Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Best Of Andrew Yang's Solid Debate Performance" video.

@TheOtario007 Shapiro literally just said in an article that the primary is going to be between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren (completely just ignoring the fact that Bernie is solidly in second). Shapiro has 0 credibility on this issue or any other issue.
41
It's realistically going to end up being between Bernie, Joe Biden and maybe Warren and Kamala. I'm hoping that when the time comes for voting, all progressives will align behind Bernie, who will most likely be the closest progressive to winning as he has been this whole time.
30
@MindfulProgramming They're saying that Yang's UBI ensures there is no massive resolution to fix class inequality (like the New Deal did in the 1930s), it entrenches our current corrupt corporate oligarchy by appeasing unemployed workers with a non-livable federal wage of $1,000 a month. In the grand scheme of things, it puts a giant band-aid on workers' problems and still does nothing to actually prevent automation from taking up to 30% of the workforce's jobs (only works to clean up the mess afterwards), something yang constantly alludes to for why we need Yang's UBI to subsequently help people once they have no jobs.
7
@honeybadger5835 First I want to mention something I personally see as a hole in Yang's logic, and it has to do with how Yang constantly alludes to the fears of automation taking American jobs. However, Yang's UBI bill does nothing to actually prevent automation from taking jobs, it only works to clean up the mess and problems that automation will cause. Does Yang not believe that automation can be dealt with by reconstructing our current system? There are ways, described by modern economists, that lead to an economy where automation HELPS workers and leads to shorter workdays and bigger payouts to employees, however, the current system is harsh towards workers and automation currently leads to unemployment. Yang's idea seems to be to let that unemployment growth happen, but just give everyone a federal salary to appease unemployed workers. And from the way Yang talks about his UBI, he literally admits that a huge portion of the workforce will be unemployed due to automation, so are we to believe that workers are going to somehow survive on a $12,000 yearly salary? I would not consider $1,000 a month a livable wage, in many parts of the country, government-aided affordable housing make a 1-2 bedroom apartment $1,000 a month just for rent alone, so how are people going to live when they're inevitably unemployed and can't find a job due to automation? I don't understand how more people don't see this dilemma that Yang presents when he talks about up to 30% of the workforce becoming unemployed. $1,000 is NOT a livable wage when it's your only income, even Milton Friedman and Charles Murray's UBI was paying out more than Yang's. I want to also point out that Yang's version of UBI is paid for with a VAT, something that is partially levied against the people (which is why some people refer to it as a regressive tax). I don't see any issue with a VAT on it's own, but why exactly is Yang using a VAT to pay for UBI when we have this gigantic class inequality issue where the ultra wealthy have exponentially more than the 99%? Why does he not use a top marginal tax rate, a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, one of the many ways you can tax Wall Street? This is just speculating, but maybe the answer is that Yang doesn't want to fix the wealth gap and UBI on its own will likely help many on the bottom, but it won't work to shift the balance of wealth in a way needed to fix our current system that has become a corporate oligarchy. I have more criticisms of his UBI such as being used to decrease the influence of our current social programs by making people have a choice between programs instead of it being supplemental on top of things like SSI or disabilities, however, I will stop here since I've already written so much.
6
@nathanfielure4305 A VAT is not "a form of a wealth tax", just stop. A wealth tax literally only effects people in the 1% and the .1%, whereas a VAT partially effects average people depending on the "luxury" goods that are taxed, which is why many people have argued for it being "regressive" (I am not, but I'm just educating you on why that is).
3
@TheAlibabatree I appreciate our conversation and what you're saying, but you sort of just dodged what I said about Yang and Medicare for All. He's clearly been flipping back and forth between Medicare for All and a public option. That clip I linked to should more than prove it.
3
@ethanlacey2341 He may be the only one putting it front-and-center (literally talking about it every chance he gets), but I assure you he is not "the only one". Bernie and even Elizabeth Warren have put forward bills to address issues directly linked to the outcomes due to automation. Bernie has released bills for incentivizing worker-owned co-ops where employees have larger shares in their companies by law, and even Warren has put forward plans placing workers on the board of directors of companies. Essentially they're giving workers a bigger voice to PREVENT automation to leading to mass unemployment and outsourcing, whereas Yang is creating a bill that addresses the aftermath from having "up to 30% of the workforce decimated". Some economists like Prof. Richard Wolff have been talking about automation for a long time now and have said that Yang's UBI is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem and supports prevention with Democracy in the workplace rather than managing the fallout with a non-livable federal wage.
3
@ethanlacey2341 "So we just gonna outlaw automation". Read what I said again. Democracy in the workplace does not "outlaw automation", it prevents the NEGATIVE effects of automation as they're occurring now. Worker representation in companies leads to automation BENEFITING workers, not just the CEOs and board of directors, who currently come out of outsourcing and automation deals with bonuses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Yang's UBI does not address this, it only works to clean up the mess and appease workers with a non-livable wage. (in other words, you would NEED to find a job or part-time job in a future where 30% of the workforce is unemployed and jobs are in incredibly high demand).
3
@ethanlacey2341 "take a look at yang's policy page". Yes I have seen numerous of Yang's policies. Maybe you would like to tell me why placing a sunset provision on ALL regulations is a smart idea. In my opinion, his views on regulations are terrifying. Wall Street regulations are incredibly important, it doesn't matter if they're a century old, 90 years ago the Great Depression happened and massive regulations were placed on Wall Street to ensure nothing like it would happen again. If Clinton hadn't repealed Glass Steagall himself, why exactly do you think it would be a good idea to have Glass Steagall automatically repealed today?
3
@0MVR_0 Thank You! They genuinely just did not understand what I was saying. The first line "So we just gonna outlaw automation" is a gross misinterpretation of democratizing the workplace and corporations.
3
@ethanlacey2341 "Just looked at Warren's site and it's literally nothing lol". Okay, well you're not looking in the right places. Her most well-known bill is the "Accountable Capitalism Act". https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations And Bernie's plans: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/legislative-package-introduced-to-encourage-employee-owned-companies-2019 https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/legislative-package-introduced-to-encourage-employee-owned-companies-2019 Here's an article talking about Bernie's efforts with Worker-owned businesses drawing all the way back to 2014: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/worker-owned-businesses-2014
3
@monitoradiation You don't understand, if workers have larger representation in companies and, at a greater extent, if they all hold a share in owning the company, nobody's job is going to be "eliminated". Workers are able to keep their jobs and simply shorten the workdays if less work is needed, which is why democratizing the workplace makes automation a BENEFIT for workers whereas currently it only benefits top management and CEOs who come away with $500 million in bonuses sometimes after these automation and outsourcing deals. On the other stuff, I'll just let Richard Wolff explain and give you his opinion since you like his work already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzi8AYs4hBI&t=19s
3
@monitoradiation Honestly, I can't believe I'm having to convince people of worker coops on a Secular Talk video (not exactly you, but countless others here). It should rightfully be the common sense position and I've literally heard some Yang supporters claim that Democracy should not be brought to the corporate sphere. The type of governance we have right now in business is closest to corporate feudalism and I think in the 2019 we can all agree that feudalism on the national scale is something countries should never ever revert to and the only type of people who use it anymore are warlords and corporations that treat their workers like garbage.
3
@dylanwright1381 That's not necessarily a good thing. Yang's views on regulations are horrifying. He wants to put a sunset provision on ALL regulations, even ones on Wall Street which are of vital importance.
3
@honeybadger5835 How about we debunk Yang's version of UBI, which, as far as I can tell, is closest to that of conservative Charles Murray and Libertarian Milton Friedman's version even though Yang constantly mentions MLK, who had a completely different vision of any UBI and who made a guaranteed jobs program his center policy in the work that Yang draws MLK's support for UBI from.
3
Is Yang still wishy washy on Medicare for All. I still don't trust this guy, especially on healthcare and especially on regulations, where his views are horrifying.
2
@TheAlibabatree "He is pro Medicare for All". Except he's been wishy washy on it since Day 1, switching from supporting a public option to Med 4 All and back again, and even in the last debate he didn't put his hand up during the private insurers question. I got news for you, if you support private insurers in the current healthcare system, then you're NOT for Medicare for All. That's exactly why Kamala Harris is getting shit on right now, because she created a new "Medicare for All" bill that brings in private insurers into Medicare. YOU have no idea what you're talking about on this topic.
2
@nathanfielure4305 I assure you, I am saying the opposite, read my words again.
2
@nathanfielure4305 Except if up to 30% of the workforce don't have jobs, then those employers (the owners of production) will be making far more money from their transition to automation (the money they save by not having employees) than will be given back to workers through a freedom dividend. How can you seriously say life will be better for someone who used to make $55,000 a year working at a Chevrolet factory in Wisconsin, but now makes $12,000 a year because they can't find a job due to the shrinking job market. This is NOT the way we should be going about solving the issue of automation. It doesn't even "solve" it, it just tries to sloppily clean up the mess automation will cause. $1,000 a month is NOT a livable wage, and you talking about the US dollar being "devalued", what you're describing is literally just inflation, which will make that person's life in Wisconsin even harder. What you're saying makes NO SENSE.
2
@TheAlibabatree It was in my first response regarding Medicare for All. Here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBO98fxr-I&t=250s
1
@TheAlibabatree In regards to your last comment, we're not trying to turn this into some "war" surrounding cult of personality, I think it's clear that we're all substantively debating the policies here, not the characters of either candidates. The policies we're alluding to are popular among other progressives as well such as Warren, Tulsi and even Williamson. Yang is the outlier in the equation because he wants to implement a mostly experimental plan that draws heavy influence from the original plan of Libertarian Milton Friedman and conservative Charles Murray. We're allowed to have our criticisms and doubts towards Yang's policies, and as I said above, you can't really make this about Yang vs Bernie when Bernie's policies are in widespread use by most of the progressive candidates to some degree or another. The ideological disagreements we're having are primarily just Yang's views vs the modern progressive platform.
1
@danielyeh If you read over all my comments, I never said one word about a federal jobs guarantee OR a minimum wage (even though a minimum wage is the bare minimum we can do and the DUH position). I've specifically been talking about how worker-owned businesses and legislation pushing for larger worker representation in the workplace are the real answers to changing the system so we don't have a broken corporate and economic structure where automation leads to up to 30% of the workforce being decimated. I assure you that worker-owned coops are not "antiquated blood-letting", they are the REAL solution and the real next step in corporate evolution. Think of it as expanding Democracy from governance in 1st world countries to instilling Democracy in corporations, which, as I alluded to before, are currently run with a type of corporate feudalism where a very few people on the top receive the overwhelmingly majority of the benefits and profits from the company especially when you have outsourcing and automation deals that give them hundreds of millions in bonuses. All the while, the workers on the bottom are left with barely enough to survive. If we want to fix the system, we need to collectively understand that there is something inherently wrong with this immoral apparatus. A full-time worker spends nearly a 1/3rd of their overall time in their life at their jobs, so why is it so much to ask that we democratize our companies to give everyone equal voices and make life far more bearable at work, especially when you're jobs and livelihoods are on the line due to automation and outsourcing.
1
@A G "You're not meant to live on 12K a year its Supplemental". Then why is Yang introducing UBI as a solution to a massive futuristic problem where apparently up to 30% of the workforce will be unemployed. If 30% of the workforce is unemployed, do you understand that it will be that way for a reason? That's a HUGE unemployment rate, think the Great Recession, but 4-5x worse. People will not be able to find part-time work if the unemployment rate realistically becomes that dire. Do you understand the hole in logic here yet?
1
@nathanfielure4305 There are already solutions being presented by the progressives running for president. Bernie Sanders, Warren, and even Tulsi (I think) have introduced legislation that increases workers' voices and shares within a company. The ACTUAL solution to automation is to eventually transition to having worker-owned cooperatives where the employees of a corporation all hold a share in the company and all have an equal voice. We have widespread global Democracy on the governmental level, it's time to match this with having Democracy in the workplace and Democracy within corporations. There are already gigantic fully-functioning corporations like this in Europe and scattered across the world. The Mondragon Corporation is one of the biggest examples of this with something like 250 subsidiary companies and it works better incredibly well. Within these types of scenarios (or even in more mild situations where we just increase the number of workers on a board of directors), we can PREVENT automation from decimating the workforce, not just plan for the eventual fallout like UBI does. In a corporation with sufficient worker representation, automating machines would end up BENEFITING all the workers, cutting their workdays in half or by a third and keeping their jobs and keeping their salaries the same. In our current American corporate structure, automation ends up benefiting the CEOs and people at the very top, sometimes CEOs profiting hundreds of millions of dollars just for firing workers or outsourcing jobs and factories to China or Mexico. With valid worker representation and power within companies, the workers can STOP outsourcing deals and top management from making decisions that massively negatively impact the workers above all else. Seriously, this is the real way to deal with automation in America and the real way to help fix our broken system.
1
@oakinwol I'm not saying worker representation would stop automation, I'm saying it would redirect who exactly automation benefits and "prevent" the negative consequences of automation as its happening now. Currently automation and outsourcing benefits those at the very top (CEOs receiving $500,000,000 deals for firing 50,000 people). Worker representation in corporations and to a larger extent, worker-owned co-ops, would create a corporate structure so that when automation inevitably happens, it does not lead to the firing of 50,000 people, but instead leads to shorter workdays for everyone in the department effected by automation. Automation would HELP workers instead of hurting them. I don't understand how you think that a universal program that drastically changes the entire economy would be better or easier than creating sensible and moral legislation that incentivizes Democracy in the workplace and gives workers more rights. Spreading democratic principles into the corporate ecosphere is the common sense next step to create a better society that benefits everyone. As I said before, UBI would only be a band-aid and would not actually fix the underlying causes. If anything, it would lead to the wound festering and getting infected by not directly addressing the real problem and the real solution. Just casually allowing unemployment to blow up and hoping a non-livable federal wage will fix everything is NOT a real solution to the futuristic problem Yang correctly addresses.
1
@oakinwol Do I think that a version of UBI should eventually be implemented in America? Yes, I do. However, it doesn't change the fact that it's not the actual solution to automation, outsourcing, and fixing the overwhelming plague of corporate greed. America's problems are much deeper and far more embedded in the fabric of our system than simply just giving everyone $1,000. You need to change the way the system functions and create legislation to make corporations operate differently.
1
@oakinwol This isn't really a debate, worker-owned cooperatives already exist in places like Europe and they not only thrive, they're far far better for everyone involved (except maybe CEOs and the people at the top who don't make ridiculous amounts of money). Look up the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, it's one of the largest worker-owned businesses in the world with something like 250 subsidiary companies under it. When you say things like "I'm unsure how it would work or how to legislate democracy in a business", we ALREADY know how it would work and it works BETTER for everyone involved. That's the difference between Yang's plans and the core progressive platform, nearly all of the progressive policies are tested and are proven to work better than our current system, all we have to do is look at places like Scandinavia, Japan, Australia, Portugal, etc. whereas Yang's core policies, especially UBI are untested and we haven't even had a social experiment with it as Finland has done in the past (but never implemented since it didn't have the results they were looking for).
1