Sam Altman throwing a Bay Area fundraiser for Andrew Yang (San Francisco: apartment, how much)

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well sir, the FD does focus nicely on those groups. They are not at all lost in the shuffle.

UBI isn’t “unrealistic” in the slightest. The future of consumer capitalism requires it.

To understand how realistic it is, one needs to study it thoroughly. Most people don’t dive into such analysis often.

I didn't imply any specific group was lost in the shuffle; I stated this in my previous post so I believe this is going in circles. UBI, in and of itself, is not necessarily 'unrealistic'; again, what I said was, I'm not convinced of its effectiveness or affordability as outlined by Yang.

BTW, his 'FD Lotto' for ten random 'lucky winners' - how is that not gimmicky?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

I've heard these arguments before, and from what I understand some experts agree and some disagree. But keep in mind that Yang wants universal healthcare along with UBI. Those are his two most prominent issues. I just find it hard to believe that the country will be able to afford what he's suggesting.

Also, the means he is suggesting to pay for these things, as much as describes right now, are largely taxes that the whole public pay in the long run. Companies are usually pretty good at passing these things on to the consumers. I understand that also he believes that savings in healthcare and economic stimulation will help recoup some of the costs, but it seems like a whole lot of speculation to me. A lot of political candidates, especially Republicans, have promised their economic policies will spur economic growth that will pay for them. Usually they have been incorrect. Given the vast amounts of money needed here, is it worth the risk of bankrupting the economy? Over a risk of automation that hasn't even started to increase unemployment?



It's not new certainly. But even the name "freedom dividend" is a gimmicky name.

Universal healthcare isn’t one of Yang’s proposals. He endorses the concept but has challenged both Warren and Sanders on their trying to implement a forced, no-option program ... especially Warren’s immediate transition. Yang says it would require I think 4 years at a minimum. Plus he proposes keeping private insurance options. You need to read his website.

The “whole public” does not pay any VAT now and wouldn’t on a tech VAT. The “whole public” doesn’t pay for stock trades and automation. Corporations save gobs money and earn higher profits by automating at the expense of laid off labor. Come on.

“Risk of bankrupting the economy?” Who are you kidding? The wealthiest won’t kill the geese (consumers) that lay their golden eggs. They’ll just further enslave us. The Reserve prints money based on ever increasing debt. That is literally how new money enters our economy. The banker class created this incredibly fraudulent system years ago ... based on nothing ... no gold standard / reserves. Pure sleight of hand, vacuous, empty paper manipulation.

The name “Freedom Dividend” is actually a very clever winner out of several focus group choices. It overcame and passed the skepticism test among the greatest resistance to the UBI concept. You are an outlier.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

I didn't imply any specific group was lost in the shuffle; I stated this in my previous post so I believe this is going in circles. UBI, in and of itself, is not necessarily 'unrealistic'; again, what I said was, I'm not convinced of its effectiveness or affordability as outlined by Yang.

BTW, his 'FD Lotto' for ten random 'lucky winners' - how is that not gimmicky?

Just stop going in circles then if it makes you dizzy. You wrote:

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

?.. I'm not convinced it's even close to realistic in terms of its affordability or effectiveness. Personally, I feel we need to focus on the poor, disabled, the homeless, and elderly.

... that reads clearly as if you feel those groups are ignored by the FD. Whether that was your intent or not, that’s how it reads out.

Yang’s “lotto” was definitely “gimmicky”. I hated it. However, it scored him ½ million names for his list for a hell of a lot less than other candidates are paying for smaller numbers. So it was a clever gimmick at that . That said, his promotional stunt doesn’t make the actual FD a gimmick.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Just stop going in circles then if it makes you dizzy. You wrote:


... that reads clearly as if you feel those groups are ignored by the FD. Whether that was your intent or not, that’s how it reads out.

Yang’s “lotto” was definitely “gimmicky”. I hated it. However, it scored him ½ million names for his list for a hell of a lot less than other candidates are paying for smaller numbers. So it was a clever gimmick at that . That said, his promotional stunt doesn’t make the actual FD a gimmick.

In post #28, I clarified (after you already had asked me about it once previously). I was simply stating we should be focusing on the poor, disabled, elderly and the homeless - rather than UBI as outlined by Yang who has essentially 'rebranded' the concept (redistribution of wealth) with a 'gimmicky name' and a 'gimmicky lotto draw' whose numbers simply don't add up in real time (and Yang does not have sufficient answers amidst the flurry of attention-grabbing gimmicks).

[5thgenSF]

Originally Posted by Genghis

There are arguments for and against, and there are leading economists on either side of this issue. I just see no sign of this mass unemployment that Yang is talking about, so the whole thing seems highly premature to be discussing. It looks to me like another dishonest politician trying to buy people's votes. Btw I'm not saying that UBI will cause laziness, just that he will appeal to people who don't like to work.

there IS no work. retail and fast food. neither pay enough to live on here. most of us do the ****ty gig jobs. and that doesn't pay much better than mcdonald's.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

In post #28, I clarified (after you already had asked me about it once previously). I was simply stating we should be focusing on the poor, disabled, elderly and the homeless - rather than UBI as outlined by Yang who has essentially 'rebranded' the concept (redistribution of wealth) with a 'gimmicky name' and a 'gimmicky lotto draw' whose numbers simply don't add up in real time (and Yang does not have sufficient answers amidst the flurry of attention-grabbing gimmicks).

Lol. And I clarified that UBI does “focus on the poor, disabled, elderly and the homeless“ both directly and indirectly.

The name is “gimmicky” to you ... and not to others. (The lotto draw was gimmicky ... and worked like a charm. And how much of what many candidates - to say nothing of the present POTUS - throughout the history of politics has been also “gimmicky”? Hell man, politics is a carnival!) Life in the modern eras is entwined with marketing.

His numbers add up theoretically just fine ... IF you buy his theories. You don’t like his theories. Fine. Numbers are thrown around by policy makers all the time. Some work out but others don’t. Anonymous internet Policy opinions are a dime a dozen. Point of this thread is to report that Altman is behind Yang - along with an impressive list of other tech development minds including Elon Musk - which is one more indicator of a growing acknowledgement of, and interest in, Yang’s theories in Silicon Valley and the tech world in general.

Technology entrepreneur, investor, and engineer Altman (Y-Combinator), technology entrepreneur, investor, and engineer Musk (Space-X, Tesla, ...), Internet entrepreneur and investor Alexis Ohanian, and an impressive list of other tech leaders are backers of Yang. They buy his theories. Anonymous Corporate Cowboy joins many who don’t. Ok

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by 5thgenSF

there IS no work. retail and fast food. neither pay enough to live on here. most of us do the ****ty gig jobs. and that doesn't pay much better than mcdonald's.

Well, income inequality is an issue. Money is flowing from the rest of the world into San Francisco and the cost of living is skyrocketing. But UBI gives the same amount of money to everyone. Someone who makes 200,000 a year living in Chicago gets as much as an Uber driver in San Francisco. It makes sense to help out the poorer people in San Francisco through a higher minimum wage or whatnot, but UBI just gives a fixed amount to everyone. If someone made 100K a year more than you before UBI, he'll still make 100K more than you after UBI comes into effect.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

Well, income inequality is an issue. Money is flowing from the rest of the world into San Francisco and the cost of living is skyrocketing. But UBI gives the same amount of money to everyone. Someone who makes 200,000 a year living in Chicago gets as much as an Uber driver in San Francisco. It makes sense to help out the poorer people in San Francisco through a higher minimum wage or whatnot, but UBI just gives a fixed amount to everyone. If someone made 100K a year more than you before UBI, he'll still make 100K more than you after UBI comes into effect.

Obviously.

And, just as obvious should be that the Uber driver and the poor each have $1,000 more in their hands each month than they did before.

Also obvious is the fact that there are about 90x more low income than high income citizens over the age of 18. No? So, who’s getting the lion’s share of benefit (and, really, the lion’s share x 10+)?

[5thgenSF]

Originally Posted by Genghis

Well, income inequality is an issue. Money is flowing from the rest of the world into San Francisco and the cost of living is skyrocketing. But UBI gives the same amount of money to everyone. Someone who makes 200,000 a year living in Chicago gets as much as an Uber driver in San Francisco. It makes sense to help out the poorer people in San Francisco through a higher minimum wage or whatnot, but UBI just gives a fixed amount to everyone. If someone made 100K a year more than you before UBI, he'll still make 100K more than you after UBI comes into effect.

you make ZERO sense. in order to live in the bay area, the minimum wage would have to be something like $35. NOBODY pays that. and i don't care where you live, even $15 doesn't cut it. and again, some people won't pay that. your logic is completely NOT THERE.

[TashaPosh]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lol. And I clarified that UBI does “focus on the poor, disabled, elderly and the homeless“ both directly and indirectly.

The name is “gimmicky” to you ... and not to others. (The lotto draw was gimmicky ... and worked like a charm. And how much of what many candidates - to say nothing of the present POTUS - throughout the history of politics has been also “gimmicky”? Hell man, politics is a carnival!) Life in the modern eras is entwined with marketing.

His numbers add up theoretically just fine ... IF you buy his theories. You don’t like his theories. Fine. Numbers are thrown around by policy makers all the time. Some work out but others don’t. Anonymous internet Policy opinions are a dime a dozen. Point of this thread is to report that Altman is behind Yang - along with an impressive list of other tech development minds including Elon Musk - which is one more indicator of a growing acknowledgement of, and interest in, Yang’s theories in Silicon Valley and the tech world in general.

Technology entrepreneur, investor, and engineer Altman (Y-Combinator), technology entrepreneur, investor, and engineer Musk (Space-X, Tesla, ...), Internet entrepreneur and investor Alexis Ohanian, and an impressive list of other tech leaders are backers of Yang. They buy his theories. Anonymous Corporate Cowboy joins many who don’t. Ok

You have poor comprehension skills IMO.......you keep circling around a point that isn’t a point....

If you knew some of the powerful people in tech here....you could have a better understanding.....I’ve been learning.....he is the talk of parties....

You make it so personal that someone isn’t for Yang.....like Cowboy....but that’s most of the country.....