Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang, a Big Supporter Of Universal Basic Income, is Running For President (techcrunch.com) 465

In a recently published podcast, Andrew Yang, tech entrepreneur and founder of Venture for America, said he is vying for the Democratic party nomination to run for President of the United States. From a report: Yang outlines his radical policy agenda, which focuses on Universal Basic Income and includes a "freedom dividend." He talks about the very real and immediate threat of artificial intelligence, how new technologies are erasing millions of jobs before our eyes, and why we need to put humanity first. He also addresses "the big four" and what he plans to do about Amazon.

During the interview, Yang called out governments inability to address large scale problems and the challenges that technology is creating in modern American society. "I believe that we need to start owning these realities [of automation and artificial intelligence taking away jobs] and these challenges as a people, as a country, and as a society, and start being honest. I'm running for president to solve the big problems and to show that these things are not beyond us," Yang says. Yang's own plan to address the increasing power tech companies are wielding in the world involves something called a "freedom dividend", which would paid for by a value-added tax. The revenue from that tax (levied on "gains from the big four") would be redistributed via the "freedom dividend" to citizens, Yang says.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang, a Big Supporter Of Universal Basic Income, is Running For President

Comments Filter:
  • by losfromla ( 1294594 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:07PM (#56285961)

    We either plan for it now or start buying pitchforks and torches. And oiling up the guillotines because we _will_ eat the rich.

    • by HumanWiki ( 4493803 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:11PM (#56286007)

      We either plan for it now or start buying pitchforks and torches. And oiling up the guillotines because we _will_ eat the rich.

      I believe that Bender Bending Rodriguez said it best.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • I don't think the problem is nearly so dire as these people are saying.....

        AI and robotics is not going to cause mass unemployment for at least a couple of decades I estimate.....

        Something to look towards and plan for the potentiality, but we're not even CLOSE yet, no need to jump headlong into socialism at this point in time.

        • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @05:33PM (#56286851) Journal

          no need to jump headlong into socialism at this point in time.

          Why not? People living in social democracies tend to have a high standard of living and a high level of happiness.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            1) standard of living has been proven to be nearly irrelevant to happiness, once ones basic needs have been met, 'precieved' differences in wealth tend to have a much higher effect on happiness then actual wealth.

            2) your second statement is only true if you cherry pick your dataset. if you include all socialist republics , russia, china, cuba, etc what you are saying is decidedly not true or at best uprovable.

            3) Sense of purpose and a feeling of community ( aka contentedness) are much more important to

            • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @06:33PM (#56287331) Journal

              1) standard of living has been proven to be nearly irrelevant to happiness,

              Good job I listed them as separate points then, isn't it!

              2) your second statement is only true if you cherry pick your dataset. if you include all socialist republics , russia, china, cuba, etc what you are saying is decidedly not true or at best uprovable.

              Well, yes, if you cherry-pick social democracies to include things which are decidedly democracies then you can indeed prove that people living somewhere might not be happy.

          • Social Democracy is not Democratic Socialism.
        • That's funny. You know what they call software automation here where I work?

          'Robotics'.

          Yes. Explicitly.

          And AI will be the tech that will allow it to flourish. I expect to see a lot of jobs missing over the next 10 years. But to be honest, I've seen a lot of jobs gone missing over the past 10 years, it just happened that these went missing due to economic pressures indirectly related to 'automation'. Like recessions, improved management, reduced demand via improvements in everything.

          Such changes come from ti

    • by halivar ( 535827 ) <bfelger.gmail@com> on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:13PM (#56286025)

      Yeah, but if you have your way, you'll find out quickly that to someone, somewhere, *you* are the rich.

      • To everybody on both sides looking to tear things down, just remember the French terror years. What happened to Robespierre can happen to YOU too
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Giving people handouts never fixes anything, it just makes things worse, fix the goddamned economy so people can earn a decent living instead!
          • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:47PM (#56286415) Homepage

            Giving people handouts never fixes anything, it just makes things worse, fix the goddamned economy so people can earn a decent living instead!

            Well at some point you are going to find out that is has to be this way. That are start limiting births with mandatory birth control. At some point its going to become clear, there is no fixing the economy for this kind of issue. There simply isn't enough jobs out there and as technology advances jobs are going to become a ever shrinking resource.

            Of course you can also just let people starve in the streets. Look how well that worked for the French at one time.

            • Irony (Score:2, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Wouldn't it be ironic that all those people Slashdotters usually look down on...people who work with their hands, the earth, and livestock, are suddenly the only ones that can feed and raise a family?

              Meanwhile, erstwhile Slashdot posters are sit in front of their dark screens wishing they could post some snark about how they've been screwed by automation, the Rich, or both.

              • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

                I don't know why someone would mod this as funny. How many people here actually knows what goes into running a modern farm? It is not the typical redneck on a tractor stereotype that so many think it is. A modern farm is a complex system as anything else in the modern world. You don't just toss a handful of seeds out and hope something grows.

                Most farmers that I know, and I know several, have advanced degrees, some of them more than one. That farmer out here, and those that work with their hands a

            • by amorsen ( 7485 )

              There are plenty of jobs out there. If I had enough money I could keep at least one person in meaningful full time employment doing things that are neither easily automated, harmful, degrading, or bad for the environment.

              Unemployment is never caused by automation. It is always caused by those wishing they could have goods or services not having sufficient funds to afford it. And since we are unlikely to run out of trees to make bills out of, any demand shortage caused by lack of money can be easily fixed.

              Un

              • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @07:01PM (#56287535) Homepage

                Unemployment is never caused by automation

                I like trains. I've been watching a lot of documentaries on trains lately. Did you know that before the 1950's over 1/5 of the blue collar labor in the United States was by the railroad. It takes about 125 people to maintain and run a steam locomotive.

                You know what happened after 1950? The railroad had a massive layoff. It only takes about 24 people to run a diesel-electric locomotive. So you can say that in the 1950 a shit load of people lost their jobs due to efficiency and automation on trains.

                Do you know they are working on a cabbage picking robot? It and others like it will completely eliminate the need for a migrant labor force in the United States.

                So, you can't tell me that jobs are not lost to automation. That has actually been the way since the dawn of time as technology gets better. The donkey lost his job at the mill wheel because of the water wheel.

                Currently, there maybe plenty of jobs out there. But that isn't the way it will always be. As technology advances robots and automation will take more and more jobs. Retraining is a option for some but it will not always be that way.

                An its the very marketing forces that people like to praise for creating current jobs, now, that will make this happen. So unless we are blown back into the stone age, this will happen.

            • Truly the solution can only be new opportunities for the displaced workers.

              All that requires is that those who can create are allowed to do so. It has happened before.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      WILL.
      NOT.
      WORK.
      • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:52PM (#56286473)

        Wait, are you saying UBI will not work, or that once UBI is in place you will not work?

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          Oh, no. I'd still be working, and so would you. So we could get 95% of our income taxed, to pay the freeloaders. Meanwhile The Rich will weasel out of of paying anything. So will corporations. So once again The Poor will be paying to support The Poor, and we'll all be told to be grateful for it. UBI WILL NOT WORK!
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by losfromla ( 1294594 )

            oooohhh. All caps and bolded. You must be right! That is how I always recognize the best arguments, bolded and all caps, with exclamation marks (/sarcasm)

            When 95% of the jobs are gone, either we all starve, yes even you Ayn Randians, or we yank back wealth from rent-seeking leeches. Violence will be the preferred method of the masses so the wealthy should start planning on UBI if they don't want themselves and their progeny oiling our guillotines.

    • they have machine guns now. And supply lines so that when your semi-autos run out of bullets theirs don't. Best case scenario you get a military junta and a change of masters.

      Violence isn't going to work anymore. If you want freedom you have to take care of your working class _before_ they turn to a militant strong man. So far we are not doing a good job of that [google.com]. Hopefully next election we turn things around and at least run somebody like this Andrew fellow who appears to belong to the populist left.
    • End the Draft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @07:12PM (#56287637)

      At one time every able bodied man was supposed to turn out for the defense of the village whenever the feudal lord ordered it. We then evolved into professional volunteer armies and today the concept of the draft has gone away.

      Similarly in the future people will work if they want to not because they have been drafted to. Today everyone has to work or starve - there is no real choice.

      With an UBI, work becomes a choice and the workers will be much more professional as they would have CHOSEN to work rather than forced to.

  • Too Early (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:08PM (#56285977)

    I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon and too radical, especially for the US. He's not going to get his party's nomination, and if he does, it's 4 more years of Trump.

    • Re:Too Early (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Lab Rat Jason ( 2495638 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:26PM (#56286173)

      Look, lets call a spade a spade here... he is asking for socialism. His platform is "democracy is dead." People need to get comfortable saying that, because that's what it is... if you are for UBI, you are a socialist. ;)

      • Look, lets call a spade a spade here... he is asking for socialism.

        No. Socialism is defined as worker ownership of the means of production (that is, the factories). We usually think of state socialism: state ownership of the means of production (where the state claims to be operating on behalf of the workers.)

        Unless he is advocating worker (or state) ownership fo the means of production, it's not socialism.

        His platform is "democracy is dead." People need to get comfortable saying that, because that's what it is... if you are for UBI, you are a socialist. ;)

        Democracy is a political system and socialism is an economic system. But, no. If you are for the state ownership of the means of production you are a socialist. If y

        • You define Marxism. There are in fact, other schools of socialism. Granting 99% of socialists are fucking Marxists of one sort or another.

      • Look, lets call a spade a spade here... he is asking for socialism.

        Yes?

        His platform is "democracy is dead."

        what's that got to do with democracy being dead?

        if you are for UBI, you are a socialist. ;)

        You say that like it's a bad thing. Meanwhile people living in social democracies enjoy a high standard of living and general happiness.

        • My religion tells me that I should be a communist. I'm actually not calling socialism a bad thing, I'm just saying people need to evaluate their professed values and square them with the government we choose and the actions we outwardly do. I honestly believe that any system of government would work if men's hearts were pure, but none of them work because of the evils we allow to permeate our hearts (I'm looking at you greed).

          Also good call about the democracy thing... I misspoke, and should have said cap

    • by be951 ( 772934 )

      I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon

      What's too soon? 3-5 years from now, when this guy would be able to start working on it? What will unemployment look like then? And how long would it take to implement something like UBI? Years, most likely, from when it gets introduced. Will 6-8 years from now still be too soon? That probably depends on how fast you believe automation and AI/machine learning/other job-impacting tech will advance. If it's quite slow, maybe that time frame is too quick. I guess we've got a couple of years to see what happens

    • The problem is not in feasibility. UBI essentially has been created in top socialist countries in nostalgic hey day of Cold War.

      The problem is not in inequality, the problem is in equality.

      Everybody knows how bad equality was in that Soviet block and how it eventually led to economic bankruptcy of USSR. It created atmosphere of laziness and absence of hope.

      That's why you NEED inequality. A member of the strata should be afraid to fall to the lower level of it and he should hope to get to the higher level.

      Th

    • by Z80a ( 971949 )

      He will be offering a solution to the poor people unlike hillary did, If well marketed enough, might just work.
      Unless of course he falls for the social justice meme and starts to spout a lot of racial charged shit.

  • by Type44Q ( 1233630 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:09PM (#56285985)

    governments inability to address large scale problems

    And what makes him think 'government' would perform any differently with him behind the wheel?? GTFOH (i.e. never mind; I don't want to know).

  • Pat Paulsen has a better chance [youtube.com] than Yang.
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:18PM (#56286073)
    right here [yang2020.com], so all else being equal he gets my (primary) vote in favor of anyone else who doesn't.

    I'd rather see him stumping on Medicare for All than basic income though.
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:19PM (#56286079)
    ... thinking there will still be a United States in 2020.
  • by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:23PM (#56286129)

    Promising free shit to the young, stupid, and lazy worked out so great for Bernie, didn't it?

    These people should first worry about the DNC existing long enough to put forth a candidate in 2020. It's a bit premature to be hobbling together a hollow platform that will only get you Bernied.

    Beyond that, why are you planning for action in 2020 when you'll be up against an incumbent POTUS? (For all of you who can't fathom Trump being reelected - Bush Jr. was reviled and won reelection, and the popular vote, easily. This happened because he was the incumbent and people fear change. The DNC put forth a bland turkey-burger candidate knowing they didn't want to waste any real effort against an incumbent. And of course, Obama sat and watched as the economy burned and our rights were stripped away and the surveillance state grew. He, too, won reelection handily.)

    You save your plays until 2024 unless you want to tip your hand and risk being scooped. It might make sense to throw your hat into the ring in 2020 and get your name out there, but you do NOT put your platform out there. It'll just have 4 extra years to be dismantled, attacked, made irrelevant, or copied.

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:26PM (#56286167) Homepage Journal

      Promising free shit to the young, stupid, and lazy worked out so great for Bernie, didn't it?
      These people should first worry about the DNC existing long enough to put forth a candidate in 2020.

      Uh, wait. The DNC is who screwed Sanders. Promising people free shit worked out great, except that it didn't jibe with the DNC's mission of sucking corporate cock. It worked out so well for Sanders that he actually attracted voters who eventually went on to vote for Trump specifically because they couldn't vote for Sanders.

      It's a bit premature to be hobbling together a hollow platform that will only get you Bernied.

      It's a big jerkoff waste of time if he doesn't have a strategy for making the DNC do the will of Democratic voters, but I don't think premature is the right word.

      • Uh, wait. The DNC is who screwed Sanders. Promising people free shit worked out great, except that it didn't jibe with the DNC's mission of sucking corporate cock. It worked out so well for Sanders that he actually attracted voters who eventually went on to vote for Trump specifically because they couldn't vote for Sanders.

        I never got that. "We don't like the way the DNC sucks corporate cock, so we'll skip the middle man and do it ourselves". Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.

    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      You mean the fact he did far better in the primaries then anyone expected him to do? So yes, it seems it worked out amazingly well. Had the playing field not been so heavily weighted to his opponent he probably would have cinched the nomination.
    • Promising to spend their tax dollars on free college education instead of stupid wars in the Middle East worked out so great for Bernie, didn't it?

      FTFW. Bernie is still the most popular elected politician in the country -- a fact even Fox News agrees with [businessinsider.com].

      • >"FTFW. Bernie is still the most popular elected politician in the country -- a fact even Fox News agrees with [businessinsider.com]."

        Why would that surprise anyone? When around HALF the country is taking/drawing some type of government handout, and HALF the country also pays ZERO income tax, of course people are going to vote for anything that gets them more "free" stuff from those who work hard AND pay lots of taxes. It is a major conflict of interest of the highest order.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites [forbes.com]

    • You save your plays until 2024 unless you want to tip your hand and risk being scooped. It might make sense to throw your hat into the ring in 2020 and get your name out there, but you do NOT put your platform out there. It'll just have 4 extra years to be dismantled, attacked, made irrelevant, or copied.

      That depends on your ultimate endgame. If the founders of Whole Foods were looking to get rich off people who were willing to buy all-natural, non-GMO snake oil, then yeah, the fact that most supermarkets increased their organic / non-GMO / lower-salt-and-sweetener options is a bad thing. If the founders were trying to help kick-start the improvement of the quality of groceries for everyone, then having a number of such products available everywhere is a positive change. Likewise, if a more popular DNC cand

  • which problem? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1@@@hotmail...com> on Monday March 19, 2018 @04:25PM (#56286155)
    I view UBI as just another fad in the recent trend of America's liberal thinking (which, by the way, has been taken over by almost teenage-/child-like levels of logic) that seeks to equalize all outcomes for all people, end suffering, poverty, and eliminate inequity at every stage of life. Damn anyone who thinks otherwise or wonders about how it will work (and be accused of spouting hate speech if you disagree). This is getting ridiculous, and is by the way, impossible. And mind you, I'm generally liberal myself.

    UBI is the most blatant example among many proposals that is very clearly a taking of $ from the highest earners, and giving it to the lowest earners. How else could it work? If you have a closed system where the income distribution is even linear up the scale, the only way UBI works is if the top subsidize the bottom. So it's a different form of progressive tax.

    However, in this case, instead of subsidizing the means to be productive and earn a living, you simply give the people cash and assume they'll work it out for themselves. (For those imagining we would keep the social services, get real -- would we really give them cash *and* the social services too? Isn't UBI envisioned as a way to reduce social services? If social services worked, why do UBI?)

    Anyway, aside from the possibility somehow that corporations are the ones taxed and not individuals -- the long term question is: what kind of society does this produce, if brought to its conclusion? Some kind of Star Trek utopia where everyone's free to pursue higher, loftier goals for humanity? Or, more realistically, some kind of even more unbalanced state where the very few people at the top produce wealth, the middle class is hollowed out, and the lowest earners don't have to work? Has anyone studied the incentives that this produces, and whether it makes our society better?

    I think that is lacking in these idealized proposals.
    • I view UBI as just another fad in the recent trend of America's liberal thinking

      Remember those good old fads like separating kings from their crown? Sometimes a few inches lower? It was real popular in it's day. But to an extent, limiting the power of monarchies and dictators is STILL in fashion. The political climate in China is concerning to nearly everyone.

      Or how about that crazy fad where we nationalize retirement savings and have welfare programs? Now universally popular, but... again... they're still around.

      If you want to call them fads, whatever floats your goat, but they

    • Oh man, sorry for missing this one. I'm off my game apparently.

      the only way UBI works is if the top subsidize the bottom. So it's a different form of progressive tax.

      That is LITERALLY the definition of a progressive tax structure. It would certainly be paid through a progressive tax structure... just like we have now.

  • Because we elect representatives and the representatives are bought and paid for by corporations and the rich, things will never be fair. We will never see a UBI because that will never be allowed to come to a vote.

    Instead of being a representative democracy, we should change over to a direct democracy. Let the people individually vote on dreamers, gun control, environmental issues, drug laws, ... You'll quickly find that things would change, some for the worst, but more for the best. The rich would hav

    • How can you possibly hold that level of pessimism in the first paragraph simultaneously with the optimism of the second?

      That sort of change would take a constitutional amendment of EPIC proportions fundamentally changing our government. Or a rebellion. Are you rebel scum?

  • make your choice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @05:38PM (#56286905)
    You can have mass immigration or you can have nice things. Notice that the people who are pushing mass immigration, such as Koch bros, already have nice things and benefit more from cheaper labor than better public schools and such. UBI is another example of this. If the US had less immigration, both legal and illegal, as well as no anchor babies then UBI would be much more attainable. Also wages would be better, traffic would be less, and housing would be more affordable. UBI is interesting but unless immigration is *greatly* reduced don't expect it regardless of how much AI and robotics reduce jobs.
  • by argee ( 1327877 ) on Monday March 19, 2018 @11:37PM (#56288909)

    OK, talking to a true-blue Californian Democrat:

    The Californian says, "We have it figured out. We get UBI, we do not have to work anymore!"

    And I ask, "But who is going to do all the needed work?"

    "Ah, simple," says he. "The illegal immigrants!"

    "But they don't pay taxes!"

    Then, with a quick wink he says "We are still working on that minor problem!"

Civilization, as we know it, will end sometime this evening. See SYSNOTE tomorrow for more information.

Working...