Quote :

" the 37% working"

that's not how labor participation rate math works

Quote :

" it would have to be over $2k a month right"

Assuming all 10% of the VAT is passed through to consumers (it's more likely to be around 2-3%, not to mention that various essentials like groceries would be at a lower VAT rate), the Freedom Dividend will still increase the buying power of the bottom ~94% accounting for what they would pay in VAT, and is a transfer of wealth from the very rich to the poorer in a progressive way.

Quote :

" why aren't you including the value of the benefits they have to give up (not to mention increases in rent, etc...) in your maths?"

daaave made an overly simplistic calculation on earnings with $15 min wage vs the Freedom Dividend. My intent was to fill in the gaps for him.

I explained the rest last month

Quote :

" heard of the Green New Deal? Guaranteed job for everyone who needs one, a living wage, AND you don't need to give up benefits"

I absolutely support federal spending on infrastructure improvements and solutions to combat climate change. I have no doubt that millions of jobs could be created in these areas that will benefit our country and those workers. I don't think a Federal Jobs Guarantee in perpetuity is a good idea and is prone to political manipulation. I'll also point out that Yang has generally been supportive of the Green New Deal.

And again, Universal Basic Income is about more than just the money. We need to change the way that we think about work and how we value our lives. Insisting that people work a 40/hr week at a "job" in order for their lives and survival to be justified is absolute nonsense in the 21st century. Shedding these toxic mindsets will be 1000x more impactful than a mere $1000/month.

And just like $15/hr minimum wage, a FJG doesn't do any good for the hundreds of millions of Americans who will not take one of those jobs. The Freedom Dividend will literally benefit every single American.



Bernie (and the others too but especially Warren and Buttigieg should be able to figure this out) should support UBI. I still have a lot of respect and appreciation for Bernie, but he's wrong on this issue.


[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 1:54 PM. Reason : crazycode is dumb af laff.gif]

9/17/2019 12:24:02 PM

It's not overly simplistic. Yes, the $1000/mo would help me. I don't care. I'm a socialist, so I'm concerned with everyone, especially the very poor who depend on benefits, who will not benefit at all from Yang's UBI. It would actually be a detriment to them, because of the increase in purchasing power for everyone else.

9/17/2019 12:39:52 PM

the post you quoted doesn't show the equivalent pay increase for anyone who has to opt out of benefits, but more specifically you haven't responded to this being regressive

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 12:43 PM. Reason : even that graphic doesn't take into account lost benefits ]

9/17/2019 12:39:55 PM

Quote :

" It's not overly simplistic"

It absolutely 100% was. You focused on one scenario that represents an extremely small slice of actual circumstances in this country.

Quote :

" the very poor who depend on benefits, who will not benefit at all from Yang's UBI. It would actually be a detriment to them, because of the increase in purchasing power for everyone else."

this is the Scarcity Mindset. When somebody else does well, that does not take away from my or our collective success.

let's do an experiment. you go find a person making $7.25/hr right now. offer them $1000. I bet you they'll accept it. Then tell them that you're also going to give $1000 to Bill Gates. Think they'll suddenly turn down your offer?



^ yes I did https://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=650723&page=3#16542534

Quote :

" Yes, a VAT is regressive. A UBI+VAT however, which is Yang's proposal, is not regressive for 94% of Americans. I wasn't a fan of the VAT a few months ago, I was more interested in a wealth tax. But then I realized that the folks who have the wealth, have too much influence and are smart enough (or their accountants are anyways) to avoid taxable events. a VAT is the simplest, most efficient way to evenly collect tax dollars from all participants in the economy. That's why so many other countries do it."

Quote :

" the equivalent pay increase for anyone who has to opt out of benefits"

you'll have to elaborate on this, I'm not following...

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 1:08 PM. Reason : for the record, I think both a VAT and a wealth tax are good ideas]

9/17/2019 12:50:37 PM

Quote :

" I'm a socialist, so I'm concerned with everyone"

so support the policy that literally helps everybody instead of the policy that MAYBE will help 5% of the US population?

9/17/2019 12:54:24 PM

I think Yang has a lot more going for him than just the dividend, and I'd really like that to be more of a focus of his conversation.

As I stated on page 3, and still haven't heard much answer on, there are some serious concerns with his approach to UBI.

https://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=650723&page=3#16542597

I'd also like to add a #3, suggesting that UBI may just make the rich richer and marginally move the needle for poorer groups. If you give people money that mostly replaces the benefits they were receiving elsewhere, then it's a net zero benefit (mutatis mutandis). However, if I receive that $1K a month, then you up my consumption some (maybe $300/month) on ways for me as an already affluent individual to enjoy their life even more and also build additional wealth through saving ($700/month).

I see two problems there. The first being that while my consumption does do something to help drive demand of the services the lower quartile provide (home cleaning, food service, etc) it's largely just increasing the status of my life but not much to change the day to day nature of those lower groups. The second issue is it builds wealth for me, while getting the lower income groups at net zero. This expands the wealth gap in America, rather than helps to resolve it.

@qntmfred can you please address my 3 topics? I'm not asking to be a dick, I'm asking out of serious interest but I've known you to be a bright individual ever since 1109B, and want to know if I'm missing something.

9/17/2019 1:05:48 PM

Quote :

"let's do an experiment. you go find a person making $7.25/hr right now. offer them $1000. I bet you they'll accept it. Then tell them that you're also going to give $1000 to Bill Gates. Think they'll suddenly turn down your offer?"

I was talking about the people who will not take the $1000 so how is this relevant?

Quote :

"so support the policy that literally helps everybody instead of the policy that MAYBE will help 5% of the US population?"

Remove the benefits opt-out, replace the VAT with something non-regressive, and it's still a bad plan. I want a vast social safety net that isn't subject to the whims of the market, and a democratic shared-wealth economy that respects our value as laborers and humans. This is not what Yang wants. He wants to preserve capitalism and allow the "winners" to keep their wealth that they stole from the backs of laborers.

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2019 1:12:06 PM

Quote :

" Yang has a lot more going for him than just the dividend, and I'd really like that to be more of a focus of his conversation"

agreed.

I'll look again at your posts. I think there's another post somewhere I promised a response to as well.

Quote :

" I'm not asking to be a dick, I'm asking out of serious interest"

oh I'm well aware and I appreciate the interest, even if you decide you don't like his policy proposals or you like another candidate better. I know very well how to recognize which people on the internet are for real and which are mostly just being asses

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 1:16 PM. Reason : . ]

9/17/2019 1:14:18 PM

Quote :

"^ yes I did https://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=650723&page=3#16542534"

no, you didn't, you ignored the responses to that post. that post admits a VAT is regressive, but then says a UBI+VAT is not for 94% of americans which raised some questions

here was tmy response

-quote-

Quote :

"yes, that is the free market. service providers fight for the business of consumers. you might as well say that McDonald's is gonna start charging $1001 for a cheeseburger bc they know consumers have the extra money."

so no concern because of "free market"? this is supposed to be a progressive idea?

Quote :

"A UBI+VAT however, which is Yang's proposal, is not regressive for 94% of Americans."

how is it still not regressive if someone who has to opt-out of services sees a smaller net benefit than someone who doesn't?

Quote :

"i'm not sure what you mean here. what risk?"

not everyone will manage their money well? i know libertarians don't like paternalism, but certainly they can acknowledge this risk, right?

Quote :

"Yang has stated that existing services for those who do not opti-in will be scaled up to counteract the effects of the VAT"

can you provide some more details on this, because he's also said that this is the first step to removing those services. one of the cornerstones of paying for his UBI is the cuts to welfare spending, are you saying they will cut spending but also increase services? does this not conflict with his statements that this is the first step to removing those services? i know that he wants to increase medicare support, but that's not what we are talking about (or is it, are you saying increased spending for medicare offsets those lost services?). and if efficiency is a goal, doesn't all of this erase that and make it another bureaucracy of it's own?

-end quote-

Gepetto then had a good comment about rent and daaave had a good comment about the seemingly inconsistent argument of thinking that healthcare shouldn't be a commodity but its okay for other essential things to be

none of these comments were ever addressed

so, to recap, yang's UBI isn't good for the people who need support the most. why should progressives support this?

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 1:16 PM. Reason : /q]

9/17/2019 1:15:08 PM

alright, i'll be back later with some responses. in the meantime, if you like, feel free to look for answers to these on twitter or /r/YangForPresidentHQ. all of these questions/concerns have been addressed.

9/17/2019 1:20:42 PM

i tried (that's where the image came from on page 3) but lost interest because of the amount of trump supporters

9/17/2019 1:28:37 PM

I think we need to pause the Yang conversation and discuss the fact Q fucked up an image post!!

9/17/2019 1:33:59 PM

how about how ridiculously misleading that low quality meme is

9/17/2019 1:38:32 PM

Quote :

"[image]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0ggtCmXgAAQfTv?format=png&name=900x900" width="400px" /> "

9/17/2019 1:51:03 PM

yeah yeah...crazycode doesn't do well with parsing a post that has an [ image ] tag in it AND a < img > tag

shrug.gif

Quote :

" but lost interest because of the amount of trump supporters"

Bernie and Yang are the only Dem candidates who more than 10% of 2016 Trump voters would consider voting for. you sure you don't want their votes?

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 2:00 PM. Reason : it's the political outsider factor. Voters loathe politicians. That's a big part of why Trump won]

9/17/2019 1:55:22 PM

I am 100% sure that nothing should be done to capitulate or appeal to them, and am 100% sure that trump supporters (we we later learned were partially or largely russians) were a toxic presence in bernie subreddits and on twitter and have left a reputation that still hurts him, and am 100% sure that i'd rather just leave their online presence to the maga crowd and not participate (same as having to leave sanders subreddits a few years ago due to the same)

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2019 2:03:47 PM

If someone votes for Trump and then votes for Bernie or Yang we might as well close Democracy bc its fucking dumb.

9/17/2019 2:05:10 PM

I don't think that Economist poll was calling Russian disinformation agents

9/17/2019 2:05:17 PM

let's hope your maths are better than your reading comprehension

9/17/2019 2:06:06 PM

Quote :

"were a toxic presence....and have left a reputation that still hurts him"

look in the mirror friend

9/17/2019 2:09:10 PM

lol, thanks for going back and reading the post you completely misunderstood i guess

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 2:11 PM. Reason : i forgot i was running for office, my b]

9/17/2019 2:10:52 PM

the one you edited after I responded to it?

9/17/2019 2:11:36 PM

yes, this was the only thing added after the edit:

Quote :

"and am 100% sure that i'd rather just leave their online presence to the maga crowd and not participate (same as having to leave sanders subreddits a few years ago due to the same)"

you just had shit reading comprehension

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 2:13 PM. Reason : the part before was the part you missed]

9/17/2019 2:12:34 PM

Gentlemen....

9/17/2019 2:29:11 PM

dtownammo is just especially angry lately because he can no longer grab a communal scooter in raleigh.

im just happy hes starting to be treated like Earl.

9/17/2019 3:42:15 PM

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 4:24 PM. Reason : oops, double post]

9/17/2019 4:24:38 PM

Another thing worth considering: how would the freedom dividend affect unemployment benefits? I'd say it's a near certainty that those would be reduced in most states, possibly eliminated in some.

9/17/2019 5:18:55 PM

that depends if you use the money to help find a job!



[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 5:22 PM. Reason : wrong smiley]

9/17/2019 5:22:13 PM

^^

https://medium.com/basic-income/there-is-no-policy-proposal-more-progressive-than-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend-72d3850a6245

Quote :

"Here’s a partial list of programs that would exist on top of the Freedom Dividend that no one would have to opt out of: Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) — aka Social Security and SSDI — unemployment insurance (UI), housing assistance, VA disability."

And before you dismiss this as some medium blog post, Scott Santens is an authority on Basic Income. He's been researching the subject basically full-time since 2013, using his own crowdfunded basic income. He is a key advisor for the campaign.

[Edited on September 17, 2019 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2019 7:41:41 PM

He can say that because unemployment benefits are a state thing. Unless they create a federal framework, you could expect red states to reduce or eliminate them.

9/17/2019 7:51:52 PM

Quote :

" you could expect red states to reduce or eliminate them."

This is true regardless of Democratic candidate, and I may be wrong but I haven't seen any candidate make a federal unemployment program part of their platform.

[Edited on September 18, 2019 at 10:38 AM. Reason : keep in mind also that only 23% of the unemployed actually receive unemployment benefits]

9/17/2019 8:23:23 PM

http://twitter.com/trumpwarrior45/status/1174121367920414720

Quote :

"LIKE THIS IF YOU APPROVE THE NEW BANNER. RETWEET IF YOU APPROVE THE NEW PROFILE PICTURE. #YangGangRising #Yang2020 https://t.co/jkqKlvNjHB"

cool.

9/17/2019 9:28:05 PM

^what is that all about?

why would someone get Trump elected and then switch?

publicity stunt?

I'm convince that Trump getting the presidency was just an elaborate publicity stunt

just waitin' for that admission

9/17/2019 9:41:30 PM

or convinced

9/17/2019 9:46:49 PM

I didn't know they still let Cesar Sayoc on the internet.

9/17/2019 9:54:08 PM

that's the same person I posted about here

not a publicity stunt. you can go back and read that account's old tweets if you want. definitely was pro-trump. then posted a Trump vs Yang poll (in addition to polls for Trump vs each of the other candidates), a lot of Yang supporters and made their case, and yes while Yang did win his poll with 75k+ votes cast, he was still a Trump supporter at the end of the poll. But the experiencing of having conversation with the Yang Gang was positive, and eventually he decided that Yang was the better candidate and now he's campaigning for Yang.



New poll today shows Yang is at 7% in 4th place, beating Kamala Harris in her home state of California

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1173995380666765312

9/17/2019 10:20:25 PM

^just a friendly reminder to answer the questions I asked earlier. I went to the Yang Reddit as suggested but the two issues I have are that I really never use reddit and the UI is slightly atrocious but also that there are so many posts one can't find exactly what they're looking for without going through a bunch of individual posts and hoping the video covers it some place.

I did find one on employer wages and prices but I don't totally agree and you can tell that Yang hasn't done any economic research on that area because he uses extremely open ended and hypothetical. "you might find that this would happen, or maybe this would happen." I'd prefer if he connected his thoughts to well accepted economic principals, such as willingness to pay or implicit collusion, but he doesn't. He sort of has it for a moment where he hits on price elasticity but then he steers away and toward a vague, fairly baseless, hypothetical.

Now what he did say that I agree with is that lower end jobs may not reduce wages because people would no longer need those jobs to survive and could those employees could take a chance and quit to find another job. That's possible. Not sure if it is probable, but possible. I also think it is possible that if UBI won't be sufficient to carry people across the poverty threshold or replace income + benefits, so they'd stick with their job even if it lowered wages. Yang admits that higher end jobs or some specific industries may lower wages as a result of UBI- so as another concern we'd still need to evaluate the net domestic financial lift would be- so I think it's an undefined argument to say lower end jobs would not.

Yang's argument around price protection, and lower end wage protection, assumes some things that we actually know not to be true. The prime example being that markets are efficient and that prices are based only on consumer demand and rational consumer comparison between two options. We've seen this behavior fail in many ways- it's cheaper to by toothpaste and floss than pay for dental fillings, car prices are set by MSRP not by consumer demand, Veblen goods that rise in demand as price increases.

We also see this fail in microeconomic examples such as the apartment case study I mentioned and on a much broader scale than any of the above is the research by Daniel Ariely. The argument there is resting on a false premise. On top of that it also assumes extreme fluctuations, which are unlikely, and disregards a series of micro increases that act as a death by a thousand cuts.

The other place his argument fails for me is his assumption that there isn't collective industry pressure on prices. Industries have been known for putting pressure up and testing to see if consumers accept it. Rising prices and reduced accomodations in air travel is one example, banking charges and fees is another, and so on.

His position is a good talking point and sounds nice, but isn't supported by any economic theory of which I'm aware nor real life examples that are easily recounted.

This doesn't mean his position has less weight than other candidates. So let me be perfectly clear about that. The only reason why I'm harping on his positions is because I really agree on the merit of them and believe if we're going to make those policies work and keep traction on them, then the conversation on them needs to be thought out and honest. That's what I'm looking for that I am missing but am hoping I can see something to the contrary.

His argument sounds good when spoken aloud but isn't convincing when looking at any economic factors of which I'm aware.

[Edited on September 18, 2019 at 10:22 AM. Reason : saw video. ]

9/18/2019 9:55:11 AM

I would expect California to be Yang's strongest state (but I haven't checked other polling)

9/18/2019 10:01:01 AM

yep I'll be back. super duper busy today so gonna try to stay off tww if I can.

Aside from general chit chat and Q&A, I'll start posting more stuff here on interviews and events going on, etc

Yang's really strong on the podcast and youtube scene. Here's his latest appearance on the Off The Pill podcast, which has 21.4M subscribers



this week he had a rally in Boston



a speech at the AFL-CIO Workers' Presidential Summit



and a rally in Philadelphia

9/18/2019 10:06:58 AM

I feel like qntmfred should give all TWW users $1000 a month

9/18/2019 10:59:48 AM

The Padder's Dividend: everyone's post count is bumped by a 1,000 each month

9/18/2019 11:54:43 AM

Has anyone covered his position on small hands? How will an asian-american go against a president who has a tiny misshapen dick?

Also, I REALLY want Elizabeth Warren to win, just because of how YUGE a blow it would be to Trump's fragile ego.

9/20/2019 9:51:28 AM

I still can't find valid answers to the questions I am posing. My concern is that this is a case of bold agendas with limited planning around the objectives. If so, then rather than serve the common good, I suspect they will fizzle out and leave the impression that these initiatives do not work.

And I get it, we hear the term 'comprehensive plan' thrown around a lot. But if you're maintaining the same course, then less explanation and thought is needed because one can very easily imagine how a slight deviation can improve or hurt. But when making bold changes, and this applies to any beyond center group, whether left or right, then you are required to do an analysis that is a deep as it is reformative. This isn't a hard concept and while not necessarily what I'd describe as an equal burden, it is what I would describe as a fair one.

I work with lots of people who favor ideas over substance, and it's not something that usually plays out well, leaving either a cluster fuck or extreme technical debt that hamstrings us later on. If we're going pursue and advocate for radical change, then let's make sure it has the thoughtfulness to take us forward rather than two steps back for each step forward.

9/20/2019 1:00:28 PM

^ i'm coming with responses for you, promise

in the meantime, here's some really good analysis from New Progressive Voice, which is a great channel to subscribe to for anybody interested in progressive politics, his videos are on progressive politics and candidates generally, he's not just a pro-Yang account.

https://medium.com/basic-income/there-is-no-policy-proposal-more-progressive-than-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend-72d3850a6245





and for a little bit of fun





[Edited on September 22, 2019 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

9/22/2019 1:16:32 PM

So he’s becoming an Asian MLK.

9/22/2019 3:08:55 PM

I'm gonna respond to justinh524 over here rather than in the WAYT thread.

Quote :

"no one would kill themselves if the government gave them $1000 a month"

I didn't say that, but don't dismiss the fact that financial distress absolutely has an effect on mental well-being. I've had people in my own life (and people who most of you know as well) who have either committed suicide or contemplated it in significant part due to financial stress, so this isn't just political candidate preferences speaking. it's quite personal, and it's a significant part of why I think UBI is necessary.

[Edited on September 22, 2019 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/22/2019 8:08:52 PM

He has a snowballs chance in hell...he says stupid stuff in the debates....maybe an ambassadorship somewhere. His 1k a month is why he has any support. Anytime you scream "free money" you will get 5 to 10 precent support automatically. Thats all he is know for and his one liners in debates are thuds. However, he can continue to waste his money.

[Edited on September 23, 2019 at 8:18 AM. Reason : E]

9/23/2019 8:17:06 AM

i'm susprised the person who posted this link:
https://medium.com/basic-income/there-is-no-policy-proposal-more-progressive-than-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend-72d3850a6245

which includes the following argument for why people should be required to give up their benefits to receive the $1k:

Quote :

"Between these three scenarios, there are three key takeaways. First, the scenario where the Freedom Dividend is instead of TANF and SNAP results in the greatest incentive to work."

(emphasis theirs)

Quote :

" Second, the scenario with the worst incentive to work is the scenario where Tom keeps TANF and SNAP in addition to the Freedom Dividend"

Quote :

"To emphasize this point, because it needs emphasizing, those who believe the entire existing welfare state should exist on top of the Freedom Dividend are demanding that we make everyone’s incentive to work even worse than the existing system already does. Because people would be lifted higher with the dividend, but then dropped the same distance upon losing their benefits as they are now, there’s even less reason to accept any form of employment. Instead of eliminating the welfare trap, it would be made into an even bigger trap. Fewer people would earn additional income, which would only serve to reduce instead of increase economic mobility."

is the same person who posted this weak meme:

Quote :

""

[Edited on September 23, 2019 at 1:32 PM. Reason : this guy is progressive!]

9/23/2019 1:21:03 PM

Just another data point about the relationship between UBI and mental well-being

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/a3akm4/why-basic-income-is-a-mental-health-issue

9/24/2019 12:22:09 PM

^^ I've read that a few times and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make, but I'll try to respond to it, feel free to clarify or correct me if I'm misunderstanding

I think it's fair to say that Yang and Bernie both agree on the following

1. Poverty is bad and we should try to reduce or eliminate it
2. Work is good.

We want to disincentivize poverty and incentivize work

Some policies or combinations of policies have the effect of reducing/eliminating poverty, but also disincentivizing work
Some policies or combinations of policies have the effect of incentivizing work, but also increase poverty.

$15/hr minimum wage and jobs guarantees:
incentivizes work
has the effect of reducing poverty (limited to those who hold either of these types of jobs, maybe 5-10% of American adults) by means of the increased income they would then receive from that job
that effect is counterbalanced (in part or whole) by the consequence of TANF/SNAP recipients perhaps no longer qualifying for those benefits. or instead, TANF/SNAP recipients choose to keep those benefits and avoid taking a higher minimum wage paying job so that they don't lose the benefits (disincentivizing work)

freedom dividend:
also incentivizes work, and more KINDS of work (100% of adults receive this benefit instead of 5-10%) than $15/hr and FJG
has the effect of reducing poverty by means of the increased income they would receive from their dividend
if they opt-in to the dividend, then it must be paying more than they were getting from TANF/SNAP. and as such they no longer have a disincentive to take a higher paying job because there is no means-testing on the dividend.

[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2019 2:19:23 PM