Let's talk Yang

BearsWiin

PurpleThrobber said:

BearsWiin said:

My two concerns with UBI are that it may have the unintended consequences of raising inflation and depressing wages

The Throbber is already depressed about half the time.

Porn helps.

You watched that porn because you think there's still hope. But Throbber, the only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a MAGAmerican's supposed to function. Without mercy, without compassion, without remorse. All Republican economic policy depends on it.

GreenRiverGatorz

I appreciate the theory behind it, and I think it properly recognizes the role technology has and continues to play in wrecking a lot of our middle class. But I'm generally against a no strings attached handout, and I think the disincentives that come with a free $12k/year are pretty damn high. I'd like to see that money spent on some sort of "re-education" (bad choice of words) or free vocational training for those who won't have a place in the new economy, similar to what the Throbber is saying. Daycare vouchers or other forms of assistance for struggling parents would also be more effective IMO. I honestly don't trust the group that needs the UBI the most to effectively spend that money in a way that truly helps them. I think daddy government still needs to play a role in helping them help themselves.

UW_Doog_Bot

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I appreciate the theory behind it, and I think it properly recognizes the role technology has and continues to play in wrecking a lot of our middle class. But I'm generally against a no strings attached handout, and I think the disincentives that come with a free $12k/year are pretty damn high. I'd like to see that money spent on some sort of "re-education" (bad choice of words) or free vocational training for those who won't have a place in the new economy, similar to what the Throbber is saying. Daycare vouchers or other forms of assistance for struggling parents would also be more effective IMO. I honestly don't trust the group that needs the UBI the most to effectively spend that money in a way that truly helps them. I think daddy government still needs to play a role in helping them help themselves.

I'll give you respect for at least admitting it. There are large amounts of people that need to be managed by the government in your view.

I'd argue that line of thinking has very similar negative outcomes to a simple free handout.

Let's be clear as well, I'm not talking about the minority of people with mental health issues that need help managing them.

GrundleStiltzkin

I've not dug into the AI/automation thing much at all, and this is a sincere question. What makes Yang's economic-technologic predictions different than those that have come before?

UW_Doog_Bot

BearsWiin said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

BearsWiin said:

My two concerns with UBI are that it may have the unintended consequences of raising inflation and depressing wages

I mean, do you care about how current welfare systems do that?

Define current welfare systems, then I can ansewer you're querey

Sure, food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, etc.

All those things that get called corporate welfare when working people use them.

WilburHooksHands

GrundleStiltzkin said:

I've not dug into the AI/automation thing much at all, and this is a sincere question. What makes Yang's economic-technologic predictions different than those that have come before?

The difference is that his incorporate a healthy dose of AI at all, which has a much further possible automation reach industry wise than robots/manufacturing jobs. He also doesn’t believe you can simply just retrain everybody efficiently and realistically.

BearsWiin

GrundleStiltzkin said:

I've not dug into the AI/automation thing much at all, and this is a sincere question. What makes Yang's economic-technologic predictions different than those that have come before?

Past revolutions have increased productivity in certain sectors (agriculture, manufacturing) to the point where much fewer people are required for them. Past revolutions have tended to create more jobs than they displace - people migrated from farms and rural areas to cities and got jobs in manufacturing, and as manufacturing has become more efficient people have migrated to more service-sector jobs. The concern is that the current/future AI/automation revolution will not create as many jobs as it displaces. What will people do and where will they get their money then become big problems/questions

UW_Doog_Bot

GrundleStiltzkin said:

I've not dug into the AI/automation thing much at all, and this is a sincere question. What makes Yang's economic-technologic predictions different than those that have come before?

Very little IMO. I think offshoring has done far worse to our labor force than automation is likely to do. If you want some further in depth reading I could probably dig some articles up but I think it falls into the same fallacious arguments previous generations had about automation. Could you imagine explaining to someone from the 50's that professional video game players would be a fairly accessible job in the future?

There's an argument to be made that the RATE of automation will increase and create a structural gap of employment. I think we should address that but in a short term fashion.

All that said, I'm still a proponent of UBI as a replacement of welfare.

WestlinnDuck

Ignoring the impact of legal chain migration and illegal immigration. That has had a huge impact on US wages. Roofing hasn't had much automation. Roofers make far less in 2019 than in 1969. Inflation adjusted.

BearsWiin

UW_Doog_Bot said:

BearsWiin said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

BearsWiin said:

My two concerns with UBI are that it may have the unintended consequences of raising inflation and depressing wages

I mean, do you care about how current welfare systems do that?

Define current welfare systems, then I can ansewer you're querey

Sure, food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, etc.

All those things that get called corporate welfare when working people use them.

OK, now that we've defined terms a bit, I can respond.

The list you provided is a reactive set of welfare systems - people aren't getting what they need, so the govt. helps them. Yang's proposal is proactive, giving everybody something whether or not they need it. I see it as a much bigger pump-priming than the current systems, which stands to put a shitload more money in consumers' hands, which might stimulate inflation. Employers across all sectors might see that people have a minimum UBI and factor that into their wage scales. Nothing approaching this kind of UBI has ever been attempted on this scale, and I'm not sure we know how the actors in the system will respond to the new rules. By itself, UBI may end up causing some behaviors and outcomes that are neither desired not intended, which is why it would probably have to be accompanied by an attendant set of rules to make sure that people are actually being helped instead of having their purchasing power eroded by other means.