# Andrew Yang 2020



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

​


I know it is kind of early, but I think he has already got my vote. Don't care how "likely" he is.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 29, 2018)

Such a stretch for campaign advertising. Where is the funding going to come from for this "Universal Basic Income"? What bearing will it have on us in the long term? Also, who the hell is this guy?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Such a stretch for campaign advertising. Where is the funding going to come from for this "Universal Basic Income"? What bearing will it have on us in the long term? Also, who the hell is this guy?


The idea is that by reducing spending in other areas (read, defence, certain social programs, etc) and by significantly reducing tax breaks for the wealthy, the money comes effectively either from people who already owe it or from shuffling the budget to reprioritize


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The idea is that by reducing spending in other areas (read, defence, certain social programs, etc) and by significantly reducing tax breaks for the wealthy, the money comes effectively either from people who already owe it or from shuffling the budget to reprioritize


Again, definitely a stretch. I do like part of what I'm reading, though.. He's an "entrepreneur"? Boy that's what we need right now......... - _0


----------



## Subtle Demise (Aug 29, 2018)

He wants stricter drug laws. Good bye.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

Seems like the main thing is a VAT and reducing, if not getting rid of, inefficient welfare systems.


Subtle Demise said:


> He wants stricter drug laws. Good bye.


Making medical drugs safer and more reliable doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 29, 2018)

Looking at his policies I would never vote for this guy. Holy shit no


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Looking at his policies I would never vote for this guy. Holy shit no


What policies are you mostly against?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Such a stretch for campaign advertising. Where is the funding going to come from for this "Universal Basic Income"? What bearing will it have on us in the long term? Also, who the hell is this guy?


I'm not sure about this guy on other issues, but as far as UBI goes, we just committed trillions of dollars to giveaways for the rich in the form of tax cuts over the next ten years.  That would've been nearly enough to fund a UBI on its own.

Also UBI is probably going to be a necessity once robots take over 80%+ of the jobs.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Aug 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Seems like the main thing is a VAT and reducing, if not getting rid of, inefficient welfare systems.
> 
> Making medical drugs safer and more reliable doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.


In theory, the FDA does a lot of good in making sure prescription and OTC drugs aren't hurting people. Hell, I'm all for regulating an industry that consistently abuses the free market. In this case more regulation hurts the consumer more than the companies. Drugs become prohibitively expensive to recoup the cost of complying with excessive regulation. Not to mention the DEA's meddling with opioids has made them increasingly difficult to get for people who need them, and having little to no effect on the addicts and black market dealers besides higher street prices. It also led to the abuse and importation of fentanyl. Unless his plan to end the opioid crisis is to make the safer alternatives more readily available and end the fentanyl scourge, I'll urge everyone I know not to vote for him. That, and I don't believe in Socialism.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> What policies are you mostly against?



There is a lot but here are a few from the top of the list.

UBI
Medicare for all
Fight for Equal Pay
The Freedom Dividend (UBI....again?)
LGBTQ Rights....I'm not against this. I just have no idea wtf he is talking about. Are their laws on the book that discriminate against them? and yes this is a legit question.
Gun Control and the Second Amendment....he is gun grabber color me surprised. 
Paid Family Leave


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> LGBTQ Rights....I'm not against this. I just have no idea wtf he is talking about. Are their laws on the book that discriminate against them? and yes this is a legit question.


Actually yes, there's virtually nothing preventing an employer from firing an employee due to sexual orientation, at the federal level at least. So one of the common "shock factor" arguments that I've heard is that in many states it's entirely feasible for a gay couple to get married on Sunday and lose both their jobs on Monday


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> There is a lot but here are a few from the top of the list.
> 
> UBI
> Medicare for all
> ...





All people need to have some kind of health insurance. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO DIE BECAUSE A FUCKING GO-FUND ME COULDN'T GET HIS MEDICINE!

And yes.. It is perfectly legal to refuse to rent a house to an LGBTQ person. Lots of places also have no job security for them as well.

Also I have no problems with paid family leave. If someone has to go take care of a relative that's dying, they shouldn't have to risk losing their home and everything or ignore their relative.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Tigran said:


> And yes.. It is perfectly legal to refuse to rent a house to an LGBTQ person. Lots of places also have no job security for them as well.


Oh yeah, that one too

And also I agree with the paid family leave thing, America is quite literally one of the worst countries to work in for maternity leave, and has next to no options for paternity leave


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh yeah, that one too
> 
> And also I agree with the paid family leave thing, America is quite literally one of the worst countries to work in for maternity leave, and has next to no options for paternity leave


Something that has been bothering me since I first became a parent. There's no reason to not have paid parental (unisex) leave. None.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 29, 2018)

Tigran said:


> All people need to have some kind of health insurance. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO DIE BECAUSE A FUCKING GO-FUND ME COULDN'T GET HIS MEDICINE!
> 
> And yes.. It is perfectly legal to refuse to rent a house to an LGBTQ person. Lots of places also have no job security for them as well.
> 
> Also I have no problems with paid family leave. If someone has to go take care of a relative that's dying, they shouldn't have to risk losing their home and everything or ignore their relative.







The health insurance in our country is fucked due to all the regulations that are in place that sky rocket the living crap out of them. Insurances companies have to include a bunch of BS I will never use/or want because the government says so.

I actually didn't know that was a thing with LGBT rights. Thanks to you and total for letting me know.

On family leave. It isn't the companies job to work around your life. It is the other way around. That is why they hired you. If you are a good employee they will normally work with you. However yes the company does come first for them.


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

I'm not trying to be mean, but how old are you?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 29, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> The health insurance in our country is fucked due to all the regulations that are in place that sky rocket the living crap out of them. Insurances companies have to include a bunch of BS I will never use/or want because the government says so.
> 
> I actually didn't know that was a thing with LGBT rights. Thanks to you and total for letting me know.
> 
> On family leave. It isn't the companies job to work around your life. It is the other way around. That is why they hired you. If you are a good employee they will normally work with you. However yes the company does come first for them.


The thing is that ultimately the workers control the fate of the company. However we've become so wrapped up in the mundane stylings of the 9 to 5 that we fail to realize this. I make it perfectly clear that I have no care for the company over me and mine before being hired. So far its worked out rather well. Of course, you DO have to show you're a worthy candidate and one to be trusted.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> The health insurance in our country is fucked due to all the regulations that are in place that sky rocket the living crap out of them. Insurances companies have to include a bunch of BS I will never use/or want because the government says so.


I'm sorry? But that's literally how health insurance stays cheap for people that have actual disabilities that are otherwise the minority. Single-payer is _the_ best way to insure people with edge-case medical issues at an incredibly minor price increase to the rest of the population, and I wish that congress would have let the Democrats fully transition over and commit to that rather than adding in a bunch of compromises that poke holes in the efficacy of the system


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Seems like the main thing is a VAT and reducing, if not getting rid of, inefficient welfare systems.
> 
> Making medical drugs safer and more reliable doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.


No problems there, but I have adhd, do you know how much of a pain it is to get your meds/how people are not diagnosed because they are afraid they will be looked at as addicts looking for a fix?


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> That, and I don't believe in Socialism.


I'm going go back, but I want to tackle this first. I knew this was going to come up. Social democracy or even the "Nordic model" probably fits his policies more than socialism does, but let me ask you, how do you feel about public services and our certain welfare services?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> No problems there, but I have adhd, do you know how much of a pain it is to get your meds/how people are not diagnosed because they are afraid they will be looked at as addicts looking for a fix?


I think that that's rather an issue with perceptions of judgment from doctors and/or public perception than it is an issue with the system


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I think that that's rather an issue with perceptions of judgment from doctors and/or public perception than it is an issue with the system


That is true to an extent. I am okay because where I live, but lets say i wanted to try a different medication, some states prohibit even switching your meds if you wernt on them since you were a child, since you must be asking for a different med to abuse it, even if it is weaker in strength, less chance of addiction, and just a newer/better med overall.


----------



## JellyPerson (Aug 29, 2018)

#BenShapiro2020


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> That is true to an extent. I am okay because where I live, but lets say i wanted to try a different medication, some states prohibit even switching your meds if you wernt on them since you were a child, since you must be asking for a different med to abuse it, even if it is weaker in strength, less chance of addiction, and just a newer/better med overall.


Oo, I guess I don't know much about that. I'm in Iowa, which is unfortunately like... the 3rd worst state for mental health treatment?... But at least our drug protocol is relatively open, so long as you have a prescription


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm sorry? But that's literally how health insurance stays cheap for people that have actual disabilities that are otherwise the minority. Single-payer is _the_ best way to insure people with edge-case medical issues at an incredibly minor price increase to the rest of the population, and I wish that congress would have let the Democrats fully transition over and commit that that rather than adding in a bunch of compromises that poke holes in the efficacy of the system


And no one is even talking about taking Private Healthcare away. So, if you want it or need it, you can get it. That is, if you have the money to do so.


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oo, I guess I don't know much about that. I'm in Iowa, which is unfortunately like... the 3rd worst state for mental health treatment?... But at least our drug protocol is relatively open, so long as you have a prescription



I'm in georgia... the fact that I'm on mental meds is like a death sentence if the average person knew it.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> No problems there, but I have adhd, do you know how much of a pain it is to get your meds/how people are not diagnosed because they are afraid they will be looked at as addicts looking for a fix?


No, but I jumped the gun anyway. The part he is talking is specifically about opioids. Doesn't talk about general regulations.



Subtle Demise said:


> In theory, the FDA does a lot of good in making sure prescription and OTC drugs aren't hurting people. Hell, I'm all for regulating an industry that consistently abuses the free market. In this case more regulation hurts the consumer more than the companies. Drugs become prohibitively expensive to recoup the cost of complying with excessive regulation. Not to mention the DEA's meddling with opioids has made them increasingly difficult to get for people who need them, and having little to no effect on the addicts and black market dealers besides higher street prices. It also led to the abuse and importation of fentanyl. Unless his plan to end the opioid crisis is to make the safer alternatives more readily available and end the fentanyl scourge, I'll urge everyone I know not to vote for him.


He is trying to reduce abuse, not get rid of the drugs and even encourage companies to find a nonaddictive drug. So, what's the alternative? Just let people keep overdosing without trying to do anything?

And he is clearly not anti- all drugs considering he is for legalize marijuana despite his own feelings about it.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> No, but I jumped the gun anyway. The part he is talking is specifically Opioids. Doesn't talk about general regulations.
> 
> 
> He is trying to reduce abuse, not get rid of the drugs and even encourage companies to find a nonaddictive drug. So, what's the alternative? Just let people keep overdosing without trying to do anything?
> ...


One of those "too good to be true" things going on with this guy. Legitimately, I agree with so many of his views and campaign promises. Oh well.. Treat him like a politician. :<


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Memoir said:


> One of those "too good to be true" things going on with this guy. Legitimately, I agree with so many of his views and campaign promises. Oh well.. Treat him like a politician. :<


He's like Bernie 2.0 but young and with-it

Which of course means that the DNC will shun him and ensure that he gets no significant endorsements


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> No, but I jumped the gun anyway. The part he is talking is specifically about opioids. Doesn't talk about general regulations.
> 
> 
> He is trying to reduce abuse, not get rid of the drugs and even encourage companies to find a nonaddictive drug. So, what's the alternative? Just let people keep overdosing without trying to do anything?
> ...


Problem is they go for opioids (I had a friend die a few years ago from oxy), but then they go harder on amphetamines too, which is good, but then it makes some legislators think all people using amphetamines are addicts....


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> There is a lot but here are a few from the top of the list.
> UBI
> 
> The Freedom Dividend (UBI....again?)


Yeah, Idk why he keeps switching back and forth, but it is the same thing.



CallmeBerto said:


> Gun Control and the Second Amendment....he is gun grabber color me surprised.


Everything else aside, how can you look at this past year and not think we need at least some regulations?


> Brief
> 
> Just as we require people to pass a test to drive a car, we should require people to pass a test to own a gun.  Responsible gun owners should enjoy the right to bear arms, subject to licensing and education requirements.
> 
> ...


So no. Unless you have no business owning a gun in the first place, he isn't trying to grab your guns.



Ericthegreat said:


> Problem is they go for opioids (I had a friend die a few years ago from oxy), but then they go harder on amphetamines too, which is good, but then it makes some legislators think all people using amphetamines are addicts....


Sounds like we need some destigmatization policies, but like what was said, this doesn't seem to be directly tied to regulations.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Yeah, Idk why he keeps switching back and forth, but it is the same thing.
> 
> 
> Everything else aside, how can you look at this past year and not think we need at least some regulations?
> ...


I ABSOLUTELY agree with his stance on gun regulation. This is scary, he literally is my perfect candidate, view-wise


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 29, 2018)

Deleted


----------



## JellyPerson (Aug 29, 2018)

SirBeethoven said:


> Why can’t we get money from the rich too? And from corporations? If he’s going to take it from the people who owe it, he better not be looking to take money from debt-ridden college students, families trying to pay their rent, ect. It better be on a case by case basis, or this would just be cruel, and what insurance companies and such are already doing


Socialism is a failed idea.


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

SirBeethoven said:


> Why can’t we get money from the rich too? And from corporations? If he’s going to take it from the people who owe it, he better not be looking to take money from debt-ridden college students, families trying to pay their rent, ect. It better be on a case by case basis, or this would just be cruel, and what insurance companies and such are already doing



Because if we take money from the Rich it's "Socialism" or "Communism"! But if we take money from the poor who can't even afford to stay alive... well that's just good old Christian USA!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JellyPerson said:


> Socialism is a failed idea.



Except it's not.. There are plenty of functional socialist countries out there.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 29, 2018)

Deleted


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

SirBeethoven said:


> Ok one second, back up, I may have misread someone. I’m not sure whether this Andrew Yang person is paying for Universal Income using the money that the rich and corporations got in tax breaks,
> 
> Or if he’s after people that owe money.



I'm not sure either.. I will be researching more on him later. In your comment I was just trying to respond with some sarcastic snark.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 29, 2018)

Tigran said:


> I'm not sure either.. I will be researching more on him later. In your comment I was just trying to respond with some sarcastic snark.


Got it, thanks XD


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Medicare for all





CallmeBerto said:


> It isn't the companies job to work around your life.


Do you feel the same about healthcare? Medicare for all would reduce the need for businesses to do so. Not to mention, be more efficient. 



SirBeethoven said:


> Why can’t we get money from the rich too? And from corporations?


That's exactly what the VAT does. The stronger your business is, the more you have to pay, but everyone benefits overall.


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

SirBeethoven said:


> Got it, thanks XD



The point still stands though that in the US for some assinine reason, it's believed that if we tax the rich, we are going into Socialistic or Communism territory. However charging people who can barely make a living is a good thing.

The most common excuse I hear though is "They worked hard for their money." No... No most of them did not. The Waltons have not worked a day in their life. They inherited -all- of it. Same with the PoS in charge. He hasn't made a dime using his own hard work, he got all the money from his dad. Yes these people out here who -are- trying to work, often have to do two or three jobs just to afford rent and utilities, are either taxed or tricked by the meme that "You need to go to college!" 

Hell.. I saw where you have to have a high school diploma or a GED to be a bus driver... WHY?! As long as you can read and drive and the usual stuff... why the hell do you need to have a GED?

Why the hell do you need

At least 1 year of retail sales, guest service, and/or management experience required
High school diploma or GED required
To work as an assistant manager at Gamestop? I mean if you can actually do the job, why the Eff would you need a diploma or GED? 

That's the kind of situation we're in now.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 29, 2018)

His view on healthcare is interesting, why can't we just go with a medi-cal like system for the country? Cleveland clinics idea of a doctor by salary is great, but I can almost guarantee cleavland clinics doctors are some if the highest paid in the world, whereas most hospitals cannot afford that.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 29, 2018)

Tigran said:


> The point still stands though that in the US for some assinine reason, it's believed that if we tax the rich, we are going into Socialistic or Communism territory. However charging people who can barely make a living is a good thing.
> 
> The most common excuse I hear though is "They worked hard for their money." No... No most of them did not. The Waltons have not worked a day in their life. They inherited -all- of it. Same with the PoS in charge. He hasn't made a dime using his own hard work, he got all the money from his dad. Yes these people out here who -are- trying to work, often have to do two or three jobs just to afford rent and utilities, are either taxed or tricked by the meme that "You need to go to college!"
> 
> ...


How can you do the job without experience? You can't just launch into managerial positions without some background. I've watched local businesses get ran into the ground because of that.


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

Memoir said:


> How can you do the job without experience? You can't just launch into managerial positions without some background. I've watched local businesses get ran into the ground because of that.



I'm not saying NO experience.. But yes.. yes you can, easily. If the training is halfway decent at all, you can easily jump into an assistant manager position without any prior knowledge. 

Hell.. My very first job I was basically the manager because I was the only one at work alone at night... answering lawyers phone calls and having to call shit up. And that was day one.. No training at all because the company that hired me were effing idiots and treated night shift like it was the same issues as day shift. 

With a little bit of training, can get almost any job down pretty easily as long as it's not requiring advanced mathmatics or something. 

Sure I actually agree with the "needs to be able to handle customers" thing.. But honestly... I've seen so many managers at so many places who can't talk to customers I wonder how the hell they got the jobs.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 29, 2018)

hell anyones better than that turd in office now.....anyone's who's worse shouldn't be even legally allowed to run for president because their a threat to our country looking over some issues he has my vote in 2020


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 29, 2018)

Was bored. Guy is a bit idealistic for my taste, some nice stuff, some things that really trouble me, some things which I will want to hear more about first. Also a curious mix of positions at times that are not traditionally part of a given package. How much of that is appeasement I do not know.

More or less in order, I contemplating sticking the important ones first and spoilering the rest but I am bored now and don't think he has any chance so I will leave it at what I have done.

The equal pay stuff seems fundamentally flawed. If you can demonstrate your boss actively discriminated against you based on [usual list] then nail them to the wall. If you get paid less because you suck at salary negotiations then as the gamers might say. Git gud. My problems with this go much deeper (it both offends my principles of fairness and I want to be able to reward better workers) but I will leave it there for now.

Universal basic income. There have been some nice studies, some studies showing flaws (not everybody can handle free money, see also an awful lot of lottery winners) and I am not sure how it would be funded. One day, not today/2020.

Climate stuff. Grow some balls and bring nuclear back online first.

Prison stuff. Generally agree with most of that. Chances of it happening in practice? Hahahaha

Opiates. Some OK, a lot of wonky/punitive stuff I really don't agree with. Something truly needs to happen but I am far from sure that is it, or actually a fair way of setting about it.

LGBT stuff. Bit light there. "Appoint LGBT individuals to senior posts in my administration"... appoint based on merit, if they so happen to be then so it goes. Combined with the equal pay stuff it speaks to a mindset I don't like.

Guns you say. The person that wrote that wrote it very carefully. That said better, even mandatory, training and buyer analysis I can get behind. They probably could have won some points if they took some technical non issues (suppressors and such, never quite sure where straight pulls end up in the US these days) and opened them up a bit.

Family aka maternity leave. I do find the approaches stateside to it a bit odd. Let me see details here.

University. The Ohio thing seems very strange. Are there none there (or with those cross state agreements) or something? Equally it is but a few of the issues I would say need tackling (I think the bias response stuff antithetical to the idea of higher education), though given his approaches elsewhere I don't expect much here.

Why include privacy and barely cover it in your abortion line? Very odd. Like the attempt to sell UBI in it. Otherwise abortions for all works for me.

Campaign finance. I do like the UK system of fixed budgets in principle.

Vocational eduction works for me as well.

Keep your carbon tax, at least until we have nuclear back on the table (spoiler apparently we might)..

Teacher salaries... would need to see more info here as I am wary of fluff promises.

"pre kindergarten"... fancy way of saying free daycare. Tell me more about what you expect to happen.

Weed laws. Legalise and regulate does seem to be an option worth looking at.

Puerto Rico a State. Could be expensive but if they want it they seem to have fulfilled the relevant requirements.

VAT aka sales tax European style. The US sales tax system is a convoluted mess (never mind use tax), anybody that spent 5 minutes looking into it will tell you that. However there do seem to be a lot of places that opt to have none and that gets tricky if you are going to mandate one.

The pharma thing. They are cunts but predictable and I am not seeing a massive need for action here. Also way to bury a medicare for all policy.

"Human Capitalism". So they want to do some extra measurements on development, happiness and other such things? OK I guess. I am not sure what extent of control the economy will be needed as part of that but that could upset various economist inclined types.

Mental health stuff. The state of things there is shocking to me. The "AI counselors" (as in artificial intelligence) stuff might be a bit pie in the sky. Not sure what a stigma campaign will do and why it wants to be first on the list of things when everything else was so carefully written.

Journalism grants... an odd thing to run on but I am intrigued. "Affirm journalism as a profession" might have some implications for various laws, especially if it confers a barrier to entry like various other professions.

Second news related thing. "Imbue the FCC with a new office of the News and Information Ombudsman ". Danger Danger Danger. I would not trust the FCC to hold my beer while I tie my shoe.

"Create a Department of the Attention Economy that focuses specifically on smartphones and social media, gaming and chat apps and how to responsibly design and use them, including age restrictions and guidelines.  ". Careful now, that might tip over into something I don't want to see.

"Every Cop Gets a Camera". Fine in principle. Stuck in there though "e-establish the ban on distributing surplus unnecessary military-level artillery gear to police departments." and "Invest in new non-lethal weaponry that can be used to de-escalate conflicts at range and handprint signature guns so that weapons can only be used by their officers (‘he reached for my gun’ will no longer apply).". Hope you do that with consultation of people on the ground, don't know I would do handprint but some kind of biometrics (I like some of the grip ones) is not the worst plan..

"NCAA Should Pay Athletes". I think most "college" sports are a disgrace because of that, however I am not sure forcing things here is necessarily the right play. See about making some competition. Also if they want to make cheerleading a sport I am OK with that.

"Nuclear Launch Decisions" (wants vice president and chief of staff in on the action). A meaningless gesture but OK.

"Limit Bureaucracy in the Federal Workforce". Curious that he uses the term millenials in this. Anyway fine in principle. 

Local journalism fund. I am not opposed if it is suitably firewalled.

"Provide Basic Banking Services through the Post Office". Might trouble that competition aspect from the government thing that for some reason exists in the US. No problem in principle though.

American Exchange Program. That sounds an awful lot like national service, potentially a hard pill to swallow there. What a curious mixture of policies and philosophies we are seeing today. That curious American political term "flip flop", or at least what I think is the underlying idea behind it, I should bring up here (though I find it an odd criticism most of the time).

Prevent Corruption among Federal Regulators. Limit the speaking engagements of various politicos... an odd choice.

Closely Monitor Mental Health of White House Staff . Because that always goes so well.

Free Marriage Counseling for All. If memory serves there are already grants for it under the same thing that gives food stamps. Another curious policy choice. Wording makes me wonder whether it is family counselling or just marriage based.

Automatically Sunset Old Laws. Everybody promises legal reform. Come back with some results. Seems also an amendment is to be pushed for as part of it. Good luck with that one.

"Prosperity Grants". Everybody gets to donate to a non-profit (presumably with taxes or something). Interesting choice.

"Prevent Airlines from Removing Customers [essentially for] [for any reason other than that customer is posing a threat to other customers]". Tricky one that, might be a step too far in interfering.

"Improve the American Scorecard" Seen before with the metrics thing.

"Increase Assistance for Single Parents". Laudable in theory, not sure it wants to be single parents as much as single parents and those that might meet some criteria.

"Fund Medical Technology Innovation" Guy seems to have a thing for telepresence based stuff. That said more research is not a bad thing, the US has been a bit lacking of late.

"Fund Autism Intervention". Would have put that under the general mental health stuff but OK I guess.

"Rebuild American Infrastructure". So says everybody. Show me results.

"Reduce Student Loan Burden". Some good ideas. Some ones that might be iffy or hard to push through.

"Medicare for All". Fine by me if they do it right.

" Expand Access to Medical Experts". Again with the AI?

"Support the Revival of Earmarks". Call it a hesitant try it and report back.

"Make it Easier to Save for Retirement" "Create a tax-free investment vehicle into which people can opt to automatically have a portion of their income directed"... sounds like a national pension scheme to me.

"Free Financial Counseling for All". Kind of wish it would have happened in schools but it might solve a problem.

"Make Community College Affordable for All". Was this not covered earlier?

"Life-Skills Education in All High Schools". Oh look. That said I like most of that one, especially the meals thing.

"Modernize Military Spending". Not sure about using the military as government sanctioned builders but the US pays an awful lot for its military and gets back proportionally far less than most other places get. Some might say it does not go far enough (still stuck in cold war mode for some) but baby steps I guess.

"Make it Easy for Americans to Move for Work", also includes a bit on "professional licenses" and the lack of uniformity in their acceptance. The US "professional licenses" system is odd (Germany and Canada being among the most extreme, though Australia is not so far behind for some things) so maybe a shakeup would go there.

"Implement Mandatory Paid Leave Policy". I like holidays, damned if I would do under current the US system (none and what few have them are fairly minimal).

" Ease the Transition to Self-Driving Vehicles ". Bit forward thinking there. If driving jobs are replaced by robots then it will be tricky for some.

" Capital Gain/Carried Interest Tax". I don't know if it is quite as bad as Australia's stuff here (see Australian property markets post them loosening it) but I would not oppose a fiddling with it here.

"File Income Taxes". Make a simple website where people can file things in 10 minutes like the rest of the world? Solid plan, hopefully you dodge the "competition from the gubmint" laws here as this sort of thing is where I first learned of them.

"Financial Transaction Tax". Chances of that one getting through? Hahahaha

"Tort Reform/Reasonableness Dismissals". Show me results.

"American Mall Act". (short version subsidise some malls) Wrong approach if you ask me. Such things only encourage suburban sprall from where I sit.

"Pathway to Citizenship". Might be a hard sell, specifics a bit huggy feely even for my taste as well.

"Entice High-Skill Individuals". It is not that bad as it is from where I sit. Show me some specifics and why you think they will improve things.

"Zoning" So supporting malls but also zoning reform as a means to affordable housing. OK.

"Algorithmic Trading/Fraud" Also  "Economic Crime" More funding into enforcement and investigation is not a bad plan, especially as most seem to be something of a skeleton crew.

"Nuclear Energy" Get some building started and we will talk more, including about some of that carbon stuff.

"Modernize Voting". I am wary of voting machines, as are most people that really know their security. But blockchain... please.

"Modern Time Banking (Digital Social Credits)". Like Chinese social media currency? Also if the above thing did not sound like national service then this certainly does... albeit "voluntary".

"Media Fragmentation""Create a Media Responsibility Task Force with leaders of media and tech companies to discuss ways to get Americans agreeing on facts again and removing hostile foreign influence from our discourse."... excuse for a knees up I guess.

Net Neutrality. Seems to be for it, also local loop unbundling because apparently that has not happened. Hopefully that means ISP monopolies go a bit faster.

"Regulate AI and other Emerging Technologies". I want my AI overlord. No stopping progress on that.

"Robo-Calling Text Line" Alert the FCC to robot callers you say. Fair enough.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

SirBeethoven said:


> Why can’t we get money from the rich too? And from corporations? If he’s going to take it from the people who owe it, he better not be looking to take money from debt-ridden college students, families trying to pay their rent, ect. It better be on a case by case basis, or this would just be cruel, and what insurance companies and such are already doing


Please... Please read what I wrote again


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 30, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> "Regulate AI and other Emerging Technologies". I want my AI overlord. No stopping progress on that.


Here I was trying to decide if I should respond to this and what should I respond to, and this one line messed up my thought process. I might reply to more later, but I just wanted to point that out. lol


----------



## Subtle Demise (Aug 30, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I'm going go back, but I want to tackle this first. I knew this was going to come up. Social democracy or even the "Nordic model" probably fits his policies more than socialism does, but let me ask you, how do you feel about public services and our certain welfare services?


Don't get me wrong, I think things like government-funded schools, police, firefighters etc. are good. Even things like food assistance and medicaid are good for families who work full time and still have trouble making ends meet. I've taken advantage of programs ,myself, so some socialist leanings I agree with. I even believe that most of the tax burden should rest with the big corporations and the 1%. I don't agree however that wages need to be equalized. Wage gaps encourage people to take up a trade, pursue  education, things like that. No one goes to work at McDonald's for a lifetime career, it's supposed to be a jumping off point. Get some job experience, climb the ranks for a couple years to shift manager or whatever and move on from there to something more sustainable. The big problem is that we've relied too much on the welfare state to bail us out. The government likes the welfare state too, because the people won't take up arms if the government is paying their bills and feeding their family.


----------



## Tigran (Aug 30, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think things like government-funded schools, police, firefighters etc. are good. Even things like food assistance and medicaid are good for families who work full time and still have trouble making ends meet. I've taken advantage of programs ,myself, so some socialist leanings I agree with. I even believe that most of the tax burden should rest with the big corporations and the 1%. I don't agree however that wages need to be equalized. Wage gaps encourage people to take up a trade, pursue  education, things like that. No one goes to work at McDonald's for a lifetime career, it's supposed to be a jumping off point. Get some job experience, climb the ranks for a couple years to shift manager or whatever and move on from there to something more sustainable. The big problem is that we've relied too much on the welfare state to bail us out. The government likes the welfare state too, because the people won't take up arms if the government is paying their bills and feeding their family.




Except that's not always the case.

I for example trained both people who where promoted above me... and then when called them out on it.. they claimed I was too important where I was.

Now... I might buy that I was a bad employee if.. IF I wasn't called in ALL the time because someone else needed help, and if BOTH the people I trained hadn't gone above me... AND the fact that they wanted me to do the extra manager work as well as my normal work. *Hey.. If I wasn't fit to be manager... Why the hell was I always being asked to do the manager work?*

This was a for a company called Intelliteach, which no longer exists.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 30, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think things like government-funded schools, police, firefighters etc. are good. Even things like food assistance and medicaid are good for families who work full time and still have trouble making ends meet. I've taken advantage of programs ,myself, so some socialist leanings I agree with. I even believe that most of the tax burden should rest with the big corporations and the 1%. I don't agree however that wages need to be equalized. Wage gaps encourage people to take up a trade, pursue  education, things like that. No one goes to work at McDonald's for a lifetime career, it's supposed to be a jumping off point. Get some job experience, climb the ranks for a couple years to shift manager or whatever and move on from there to something more sustainable. The big problem is that we've relied too much on the welfare state to bail us out. The government likes the welfare state too, because the people won't take up arms if the government is paying their bills and feeding their family.


Then it doesn't seem like you should be against basic income. Yes, everyone would get a $1000 a month. This would give everyone a safety net around the poverty line, but this doesn't discourage anything you said nor equalized the wage gaps. Lessen the gap a bit for everyone? Yes. Get rid of it? No. Basic income is literally just a more efficient welfare system. People wouldn't need as much welfare, if at all, because everyone would have at least some money to fall on, before they even start working.

Poverty traps happen under the certain system, let alone what was already mention about not being able to "climb the ranks", either because of skill or luck, or ,as you pointed out, still not being able to make ends meet.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Please... Please read what I wrote again


Crap, sorry, I really read your comment wrong.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2018)

​


FAST6191 said:


> Prevent Corruption among Federal Regulators. Limit the speaking engagements of various politicos... an odd choice.


Not sure about this one. Seems like a lot of money and I wonder how effective it will be against corruption. 



FAST6191 said:


> "Prevent Airlines from Removing Customers [essentially for] [for any reason other than that customer is posing a threat to other customers]". Tricky one that, might be a step too far in interfering.


Agree with you here.



FAST6191 said:


> "Rebuild American Infrastructure". So says everybody. Show me results.


We really need it. I'm pretty sure we are falling really behind, when it comes to modernization. 



FAST6191 said:


> "Modernize Military Spending". Not sure about using the military as government sanctioned builders but the US pays an awful lot for its military and gets back proportionally far less than most other places get. Some might say it does not go far enough (still stuck in cold war mode for some) but baby steps I guess.


Not sure about that either. I guess on paper it sounds fine, but I wonder how many people would join the military knowing they could be used to build things instead. Maybe this idea should simply be separated from the military? 



FAST6191 said:


> "American Mall Act". (short version subsidise some malls) Wrong approach if you ask me. Such things only encourage suburban sprall from where I sit.


Suburban sprall? As much as I like malls from time to time, I feel like this goes under the "jobs that just aren't coming back" section. Seems like a losing battle. 



FAST6191 said:


> "Modernize Voting". I am wary of voting machines, as are most people that really know their security. But blockchain... please.


I still think there should be paper trails, but what's wrong with blockchain?



FAST6191 said:


> "Modern Time Banking (Digital Social Credits)". Like Chinese social media currency? Also if the above thing did not sound like national service then this certainly does... albeit "voluntary".


Not a ranking system. Doesn't punish you nor is it mandatory, so not really. As long as it isn't required for anything and you have a choice, don't really care about this. That is, if he manages to get this up. 

Unless the plan is to use cryptocurrency, I'm not sure why this doesn't just give money directly. 



FAST6191 said:


> The pharma thing. They are cunts but predictable and I am not seeing a massive need for action here. Also way to bury a medicare for all policy.


How exactly did he buried medicare for all here?



FAST6191 said:


> Climate stuff. Grow some balls and bring nuclear back online first.
> 
> Keep your carbon tax, at least until we have nuclear back on the table (spoiler apparently we might)..
> 
> "Nuclear Energy" Get some building started and we will talk more, including about some of that carbon stuff.


Yeah, I don't agree with the "nuclear energy or get out" notion here. lol With or without nuclear energy, we should be finding ways to fix the environment. 

Honestly, I know he talks about safety, but the nuclear energy we have now still worries me. Still hoping for nuclear fusion. That said, as long as they can keep the nuclear energy in check, it would be better the co2 we are making. 



FAST6191 said:


> "Nuclear Launch Decisions" (wants vice president and chief of staff in on the action). A meaningless gesture but OK.


Why meaningless? On one hand, it lowers the power the president has. On the other hand, it slows down the decision making. 



FAST6191 said:


> "Media Fragmentation""Create a Media Responsibility Task Force with leaders of media and tech companies to discuss ways to get Americans agreeing on facts again and removing hostile foreign influence from our discourse."... excuse for a knees up I guess.
> 
> Second news related thing. "Imbue the FCC with a new office of the News and Information Ombudsman ". Danger Danger Danger. I would not trust the FCC to hold my beer while I tie my shoe.
> 
> "Robo-Calling Text Line" Alert the FCC to robot callers you say. Fair enough.


Then we can't trust the FCC with anything. 

To be fair, he plans to replace the members, just because of the Net Neutrality thing alone. So they should be a bit more trustworthy.  Still, it sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure this job should be given to the FCC and would need laws to protect it. Maybe the Task Force instead.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> ​
> 
> 
> FAST6191 said:
> ...




I have also seen the state of the infrastructure. Every politician ever says it though (it is about as risk free a policy as it gets -- everybody knows someone that hit a pothole and saw a scary story about a bridge falling over. About the only people that would object would be the absolute minimalist government types and they are so rare as to not matter) and it still gets worse. Hence show me results.

On building stuff I have no problem in principle with them building things and would happily boot out/disallow in* anybody that does not care for it. The trouble for me is more that winning wars is easy (less than a month to take down Iraq sort of thing) but winning the peace is a whole lot different (how many years and counting?). That said if they want to split the door kickers from the might as well be police and politicians that might allay some worries.

*for all the opposition to welfare and government handouts the military does a stunning job at being that for a lot of people.

Yeah suburban sprall. The phenomenon where you live in dense neighbourhoods but you still need a car to get to the shops, go to the park or generally do much of anything. Not a great look.

Blockchain is a buzzword. It sets off my buzzword from the clueless alarms.

As for medicare for all then https://www.yang2020.com/policies/holding-pharmaceutical-companies-accountable/


> As President, I will… Support a Medicare-for-all plan that will reduce drug costs for all Americans.


Nothing really to do with the policy itself but left in there. Most of the other policies in their "As President, I will" stayed on topic.

I have never seen a carbon tax I care to back. This is no different. By all means incentivise efficiency or something but out and out tax... would have to be very special. Nuclear wise it is a safe and reliable power source as far as I am concerned and a crying shame it is not used more and hobbled by irrational fears where it is used. Equally if you can offset things to nuclear then that will do far more than a few token policies elsewhere.

Nuclear football wise. I find it meaningless as it has never really been a problem before.

Net neutrality was just the latest in a long line of screw ups and overreaches by the FCC (if nothing else how far back have the Simpsons and Family guy been taking the piss out of them). For them to then be tasked to vet news and have power to do things... nah, double nah because that kind of power when someone else gets back in (something which should always be a thought when doing such things). Leave them to police the radio spectrum, vet devices for those that want that, ensure telecoms companies don't get too big for their boots and I guess play puritans for the TV (though I would seek a serious reform there as well if I could).


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2018)

Edit: Snip, misread that post, sorry about that.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2019)

Just an update.

At the latest debate. 


Reminder of some policies.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Sep 14, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> That's exactly what the VAT does. The stronger your business is, the more you have to pay, but everyone benefits overall.



Unless Yang does some black magic vodoo here that he doesn't really explain on his website you have it completely wrong. VAT is a tax that only targets consumers, businesses are exempt from paying it, which makes sense, because prices would escalate exponentially.

I'm open to being wrong here but from his website he seems to not really know what VAT is, asserts a whole bunch of stuff and doesn't back it up.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/



FAST6191 said:


> "NCAA Should Pay Athletes". I think most "college" sports are a disgrace because of that, however I am not sure forcing things here is necessarily the right play. See about making some competition. Also if they want to make cheerleading a sport I am OK with that.



It kind of is a double edged sword, on one hand you have these hugely popular sports that generate a lot of revenue where it seems players are exploited, on the other hand you have less popular sports with no money in them where sports scholarships on their own are great opportunities for athletes. Oftentimes these programs at school are what allows athletes to stay with the sport into their physical primes and to compete at the highest level while getting an education when that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

That being said it seems things are moving in the basketball world at least. The NBA G-League (the former developmental league) has introduced a "select contract" that can be offered to players at least 18 years old and not eligible for the NBA draft, it pays $125k over the season. High school prospects can be signed to these contracts for the upcoming 2019/20 season. With Luka Doncic winning rookie of the year recently and the US' world cup performance, playing in Europe might be seens as another path to the NBA as well.



FAST6191 said:


> "Make it Easy for Americans to Move for Work", also includes a bit on "professional licenses" and the lack of uniformity in their acceptance. The US "professional licenses" system is odd (Germany and Canada being among the most extreme, though Australia is not so far behind for some things) so maybe a shakeup would go there.



Would be interested what you consider extreme with Germany's system here. As far as I'm aware it only regulates professions where there's a certain risk of death involved, like physicians, electricians, car or bicycle mechanics.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 14, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Would be interested what you consider extreme with Germany's system here. As far as I'm aware it only regulates professions where there's a certain risk of death involved, like physicians, electricians, car or bicycle mechanics.



Bicycle as in pushbike with pedals? Didn't know that. Such a thing would be completely alien to me -- even a car mechanic is not a protected trade around here. I don't know what goes with MOTs these days (annual vehicle inspections) but that is more of an individual garage being certified thing with VOSA (the body governing it) occasionally sending in test cars to places, and there are some courses they like people to have if they are playing with air conditioning refrigerants (not that I rate the skills of most supposedly ticketed car air conditioning people I have ever encountered -- most seem to have learned a technique rather than the meaning behind what they are doing).

Anyway most of what I see comes from the engineering and scientist side of things, in the case of science I remember reading about some guy that faked some research and they stripped his phd from him despite absolutely no indication that anything untoward happened during the phd (which was some years earlier). They then had to have a section on why that would be the case as phd apparently means something special in Germany.
Engineering wise then Germany along with Canada is one of the two main places anywhere to properly clamp down on people using the term/title engineer, elsewhere it is a fairly big debate which rolls around ever few years with most people leaning towards "don't do it". Obviously you get things like chartered engineer (these days apparently the engineering council includes a group that deals with computer scientists), and there are some implications as far as being able to testify as an expert in courts (though that gets hazy), but for the most part anybody can call themselves an engineer. There is nothing really like the iron ring thing the US and Canada have here.
Lower down on the totem pole there is also trades in the UK -- in recent years it has got worse and electricians now have to be registered with a body (I will spare my grumblings about NICEIC for now -- they have long been a money generating operation rather than something useful but it got worse) where before you could call yourself an expert* and roll with that, apparently one also needs to be a member of FENSA to replace a window as well, but prior to that it was pretty much gas and high rise buildings which had requirements and everything else anybody with a van could rock up and do. Australia is a few years further down the path here.
I did also find the if it is not law then it pretty much is for certain medics to carry around a fairly serious kit at all times slightly odd, though I am not complaining too much here. Medical roles in general can be fun one and there are all sorts of edge cases here (at one point within the last 20 years I believe anybody that was a doctor could declare themselves a plastic surgeon, don't know what goes today), to say nothing of medical sounding things -- dietician vs nutritionist being the classic one.

*I could be called up tomorrow and asked to reverse engineer, fix or spec a 3 phase hundreds of volts thing (for others playing along at home then 3 phase EU electrics are nominally 400 volts), massive capacitors and transformers type machine. As in big boom, hundreds of thousands (plus whatever productivity loss) and you aren't getting up if I mess this up type setups, and apparently I am technically not allowed to connect three obvious wires if I wanted to replace my home socket with a USB one, or change my light switch for a fancy one.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

I guess $1000/month can buy someone's vote, along with disregarding everyone else's freedom.  Good luck with wasting your vote on Yang.  I hope it makes you feel good. 

*Combatting Climate Change - *wasting money on a hoax that 99% of scientists agree is not a problem.
*Equal Pay - *another hoax that has been debunked several times over
* Right to Privacy/Abortion* -more like the right to kill babies or let them suffer in soiled utility closets alone until they die. 
*Rebuilding American Infrastructure* - Not the first democrat to promise this and never follow through.
* Medicare For All  *- more like take away our private health insurance, doctor's, and right to speedy medical care along with leaving elderly without the care they need which they recieve now.

I could go on, but this is all moot as he doesn't have a chance to become the nominee, let alone the president.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 14, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> hell anyones better than that turd in office now




Yeah I mean look how Trump being in office has trashed the economy.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Unless Yang does some black magic vodoo here that he doesn't really explain on his website you have it completely wrong. VAT is a tax that only targets consumers, businesses are exempt from paying it, which makes sense, because prices would escalate exponentially.
> 
> I'm open to being wrong here but from his website he seems to not really know what VAT is, asserts a whole bunch of stuff and doesn't back it up.
> https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/


Unlike Morvoran, I don't think you are arguing in bad faith, but even a quick look on google says VAT is a consumption tax that's added at each stage of the supply chain, unlike the taxes we have now. From searching and what he mentioned on his website, somethings are lower or exempted, but nothing that says all businesses are outright exempted. Also, unlike other places with VAT, this VAT will go directly back to the people.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Sep 14, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Bicycle as in pushbike with pedals? Didn't know that. Such a thing would be completely alien to me -- even a car mechanic is not a protected trade around here. I don't know what goes with MOTs these days (annual vehicle inspections) but that is more of an individual garage being certified thing with VOSA (the body governing it) occasionally sending in test cars to places, and there are some courses they like people to have if they are playing with air conditioning refrigerants (not that I rate the skills of most supposedly ticketed car air conditioning people I have ever encountered -- most seem to have learned a technique rather than the meaning behind what they are doing).



Mechanic isn’t a protected trade as far as I‘m aware. However, you couldn’t start your own business unless you have a certain level of qualifications or have someone with these qualifications on payroll who agrees to be held liable. This only needs to be a single person in a business though, you could hire someone as a mechanic if he doesn’t have any qualifications for it. 
With regards to bicycles it’s so that bike stores are allowed to offer repairs even if they don’t have a licensed mechanic on payroll, they aren’t allowed to do some repairs though, they can’t touch the brakes for example. I have seen work from some stores around here and I would never have them touch my disc brakes considering I often hit 50mph+ on descents. 



FAST6191 said:


> Anyway most of what I see comes from the engineering and scientist side of things, in the case of science I remember reading about some guy that faked some research and they stripped his phd from him despite absolutely no indication that anything untoward happened during the phd (which was some years earlier). They then had to have a section on why that would be the case as phd apparently means something special in Germany.



Does the name Jan Hendrik Schön ring a bell here? If you’re referring to his case, he was stripped of his PhD because of a local law in the state the university is in. This particular state allows a PhD to be stripped if the person is later found to be „unworthy“ of the degree. Schön was found to have faked 16 papers. 
There’s some pretty archaic state laws over here. One state has only formally abolished the death penalty a few years ago even though it wasn’t enacted because of federal law. 



FAST6191 said:


> Engineering wise then Germany along with Canada is one of the two main places anywhere to properly clamp down on people using the term/title engineer, elsewhere it is a fairly big debate which rolls around ever few years with most people leaning towards "don't do it". Obviously you get things like chartered engineer (these days apparently the engineering council includes a group that deals with computer scientists), and there are some implications as far as being able to testify as an expert in courts (though that gets hazy), but for the most part anybody can call themselves an engineer. There is nothing really like the iron ring thing the US and Canada have here.



Yes, engineer is exclusively used as an academic title here.
I have dealt with network engineers before who I wouldn’t trust to be able to spell „IP“ correctly and I have to admit it grinds my gears sometimes


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2019)

.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Sep 14, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Unlike Morvoran, I don't think you are arguing in bad faith, but even a quick look on google says VAT is a consumption tax that's added at each stage of the supply chain, unlike the taxes we have now. From searching and what he mentioned on his website, somethings are lower or exempted, but nothing that says all businesses are outright exempted. Also, unlike other places with VAT, this VAT will go directly back to the people.



You are technically correct but things look much different in practice.
VAT will be collected at the end of the supply chain for obvious reasons, it’s just added onto the price at the retailer. For a business it doesn’t make a difference, as it’s a cost that would just be slapped onto the price. As long as it‘s something that is still used to add value for a product it’s just material and yes even the ballpoint pens used by management count.
This makes businesses de facto exempt from paying VAT.

EDIT: Think about it this way. Say you have a highly competitive market like electronics with small margins. The retailer can’t just „pay“ more taxes on every single item he purchasss, if he had to he would just increase prices accordingly. Which is why VAT is collected at the end of the supply chain.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Mechanic isn’t a protected trade as far as I‘m aware. However, you couldn’t start your own business unless you have a certain level of qualifications or have someone with these qualifications on payroll who agrees to be held liable. This only needs to be a single person in a business though, you could hire someone as a mechanic if he doesn’t have any qualifications for it.
> With regards to bicycles it’s so that bike stores are allowed to offer repairs even if they don’t have a licensed mechanic on payroll, they aren’t allowed to do some repairs though, they can’t touch the brakes for example. I have seen work from some stores around here and I would never have them touch my disc brakes considering I often hit 50mph+ on descents.
> 
> 
> ...



The push bike thing I still find stunning. I have never and would never expect to hear of anybody undertaking some kind of formal education on push bike repair (bikes are popular here, maybe not as much as the Netherlands or Cologne but enough that small villages will tend to have a shop, and in towns most estates within them will have at least one), or having it as a spin off of more general machining/engineering/mechanical training course. The bike shops themselves will endeavour to train their people and some of them are pretty good (saw one once grind a lathe tool to deal with some of the weird and wonderful threads pushbikes have) but nobody would even think to seek formal qualifications for pushbike repair.

As for starting your own business as a car or motorbike mechanic then Joe never so much as touched a socket set could open up his garage tomorrow and perform all the brake repairs they like. To the best of my knowledge there are no formal standards (nothing like a professional test of an agreed upon level for things to test at, though there are things like NVQs, GNVQs, Btec and City and Guilds which may or may not mean something to someone) and a lot of the time manufacturers will have their own courses. If you bothered to get professional indemnity insurance and had nothing the rates would likely be through the roof but that is an if.

Might have been that guy but I am awful with names when it is actually relevant, never mind just something amusing I read. This would have been possibly 16 years ago when it happened, bit later when it all came out and crossed my path and even then it was something of a small note in passing in probably New Scientist. If it is a quirk of regional law though then fair enough, still an interesting one though.

Academic title might mean something slightly different to different people reading it (most of the English speaking world differing slightly on things here) and also fail to encompass some of the things it means in Germany.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 15, 2019)

LonelyPhantom said:


> Ignoring the impracticality of implementing UBI & The inevitable Hyper Inflation


Like the hyper inflation caused by Alaska's oil dividend. Oh wait... 



supersonicwaffle said:


> You are technically correct but things look much different in practice.
> VAT will be collected at the end of the supply chain for obvious reasons, it’s just added onto the price at the retailer. For a business it doesn’t make a difference, as it’s a cost that would just be slapped onto the price. As long as it‘s something that is still used to add value for a product it’s just material and yes even the ballpoint pens used by management count.
> This makes businesses de facto exempt from paying VAT.


I'm not going to harp on rather this whole statement is true or not, but even if the whole VAT is placed on the final price, it will still force companies to raise prices. Since the increase is mostly on luxury goods and the tax is going directly back to the people, people will overall still benefit.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Sep 15, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I'm not going to harp on rather this whole statement is true or not, but even if the whole VAT is placed on the final price, it will still force companies to raise prices. Since the increase is mostly on luxury goods and the tax is going directly back to the people, people will overall still benefit.



All I can tell you is how the VAT works here in the EU, which what Yang is referring to as well.
Businesses have to file their VAT spent and collected every month and will get paid or charged the difference by the local IRS equivalent.
Businesses would not be forced to raise prices in this scenario as nothing would change for them other than some overhead for reporting VAT. I take it you’re referring to companies adding the VAT on top?
Usually a VAT is collected on every item but there are reduced rates for bare necessities like food. The base rates over here for example is 19% Andree reduced rate is 7%. It’s kinda funny you mention luxury items as people over here who are pushing for tampons to be taxed at the reduced rate are trying to frame the base rate as a luxury rate.
Don‘t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s a bad system, it taxes people for spending so it taxes the rich more than the poor by nature. It just doesn’t do what yang claims it does.

With regards to spending the additional revenue, I tend to be very careful of what a politician will say. I have seen it way too often that the additional revenue will be spent completely differently than promised.

I actually like Yang but my problems with him are mostly that he seems too ambitious and gullible at the same time. I mentioned this in another thread before. His reasoning for the UBI relies more on Tesla‘s PR department than market research and with Elon Musk being the snake oil salesman that he is, it’s a recipe for disaster.



FAST6191 said:


> The push bike thing I still find stunning. I have never and would never expect to hear of anybody undertaking some kind of formal education on push bike repair (bikes are popular here, maybe not as much as the Netherlands or Cologne but enough that small villages will tend to have a shop, and in towns most estates within them will have at least one), or having it as a spin off of more general machining/engineering/mechanical training course. The bike shops themselves will endeavour to train their people and some of them are pretty good (saw one once grind a lathe tool to deal with some of the weird and wonderful threads pushbikes have) but nobody would even think to seek formal qualifications for pushbike repair.



Well, the rising popularity of cycling didn’t come from thin air. I applaud your investments into cycle to work schemes and British Cycling. Results at Grand Tours and olympics have been impressive to say the least.

I agree that even some amateur mechanics are amazing at what they do. I always enjoy watching the YouTube videos from the Bespoked bike show, which is a show for handmade bikes in the UK. I hope I‘ll get to go there at some point.

We here have a dual education system for nearly all trades where you will be receiving practical training at your employer and go to school for three years. The time is usually split around two thirds time on the job and one third time in school. For most trades you can do an additional two year education after you have gained experience on the job for three years. Like I said, some trades require you have the additional education for liability purposes if you start your own business.

EDIT: Wanted to elaborate a bit on the admittedly a bit ridiculous requirement for bicycle mechanics. I get how a regular person wouldn't be too concerned about it but like I mentioned earlier, even amateur recreational cyclists regularly hit speeds at which a simple crash without the involvement of others can be fatal. As a matter of fact we've seen a sharp increase in bicycle accidents here since e-bikes have been introduced as people start riding up mountains that they were previously unable to get up  and a lot of times they're too inexperienced to control their bikes on descents.
There's a few safety concerns with mid- to high-end bike components mainly because of the carbon fiber that is used. Over tightening bolts can lead to catastropic failure of carbon fiber components, using the wrong brake pads on carbon fiber rims can easily lead to failure of the rim, especially on fast descents where a lot of heat is generated by braking which could lead to the resin melting and delaminating layers of carbon fiber, not being careful when bleeding the mineral oil in hydraulic brakes and getting some of the fluid onto the brake pads.
Layering carbon fiber is a labor intensive but fairly low skill job which is why most bicycle component production is in Taiwan and China. As a matter of fact, the chinese Government had an export ban for carbon fiber bike components for a while because the chinese engineered products were a huge safety risk at the time, they lifted the ban once things improved.
This is just to illustrate from a hobby road cyclist's perspective why you get a certain peace of mind with these licensing regulations in place when you take out your bike for a ride after it's been to the shop.

FYI, carbon fiber bikes aren't too uncommon, especially in the UK as there's some British manufacturers who specifically offer carbon frame bikes for the cycle to work scheme which I believe have to be less than £1,000, which is considered about as low a price you should go for a beginner road bike.



FAST6191 said:


> Might have been that guy but I am awful with names when it is actually relevant, never mind just something amusing I read. This would have been possibly 16 years ago when it happened, bit later when it all came out and crossed my path and even then it was something of a small note in passing in probably New Scientist. If it is a quirk of regional law though then fair enough, still an interesting one though.



I believe his case was often cited as an example of a PhD getting stripped when a corruption scandal regarding doctorate programs in Germany was uncovered about a decade ago. This might explain why it was only mentioned in passing.



FAST6191 said:


> Academic title might mean something slightly different to different people reading it (most of the English speaking world differing slightly on things here) and also fail to encompass some of the things it means in Germany.



True. I was mainly referring to titles achieved through degrees in higher education.
As I understand it, German higher education has been quite different from other countries in the past. The full title used to be „Diplom Ingenieur“, the „Diplom“ would denote that it’s an engineer with a higher education degree.
As far as I’m aware there technically is no engineer title anymore after the introduction of bachelor‘s and master‘s degrees through the bologna process. People still refer to a person holding such a degree as an engineer though.
Use of language might change here in the coming decades and people are really eager to use English job descriptions here, especially in the technology space. We even have product evangelists now -_-


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Businesses would not be forced to raise prices in this scenario as nothing would change for them other than some overhead for reporting VAT. I take it you’re referring to companies adding the VAT on top?


He is planning to add a VAT tax here. A tax we don't have at all. So, based on what you said, somewhere there's is going be less profits for the business or they are going to raise prices.  




supersonicwaffle said:


> His reasoning for the UBI relies more on Tesla‘s PR department than market research


Tell that to the people that are losing and have lost their jobs due to automation. 




supersonicwaffle said:


> I don’t think it’s a bad system, it taxes people for spending so it taxes the rich more than the poor by nature.


Then it does what it needs to do, no matter how the tax is actually collected.




supersonicwaffle said:


> Elon Musk being the snake oil salesman that he is, it’s a recipe for disaster.


The guy that help pushed and is pushing electric cars, space travel and now brain implants forward?


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Sep 18, 2019)

Sorry for answering late, I had an answer almost ready but things have been busy and the draft is gone now.



KingVamp said:


> He is planning to add a VAT tax here. A tax we don't have at all. So, based on what you said, somewhere there's is going be less profits for the business or they are going to raise prices.



They are only going to pay if:

they are taxed at all
they raise prices less than they are taxed
Especially the latter is just wishful thinking. It's a tax that under no circumstances will tax businesses, which is what Yang claims it will do. You're essentially asking businesses to pay more for the resources they need for their products without raising prices or raising them less than their increase in cost, don't you see how that's a little utopian? This is why it makes much more sense to only tax at the end of the supply chain to streamline the process.
I'd be even more interested how his proposal would stop big corporations from hiding money in tax havens. As he said, most of the developed world has a VAT and has the same problems. It's something you can't just claim without explaining in detail. At this point I assume that he thinks businesses will do the utopian thing of taking a net loss once a VAT is introduced.



KingVamp said:


> Tell that to the people that are losing and have lost their jobs due to automation.



Technological unemployment has been a thing for centuries at this point. Agriculture workers have been displaced by tractors before, manufacturing workers have been displaced by assembly lines before.
Whether this wave of technology will create less jobs than lose them is still a hotly debated topic. It's true we're currently seeing a net loss in jobs, however, there's also large industries that are desperate to find workers and are actively recruiting in foreign countries.
AI based automation is nowhere near production ready, right now people don't even know how to deal with the results of AI decisions. An AI that assisted Amazon's HR department for software development hires heavily favored men, where do we go from here? Trust the AI that it made the right decision or throw everything out because it can't be right? If you ignore decisions you don't like, is AI automation something that will displace office workers in the near future or is it just a hint machine and humans keep making the decisions with improved efficiency?
It's difficult so it's always worth a look at actual market research. Here's some of one of the most renowned market researchers in the technology space.






As you can see, according to Gartner, most automation critical technology hasn't even reached the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" yet. It would be VERY unwise to create policy now based on the expectations of the tech industry.
This is where my problem with Yang lies, one of the examples he constantly gives for automation is autonomous trucks, where even Autonomous Driving Level 4 will do his argument no good as the vehicle would still need to be piloted by a real person outside of a few situations like driving on highways. Now look at where Autonomous Driving Level 5 (the point at which the payload doesn't need a driver to reach it's destination) is in terms of maturity.
It's more likely to me that truckers will benefit from lesser degrees of autonomy that decreses their fatigue and increases their quality of life for a long while before it outright displaces them. Just thinking about the safety regulation process to have a 30+ ton vehicle driving around at 80mph without the failsafe of a human driver will probably tell you that it's gonna take half a decade or more after the actual technology ships in most jurisdictions.

I'm not outright dismissing it but let's talk again in 5-10 years towards the beginning or end of Yang's second term, ok?



KingVamp said:


> Then it does what it needs to do, no matter how the tax is actually collected.



If that is your goal, sure. It wasn't stated as one of Yang's goals though, which is what lead to this discussion in the first place.



KingVamp said:


> The guy that help pushed and is pushing electric cars, space travel and now brain implants forward?



Well, first of all let me say that what Space-X did was very impressive. I can't really speak to brain implants, as I haven't really kept up with the developments there. I even think that some of the work Tesla does with regards to batteries is good, even though I don't think it's a viable long term solution for renewable energy storage, but boy does he grind my gears with electric cars and autonomous driving.

First of all there isn't much to push with regards to electric vehicle technology. It's nothing special engineering wise. He really only had a better sense of customer acceptance than the rest of the industry and this acceptance is fueled by the network of superchargers. I also encourage you to take a good look at a Tesla vehicle if you see one, the build quality is utter shit. On top of that, Tesla had to walk back a lot of automation because of quality issues, is perpetually behind deliveries and as far as I'm aware hasn't even made any money yet.


> “Yes, excessive automation at Tesla was a mistake. To be precise, my mistake. Humans are underrated” - Elon Musk, 2018


Personally I'd much rather have electric cars be pushed in the direction that BMW is doing, the i3 is a car that is tuned to be as economically friendly as possible. It cas a carbon fiber body to make it as light and energy efficient as possible and 95% of the car is recyclable, unfortunately it is too expensive for the average family at the moment. But I guess pioneering electric vehicles means porting cuphead to the infotainment system now.
With regards to autonomous driving, look at the market research data above. IMO, a conservative estimation is that autonomous driving might not be feasible unless the system is being fed more perfect information, like actual data from traffic lights. There's a good chance that image recognition will prove to be too unreliable. To go back to the earlier point of jobs, think about the workforce required to revamp the whole infrastructure, this is a job for multiple decades. Musk is currently trying to sell you on the idea that lidar is a waste of money while his cars are demonstrably driving into barriers.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 18, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Sorry for answering late, I had an answer almost ready but things have been busy and the draft is gone now.
> 
> They are only going to pay if:
> 
> ...


VAT is meant to tax more areas of the supply chain and make it harder for tax havens. We are in disagreement on how it works in practice.  Like I said, I'm not going to harp on that.

I mean, the whole point is to fund it by making the more well off pay more. Whether that be from rich businesses or customers, doesn't really matter. 



supersonicwaffle said:


> Technological unemployment has been a thing for centuries at this point. Agriculture workers have been displaced by tractors before, manufacturing workers have been displaced by assembly lines before.
> Whether this wave of technology will create less jobs than lose them is still a hotly debated topic. It's true we're currently seeing a net loss in jobs, however, there's also large industries that are desperate to find workers and are actively recruiting in foreign countries.


I knew you were going to say something like this. Unlike the past Revolutions, I believe this time is different. This isn't simply changing how people work traditional jobs, but outright reducing the need for people to work them altogether. Autonomous machines are only going get technologically better, cheaper and more efficient than humans, unless artificially slow downed or stopped. Even if I'm wrong with the time frame (as you pointed out, the growth of jobs isn't looking good right now), I don't envision a possibility that despite how technologically advance things get, there will always be enough labor or even non-labor jobs for everyone to live on. That is, beyond just busy work.



supersonicwaffle said:


> As you can see, according to Gartner, most automation critical technology hasn't even reached the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" yet. It would be VERY unwise to create policy now based on the expectations of the tech industry.


The info on this chart isn't helping the people that are already losing/lose their jobs due to automation, or for that matter anyone in general, since UBI goes beyond that.



supersonicwaffle said:


> AI based automation is nowhere near production ready, right now people don't even know how to deal with the results of AI decisions. An AI that assisted Amazon's HR department for software development hires heavily favored men, where do we go from here? Trust the AI that it made the right decision or throw everything out because it can't be right? If you ignore decisions you don't like, is AI automation something that will displace office workers in the near future or is it just a hint machine and humans keep making the decisions with improved efficiency?
> It's difficult so it's always worth a look at actual market research. Here's some of one of the most renowned market researchers in the technology space.
> 
> This is where my problem with Yang lies, one of the examples he constantly gives for automation is autonomous trucks, where even Autonomous Driving Level 4 will do his argument no good as the vehicle would still need to be piloted by a real person outside of a few situations like driving on highways. Now look at where Autonomous Driving Level 5 (the point at which the payload doesn't need a driver to reach it's destination) is in terms of maturity.
> It's more likely to me that truckers will benefit from lesser degrees of autonomy that decreses their fatigue and increases their quality of life for a long while before it outright displaces them. Just thinking about the safety regulation process to have a 30+ ton vehicle driving around at 80mph without the failsafe of a human driver will probably tell you that it's gonna take half a decade or more after the actual technology ships in most jurisdictions.


We already have warehouses that are automated, with little human oversight/workers. In fact, he talked about how the trucks' AI isn't perfect due to weather conditions for example. That are going be people watching over them, they just wouldn't be in the trucks themselves nor would that need as many workers. Unfortunately, I don't remember which video he talk about this.

Even I can't envision a future, at least not anytime soon, when there's is literally zero human oversight, but you don't need the same amount of people to do that. 




supersonicwaffle said:


> I'm not outright dismissing it but let's talk again in 5-10 years towards the beginning or end of Yang's second term, ok?


Worst case scenario, Andrew Yang is right about automation, but at least people have a base to fall on. Base case scenario, Andrew Yang is wrong about automation, yet people are better off than what they would have been before.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Sep 19, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I mean, the whole point is to fund it by making the more well off pay more. Whether that be from rich businesses or customers, doesn't really matter.



What I was trying to say is that if you want to tax a business you need to find a way to do it such that it won't affect prices, because that would mean they are in effect not being taxed, the consumer just pays for it on top of that.
The biggest concern would be that with price increases growing exponentially across the supply chain, the effect of the VAT on low income households would be disproportionally higher. If you want the Freedom Dividend to be more than a vehicle to introduce VAT and alleviate the immediate effects of an introduction of a VAT the specifics are kind of important.



KingVamp said:


> I knew you were going to say something like this. Unlike the past Revolutions, I believe this time is different. This isn't simply changing how people work traditional jobs, but outright reducing the need for people to work them altogether. Autonomous machines are only going get technologically better, cheaper and more efficient than humans, unless artificially slow downed or stopped. Even if I'm wrong with the time frame (as you pointed out, the growth of jobs isn't looking good right now), I don't envision a possibility that despite how technologically advance things get, there will always be enough labor or even non-labor jobs for everyone to live on. That is, beyond just busy work.



Outright reducing the need for people to work traditional jobs is exactly what the example of the tractor I have given did as well. No difference here.
New and better technology has displaced low skill manual labor jobs for centuries now.

With regards to job growth, most of the resources I find say that the total number of jobs are increasing. I was specifically speaking to a net loss in jobs incurred due to automation as automation will also create jobs.
However, I didn't read my sources properly, the 7% loss I came across in google searches was an expected loss until 2027, not the loss we had so far which I can't really find relevant information on right now.

Generally the studies regarding job loss due to automation vary wildly, Oxford predicted 47%, OECD suggest 9%, and this is all total job loss due to automation, not net loss.
The video you posted only mentions the higher end figures.

To me it feels like you're not accounting for new jobs created. Things like AR or VR, which are already used in production, have the capacity to lower the skill barrier for a lot of jobs because they can outright tell a worker what to do or allow a remote expert to assist a lower skilled worker if needed.

Again, AI, which is the technology expected to fuel all of this, is just finding the problems and isn't at the point yet where we know whether these problems will have practical solutions. The expectations of engineers are very likely to be overinflated. To expect these technologies to reach production level maturity at the scale that is suggest sounds ridiculous to me.

Look at the cloud technology hype a few years ago. Granted, it's a much simpler problem, however, everyone and their mother thought we'd just ship everything into the cloud and save a ton of money. As it turns out the economic viability of cloud services for small and medium businesses is fairly narrow.



KingVamp said:


> We already have warehouses that are automated, with little human oversight/workers. In fact, he talked about how the trucks' AI isn't perfect due to weather conditions for example. That are going be people watching over them, they just wouldn't be in the trucks themselves nor would that need as many workers. Unfortunately, I don't remember which video he talk about this.
> 
> Even I can't envision a future, at least not anytime soon, when there's is literally zero human oversight, but you don't need the same amount of people to do that.



We disagree here.
e=mc² would tell you that something not being "perfect" and reducing oversight for a thing like a truck and to subject it to the reliability issue of a data connection WILL lead to the deaths of a lot of people in traffic if it's done within the next decade.

I mean, weather would be the least of my concerns when current systems veer off the lane if the paint isn't 100% due to wear, will not brake if a picture of a road is painted on the back of a truck or have trouble recognizing red traffic lights because every single car's rear lights are red.

Even the best autonomous vehicle technologies show that humans intervene at a much higher rate than humans would crash. Reliability needs to be improved MASSIVELY still and this will be the most time consuming step or as some software engineers say: "we're 99% done, just need to do the other 99%".
Going back to the e=mc² thing, expect this technology to be applied to trucks in a meaningful way that reduces labor at a much later point in time.



KingVamp said:


> The info on this chart isn't helping the people that are already losing/lose their jobs due to automation, or for that matter anyone in general, since UBI goes beyond that.



See, this is exactly the problem I have with the discussion.
Instead of actually looking at market research and what is happening you post a video filled with jobs that are nowhere close to being automated and very early development stage robots or pure research objects.
Of course there is stuff in there that is already in production and stuff that has been in production for a long time as well but basing your argument on an overexaggerated and misrepresented current state of things is just unnecessary.



KingVamp said:


> Worst case scenario, Andrew Yang is right about automation, but at least people have a base to fall on. Base case scenario, Andrew Yang is wrong about automation, yet people are better off than what they would have been before.



Worst case scenario is that people will only marginally be better off with increased prices due to an introduction of VAT.
Yang expects UBI to cost roughly $3 trillion, he expects spending to be $1.8 trillion on top of the current welfare programs and he expects that the additional spending of people recieving UBI will recoup roughly $400 billion in tax revenue.
So taxation would be somewhere in the vicinity of 12%-20% of the amount spent on consumption. Of course it wouldn't all be VAT as some of the money spend will end up as income tax for example but you need to apply VAT to all of the consumption, not just the additional spending caused by UBI.

Like you, he also mentions roughly 50% of american jobs to be at risk of being lost soon and like I've mentioned he's counting the jobs that would be heavily automated through AI and states that "AI isn't coming, it's already here". Please look at the market research above, it's simply not.

Realistically he doesn't have a chance at the presidency in 2020 but I'm really glad he introduced himself at this point in time. I can easily see him being an ideal candidate in 2028,2032 or 2036, just not right now.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 19, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> The biggest concern would be that with price increases growing exponentially across the supply chain, the effect of the VAT on low income households would be disproportionally higher.


I've already mention that the VAT wouldn't even be applied the same, if at all, across everything anyway.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Outright reducing the need for people to work traditional jobs is exactly what the example of the tractor I have given did as well. No difference here.
> New and better technology has displaced low skill manual labor jobs for centuries now.


In that case, it is even at a bigger extent now. At some point, all these labor jobs will only need human oversight. Not a fleet of people doing the heavy work. 



supersonicwaffle said:


> To me it feels like you're not accounting for new jobs created. Things like AR or VR, which are already used in production, have the capacity to lower the skill barrier for a lot of jobs because they can outright tell a worker what to do or allow a remote expert to assist a lower skilled worker if needed.
> 
> The expectations of engineers are very likely to be overinflated. To expect these technologies to reach production level maturity at the scale that is suggest sounds ridiculous to me.


I don't think new jobs is going to forever replace all the jobs that are and will be lost. At least, not meaningful ones anyway. Autonomous machines could also just outright replace those workers.

Time frame aside, automation isn't going to come to a screeching stop and even now it is already affecting people. To expect technology to always replace all the jobs that it takes away, sounds ridiculous me. 



supersonicwaffle said:


> See, this is exactly the problem I have with the discussion.
> Instead of actually looking at market research and what is happening you post a video filled with jobs that are nowhere close to being automated and very early development stage robots or pure research objects.
> 
> Of course there is stuff in there that is already in production and stuff that has been in production for a long time as well but basing your argument on an overexaggerated and misrepresented current state of things is just unnecessary.


Basing my argument on things that are already happening and things that are coming down the pipeline. 

That we shouldn't just hope enough jobs that people can live on come back or that we shouldn't just hope that the time frame is slower than we think. That we could help people now, despite how fast automation comes. 



supersonicwaffle said:


> Like you, he also mentions roughly 50% of american jobs to be at risk of being lost soon and like I've mentioned he's counting the jobs that would be heavily automated through AI and states that "AI isn't coming, it's already here". Please look at the market research above, it's simply not.


You are assuming that he hasn't done his own research. You are assuming that that market research will even stay the same, even a year from now. Even if he ends up wrong, you are forgetting about the people that don't have a job right now or "simply" just struggling even with a job.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Realistically he doesn't have a chance at the presidency in 2020


Similar things was said about Trump. 



supersonicwaffle said:


> I can easily see him being an ideal candidate in 2028,2032 or 2036, just not right now.


Or he can just help a lot of people now and not just wait until things possibly get worse. Not just with UBI, but with all his policies.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 16, 2019)

At the latest debate.


Unfortunately, I can't find a video of the whole debate.


----------

