The main problem with the Andrew Yang and Universal Basic Income

There is so many people on this forum that dont understand what Musk and Yang have been saying.

Its happening VERY quickly.

Right this very second, machine learning and analytics is EXPLODING into almost every industry and business.

Layoffs are happening, business strategies are changing...

Everything from insurance, to service, to food production, to banking are all becoming automated and analyzed. Companies are developing AI solutions.

UBI wont be a choice, it will be a necessity.

Our population will continue growing while our job market shrinks.

a reply to: neoholographic

Again, I don't understand this rush to Big Government for everything especially in this day and age of technology.

Because the other option is big corporations. Who in the name of survival will unquestionably put their own interests over the people they are supposed to be serving.
Every time. That's the nature of capitalism.

At least with government there is a system for redress.

Sounds like a path to hyperinflation.

1k, the new 1 dorrar bill.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

I thought the claim was western population is in decline thus we need immigrants.

or nah?

All this talk about UBI and automation is at best premature and at worse -- a distraction from what really happens at the next stage of world economic model.

In a nutshell, countries like China and India generate 3-4 times the university grads than we do. Most of which are stem, tech or science grads. They will work for less between now and full automation because they carry little or no college debt.

Those with low credit scores and high debt will face travel restrictions, automated debt audits and other enhanced surveillance and financial / time management "options" allowing them to reduce their "debt" by a percentage if they meet all the requirements.

Non-mobile skilled trades will likewise feel the pinch as large portions of the population will be unable to afford all but the most essential services.

Eventually, there will be suicide booths on every corner that recycle dropouts for parts to pay their debts.

Once the population is cut to 1/3, UBI will begin for the winners.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Your micro is incorrect.

Inflation is independent of market circulation and is just an artificial answer to taxes and welfare.

UBI will be directly replacing some salary from the economic circulation market.

Inflation does not do that. Inflation's debt is backed by nothing.

UBI's debt is backed by the generated salary equivalent being removed from the work force.

Money's value can be thought of as being positively backed AND negatively backed.

Nothing negatively backs inflation, so yes, it is completely useless. It's positive backing value, is just residual pieces of the crumbs of products and services.

The negative backing of UBI, from removal of a source salary, outweighs the positive breadcrumb backing of inflation's positive backed values.



This is an explanation of a monetary analysis that is a blend of both micro and macro economic ideals, as well as a method by which to measure and weigh both sides of economic transaction at the mass scale, in practice.

a reply to: neoholographic

How does Alaska do it? It's taken (TAXED) from the private company's that are profiting from the common resource and then paid out to residents. It does not come from the citizenry.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Lucidparadox

I thought the claim was western population is in decline thus we need immigrants.

or nah?

Who said I was just talking about the west?

This is a globalist economy, and when you apply for a job, now you are competing internationally.

The world population is growing exponentially.

a reply to: FyreByrd

That is the future with automation, some form of profit sharing.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: FyreByrd

That is the future with automation, some form of profit sharing.

And it always should have been. Before the seventies - the public saw it through pay raises as company's shared their profits - not any longer.

a reply to: FyreByrd

That is working for money. I mean profit sharing without being an employee.

a reply to: neoholographic

What you are suggesting would not be a UBI. UBI stands for UNIVERSAL Basic Income. It does not matter if you need it or not. It is like the money everyone in Alaska gets every year... Everyone gets exactly the same amount.
The advantage of a UBI is that there is NO means testing needed, and hence no large bureaucracy.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If you take 1k from me to give to my neighbor how is that a cash injection?

That money that would sit in your bank account would be spent by your neighbours, so the money is injected back into the economy instead of sitting stagnant in your bank account.i hope I cleared up your confusion.

The main problem with UBI is math. The rich simply aren't rich enough for the country to be able to afford UBI. You could tax those evil rich people at 100% and you still wouldn't have anywhere near the money needed to pay for it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If you take 1k from me to give to my neighbor how is that a cash injection?

The thing is that haven't taken from you to pay for any welfare. It goes straight to the debt. A new money system will emerge before long, one where it is governments job to inject regular cash stimulus to the people, without the associated debt that is required now. With a small % of the population monopolizing everything that gets borrowed there really is no other choice.

a reply to: CynConcepts

But ... but ... but ... robo economy does that for me! I want to discover myself and be an artist and I need that UBI.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If you take 1k from me to give to my neighbor how is that a cash injection?

That money that would sit in your bank account would be spent by your neighbours, so the money is injected back into the economy instead of sitting stagnant in your bank account.i hope I cleared up your confusion.

But then you just blithely assume that he likes having that $1,000 taken from him sooo much that he keeps earning the extra money just so it can be taken instead of finding ways to either prevent it from being taken by sheltering it somehow or simply not bothering to be that prosperous in the first place.

Then what?

originally posted by: neoholographic
......Why should the tax payers have to pay for UBI when it's private companies that are increasing automation?

This is a HUGE PROBLEM ....

It will costs taxpayers 3 trillion per year or 30 trillion over a decade. That's just nuts!

Here's my proposal:

It's simple. Private companies contribute to UBI based on their level of automation See ETA

So if your company is at 10% automation you contribute x amount of dollars. If your company is at 40% automation then you contribute more money to UBI.

Again, why do we have to saddle the taxpayers with a 30 trillion dollar bill over 10 years when it's private companies that will be increasing automation?

We work it out so the percentages companies contribute will still allow them to make more profits through automation. Companies will be okay with this because without UBI, who will buy the goods they make?

Also, Yang wants a thousand dollars a month to go to every American, even rich ones. This would be a mistake. My plan would give UBI to low income families and those workers most affected by the increase in automation.

Finally, my plan wouldn't allow the Government to touch the money contributed to UBI. The money would go to a 3rd party escrow system that sends checks directly to those getting UBI. Governments role will be limited to oversight.

Again, I don't understand this rush to Big Government for everything especially in this day and age of technology.

ETA - Relevant success as a company would be weighted as a factor in a matrix of many such factors, which collectively would work out a fair deal between company & government contributions to UBI, including number of employees, percentage of work automated in the past ten, fifteen, twenty years . Damage to local economy due to automation. Areas of deprivation where whole industries have automated & failed to regenerate the areas where they are situated.

You could say that the companies will just pack up & leave, but if they are tapping a natural resource they cannot do this. Also, even if companies tried to hop around from place to place, ultimately that won't hold water forever, because it would get bitter, and people would boycott & protest in droves once they see the pattern of companies shirking on their obligations to the worker populace.

Even if they were to shift production to third world countries, they would be shooting themselves in the foot, because as you point out above, they would lose the customers they're desperate to attract custom from. Shirkers will get short shrift, once people can see that the roll-out of UBI - a system that could work brilliantly if well-executed - depends on their good will towards the companies as much as the companies needing to attract or retain customers within an evolving UBI framework.

Who knows, maybe we can see the UK's currently shockingly bad system known as 'Universal Credit' (a really shambolic & sinde, manipulative, newsspeak steup stab in the back plan if ever there was one) - perhaps competent HM Revenue managers, together with honest social scientists & savvy urban workstream planners can re-engineer the system to become a truly balanced, meritocratic yet equable system of balance, grace & adaptability. I suggested in another thread the concept of widening circles of interlinked agencies specified as 'round table' associations which would plan & execute layers of planning which allow for the flexible 'up-boost' of UBI by meritocratic banded/tiered community value positions, so that everyone who needed to somewhat downgrade their contribution over a span of time (eg - mother puts career on hold while raising infants/ young children) could contribute to the community by some afternoons where she volunteers at a local charity, and by so doing receives a slightly boosted UBI over that period as she works toward re-entry into the jobs market. There are many examples of a young father, an apprentice, a semi-retiree, and so on, all being able to fit into a flexible, meritocratic system of up-boost/ winding down of their private sector career course, into the voluntary sector, or bridging the gap between jobs, and so on. This is a really exciting thing to my mind, and I really hope we have some sort of plan in place to work towards it, because we're going to need it.

"To the glory of God, and the comfort of His people."

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: FyreByrd

That is working for money. I mean profit sharing without being an employee.

No it is not. Alaskas population gets a dividend each year collected from oil producers in 'payment' for their ownership of the resource that the oil companies need. They are not employees - they, if anything are - as a group - the lease holders.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

.... did you really just say the US economy is better off if no one saves any money and spends every cent they have and have no savings account?

This is why liberals should not be allowed to influence the economy.