Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income

#78
#78
He won’t win the nomination but I have a feeling Yang is about to blow up. He’s got a televised town hall coming up and he’s already qualified for the debates. We’re gonna see other candidates start to sound a lot more like Yang in regards to automation/economy and Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#80
#80
Here is why UBI fails: it will only take a few election cycles for the electorate to know they can vote themselves a bigger paycheck. Sooner or later, as socialism always ends, the government runs out of other people's money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and AM64
#81
#81
or one winds up with something like National Socialism. And Poland gets invaded.
 
#82
#82
I’ve met Yang a couple of times. Will do so again end of this month when he is back out here in Iowa.

He is legit, although most will not take his ideas and policies too seriously. He has my support more than any D or R currently.

A good thing about living in Iowa is EVERY candidate visits here like it’s their grandmas house. Got to meet almost all the candidates that ran last election cycle. Going to do so again this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#83
#83
Burger said:
I loved that interview. I would actually consider voting for the guy. He's practical.
Click to expand...

The problem with this guy is that he thinks people that work in manual labor type jobs can just transition to a coding job or something similar. It doesn't work that way and some people are just dumb as rocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#84
#84
VolStrom said:
The problem with this guy is that he thinks people that work in manual labor type jobs can just transition to a coding job or something similar. It doesn't work that way and some people are just dumb as rocks.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. They would have to be filtered into the trades. Automation is going to happen no matter what. People have to realize that now. I am glad Yang is pointing it out.
 
#85
#85
Burger said:
Pretty much. They would have to be filtered into the trades. Automation is going to happen no matter what. People have to realize that now. I am glad Yang is pointing it out.
Click to expand...

Yeah automation has been happening for decades now. Your interpretation of a "trade" and mine are probably different. I worked for 35 years in an industrial plant that had revenues in the billion dollar range. An industrial electrician or mechanic needs to know way more than a tradesman wiring a house or installing a garage door, it's a much higher skill set and you don't take a person with no background and make the square peg fit the round hole.
It's a major problem for manufacturers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#86
#86
Burger said:
Pretty much. They would have to be filtered into the trades. Automation is going to happen no matter what. People have to realize that now. I am glad Yang is pointing it out.
Click to expand...

The thing that amazes me about automation is that robots don't participate in the market to buy goods, so it is really better to have machines digging ditches than employing people to do manual labor? And we always get the bit about automation moving jobs from manual labor to skilled maintenance positions, but if you employ the same number of people just in different positions, how exactly can the cost of automation be justified? If you employ fewer people because of automation, how does that not lead to a downward spiral ... fewer jobs means smaller markets which is exactly the opposite of the rise in prosperity brought by employment and a significant middle class. I know economists have all the answers to these questions; but as an engineer, I don't believe in unicorns, perpetual motion, and a free ride. Most things that sound too good happen because somebody illegally diddles with the equal sign in an equation.
 
#87
#87
VolStrom said:
Yeah automation has been happening for decades now. Your interpretation of a "trade" and mine are probably different. I worked for 35 years in an industrial plant that had revenues in the billion dollar range. An industrial electrician or mechanic needs to know way more than a tradesman wiring a house or installing a garage door, it's a much higher skill set and you don't take a person with no background and make the square peg fit the round hole.
It's a major problem for manufacturers.
Click to expand...

The only thing that can really be done is letting people know that automation is right around the corner and encourage them to acquire such skills. This is why I think our education system has been majorly flawed for a very long time.

AM64 said:
The thing that amazes me about automation is that robots don't participate in the market to buy goods, so it is really better to have machines digging ditches than employing people to do manual labor? And we always get the bit about automation moving jobs from manual labor to skilled maintenance positions, but if you employ the same number of people just in different positions, how exactly can the cost of automation be justified? If you employ fewer people because of automation, how does that not lead to a downward spiral ... fewer jobs means smaller markets which is exactly the opposite of the rise in prosperity brought by employment and a significant middle class. I know economists have all the answers to these questions; but as an engineer, I don't believe in unicorns, perpetual motion, and a free ride. Most things that sound too good happen because somebody illegally diddles with the equal sign in an equation.
Click to expand...

Economists are wrong very often. We can definitely debate if automation is good for society, and the impacts it would have. Keep in mind that during the last industrial revolution, over 4 million jobs were lost. Some of them went to the Social Programs, but many of those people evolved. The cost of automation is justified on a long-term basis. Sure that special machine costs 10 to 20 million, but that machine doesn't need breaks, won't demand a raise, or have benefits cost. What it comes down to is the cost and supply of labor for how fast automation comes. Basically, we will become an even more service based economy instead of a manufacturing one. As the post quoted above yours said, there will always be a need for people to maintain the machines. I agree with you the fact that the societal cost of automation will be very high if it happens all at once. If you have driver-less trucks, you will take out the main profession for high school graduate men. Best way to do it is to try to slow it down.
 
#88
#88
AM64 said:
The thing that amazes me about automation is that robots don't participate in the market to buy goods, so it is really better to have machines digging ditches than employing people to do manual labor? And we always get the bit about automation moving jobs from manual labor to skilled maintenance positions, but if you employ the same number of people just in different positions, how exactly can the cost of automation be justified? If you employ fewer people because of automation, how does that not lead to a downward spiral ... fewer jobs means smaller markets which is exactly the opposite of the rise in prosperity brought by employment and a significant middle class. I know economists have all the answers to these questions; but as an engineer, I don't believe in unicorns, perpetual motion, and a free ride. Most things that sound too good happen because somebody illegally diddles with the equal sign in an equation.
Click to expand...

If you're an engineer how can you not believe in automation? What did you do your whole life? My entire career was devoted to making machines work by themselves without an idiot screwing things up.
 
#89
#89
VolStrom said:
If you're an engineer how can you not believe in automation? What did you do your whole life? My entire career was devoted to making machines work by themselves without an idiot screwing things up.
Click to expand...

My whole career was pretty much involved with determining why things screwed up. Sometimes equipment wasn't the right choice for the application. Sometimes equipment itself caused a problem ... like pressure pulsations (related to sub-harmonics with dual operating pumps) in intake piping exciting resonances that beat piping and supports into submission. Sometimes the way components were programmed to act just made no damn sense ... like stop and governor valves both being wide open when a steam driven pump was started. Anyway automation is necessary, but so is employment. If you have no market, there's no reason to produce widgets; if automation alone produces all the widgets, nobody has the means to buy them.
 
#90
#90
Burger said:
The only thing that can really be done is letting people know that automation is right around the corner and encourage them to acquire such skills. This is why I think our education system has been majorly flawed for a very long time.



Economists are wrong very often. We can definitely debate if automation is good for society, and the impacts it would have. Keep in mind that during the last industrial revolution, over 4 million jobs were lost. Some of them went to the Social Programs, but many of those people evolved. The cost of automation is justified on a long-term basis. Sure that special machine costs 10 to 20 million, but that machine doesn't need breaks, won't demand a raise, or have benefits cost. What it comes down to is the cost and supply of labor for how fast automation comes. Basically, we will become an even more service based economy instead of a manufacturing one. As the post quoted above yours said, there will always be a need for people to maintain the machines. I agree with you the fact that the societal cost of automation will be very high if it happens all at once. If you have driver-less trucks, you will take out the main profession for high school graduate men. Best way to do it is to try to slow it down.
Click to expand...

I agree with slowing it down. I think business is overly consumed with cost and efficiency and too little with the longer term. Certainly there is the point that every introductory economics text makes about there being no reason to be in business if you don't profit from it. There is also the point that if you put yourself out of business because you have killed your market, then there is no profit. I think what we are doing with the middle class (offshoring jobs and rapid automation) amounts to killing the goose that was laying the golden eggs ... Chinese workers in a manipulated market and machines aren't going to buy US goods.
 
#91
#91
AM64 said:
The thing that amazes me about automation is that robots don't participate in the market to buy goods, so it is really better to have machines digging ditches than employing people to do manual labor? And we always get the bit about automation moving jobs from manual labor to skilled maintenance positions, but if you employ the same number of people just in different positions, how exactly can the cost of automation be justified? If you employ fewer people because of automation, how does that not lead to a downward spiral ... fewer jobs means smaller markets which is exactly the opposite of the rise in prosperity brought by employment and a significant middle class. I know economists have all the answers to these questions; but as an engineer, I don't believe in unicorns, perpetual motion, and a free ride. Most things that sound too good happen because somebody illegally diddles with the equal sign in an equation.
Click to expand...
how did we survive the big shift in automation with farming, assembly lines, computers? at some point it does become an issue, but the downward spiral thing is a bit overplayed imo.
 
#92
#92
AM64 said:
My whole career was pretty much involved with determining why things screwed up. Sometimes equipment wasn't the right choice for the application. Sometimes equipment itself caused a problem ... like pressure pulsations (related to sub-harmonics with dual operating pumps) in intake piping exciting resonances that beat piping and supports into submission. Sometimes the way components were programmed to act just made no damn sense ... like stop and governor valves both being wide open when a steam driven pump was started. Anyway automation is necessary, but so is employment. If you have no market, there's no reason to produce widgets; if automation alone produces all the widgets, nobody has the means to buy them.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also agree that China is stealing our intellectual property and our middle class jobs. The way you compete with China is to make crap faster and cheaper. The only way we can do that is through efficiency, which is through automation.
 
#93
#93
VolStrom said:
I agree. I also agree that China is stealing our intellectual property and our middle class jobs. The way you compete with China is to make crap faster and cheaper. The only way we can do that is through efficiency, which is through automation.
Click to expand...

Some different ways to do that. Most of them I am completely against because it's market manipulation.

LouderVol said:
how did we survive the big shift in automation with farming, assembly lines, computers? at some point it does become an issue, but the downward spiral thing is a bit overplayed imo.
Click to expand...

Problem is the rate automation will happen. Most people won't even realize that it is happening until they get pink slips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#94
#94
VolStrom said:
I agree. I also agree that China is stealing our intellectual property and our middle class jobs. The way you compete with China is to make crap faster and cheaper. The only way we can do that is through efficiency, which is through automation.
Click to expand...

I wish people would wake up about China. We are arming our next enemy with the intellectual property and technology in the plants we are building for them. It's probably our capital that is allowing them to loan the money for projects that third world countries can't afford that is leading to the new wave of foreclosure and colonialism (Chinese style).
 
#95
#95
AM64 said:
I agree with slowing it down. I think business is overly consumed with cost and efficiency and too little with the longer term. Certainly there is the point that every introductory economics text makes about there being no reason to be in business if you don't profit from it. There is also the point that if you put yourself out of business because you have killed your market, then there is no profit. I think what we are doing with the middle class (offshoring jobs and rapid automation) amounts to killing the goose that was laying the golden eggs ... Chinese workers in a manipulated market and machines aren't going to buy US goods.
Click to expand...

Off-Shoring happens for a combination of these reasons : High Labor Costs , Lack of Supply of labor, or cheaper natural resources. Most companies prefer not to off-shore because shipping costs would go up, but if any of those three factors swing in the wrong direction. It becomes more cost effective to Off-Shore.
 
#96
#96
Burger said:
Off-Shoring happens for a combination of these reasons : High Labor Costs , Lack of Supply of labor, or cheaper natural resources. Most companies prefer not to off-shore because shipping costs would go up, but if any of those three factors swing in the wrong direction. It becomes more cost effective to Off-Shore.
Click to expand...

I do think US labor owns a big share of the blame. Unions and then compensatory minimum wage increases by government pretty much priced US labor out of a competitive world labor market. Whether labor cost, automation, or other variables, we really have to factor in direct and indirect consequences in deciding correct paths, and I can't see that we've been doing it all that well lately.
 
#97
#97
AM64 said:
I do think US labor owns a big share of the blame. Unions and then compensatory minimum wage increases by government pretty much priced US labor out of a competitive world labor market. Whether labor cost, automation, or other variables, we really have to factor in direct and indirect consequences in deciding correct paths, and I can't see that we've been doing it all that well lately.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Why employ a US Worker to do menial labor when you don't have to pay the guy in Bangladesh 10 dollars an hour and benefits. People will find out the hard way that a burger flipper is not worth 15 bucks an hour when they get machines to do the job. The job market is very sensitive to economic factors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#98
#98
VolStrom said:
The problem with this guy is that he thinks people that work in manual labor type jobs can just transition to a coding job or something similar. It doesn't work that way and some people are just dumb as rocks.
Click to expand...
Except he has said the exact opposite

 
#99
#99
LouderVol said:
how did we survive the big shift in automation with farming, assembly lines, computers? at some point it does become an issue, but the downward spiral thing is a bit overplayed imo.
Click to expand...
He did address the industrial revolution. We're going to see it in a larger scale in the next few years (at least I kinda hope since it's part of my job)

YANG: If you look at the Industrial Revolution, there was massive social change. Labor unions were originated in 1886 to start protesting for rights. There were massive riots that led to dozens of deaths and caused billions of dollars’ worth of damage that led to Labor Day becoming a holiday. Universal high school got implemented in 1911 in response to all of these changes. And it was a tumultuous time. I mean there was a whiff of revolution the whole time. And according to Bain, this labor-force displacement, this time, the fourth Industrial Revolution, is going to be three to four times faster and more vicious than that Industrial Revolution was.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top