d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Andrew Yang
Prev1333435
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 51,244
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,400.67
Sep 17 2019 10:23am
Quote (thesnipa @ 17 Sep 2019 17:52)
this. even if Yang's entire run ends up with nothing more than a senate panel on Automation it will be worth it.

his mistake is starting off with UBI for all, even though it's led to a lot of attention. he'd be far better off pitching UBI as a concept for displaced working populations with few employment prospects (something that would have won HRC the 2016 election), coal miners, auto workers, etc. Then slowly rolling the success of that until UBI for all once it's more direly needed. realistically we still have 50 or so years before unskilled labor becomes extinct. what happens to the worse off in the mean time is most important.


the thing is, giving some groups an almost unconditional basic income while others have to keep slogging would be toxic politics.

"you lost your job, and as a reward, you get to sit at home on taxpayer money while I have to grind it out in the plant" would be a common sentiment, and economically conservative Republicans would be more than happy to exploit it.
Member
Posts: 90,626
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Sep 17 2019 10:34am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 17 2019 11:23am)
the thing is, giving some groups an almost unconditional basic income while others have to keep slogging would be toxic politics.

"you lost your job, and as a reward, you get to sit at home on taxpayer money while I have to grind it out in the plant" would be a common sentiment, and economically conservative Republicans would be more than happy to exploit it.


nothing about the "start slow" approach to UBI says that a live-able income need be provided, nor that the money be provided from the general tax pool. automation taxes have been floated as an idea for a while, and in Alaska where UBI already exists the payouts are far less than an income.

reality is that in the worst affected placed we have economic dead zones. where 20-30 years ago the economy wasn't powerful, but stable. people flee these areas, housing markets are nonexistent, no new investment, etc. Deep coal country, Flynt MI, Lead country in PA, etc. the reality also tho is these places aren't sites of mass ritualistic suicide or mass starvation, what do i mean by that? I mean that while there is no economy there to speak of people still live there and still exist. they homestead and live on scraps, they take shitty part time employment just to scrape by, they sell things on the black market, etc. So if they used to make 30k$/year, and now make 10k$/year, and now spend most of their time living off their own resources and land, an extra 2-3k$/year can drastically change the sliding economy of the region. these dead zones are also terrible for both the state tax collections and even interstate trade. where u used to have a trading partner or tax base you now have not only a black spot but also a large draw on welfare and food stamp programs. we're already dumping tax dollars into regions with very little return. sometimes a tire wont take air, you can massage it, pump up the PSI on the air pressure, you can try just about anything. but if you want to do it right you bust out the can of ether and a match.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 17 2019 10:36am
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Sep 17 2019 10:47am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 17 2019 11:23am)
the thing is, giving some groups an almost unconditional basic income while others have to keep slogging would be toxic politics.

"you lost your job, and as a reward, you get to sit at home on taxpayer money while I have to grind it out in the plant" would be a common sentiment, and economically conservative Republicans would be more than happy to exploit it.


That's already the sentiment towards welfare.
Member
Posts: 61,375
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 10.77
Sep 18 2019 12:53am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 17 2019 09:23am)
the thing is, giving some groups an almost unconditional basic income while others have to keep slogging would be toxic politics.

"you lost your job, and as a reward, you get to sit at home on taxpayer money while I have to grind it out in the plant" would be a common sentiment, and economically conservative Republicans would be more than happy to exploit it.



Correct. Most people on welfare are in fact conservative whites.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Sep 18 2019 12:56am
Member
Posts: 52,513
Joined: Jun 1 2010
Gold: 1.69
Sep 18 2019 04:50am
Quote (inkanddagger @ 18 Sep 2019 02:53)
Correct. Most people on welfare are in fact conservative whites.



Considering population differences that is mot a surprise
Member
Posts: 53,420
Joined: Nov 7 2009
Gold: 2,420.00
Sep 18 2019 06:37am
I still want my $1000
Member
Posts: 23,966
Joined: Jul 8 2007
Gold: 137.01
Sep 18 2019 06:52am
I have a feeling the people who can't stop popping babies will complain about why their kids don't get the 1000/mo.
Member
Posts: 53,139
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Sep 18 2019 11:25pm
https://www.yahoo.com/news/andrew-yang-no-apologies-asian-010556330.html

Yang refuses to bow to political correctness, is called a racist by a plethora of pale pasty privileged lefties
Member
Posts: 51,244
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,400.67
Member
Posts: 6,516
Joined: Oct 22 2005
Gold: 12.79
Sep 19 2019 05:02pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Sep 18 2019 02:53am)
Correct. Most people on welfare are in fact conservative whites.


Yes this is true in the same way its true that men are women and women are men. :thumbsup:
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1333435
Add Reply New Topic New Poll