I'm pretty skeptical of Silicon Valley types. they really seem to be pushing for UBI for reasons I don't exactly understand. Not sure why basic income is so popular with tech billionaires. But I much prefer people like Bernie and Kamala who are pushing for jobs guarantee.Andrew Yang. The fac the isn't getting press doesn't surprise me. He's pretty much progressive
To be honest, UBI makes more sense to me than a jobs guarantee. There's just so many questions as to how the latter would even work or look. I mean, who is to say there's even enough jobs for everyone who wants one? And what kind of jobs would they be in the first place?I'm pretty skeptical of Silicon Valley types. they really seem to be pushing for UBI for reasons I don't exactly understand. Not sure why basic income is so popular with tech billionaires. But I much prefer people like Bernie and Kamala who are pushing for jobs guarantee.
He is far more likely to wait it out for another major state wide race in Florida. Losing a race you were supposed to win and lead polling in the entire race makes it harder to make a leap unlike Beto and Abrams who both did better than expected.I'm wondering whether Andrew Gillum will have some discussion as a VP candidate. If he could help carry Florida, then I think he's gonna be considered. Likewise Conor Lamb from PA.
Surprised to see so much support for Beto considering some of his views (member of New Democrat Coalition instead of Congressional Progressive Caucus seeming reluctance to support Medicare for all) . Is it mostly because people think he has the best chance of winning?
https://www.statesman.com/news/20170923/rep-beto-orourke-outlines-four-step-plan-to-medicare-for-allYou post this tweet every time, but surely there is more substantive than a one word tweet posted almost a year ago you can point to as evidence of his support for M4A and a $15 minimum wage, right?
I'm pretty skeptical of Silicon Valley types. they really seem to be pushing for UBI for reasons I don't exactly understand. Not sure why basic income is so popular with tech billionaires. But I much prefer people like Bernie and Kamala who are pushing for jobs guarantee.
Good call! He's an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.
Robert weakness:
- Billionaire father-in-law
- Charter school administrator wife
- "A March O'Rourke profile in the Dallas Morning News said the candidate's father, the late Pat O'Rourke, who was elected El Paso's county judge, "once explained why he nicknamed his son Beto: Nicknames are common in Mexico and along the border, and if he ever ran for office in El Paso, the odds of being elected in this mostly Mexican-American city were far greater with a name like Beto than Robert Francis O'Rourke. It was also a way," the story said, "to distinguish him from his maternal grandfather, Robert Williams.""
https://www.statesman.com/news/2018...ed-and-robert-orourke-by-beto?template=ampart
yeah but what about THE DIGNITY OF WORKThis position is utterly nonsensical to me. It seems pretty obvious that "give everybody money" is better than "give everybody money but make them dig holes and fill them back up again."
Maybe Andrew can convince meThis position is utterly nonsensical to me. It seems pretty obvious that "give everybody money" is better than "give everybody money but make them dig holes and fill them back up again."
He is far more likely to wait it out for another major state wide race in Florida. Losing a race you were supposed to win and lead polling in the entire race makes it harder to make a leap unlike Beto and Abrams who both did better than expected.
It's the same basic idea, UBI just cuts out the confusing and uncertain middle man and straight up hands out the money. The whole point is to make sure people have what they need to survive, so why not just do that? Why spend a bunch of money to invent busywork to pay people for when you can just hand out the money?
I'm dying man, you do good work on these. Know that I appreciate you.
I'm wondering whether Andrew Gillum will have some discussion as a VP candidate. If he could help carry Florida, then I think he's gonna be considered. Likewise Conor Lamb from PA.
If Sanders wasn't running, he would probably endorse Warren. Their political ideologies overlap like 99.8%.
Hold grudges?That may be a problem, she endorsed Hillary in '16. Bernie is one who hold grudges, so I'm skeptical. In theory it makes sense, though. He might endorse Inslee.
Isn't it disingenuous to say he hold grudges with especially Barney Frank who have been attacking Bernie for years? I could see a conflict of interests and a desire to unseat, sure.
That's a ticket I can see winning.
UBI also completely changes the game in regards to the labor/management dynamic. Right now management holds all the power because we need jobs to survive. Sever survivability and employment and that dynamic drastically shifts, giving labor far more power than they've ever had before. It would represent a fundamental shift in the way we look at employment in a way that we would all benefit from. A job guarantee just reinforces the status quo, it doesn't look toward what comes next.The idea here, and the reason Silicon Valley guys are so into UBI, is that automation will eventually remove the need for a lot of current jobs. That isn't our current reality, but we are mere decades away from a whole lot of jobs going extinct. Manufacturing is disappearing quickly. Mining is largely kaput. Other industries will go away. A job guarantee works right now, but it will stop working where there just aren't things to have people do.
Long, long term, automation will also probably mean the death of capitalism - at least as we recognize it. If we no longer need to work, why does it make sense to pay for goods?
That's where UBI comes in. UBI is a better step than a "job guarantee" for that long middle period, where categories of job disappear one by one, but money is still an essential concept. It answers the question of how people can live when they lack the specialization needed to work in the jobs that still require human work. It is also mechanically far simpler. A jobs guarantee requires, well, jobs. You need to either create things for people to do or get buy-in from companies. You also have a locality issue, where there just aren't - and can't be - jobs everywhere. You'd have to relocate people too. UBI lets people live where they are and lets them still choose and seek work if they want or need it. Just give a check every month, and let people do what they want.
UBI also completely changes the game in regards to the labor/management dynamic. Right now management holds all the power because we need jobs to survive. Sever survivability and employment and that dynamic drastically shifts, giving labor far more power than they've ever had before. It would represent a fundamental shift in the way we look at employment in a way that we would all benefit from. A job guarantee just reinforces the status quo, it doesn't look toward what comes next.
Even if mass automation never happens, this still makes it worth doing. Plus it's just a more efficient use of the money in the first place.
I'm pretty skeptical of Silicon Valley types. they really seem to be pushing for UBI for reasons I don't exactly understand. Not sure why basic income is so popular with tech billionaires. But I much prefer people like Bernie and Kamala who are pushing for jobs guarantee.
To keep this short: Because their implementation of UBI would involve a more libertarian approach i.e. cutting the living hell out of welfare programs instead of restructuring the current tax system that would likely lead to higher tax rates for the silicon heads and billionaires who already don't pay their fair share.I'm pretty skeptical of Silicon Valley types. they really seem to be pushing for UBI for reasons I don't exactly understand. Not sure why basic income is so popular with tech billionaires.
To keep this short: Because their implementation of UBI would involve a more libertarian approach i.e. cutting the living hell out of welfare programs instead of restructuring the current tax system that would likely lead to higher tax rates for the silicon heads and billionaires who already don't pay their fair share.
The idea is that UBI would be large enough that you wouldn't need things like food stamps or welfare. UBI should by definition cover someone's essentials. It should be enough to cover rent and food and all the other essentials. If you do it right you don't need that other stuff. The whole point of UBI is to sever employment and survival, to make it so you don't need a job to have a place to live or food to eat or any other essentials we need to live. If you aren't doing that then you aren't doing it right in the first place.To keep this short: Because their implementation of UBI would involve a more libertarian approach i.e. cutting the living hell out of welfare programs instead of restructuring the current tax system that would likely lead to higher tax rates for the silicon heads and billionaires who already don't pay their fair share.
I have heard this talking point before and am confused by it. If UBI is large enough, why wouldn't you let it subsume existing transfer programs? I feel like the implicit assumption here is that the UBI won't actually be large enough to be a meaningful income. But that's a problem in itself, because then it just won't be a UBI.
Aloha, Tulsi!
I mean that's actually one of the benefits of a UBI. I'm a progressive and if enough livable UBI (tied to inflation) is given, I'm okay with the elimination of some social programs to streamline bureucracy.To keep this short: Because their implementation of UBI would involve a more libertarian approach i.e. cutting the living hell out of welfare programs instead of restructuring the current tax system that would likely lead to higher tax rates for the silicon heads and billionaires who already don't pay their fair share.