The Andrew Yang thread

eradicator

Peacock
Agnostic
Gold Member
Andrew Yang is running for president on the Democrat side.

He is relatively unknown compared to the rest of the field but addresses the problem of robots and machines taking over human jobs(farming, trucking, mining, amazon...

And the solution is UBI, or Universal Basic Income. Everyone USA citizen would receive 1000 dollars a month. If you are already receving 200 dollars in food stamps then you would receive 800 in UBI. If you are already receiving welfare and food stamps in an amount greater than 1000, then you receive no UBI.

If you are not a citizen or under the age of 18, then you receive no UBI. As far as what I understand, only Iran has a country wide UBI. Some other countries like India, Switzerland, Finland, France, Canada, US in Alaska, and Brazil use it in regions.



Essentially, robots and machines are in the process of taking over low level jobs and will displace approximately 30 million workers in the next 20 years.

There are a number of reasons why we don't want 30 million workers to suddenly become unemployed(crime, violence, scape goating and whatnot). This would help those workers and help young entrepreneur.

Andrew Yang is getting a lot of talk on other threads, and instead of derailing those threads, it might be a good idea to just keep the talk off of the Trump thread, for example.

Post your memes, your hate, your thoughts, whatever


Here is the Joe Rogan video with Andrew Yang.



Here is the donation link
https://t.co/Gp4E3EFZO0

I just donated 20 dollars
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
Yang is just a leftist looking for votes and has no idea how quickly this can get away from him. It also ought to scare the shit out of silicon valley elitists looking for bogeymen with which to distract the mouth breathing masses. No sympathy, of course.

I saw Delicioustacos tweeting in support of Yang earlier; not sure if he's serious or just his usual nihilist and hilarious self. Either way, I think he's on to something. Hell, if it's all going to go to shit soon anyway and even an illegal immigrant can already get at least that much per month just for showing up, why wouldn't I pile on and support a monthly check for me too?

Playing by the rules is obviously for suckers.

GOP, change my mind and win my vote for $1001 a month.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
Of course he doesn't. But with open borders the days of legal gun ownership are numbered anyway; prepare accordingly.

And cash that check before it bounces.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
eradicator said:
Andrew Yang is running for president on the Democrat side.

He is relatively unknown compared to the rest of the field but addresses the problem of robots and machines taking over human jobs(farming, trucking, mining, amazon...

And the solution is UBI, or Universal Basic Income. Everyone USA citizen would receive 1000 dollars a month. If you are already receving 200 dollars in food stamps then you would receive 800 in UBI. If you are already receiving welfare and food stamps in an amount greater than 1000, then you receive no UBI.

If you are not a citizen or under the age of 18, then you receive no UBI. As far as what I understand, only Iran has a country wide UBI. Some other countries like India, Switzerland, Finland, France, Canada, US in Alaska, and Brazil use it in regions.



Essentially, robots and machines are in the process of taking over low level jobs and will displace approximately 30 million workers in the next 20 years.

There are a number of reasons why we don't want 30 million workers to suddenly become unemployed(crime, violence, scape goating and whatnot). This would help those workers and help young entrepreneur.


I've highlighted that part because it's a key to understanding how the shell game works and why America will never accept UBI.

Why do you get to deduct Yang Dollars if you're already receiving food stamps or welfare? Because of the simple truth that America already has a Universal Basic Income in place, but it can't be called that because of the West's own narcissism. We make up lots of silly names for the present UBI: 'food stamps'. 'Welfare'. 'Unemployment benefit'. 'SSI'. 'Prison for possession of weed.' 'Student loans', a lifetime of UBI given in 4 years in the case of BA degrees. We do this because, if it is an undeniable fact that we're going to pay this money to people, there are only two possibilities: we can do it either out of rage that we have to pay it ... or out of the good feelings it gives ourselves for paying it. Because the result in either case is going to be us paying the money and maintaining our identities.

See, there is a simple psychological statement underlying a UBI, one that flies counter to the bedrock of capitalism. A UBI states that you, and, in general, large swathes of people, are simply not required to economically contribute to society. You have no place in the society, so to just barely keep you from storming Bastilles or asking larger questions like the size of the deficit or why anyone outside a corporation allows the limited liability corporation to exist, we will pay you X amount of money to keep you non-contributing.

Does this state of affairs sound familiar? It should: the concept of the Red Pill itself comes right out of a certain 1999 movie targeted at a massive demographic of Westerners who sensed the system around them required no input from themselves in order for it to exist. If you wanted the same concept sans Keanu Reeves, try Fight Club, they both contain basically the same monologue from Morpheus.

I'm not talking about after the Second Renaissance, I'm talking about right now. As the Last Psychiatrist puts it:

So start with an interesting hypothetical: does everybody need to work anymore? I understand work from an ethical/character perspective, this is not here my point. Since we no longer need e.g. manufacturing jobs-- cheaper elsewhere or with robots-- since those labor costs have evaporated, could that surplus go towards paying people simply to stay out of trouble? Is there a natural economic equilibrium price where, say, a U Chicago grad can do no economically productive work at all but still be paid to use Instagram? Let me be explicit: my question is not should we do this, my question is that since this is precisely what's happening already, is it sustainable? What is the cost? I don't have to run the numbers, someone already has: it's $150/mo for a college grads, i.e. the price of food stamps. Other correct responses would be $700/mo for "some high school" (SSI) or $1500/mo for "previous work experience" (unemployment). I would have accepted $2000/mo for "minorities" (jail) for partial credit.


VI.

While all those monies have different names and different "requirements" they are all exactly the same thing: paying people who are off the grid, whether by choice or circumstance, indefinitely. i.e. Living Wages. However, they can never be called that. They have to pretend to be something else: this is for food, this is because of a medical problem we just made up, this is because you were caught with weed so we'll leave you in here for 6 months until we sentence you to probation. And they have to have these fake reasons to give taxpayers a little emotional distance, deniability, otherwise they'd go John Galt, after all, they have all the guns. If they can invade Iraq, how hard is it going to be to take the Whole Foods on 3rd?

That "emotional distance" is not hyperbole, it's not me being a lefty deconstructicon, it is an absolute requirement of a psychic defense of identity, of self-worth. The point is not to get you to accept that hipsters deserve food stamps, the point is the opposite: to enrage you, infuriate you, so that you will resist-- because then and only then will you pay for it.

That's how America works. The system needs you to be willing, not wanting, to pay for this, and getting the existing (narcissistic) society to believe that it is their "responsibility" (Left's word) to pay for "laziness" (Right's word)-- to WANT to pay for this-- is absolutely impossible. Why can't we just all agree on what a fair share might be, take care of each other? Didn't you major in English Lit? "Homo economicus" is not reality, envy is an immutable characteristic of our consciousness, it is practically Kantian, some of you will get a minor hold of it but even your priests are chock full o' it. If the porn isn't high res you can't get horny, but you can hate a guy at 1000 paces without a scope. That's human nature. Envy, rage. It's not all we are, but you cannot discount it.

The only way to get them to agree to pay is to give them a way of rationalizing the "responsibility" as, in some way, for them: you'll get a tax break, you'll be rewarded in heaven, you are a better person for it, thanks, this means a lot. Can you imagine a hipster looking at a salesman and saying thanks for your service? So that's out, use the default: rage. Just like how you get people motivated to go to war. No, no, no, no, not the people already waving flags, I mean the people who don't want war. Said every liberal in Congress one magical day in 2003: "I'm not going to let those oil bastards Cheney and Bush get away with their racist imperialist plan, which is why I'm going to scream obscenities at them as I vote Attack."

The system isn't thinking short term, it needs this to work long term, those hipsters are going to be getting food stamps forever, or do you think if the economy rebounds, old liberal arts majors will suddenly become appealing? Like a woman who squandered her youth on fun but disreputable men, she will find herself at 45 wanting to marry, but alone. "That is such a disgusting, sexist, archaic thing to say." I feel your rage, and you are right. Alone nevertheless.

Do you see? Introduce a UBI and you undercut, in a major way, most people's narcissistic defences for paying it. Therefore they won't actually pay it. You need an excuse to pay it, even if it's a pathetic one (charity begins at home, not on the Federal government's dime.)

There's also that the UBI also ignores economic reality. The prominent leftists in favour of it don't want capitalism to remain, they want consumerism to remain.

You might think that the rage is the spark for a transformation of America, a full scale Dagny Taggart meltdown or Bolshevik revolution, depending on your hat. That's not how it works. If this is narcissism, then its purpose is protecting identity, defending against change. Doesn't matter what side you think you're on, unless you are unplugged you are for the status quo.

Here's an example: in the "radical left" (their words) magazine Jacobin, the editor writes a defense of Gerry and Sarah as a way of arguing for the abolishment of, well, everything Randian. He's against the "work ethic", he wants a paradigm shift away from American producerism-- the idea that your value is based only on what you can produce for the economy-- towards social rights, e.g. Living Wages. I disagree with everything in it, so what? but it is very well written and reasoned, and if I played the same game as him I'd want him on my team.

The point here is that he wants CHANGE. Here is the last paragraph of the article, tell me if you can find anything supporting the status quo:

Rather than the "deserving" or "working" poor, with its connotations of moral judgment and authoritarian social control, it is time to begin speaking the language of economic and social rights. For instance, the right to a Universal Basic Income, a means of living at a basic level that would be provided to everyone, no questions asked. Against the invidious politics of the work ethic, it's time to argue that some things should be granted to everyone, simply by virtue of their humanity. Even hipsters.



Sounds sublime. But Gerry already had a living wage-- he spent it on the University of Chicago, 41 years of food stamps in 4 years. If everybody knew in advance the outcome was going to be unemployment and living wages, then why doesn't Frase challenge the capitalist assumption that college is money well spent-- could have been used differently? He can't. This thought cannot occur to him, not because he is dumb, he clearly isn't, or because he is paid by a college-- money is irrelevant to him. He can't because his entire identity is built on college, academia. He is college. Take that away, he disintegrates. So in the utopia he imagines, college still exists AND people get living wages. Call me a Marxist, that's what we have now.

Second, and more importantly, he thinks he's a radical progressive, that he wants a paradigm shift away from capitalism towards social rights-- but he wants to keep everything else about capitalism completely intact. He is explicitly against producerism, but he wants to replace it with consumerism. He wants to make sure people can get what they want, not teach them how to want. In his utopia of no questions asked Universal Basic Income, do retail sales go up or down? The system has won.
 

Fortis

Crow
Gold Member
As usual, RVF hits me with some food for thought. I like Andrew Yang but something about his message just seemed a bit too perfect. Thanks for laying out some good counterpoints for me.

To be honest, I do like the guy. I think we do need a president who has a better understanding of technological trends. Our culture is under attack by the banking elite for now, but the next big threat will come from tech giants who seek to manipulate our opinions through marketing and media.

However, I do wonder about his connections to the Chinese government. I think he's Taiwanese but many Taiwanese politicals are CCP moles.

I wonder where he fits in.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
CaptainChardonnay said:
He doesn't respect the 2nd amendment. Will go after guns hard with registration, storage, restrictions, etc.

...

Don't worry. They're not using them anyway.

SparsePinkCanary-size_restricted.gif
 

Ouroboros

Woodpecker
eradicator said:
And the solution is UBI, or Universal Basic Income. Everyone USA citizen would receive 1000 dollars a month. If you are already receving 200 dollars in food stamps then you would receive 800 in UBI. If you are already receiving welfare and food stamps in an amount greater than 1000, then you receive no UBI.

One of the main rationales behind the UBI is that it would reduce costs associated with bureaucratic inefficiencies, redundancies and complexity by completely replacing all existing welfare programs. It's harder to fiscally justify the UBI if it's simply being added to the current chaotic mix of entitlements.
 
There's absolutely no mistaking that UBI would accelerate the decline of the US as a world power.

No mistake about it AT ALL. UBI is a horrible idea, but as Paracelsus so succinctly summed up, it already exists. In the Donald Trump thread I mentioned other kinds of UBI: alimony, child payments, grievance lawsuits, HR department, public employees that can't get fired etc.

It's pretty clear who is being left out of the trough. Young men, says Andrew Yang.

Here's the thing, UBI will not placate the anger of young men. Barron wrote a post in the Don Trump thread that got quite some derision, but imo he was right, that work is important for most men. At least those of the """protestant work ethic""".

What UBI will do, is allow young men to spend a lot more time, looking things up on the internet. A lot more time to build a location and SJW independent business. A lot more time to study hunting, MMA, gardening, reading. UBI will allow strong willed young men to actually get a proper education. To take up those fields of study, which were usually reserved for the upper classes. Some will of course succumb to sex dolls and VR.
 

Renzy

Pelican
Catholic
UBI will be the death knell for marriage. In the past when women depended on men financially, it created a strong incentive for women to seek out productive, stable men. It also kept men operating under the illusion that being a decent, productive member of society was attractive to women. The welfare state and women entering the workforce has already eroded the incentive for women to seek out "husband material men" which in turn has pulled off the blinders for men on what women are truly attracted to. UBI will kick this into overdrive. As Sheryl Sandberg put it in Lean In:

When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands.

If something like UBI goes into effect I think you're going to see men checking out en masse and women staying on the carousel long after the wall hits. It'll be the final nail in the coffin for stable family formation in our culture.
 
^ Do you not think that has already happened, Renzy?

We're just going to have to accept that things will get worse, before they get good.

I have a coherent political ideology for the future: agraro-futurism, it's the Amish, but with huge flying robots with guns. Everyone living a nice rural lifestyle, but with modern medicine and anime-like flying robots to keep borders secure.

I'm 100% non sarcastic convinced that agrarianism is the only political ideology that will be able to cross the divide between left and right.
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
The 1,000 is just a safety net for when you lose your job to automation and need time to reskill or start a business without worrying about starving. I don't see how people can drop out of the workforce en mass and survive on 1,000 a month unless they live far from a major city and have roommates and never eat out.

Does anyone know if the 1,000 is adjusted for living costs? If I lived in NYC or SF and lost my job to a robot then 1,000 would basically do nothing for me and I'd still have to uproot myself and move. OTOH, I could just move to a third world country and live a middle class lifestyle with that income but retain my US citizenship. Seems like there are still some kinks to work out in the policy.
 

Ski pro

 
Banned
1000 dollars a month doesn’t sound like a great deal of money to me.

I don’t know much about the US but you won’t get far on 1k a month in europe
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
The best thing Yang can do is get some traction and start to pace and lead the Democratic Party away from the toxic identity politics and also to raise awareness about the automation issue and the tech sector dominance.

To that end he needs to have a good run and get support above the single digits, which is historically tough for a candidate like him. Usually candidates like him have a surprising summer but then peak by September-October or so and flame out before Iowa and New Hampshire. So his short-term strategy needs to keep that in mind. Unlike Trump, he's not a recognized brand and isn't a charismatic dynamo. He needs to hire some guys for his campaign that know how to sell and meme on social media.

The advertising needs to be subtle and effective.
 

Sp5

 
Banned
CaptainChardonnay said:
He doesn't respect the 2nd amendment. Will go after guns hard with registration, storage, restrictions, etc.



Yang is a lawyer, yet says shit like he doesn't understand the basics of Anglo-American law, let alone the Constitution. Not only a matter of the 2nd Amendment, a matter of assigning criminal liability for the acts of others.

This is another example:

Judges should be able to dismiss any lawsuit during its initial stages purely for being unreasonable. There can be an appeal process, but that process should be one that’s fought between the plaintiff and an appeals court, not between a plaintiff and the person being unreasonably sued.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/tort-reform-reasonableness-dismissals/

This can already be done (eg FedR Civ P 11 and 12). To the extent he seems to be proposing something new, looks like he wants a judge to be able to arbitrarily decide they don't like your lawsuit and it's "unreasonable."

I'll pass on this guy.
 
Ski pro said:
1000 dollars a month doesn’t sound like a great deal of money to me.

I don’t know much about the US but you won’t get far on 1k a month in europe

It's not nearly enough to survive on.

In reality, a UBI you could survive on, say $2000, is economically unfeasible and would require around 70% taxation (of total GDP).

Unless you dramatically cut a lot government spending.

That's why I like this debate.
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
The $1000 a month is supposed to just be a cushion. Not like the Green New Fraud that pays people "unwilling to work."

The concept is sound. UBI will be coming at some point or another with how fast jobs are getting automated. There won't be another choice.
 
Top