by the intricacies of providing a service, it now becomes a debate over "how much do people need to survive? Why do we need this in the first place? This is redistribution!" This is a battle "the people" not only have lost typically, but failed to even take up an interest in defending for themselves.
- chrstphrhrt 7y ago
  Yeah I'm afraid that the trickle-down grifters will always cook up some soundbites to knock any no-strings-attached benefits by pushing the freeloader fallacy and people will fall for it. Which brings us back to square one, but without anything needs based, causing a massive surge in poverty again. Of course this has to be balanced with the utter paternalism of determining "needs" in the first place. It clearly isn't enough on its own, and is also ripe for abuse in different ways.
helen___keller 7y ago
Taking a long-term view, UBI is a good idea, full stop. Societies' advancements in technology & productivity decrease the effective cost (as percentage of GDP) of meeting the very base needs of a human being. Food, cheap medicines like tylenol & antibiotics, most facets of human life are dirt cheap from a production perspective, and this trend will continue from automation. This means someone who is currently unproductive can be subsidized to survive for 10 full years, and if there's even a small chance they become a high-productivity individual afterwards then society comes out ahead on net value. The actual numbers depend on how low we can push production costs with automation, but in the limit as human survival cost approaches zero relative to the economy, the only rational decision is to subsidize all human survival and work within that framework to encourage citizens to be even more productive. After all, if someone dies of lack of healthcare, or starves, or lives in the streets and doesn't know how to get back off the streets, that's a net loss to humanity in opportunity cost. If that person had just been subsidized through their hard times, there's a non-zero chance they become high value to society. UBI allows us to reap these benefits in an efficient manner: using the free market. But, speaking today not in the long term, there are exceptions to the low cost of human survival which would hamper UBI from being effective. In our (American) society, there are a few base needs that we haven't adequately driven down costs. Shelter mostly, also any healthcare that is more involved than taking a pill a day (notably: seeing a doctor). Humankind in general CAN make these costs low for the most part, but American society in particular has NOT made these costs low. We need to address the housing & urban development crisis, and we need to address the healthcare crisis. The housing & urban development crisis is a system of regulations and inaction that have simultaneously limited the amount of housing near desirable locations, while failing to provide efficient transportation to bring people in from less desirable locations. In other words, housing costs are dominated not by the cost to build a house, but the cost of land. This can be addressed by reforming our awful & piecemeal zoning, construction, and transportation systems and their respective regulations. Optionally, some might suggest that we try to fight against the ongoing trends of urban consolidation; if people have a reason to move to upstate new york or the midwest, instead of to NYC, then housing costs aren't a problem. But right now all economic incentives point to moving to NYC metro, given the choices, and personally I don't like to wage war against the tide of the free market. The healthcare crisis is one of rent seeking by insurance companies upon our awful half-assed nearly-free-market approach to healthcare. Quite simply, people don't have choices (your healthcare options are restricted by your insurance, which is restricted by your employer), and no prices on anything are known ahead of time. This adds up to an ultra-inefficient system. By doing just about anything that stops the rent seeking of the insurance system upon the healthcare system so we can more efficiently treat a healthy society (there are free market solutions, but personally I would put my weight behind medicare-for-all). In conclusion, if we give everyone $1000/mo, that's going to get funneled into bidding up rent in big cities or surprise healthcare bills. We need to solve these issues with our free market before we take a free market approach to the common welfare; until then I would advocate more targeted approaches that are less likely to invite rent seeking behavior (foodstamps and such).
WaitWaitWha 7y ago
The problem with UBI is what others have already pointed out. My conclusions are from personal observation, so it is anecdotal and it is a generalization as most societal woes are. There will always be a group of individuals who are content with the minimum without making any effort. This group will not work to gain more. They are just content at not working and getting the minimum wage and additional government handouts. My experience is from a communist country. The shoddy craftsmanship for buildings, cars, services all around in my opinion was direct result for all the promised universal basic "something". In the beginning it all seemed good and well, but as more and more people got on the UB something, the less and less production/service was done. This is not a communist/socialist economic problem, but a human nature problem in my opinion. We always go for the least amount of effort, for the most amount of reward. To this effect, I cannot see how to prevent UBI pushing the lowest common level of participation in the society as a producer.
- snidane 7y ago
  Definition of work and productivity is arbitrary. You can think of these people taking the monthly UBI, shopping for groceries and eating it as meaningful work in quest for continuation of human race. I wouldn't see that as completely zero value add. As long as others work more than basic subsistence we'll be fine.
speby 7y ago
UBI ... providing direct services for/to the poor ... or a blend, will never resolve some people from "being poor" or adding "burden" to the system despite the system giving them "a minimum of what they need to survive." You can give a mentally ill person $1,000 a month for years and every time he gets the check, maybe he hands it over to a slum lord who secretly threatens the safety or has "tricked" the mentally ill person into giving him the money instead. Bottom line: Giving that person the money every month doesn't "fix" the mentally ill person's problem(s). It's just another roundabout way to try and minimize poor-dom. All of these solutions are potentially workable, or a blend. I think if anything what we should focus more on is which methods (or blend of methods) works to minimize poor-dom the "most" compared to many of the others, while also balancing the overall cost to deliver said methods on society.
- digitaltrees 7y ago
  Except that most people that are poor are not mentally ill. In fact most people that are poor can handle money and their life just fine...they just don't get paid enough.

254 points by Reedx 7y ago

The problem with UBI is that most versions of it would essentially liquidate social services that people would normally receive. UBI only makes sense in addition to the other parts of a comprehensive safety net (universal housing and healthcare), not as a replacement.

skybrian 7y ago
The conservatives into UBI are hoping for that but at least with Yang's plan there was the choice of continuing with old benefits if they are higher. Although this choice is probably pretty easy mathematically, it's kind of a terrible choice to have to make, so after a while the plan changed to saying it would stack on top of some other benefits. (But none of this matters because whatever Congress might do would be different.)
bavell 7y ago
Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that gives me cash which I can use for anything? I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life. E.g. What good are food stamps when I have no gas (or car) to get to the store? There are some social services that are necessary and beneficial but these should be built on top of a UBI foundation for maximum effectiveness.
- monadic2 7y ago
  UBI still does not provide health care.
  - bavell 7y ago
    Right. It also doesn't address climate change. Or gay rights, regime-change wars, or gender discrimination. It just provides every American with increased economic freedom. It's a good thing my doctor accepts USD :)
    - monadic2 7y ago
      > It's a good thing my doctor accepts USD :) That $1000 check will only cover the ride to the hospital before tax.
- puzzledobserver 7y ago
  Ohh, but then the UBI recipient may use it to purchase something that Big Brother doesn't want them to buy... like using SNAP to buy hot food. On a more serious note, yes. Beyond basic necessities like healthcare and education, that the government would like to micromanage lives of welfare recipients feels demeaning in the extreme.
- asdf9240 7y ago
  > I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life. Some people do not get good enough education and do not know how to effectively allocate resources. > There are some social services that are necessary and beneficial but these should be built on top of a UBI foundation for maximum effectiveness. Do you mean the other way around? Necessary social services should be the foundation with UBI built on top of it. Social services can do some things better than UBI can even when assuming everyone uses their UBI completely rationally.
  - derrick_jensen 7y ago
    Exactly. If you knew how to best allocate resources in your life, you probably wouldn't be in a situation where you need UBI.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that gives me cash which I can use for anything? Because we'll have an issue when you spend your UBI on anything and then need assistance with rent, food etc pp.
- theklub 7y ago
  How many people would take UBI, buy drugs, alcohol, hell go down to the casino every month and blow it all in 30 seconds....
godelski 7y ago
Most people receive far less than $1k/mo. Yang's plan was to allow the option so that if you were one of the few that did receive more, you wouldn't have to give that up.
- devcpp 7y ago
  Median income in the USA in 2017 was is $31,099/year.
alkibiades 7y ago
you don’t explain why. i think the opposite. that it should only work as a replacement. part of the draw is it’s more efficient than existing programs

cgrealy 7y ago

I'm not sure there's a "what if" at all, more like a "when will". At some point, a UBI will become a necessity. The most likely other options are a dystopian nightmare or a complete overhaul of our basic economic principles (i.e. a post-scarcity Star Trek-esque society)

kosievdmerwe 7y ago
For the most part I agree, but the important fact is that that point might not be now. Just because you might know the end point, doesn't mean you can skip the steps in between or try to get there too quickly. That can lead to disaster as you'll probably not have the right conditions or supporting structures in place.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Our current pandemic and the economic consequences certainly will make more people open to UBI. Once the recovery starts, look for businesses to invest heavily in automation so they're not caught in a labor crunch again when their human labor get sick, quarantined, or ineffective due to social distancing. This may cause a permanent shift in labor demand that never again comes close to matching the labor supply. Or maybe it'll end up like other revolutions with new currently unknown jobs opening up over time.
  - RedneckBob 7y ago
    Check out the "Future of Work" where they cover the top 5 most popular jobs and how they are in danger. The self driving trucks shock the human truck drivers in the diner. Makes me sad to see their faces when they realize just how far along and how good the self driving trucks have become: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4 UBI will become a necessity because the alternative will not be pretty.
    - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
      Self driving trucks probably are going to be considered a national security issue going forward. We can't have cargo sitting around waiting for humans in a health crisis. That will indeed be a huge gut punch to that segment of the labor market. The only slightly silver lining is that trucking has very high turnover so the number put out of their jobs will be less than you might think. What will hurt though will be the loss of opportunity to be a truck driver, even if only for a few years.

aazaa 7y ago

The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty stores were the topic of concern. COVID-19 has brought with it store shortages, which no doubt is a massive shock to most Americans. Nobody knows when those shortages will end. Imagine what could happen if you dropped a grand in everyone's pocket every month. Also imagine the humanitarian crisis that would result by trying to suppress consumer inflation through price controls.

eachro 7y ago
I wonder if there are any economic studies on whether social security increased inflation when it was first enacted. It's not the ideal comparison because of the sheer scale of UBI vs social security but it would be something to get notion of the impact.
- jrhurst 7y ago
  Hard to tell. We'd have to ping similar programs in order countries because there was massive depression on the value of the dollar than.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  Why would it increase inflation? An equal amount of money is taken out of taxes. There’s no new money being created.
  - somebodythere 7y ago
    It's not just the net money supply that results in inflation, it's also the prospensity for it to be spent, and on what it is spent (inelastic/elastic demand curve goods and services) which determines the amount of inflation. If you took 100 dollars out of the pocket of every American and gave it to Warren Buffett, that would most likely be deflationary.

timw4mail 7y ago

I don't see how a universal basic income could be sustainable in any way. You either have debt hyperinflation, or you have taxes high enough that the universal basic income is meaningless.

bumby 7y ago
I think some are advocating for a value added tax with certain categorical exemptions. My limited understanding is this would make necessity purchases more secure while making discretionary “luxury” purchases more expensive
- paulmd 7y ago
  VAT is kind of a bad tax scheme. It's regressive and discourages consumption (which, like it or not, is the engine that drives our economy). It's better just to have income and wealth taxes.
  - jnordwick 7y ago
    > which, like it or not, is the engine that drives our economy no it doesnt. the US consumes a lot, but you are mistaking an accounting identity with something causal. if people decided to consume less, that means they are putting off current consumption for future consumption and saving those resources for investment to allow that to happen. don't worry - they'll consume at some point when they feel it is in their best interest (and if they don't, they basically just gave us a bunch of free labor). all economies everywhere are driven by production. human desire is pretty much endless - you rarely have to incentive consumption. when people have the resource (ie, they produced), they will naturally consume. the only way that long term standards of living improve is by increasing productivity (this is something virtually every economist agrees to). that is done by increasing capital stocks, machinery, technology. those are all production oriented activity.
  - bumby 7y ago
    Isn’t the point of the categorical exemptions to avoid it being regressive? I.e., it skews the tax toward those consuming non-essentials? I agree that it may discourage consumption. It’s not clear to me that this is fundamentally a bad thing, at least in terms of conspicuous consumerism

grecy 7y ago

We don't have to entirely speculate, we can look at existing evidence. Australia has the most liberal welfare in the world. Anyone over 18 can get $984 per month, and up to another $242 in rent assistance. [1] It has nothing to do with your previous employment history, or being fired, or anything like that. In fact, you can get it if you've never had a job in your life. You need to be "actively looking for work" which in reality means fill out a few job applications and forms every week. It's easy, I've done it. You can't live a glamorous life, but you can certainly live. Especially if you get 3-4 people in a cheap rental, you'll have enough money to surf everyday, or watch TV, or smoke weed or do whatever else you want. Yes, there are people that do exactly that, and probably will for all time. Has it ruined the Australian economy? nope. Has there been rampant inflation? nope. I know it's not exactly UBI because if you have a paying job you can't get this money. So it's not "extra" money for everyone, but money for those that can't/won't or don't find paying work. It's interesting because it shows what percentage of people choose to sit around and do nothing with their lives and get free money - not that many [2]. When you dig into the numbers and take out age pensioners, people with disabilities and students (who get paid to go to university), you see that about 1.2 million Australian get welfare payments, which is just less than 5% of the population. Keep in mind Australia has extremely low violent crime rates, and has one the highest happiness indexes in the world, and Melbourne is often voted the world's most livable city (or it comes in 2nd). [4] Here's a great breakdown of how Australia spends it's welfare money [3] Please, look at what other countries are doing and learn from it, don't just endlessly speculate about all the terrible ways UBI (or something like the above) might destroy things. [1] https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-how-does-australia-stack-up/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-h... [2] http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-half-to-two-thirds-of-the-australian-population-receiving-a-government-benefit-41027 http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-half-to-two-thirds-o... [3] https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/australias-welfare-2017/contents/summary https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/australia... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Liveability_Ranking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Liveability_Ranking

RedneckBob 7y ago
Good post. Yang provides additional answers in the FAQ he prepared for his POTUS run: - https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ Aside from COVID-19, we have the 4th industrial revolution in progress now. Just take a look at these truck driver's faces once they realize just how far self driving trucks are: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4

dmix 7y ago

Didn’t George W Bush send a cheque out to every American? I figured that’s what Romney had in mind more than full scale UBI.

Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Yes and most of it was spent on paying off debt rather than buying tvs and iPods to stimulate the economy. I know I put my check into my savings account and didn't think about it again.
- look_lookatme 7y ago
  Isn't that the biggest goal right now? Maintaining a healthy banking and housing system by subsidizing rent, mortgages, debt payments etc? $1000 a month doesn't seem like a stimulus, it seems like a bridge to the other side.
  - dfxm12 7y ago
    Better than $1000 would be codified protections for tenants or borrowers. Yes, this doesn't have to be an either-or thing, but I'd still want to have the law on my side. I guess what I mean is that in order to fix, as Yang says, the biggest winner take all economy, you have to do something different than just throw money at it (lest the winners take that, too). The goal should be to address why we're here in the first place to make sure it doesn't happen again (at least not to this level), and not to just barely get by and bounce right back to being one inconvenience away from ruin.
bhl 7y ago
Yes, there were a tax rebates in 2001 and 2008 which served as a natural experiments for studying consumer spending in response to a fiscal stimulus. The timing of cheques sent were pseudo-randomized on last four digits of social security number. See [1] and [2]. They're sort of dreary reads, but the TLDR of both is that consumption on non-durable goods increases the most, and has the largest impact on those with low-income or don't have access to credit. [1] Household Expenditure and the Income Tax Rebates of 2001. https://www.nber.org/papers/w10784.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w10784.pdf [2] Consumer Spending and the Economic Stimulus Payments of 2008. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16684.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w16684.pdf

bluedino 7y ago

>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck; almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money. I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but 78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it together.

manicdee 7y ago
While a significant portion of that 78% might be people who think a monthly income of X means they can service debts with monthly costs of X, there are also people for whom basic cost of living (mostly rent) is most of their income. An example would be someone working in the valley area who doesn’t earn enough to afford to move to cheaper accommodation (along with associated increase in commuting costs). It’s not their inability to control spending, it’s the requirement to be geographically close to their place of work. If there were more jobs available in the backwoods, there would be the real possibility of moving there to reduce the cost of living to a smaller portion of income.
jandrewrogers 7y ago
The median household discretionary income -- i.e. money you can waste on whatever -- in the US is more than $1,000/month. Per the official government statistics. That is after all ordinary household expenses. People in higher percentiles have considerably more. I am skeptical that 78% of Americans are "living paycheck to paycheck" unless that has been defined so loosely as to lose all useful meaning.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  I assume that it means they’re spending rather than saving that discretionary income, and don’t have a buffer available of more than a single pay period (usually 2 weeks). That money may also be committed to long-term contracts with service providers and not readily available for redirection. It’s sometimes a reflection of financial priorities rather than raw income.
creddit 7y ago

allovernow 7y ago

The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life. That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. There's a point where it becomes unethical and/or counterproductive...but where that point is perhaps remains to be seen.

sesteel 7y ago
In order for capitalism to work, money has to change hands. Typically, money changes hands for an item or service of perceived value. Again, typically, there is a profit calculated into that transaction. That small fraction which constitutes the profit is often wealth transferring from one person to another. Over time, that wealth coalesces into fewer and fewer hands. There are many ways to combat this pooling of wealth into the hands of the few, but none of the traditional ways appear to work in the face of automation. Capitalism will fail if people do not have money to spend.
- lukifer 7y ago
  We exchange value based on price discovery; but prices are determined by leverage, which is heavily tilted by pre-existing capital. One doesn't notice this at a micro-transaction level (how many shoes for how many chickens), but once one zooms out to the balance of power between labor and capital, one clearly holds all the cards ~90% of the time.
93po 7y ago
There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.
- allovernow 7y ago
  Billionaires skim like .5-2% in margins off the top of the companies and relationships they build. People get paid throughout. This is nonsense.

ajay_sibri04 7y ago

Can we get political crap off of here?

m3nu 7y ago

This would be a kind of monetary stimulus. Helicopter money. Could be more effective than lowering interest rates further.

olivermarks 7y ago

Congress woman Tulsi Gabbard (the Clinton blacklisted presidential candidate) took on Yang's UBI initiative after he ran out of money and dropped out of the presidential race. Gabbard introduced HRes 897 last Thursday and has been vocal about providing an urgent $1k per month UBI payment for the projected 10 million US citizens who will lose their jobs. The DNC in their wisdom have again chosen to blank Gabbard and focus on AOC and Romney thinking about doing the same thing, although I believe there are now co sponsors and momentum for HRes897. https://actionnetwork.org/letters/include-ubi-in-the-economic-stimulus-plan-for-covid-19?source=direct_link& https://actionnetwork.org/letters/include-ubi-in-the-economi...

JeremyBanks 7y ago
Tulsi is going on Fox to complain about not being allowed in the debates despite having ~0 support. She is not a good-faith actor, and blacklisting her is entirely appropriate.
- imafish 7y ago
  Well, blacklisting is absolutely undemocratic. But it is fair to not have her in the debates when she does not meet the requirements.
  - charwalker 7y ago
    I think they mean that if a Democratic candidate is going on the (known to the left wing as pure propaganda and lies) right wing network of choice to make their case then they are not arguing in good faith and simply looking to score points with people who will never vote for her anyway. It's disingenuous and she had next to 0 support anyway.
    - olivermarks 7y ago
      Here's the sequence of events with Tulsi Gabbard's presidential campaign which is important if you believe in running a fair democracy, my fundamental point here. Gabbard resigned as a rising star DNC VP in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders over Mrs Clinton who had bought the party off with a cash infusion (largely raised by Weinstein) on the agreement she had control of party strategy and messaging, and could include multiple super delegates at the convention. Congreswoman Gabbard announced her grass roots funded presidential campaign and has run it from a mini van with volunteers, a very small paid staff and ~$1m budget. Gabbard got great traction - most searched for via Google - in the first two TV show Q & sixty second answer commercial TV 'debates' and destroyed the Harris campaign with her debating skills in November. Throughout the campaign, and massively increased in 2020, the DNC media has either subsequently ignored her or run negative messaging to undermine her credibility. The DNC knows reform would come if Gabbard got control. The DNC changed their debate rules to allow 55x billionaire Bloomberg to 'run' and debate as a presidential candidate, spending incredible sums to obliterate Sanders and others before pulling out again. The corporate puppet candidates Buttigieg, Klobochar (and subsequently Warren afterwards) pulled out just before Super Tuesday - and after tens of thousands had cast their postal ballots - to endorse Biden, the DNC's preferred candidate. The debate rules were changed again by the DNC after Gabbard won two delegates to exclude her. The only media Gabbard gets coverage on is Fox News and internet shows and podcasts. There is a massive disinformation campaign she is constantly fighting (Russian asset, Assad and Modi supporter etc) that undermines her fundamental anti war pro diplomacy platform. My point: if the DNC give hundreds of millions in free positive media coverage to their preferred candidates and blacklist/ blackout positive coverage of other candidates is it any surprise Gabbard has done so badly, or other future and past candidates? Many many people don't even know she is in the presidential race on ballots that still list long suspended campaigns from Harris and others. The DNC rely on name recognition and positive media messaging to amplify their preferred candidates. This is not democracy or a level playing field. The Gabbard platform positions: www.tulsigabbard.org

jakeogh 7y ago

An authoritarians' dream; trivially tied to some version of a social credit score. We see you didnt pay your fine... no problem!

kova12 7y ago

I think his most compelling policy is not UBI, but giving the people money to spend on politics. This country is suffocated by special interests, which create draconian laws for all of us to follow just so that they can collect a little bit ore money. Just filing the taxes alone is a monumentally frustrating experience. This needs to be streamlined, but it will never be until corporations are stripped from their lobbying.

Fellshard 7y ago
Anything that generates a feedback loop where politicians give you tax money to spend on politicians has an instant smell to me. There may be other ways to accomplish this, but that feedback loop stinks to high heaven on initial examination.
- droopyEyelids 7y ago
  You might want to try a neti pot, because you seem to be missing the smell of the government giving billions to large corporation in a way that accomplishes the same feedback loop you're mentioning. That is the way the system has been working for decades. For example, airlines have been doing stock buybacks with all their profits for the last several years, and now they don't have the money to weather 2 months of coronavirus, so they'll need a bailout. Then, watch for more stock buybacks and executive bonuses. You're right it smells, but it's time that graft was extended to the people of this country, who will actually spend it and help the economy a bit, rather than sending it indirectly to the bank accounts of the wealthiest people in the country.
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    Nowhere in what I said have I defended similar feedback loops. They stink no matter what form they take, and two wrongs don't make a right.
- bavell 7y ago
  You mean the entirety of corporate America? All those tax loopholes? Agreed, I think they stink as well. Good thing Yang's Democracy Dollars idea has no strings attached unlike that sticky lobbyist cash.

Proziam 7y ago

My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous 'compromises'), and then followed by a repeal and whatever subsequent chaos comes out of it. I don't want to imagine what would happen to the folks who find themselves reliant on UBI if it were to go down that path.

glaive123 7y ago
God forbid people get money to take care of their lives. Because we can afford it.
- Proziam 7y ago
  I assume you misread what I wrote, or implied some opinion that hasn't been stated. I want people to have enough money to live reasonable and modern lives. What I DO NOT want is for UBI to become a political weapon and for the people who rely on it to have it taken away suddenly. That is a serious risk to that system that doesn't get enough attention. It could happen due to financial collapse or for political reasons. But no matter why it happens, the damage would be absolutely horrific.
  - Melting_Harps 7y ago
    > I want people to have enough money to live reasonable and modern lives. What I DO NOT want is for UBI to become a political weapon and for the people who rely on it to have it taken away suddenly. Personally speaking, as a proponent of UBI, I reluctantly accept that the first versions of it will have to be state-based. If only to be able to learn from its mistakes and iterate from them to refine them further. This is one of the reasons I'm such a cryptocurrency enthusiast, after the wake of the financial crisis and massive unemployment in Iceland they deployed, and subsequently failed, with aurora coin to try and experiment with UBI. Had we gotten more information from it would have helped to be able to have a decentralized version of it by now, but it was too much for such a poorly backed project to surmount. > That is a serious risk to that system that doesn't get enough attention. It could happen due to financial collapse or for political reasons. But no matter why it happens, the damage would be absolutely horrific. I think this is inevitable and not a question of if but when it will occur, UBI will not be the biggest contributing factor to the 'system' failing, either: it will have been an outcome of centuries of needless war, currency corruption and Market manipulation, ecological destruction and climate change. its just a matter of time. At least having this in place prepares us as Species for what lies ahead, the status quo cannot be maintained, this much has to be accepted. The transition is definitely terrifying, but the idea of getting this right has so much potential and worth the sacrifice when you realize just how broken the 'system' really is. I think this what most don't understand when they see the Greta Thurnberg led Gen Z revolts happening all around the World, and they're dropping out of school to protest; this system is already doomed if you cannot convince the future generation play along anymore.

monadic2 7y ago

Yang was right in the sense that UBI is going to make more and more sense moving forward. I am still unclear how this would intersect with e.g. healthcare needs, which I believe is fundamentally an easier problem to solve for greater immediate effect.

godelski 7y ago
I think the idea here is that people that are sick can actually take time off. If you've worked in these kinds of jobs you show up to work sick because you can't miss a day, because you can't have a smaller paycheck. So a little more money eases this and gives more leverage to workers.
- dfxm12 7y ago
  $1000/mo gives you some leverage, but at the end of the day, not being tied to your job just so you can have decent and affordable health insurance gives you more. This doesn't even talk about stuff money can't buy, like mandatory paid sick leave. Instead of trying to just "ease this", why not try to eliminate it?
  - godelski 7y ago
    I get frustrated with answers like this. It sets up an __OR__ question when one didn't exist. I mean the discussion is about Andrew Yang's UBI. He also supported single payer. Why is this an __OR__ discussion? We don't have to fight when we're on the same side.

buzzkillington 7y ago

Why he isn't: Suggested income: $12,000 US Population: $327,200,000 Total cost for first year: $3,926,400,000,000 Total government expenditure for US: $3,800,000,000 So we would need to shut down everything the government does to afford his UBI. I personally don't feel like going for free market ICBM solutions is the best way to run an army, but each to their own.

JCharante 7y ago
Aren't there restriction like only for citizens 18+ and under Yang's policy it'd be you either take UBI or other subsidies you qualify for.
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  UBI only works when it isn't universal, basic or income. At that point you have invented a worse welfare state.
paulmd 7y ago
wow, what a strawman you've built there. that US government expenditure is a constantly changing number, when the government wants to buy some ICBMs they don't go cut food stamps correspondingly, they just increase the amount of government expenditure.
dillondoyle 7y ago
The first source I could find puts 2008 crisis programs at 5.7% of GDP (it says output I assume gdp), and New Deal at 40%. [1] Call it 130MM households in the US. Exclude top 5% ~123M. For 6 months stimulus 1k/house = 738B. Doesn't sound like enough really for what we're facing. Less than 2008 stimulus. only ~3.6% of GDP. This interview with Jason Furman has some other good comparisons+context and other back of napkin maths [2] If we're talking permanent UBI lowering or even cutting benefits programs (to be replaced by UBI) could get it somewhat close to budget neutral - if you cut a lot [3]. But IMHO would never be able to cut social security etc enough to make a difference, gross tax revenue would have to be raised somehow - but not by a shocking amount. 1 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/which-bigger-2009-recovery-act-fdr-new-deal https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/which-big... 2 https://www.vox.com/2020/3/13/21177850/coronavirus-covid-19-recession-stock-market-economy-jobs-stimulus https://www.vox.com/2020/3/13/21177850/coronavirus-covid-19-... 3 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-basic-income-plan-would-pay-1320-per-month.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-bas...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

blackrock 7y ago

Just build more homes! Build apartment high rises and condominium complexes, that people can own, with 15 years of work. Why should we be forced to work for 30 years as a slave to pay off some bank’s mortgage? It’s not our damn fault, that politicians are inept and can’t do the right thing, by providing affordable homes. Socialize the housing market. This is a basic human right, but the greed of capitalism is forcing everyone to pay insane prices for their housing.

redis_mlc 7y ago

There is a precedent to this situation. During the Great Depression/Dust Bowl in the 1920's, government officials were adamantly opposed to giving cash or food to citizens. Moral hazard, and all that. The result was that: - there were food riots - some Americans starved to death - Washington, D.C. was occupied by protesters living in tent cities, and the military had to intervene to prevent government buildings from being stormed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

oxymoran 7y ago

He was right. He was right before the pandemic and he’s even more right now. Whenever this ends, it’s going create even more incentive for employers to automate. Some of these jobs are going to disappear over the next few weeks and they may never come back.

drenginian 7y ago

No surely a trickle down would work better?

JDiculous 7y ago

One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel about slavery. UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong to society, you are deserving of a modest respectable standard of living, and you are entitled to some of the proceeds of the wealth generated by the land with which you've been excluded.

lanevorockz 7y ago
I believe you haven't worked with homeless people much, but the problem with homeless is NOT poverty. People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief. Hard problem to solve and it wouldn't be fixed by universal income. We tried convincing homeless people to go into shelters or to at least care a bit for themselves ( free self catered infrastructure like showers ). Best solution so far is a social one where people help them find a new sense of achievement and a place in society. Drugs is also a big problem and probably where all the money from universal income would go to.
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  While I agree I think Ubi would help regardless.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  You are talking about a small percentage of the homeless, plenty of poor people would be helped by this and saved from becoming homeless. They could afford to stay in their rural hometown instead of making their way to the cities where they can currently get help.
- JDiculous 7y ago
  Yes UBI would not "fix" homelessness or poverty, but it dramatically improves things. > People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief. What an insulting generalization of homeless people. Is that how you rationalize it in your head - these people find "relief" in sleeping on the sidewalk because they couldn't find their place in society? Did you ask those homeless people why they didn't want to go to the shelter? I remember speaking with a 60+ year old homeless woman in NYC once who told me she refused to go to the shelter because it was filled with crazy people. Also you have to check out of the shelter every day, and if you don't check back in by a certain time, then they can't let you in. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many would prefer to sleep on the streets than deal with that. > Best solution so far is a social one where people help them find a new sense of achievement and a place in society. This is why I'm a proponent of a jobs guarantee. Anyone who wants to work should not be denied the opportunity to do so. > Drugs is also a big problem and probably where all the money from universal income would go to. Yes, because all homeless people are drug addicts right? /s

teyc 7y ago

I was trying to think of parallels with the programming world, and perhaps this analogy might make sense to some people. Sometimes, the software we maintain accumulates so much tech debt that it becomes very difficult to make any headway. By setting aside some development time to address these issues, we enable developers to gain velocity again. In a similar way, sometimes we see poor people make illogical economic choices, simply because of a cash crunch. When people are poor, they have too many competing priorities that require urgent attention, and they find themselves caught in a series of wicked choices. A Harvard study suggests that poverty causes 13 point drop in IQ. The right level of UBI may actually improve the way energy and capital is deployed. It also protects a lot of small employers from economic shocks by smoothing out the velocity of money. Many readers are rightly concerned about the moral hazard introduced through redistribution of wealth. However, seen through the lens of tech debt and investment, UBI is relatively straight forward way of investing in the future.

Intermernet 7y ago

The combination of UBI and universal health care would mean that combating a pandemic would be much easier than it currently is. Everyone stays at home and self isolates for 2 weeks. Curve flattened. Bills payed. Ah well, it's a pity the side effects apparently include some McCarthyist caricature of communism /s

altcognito 7y ago

UBI is fundamentally right, my biggest issue with this approach is that this is the last step before eliminating support for the poor altogether. No longer hampered by the intricacies of providing a service, it now becomes a debate over "how much do people need to survive? Why do we need this in the first place? This is redistribution!" This is a battle "the people" not only have lost typically, but failed to even take up an interest in defending for themselves.

chrstphrhrt 7y ago
Yeah I'm afraid that the trickle-down grifters will always cook up some soundbites to knock any no-strings-attached benefits by pushing the freeloader fallacy and people will fall for it. Which brings us back to square one, but without anything needs based, causing a massive surge in poverty again. Of course this has to be balanced with the utter paternalism of determining "needs" in the first place. It clearly isn't enough on its own, and is also ripe for abuse in different ways.

helen___keller 7y ago

Taking a long-term view, UBI is a good idea, full stop. Societies' advancements in technology & productivity decrease the effective cost (as percentage of GDP) of meeting the very base needs of a human being. Food, cheap medicines like tylenol & antibiotics, most facets of human life are dirt cheap from a production perspective, and this trend will continue from automation. This means someone who is currently unproductive can be subsidized to survive for 10 full years, and if there's even a small chance they become a high-productivity individual afterwards then society comes out ahead on net value. The actual numbers depend on how low we can push production costs with automation, but in the limit as human survival cost approaches zero relative to the economy, the only rational decision is to subsidize all human survival and work within that framework to encourage citizens to be even more productive. After all, if someone dies of lack of healthcare, or starves, or lives in the streets and doesn't know how to get back off the streets, that's a net loss to humanity in opportunity cost. If that person had just been subsidized through their hard times, there's a non-zero chance they become high value to society. UBI allows us to reap these benefits in an efficient manner: using the free market. But, speaking today not in the long term, there are exceptions to the low cost of human survival which would hamper UBI from being effective. In our (American) society, there are a few base needs that we haven't adequately driven down costs. Shelter mostly, also any healthcare that is more involved than taking a pill a day (notably: seeing a doctor). Humankind in general CAN make these costs low for the most part, but American society in particular has NOT made these costs low. We need to address the housing & urban development crisis, and we need to address the healthcare crisis. The housing & urban development crisis is a system of regulations and inaction that have simultaneously limited the amount of housing near desirable locations, while failing to provide efficient transportation to bring people in from less desirable locations. In other words, housing costs are dominated not by the cost to build a house, but the cost of land. This can be addressed by reforming our awful & piecemeal zoning, construction, and transportation systems and their respective regulations. Optionally, some might suggest that we try to fight against the ongoing trends of urban consolidation; if people have a reason to move to upstate new york or the midwest, instead of to NYC, then housing costs aren't a problem. But right now all economic incentives point to moving to NYC metro, given the choices, and personally I don't like to wage war against the tide of the free market. The healthcare crisis is one of rent seeking by insurance companies upon our awful half-assed nearly-free-market approach to healthcare. Quite simply, people don't have choices (your healthcare options are restricted by your insurance, which is restricted by your employer), and no prices on anything are known ahead of time. This adds up to an ultra-inefficient system. By doing just about anything that stops the rent seeking of the insurance system upon the healthcare system so we can more efficiently treat a healthy society (there are free market solutions, but personally I would put my weight behind medicare-for-all). In conclusion, if we give everyone $1000/mo, that's going to get funneled into bidding up rent in big cities or surprise healthcare bills. We need to solve these issues with our free market before we take a free market approach to the common welfare; until then I would advocate more targeted approaches that are less likely to invite rent seeking behavior (foodstamps and such).

WaitWaitWha 7y ago

The problem with UBI is what others have already pointed out. My conclusions are from personal observation, so it is anecdotal and it is a generalization as most societal woes are. There will always be a group of individuals who are content with the minimum without making any effort. This group will not work to gain more. They are just content at not working and getting the minimum wage and additional government handouts. My experience is from a communist country. The shoddy craftsmanship for buildings, cars, services all around in my opinion was direct result for all the promised universal basic "something". In the beginning it all seemed good and well, but as more and more people got on the UB something, the less and less production/service was done. This is not a communist/socialist economic problem, but a human nature problem in my opinion. We always go for the least amount of effort, for the most amount of reward. To this effect, I cannot see how to prevent UBI pushing the lowest common level of participation in the society as a producer.

snidane 7y ago
Definition of work and productivity is arbitrary. You can think of these people taking the monthly UBI, shopping for groceries and eating it as meaningful work in quest for continuation of human race. I wouldn't see that as completely zero value add. As long as others work more than basic subsistence we'll be fine.

speby 7y ago

UBI ... providing direct services for/to the poor ... or a blend, will never resolve some people from "being poor" or adding "burden" to the system despite the system giving them "a minimum of what they need to survive." You can give a mentally ill person $1,000 a month for years and every time he gets the check, maybe he hands it over to a slum lord who secretly threatens the safety or has "tricked" the mentally ill person into giving him the money instead. Bottom line: Giving that person the money every month doesn't "fix" the mentally ill person's problem(s). It's just another roundabout way to try and minimize poor-dom. All of these solutions are potentially workable, or a blend. I think if anything what we should focus more on is which methods (or blend of methods) works to minimize poor-dom the "most" compared to many of the others, while also balancing the overall cost to deliver said methods on society.

digitaltrees 7y ago
Except that most people that are poor are not mentally ill. In fact most people that are poor can handle money and their life just fine...they just don't get paid enough.