Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Dave Rubin Accidentally EXPOSES Yang's UBI As Libertarian Trojan Horse" video.

  1. I agree and they should get Richard Wolff on with them so he can explain why Yang's UBI would have terrible consequences on workers and lead to more class inequality. Not many people have challenged Yang on this and the few Leftists that have interviewed Yang in the past are just not starting to realize his policies could be corrosive to progressive policies and fixing class inequality.
    14
  2.  @katrosajin7744  First of all, most people can not survive on simply $1,000 a month. There are people with Affordable Housing whose rent alone is MORE than $1,000 a month. Additionally, it is factually accurate that a veteran already receiving $1,100 a month from the V.A. or from disabilities would get absolutely nothing from Yang's UBI. It would do more for Jeff Bezo than it would for the double amputee veteran already receiving slightly more than the option for Yang bucks. It's a LOSE/LOSE for the most vulnerable people in society. I have even further criticisms of UBI in the way Yang is using it as a 'solution' for class inequality, but the fact that people on disabilities and social programs would see the least benefit from Yang's UBI (if any at all) should set off at least some alarm bells for you.
    8
  3. It honestly goes beyond what you're talking about. Yang is propping up UBI as basically a fix for the rampant levels of class inequality in the country. There's nothing wrong with a guaranteed minimum income by itself (when done correctly), but using it as a solution for class inequality is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue of wealth inequality in America. Yang does not put forth a solution for preventing the the current distribution of money that leads to our gigantic gap of wealth, but his plan basically accepts this gross inequality as normal and determines to fix the aftermath of the problem instead of the cause. This type of "solution" of the aftermath would not only have little to no effect on fixing class inequality, but it could potentially lead to the 1% and donor/owner class becoming even more powerful once automation has taken over even more. Yang claims that a gigantic portion of the workforce will be left without a job pretty soon, so this is why we all need $1,000 a month. However, when you do that, you are basically setting up the country for a scenario where you have a significant portion of the workforce Not working because their jobs have been taken by automation, meanwhile the most powerful people who own these means of production simply have a small value added tax on their goods that are now being produced at record profits because they no longer have workers on an expensive payroll. It's a total win/win for the very wealthiest individuals in the country, it should be evident why tech billionaires love the idea of UBI when presented as a 'solution' for class inequality. It's nothing but a ruse to keep the gross levels of inequality the same and potentially worse for workers in the future.
    7
  4. It is when using it as a self-proclaimed fix for class inequality. It basically tries to fix the aftermath of the problem and does nothing to try to prevent the original distribution that led to the problem. Putting everyone on Yang bucks after their jobs are taken by automation, would ultimately only help the owner class.
    5
  5. @Joseph Wolff isn't totally against UBI, he's said that a guaranteed minimum income could be beneficial in the right circumstances. The issue he takes is that Yang is propping up UBI as a fix for class inequality, when UBI is not meant to be a solution for this problem, especially with how large of a problem it has become in America.
    4
  6.  @nomercy4521  Medicare for All is an 'opt out' system for billionaires and the ultra wealthy who want supplemental private insurance because they're filthy rich. It does not force people to choose between healthcare and disabilities (or V.A. checks) as Yang's UBI would. Medicare for All is entirely supplemental on other programs, so your comparison is not even accurate.
    2
  7. Yang is correct on the problem, but his 'solution' is not a solution at all. It works to fix the aftermath of automation, but does nothing to prevent the current system where employers will fire a huge portion of the workforce leaving people dependent on Yang bucks, where $1,000 a month is not enough to live off of on your own especially if you can't find a job due to "automation".
    1
  8.  @RayCromwell  I agree with some of what you said. My point was that Yang's UBI and a VAT are not only 'not enough', but they are entirely the wrong way to go about fixing class inequality, something he has said that he thinks the Freedom Dividend would do. The way wealth is distributed in America needs to be systemically changed to begin with, rather than standing aside and letting the market screw everyone over, taking away large portions of the workforce, and allowing the owners of production to hoard all the wealth and THEN simply just taxing their goods by 10% after they're already making record-profits off of automated factories that no longer have expensive payrolls anymore. A 10% VAT is clearly not enough, but I have serious doubts that any VAT would be enough to actually fix the problem. On the other hand, you would also have large portions of the workforce unemployed and actively trying to live off of $1,000 a month, something that currently can't even be done by most people in cities or anyone with a family. If automation decimates the workforce like Yang says, then why is his solution to simply give people an allowance below what is considered a livable wage. If these people can't get jobs (because their jobs have been automated), then it seems like the best and only solution would be to develop a system where people are NOT fired to begin with, but the amount of work is divided up between workers. This way, when new machines come in to automate more work, the result is not 50,000 workers losing their jobs, but everyone keeping their salaries while having their workdays cut in half or by a fraction of what it was before automation. This seems like the logical step to get to the point where automation allows people to be "born retired". Yang's future would result in 99% of the world being born with allowances that keep them perpetually poor and always 'wanting', while the owners of production, and all their heirs, will be able to have a tight grasp of the production and the wealth until something changes in this dystopian system people have dug themselves into. It doesn't sound like a solution at all, it just sounds like a catalyst to make things worse, especially in terms of wealth and class inequality.
    1