-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Liberal icon Tulsi Gabbard 2020
She has a perfect record on being anti racist, anti capitalist, and 100 percent in evrey way pro lgbtqaplus in evrey way
She has a perfect record on being anti racist, anti capitalist, and 100 percent in evrey way pro lgbtqaplus in evrey way
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 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?
Just give people the money, don't tie them to jobs they might not want or even like. If anything I feel like we should be moving away from the idea of employment as a means to survive, but that's just me.
Cory Booker even though I can't see a bachelor winning.
Uncle Joe of course
Trump's good pal Frederick Douglas
Uncle Joe of course
Trump's good pal Frederick Douglas
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.
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.
Sanders or Harris for me. Prefer Bernie's politics over the rest of the field but Harris ain't bad, history of working in the deeply-biased criminal justice system notwithstanding. I really like Warren's politics (close second behind Bernie) and she's been a great senator but I don't liker her chances against Trump. No Biden or Booker please, but I can live with just about everyone else who is a likely candidate so far.
In boxing there is a powerful idea, The Great White Hope. Evidently that's a thing in American politics as well?
In boxing there is a powerful idea, The Great White Hope. Evidently that's a thing in American politics as well?
OP
OP
This 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."
Good call! He's an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.
OP
OP
Well, none of that is very funny. Can you punch it up a little?
It would be interesting to see a Beto/Abrams ticket. Losing campaign jokes aside, it could thrust the party into the 21st century and potentially put GA in play.
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?
It also has the added benefit of people not needing to work quite as many hours as their basic necessities would already be taken care of and any extra money would be a bonus. That way you can spend the money you work for on what you want, instead of just on survival. This has the added benefit of being good for the economy since it gives people more discretionary spending.
I'm dying man, you do good work on these. Know that I appreciate you.
Gillum is a lackadaisical campaigner. The race was his to win and he couldn't seal the deal despite leading in every poll. He doesn't bring a whole lot to a presidential ticket.
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.
Of course, knowing the US, he'll end up being the Gore of 2028.
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.
100% agree with all of this too. UBI is definitely the way to go, while "job guarantees" are ineffective half-measures.
In one of the talks Yang gave, and take his words with a grain of salt of course, is that these Silicon Valley types know automation is going to make the current precariat crises exponentially worse - the Pentagon believes automation and technological unemployment is only outranked by climate change, so this is considered a national security issue - and yet politicians don't wish to touch this third rail. Hillary Clinton was told by her campaign to avoid the topic because the public wouldn't take this current problem well, and by failing to talk and be real to the public, this entire issue was given to Trump, where he naturally lied about everything regarding a jobs restoration campaign. The left's response however is this meaningless, and ultimately futile pixie dust known as a federal jobs program. A jobs guarantee, in this climate, fails to even talk about macro-scale issues, such as why full-time employment is dying, and why technology will not bring it back but push us further away. It sounds good until you begin looking at where we are and why we're at where we are. It's another callback to the "golden days" where full employment and full-time employment are targets. They're ghosts.
I think Yang will essentially be murdered on stage for his idea, even if members of the Obama administration said such a program will be a "necessity" during the 2020s, so I hope Yang uses his time right to make the case that time will prove to be true. If Yang can make it clear the 2020s will be a bloodbath and could potentially eliminate the middle class entirely - Barack Obama said the same thing in his last speech as President, so don't take this shit as doom-and-gloom proclamation - his political sacrifice will warm the stage so that the political left actually supports a policy long overdue in the United States.
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.
OP
OP
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.
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.
The point is to make it so that people don't need to work to live, to make jobs irrelevant unless you want something more or to do something specific.
Some conservatives/libertarians support UBI if it means the full elimination of all other social programs. I think ideally, you eliminate the redundant ones.
TANF for example, goes the way of the dodo if we have UBI because TANF is a trash program (it has a lifetime cap, IIRC) that becomes redundant because their need is now covered under this, but something like additional assistance money for the disabled and stuck at home might stay as their particular need for a nurse is in addition to what we would assume are "basic needs".
YAAAAAAAASSSSSSS.
Warren will drop out after Iowa. Warren fans won't go to Tío Beto. Wow, Bernie is really pulling a 1-2-3 punch.
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.
- Status