Little do you know that Andrew Yang has specifically stated that he wants to aid local journalists to give more nuance to lobby-supported News Corporations.
7PropagandaPanda7 you could google it I’m sure. I was even surprised at the number of automatable jobs this is all I could find so far I’ve seen an article on it can’t find it. www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/01/25/these-workers-face-the-highest-risk-of-losing-their-jobs-to-automation.html
Yeah, he failed as a journalist. He should maybe consider a job he is more suited for like a puppet since he clearly has someone pulling his strings to skew the attitude of this piece.
G D Wrong. You are purposefully being ignorant and trying to push people away. Maybe if you took a moment to read his policies, you wouldn’t be so uninformed.
@@AliBooondok I'm sure it doesn't sound as bad as China. You have to move in baby steps to stay below the radar. Your trustworthiness of government is frightening.
Does this host not recognize this is a UBI EXPERIMENT? The whole point is to learn how people would use a UBI, so they want to make it randomized with minimal requirements, and they want people to have the freedom to use the money how they see fit so they can track outcomes. Some people "slacking" is an almost certainty, but if the cost of those "slackers" is cheaper than paying for the bureaucracy required to prevent "slacking," UBI will have been worth it. But clearly this host knows how it's going to turn out, which is why he is considered an expert in government assistant programs #SaidNoOne
I'm not entirely certain that the host actually thinks this way. Consider that he is asking the question that a lot of people want to know about this, to the people who have the potential actual data to answer it, rather than guess. Look at any article or video on the subject and the comments are full of people making the assertion that it can't work, people will be lazy, etc. This is a real fear that people have, whether founded or not. What he failed to get into this video (though it is a series so perhaps the point will be made) is that people already game the system. As for me, UBI is a genuinely interesting idea, and the potential upsides have already been shown to be possible in various ways (consider inexpensive micro loans in developing countries). The potential downside is something that already exists in the current system, so it's worth finding out if that will get worse, or the upsides make it better.
He is an ignorant idiot. He doesn't understand the statistics that show how people preffer to work instead of doing absolutly nothing the entire day. Maybe he would do nothing with that money because he had a privileged life and he is not used to struggle, but people suffering do the opposite, they work according to the numbers. So lets see how this EXPERIMENT does.
@@thebrand14ify I think what he means is that like citizens buy new phones, which increases a corporation's profit, which is good for the economy. And after all of that, the corporation should hand that money back to citizens. TOTALLY MAKE SENSE!
@@thebrand14ify Some people don't have it in the first place, but this will help them to be in a place to contribute rather than being on the streets which helps no-one. The money goes right back into the economy, only people will have something to eat and the ability to pay for a roof over their head. Any luxuries will have to be gotten by finding a job, but a full belly and a warm bed will help them to get that job. It's a meagre amount in the grand scheme of things, but one that could do so much good.
@@louisphilippe1100 WHAT IS THE CORPORATION GOING TO USE TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE WHO WORK TO MAKE THAT PHONE AND GIVE THEM BENEFITS.. THE CORP PAY THE STOCK HOLDER THE PROFIT BECAUSE STOCK HOLDER INVESTED THEIR MONEY IN THE CORP. YOU BUY THE PHONE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BECAUSE YOU NEED IT. SO YOU WORK TO MAKE MONEY. YANG VAT WILL MAKE THAT PHONE COST MORE. MONEY THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR.
Why do people like the host believe that people are inherently lazy?? Most if not all people would probably hate to just sit around and do nothing all day for years. I feel horrible if I go one weekend not doing anything, let alone months. Most if not all people WANT to work, we as humans like to feel useful and we like to have goals. To think that people will just sit around and do nothing indefinitely if they could is so unrealistic.
I have a guaranteed basic income known as a widow's benefit. I have been laid up for a year with health issues. I have been forced to do internet surfing and reading. Done all my books sometimes twice or more; my subscriptions, etc. It hurts to sit for very long so can't feel comfortable except in bed or draping in a chair. I have had a very active life until now. Not fun and wouldn't be this way if I could avoid it. During my younger years, laying around just wasn't in my nature unless it was to think. As for the reporter, it's tough being young because you haven't got a clue about life. Not a put down. Just is the way being a human being is.
Look it's not that people wont do anything for years, it's that they won't do anything productive for years. Sure, right now it feels awful if you do nothing all week and then go to work having "wasted" your free time, but in basic income you dont have to go back to work at all. If work was voluntary, can you really say everyone will still work? Take weight loss for example, it requires voluntary work to balance calories vs exercise. How many people choose to take on that work? Not to mention this is based on automated businesses paying heavy taxes to fees their own customers, not only would this system fail to give people more than minimum opportunities but it'd keep them in the welfare cliff.
It actually doesn't matter whether people are lazy or not. The cost of living would just follow an upward trend to match the rising cost of doing business incurred by the very producers who subsidize your life (because their profit gets funneled to you, and they want it back). So if $17,000 were the UBI figure, then $17,000 would be the new zero after producers correct for the UBI tax. Imagine grocery stores increasing prices to offset UBI, then car companies, gas stations, etc. This isn't rocket science.
@Jeremy Jackson regardless is its stuff they dont need, if they are spending it, they are spur the local economy which is another reason why UBI is being proposed. The majority of wealth is going to the few and far between who dont spend it on you or me or at the local stores and thus put those out of business.
I can tell you for sure that I am lazy. I meet my work deadlines and I try to finish them early, but I have a school quiz this afternoon and after skimming one chapter, I am back at RUclips. I started painting Mom's house almost a year ago and still have not finished. My car is up on blocks in the garage, waiting for me to finish. I have endless projects waiting for me, but here I am on RUclips. Not Netflix, though, I cannot afford that!
It seems that the host doesn’t understand that it’s an experiment. The randomized trials are good because that means it’s generalizable to the population as a whole. If they made a work requirement, and the working people were successful but when applied to the whole population those that didn’t work failed; then they made a policy based on false information. If it fails then it fails and won’t be made policy because the evidence isn’t there that it will assist people. He seems to be campaigning against something that may just end up proving his point. It’s not even costing them that much money so the program is probably worth it in the long run just to get the data.
He is not campaigning against it, he is practicing good journalism. This video paints basic income in an incredible favorable light considering that everyone interviewed was for the idea. The host is simply asking contrary questions to get answers from the interviewees. This is a good way to understand the deeper reasoning of the projects and start a conversation. He doesn't put forth an opinion, he just asks questions that any rational person should ask, and the interviewees are free to respond.
Socialism has been tried over and over. This is not an experiment. The outcome is predictable because this has been done before. Families barely making their expenses will be taxed to make lazy, unproductive people, richer. Venezuela tried the universal income strategy and now they starve. Socialism kills opportunity, confiscates property and takes freedom.
It's interesting, if people get a UBI they're looked down upon by some in society for not working. If they work 40 hrs a week but can't escape poverty, they're looked down upon by society. Here's the thing, you can't escape the fact that some will become complacent, but most will not because the UBI is help but doesn't provide enough to get whatever they want in life. Therefore, they use the UBI to help getting what they want easier. This is effectively what rich children have and look what it's done for them. They are much more successful on average than those who have no assistance
Of course, if we were to implement a truly UNIVERSAL basic income then there would be no stigma associated with receiving it because even the top 1% would get it.
GoErikTheRed and that really is the goal I think. Welfare systems that stop providing at a certain income don't work. My mom works in administration in her company, she's the boss. She had a girl working for her on welfare who refused a promotion multiple times because she wouldn't be able to get her welfare check anymore
I'm going to be gardening & woodworking even if I got free money. Some people find passion in their work, but most people would rather sit around doing nothing.
Darin Gainey I feel like with all the extra free time on your hands, you would find some way to contribute to society. Also studies have shown that this isn't true
Psychology also tells us that people are happier working and tend to seek work - although what 'work' means differs among people. For some people making RUclips videos is their preferred line of work - I'm sure many economic conservatives would scoff at the idea of recording yourself play video games as a form of work via entertaining others, but many people have shown it is viable if poorly paying. If people refuse to work if they don't have to, that would imply that everyone who is wealthy enough to retire for life do so immediately when they are able - but this isn't the case. The vast majority of human beings are psychologically driven to solve problems. This idea that UBI's would drive people to do nothing is bogus.
I think part of it was voicing the main talking points of each side of politics with regards to UBI. Most right wing inidviduals I talk to and even many left wing call UBI a handout and that if everyone got it then no one would work and watch Netflix all day. Well, he voices that talking point to figure out people's response. He kind seemed impartial to the couple's problems, though.
@@floormatt3Only stupid people or children would believe that. A thousand dollars isn' better then two and also all the small businesses made from this would boost productivity. You people need think better.
Clearly! But to be fair i dont follow the "Logic" of giving a painter who makes $200 a YEAR an income because they "Work". Or $17,000 to a guy because he wants to make puppets and not get a job with a better wage.
Would you also pay for it with your own money? If the answer is yes, you can already do that, nothing is stopping you from donating to food programs. If the answer is no... well... Or let me guess you have no income because you are still in school right?
Transition from a work based economy to a robot economy will not be easy. Who decides who will work and who will not? How do you continue to reward work and effort and discipline in the future when people see their neighbours "lazing around", "having a better time" etc. In the past the absence of work was seen as a luxury, now it is a burden imposed on some people not lucky enough to have a job. The big question for the future will be who works and who doesn't. Do you share out all the hours and duties available in a society? Do you change the motivation for working from survival (food, shelter, healthcare ) to other more lofty goals? Would it be possible to reserve luxuries such as holidays, fashions, etc for workers and only give credit to non-workers for essentials such as food? This is the case in the US with food stamps. While the end goal might be reached where everyone who wants a job gets a job and those who don't wnat a job get the essentials for life, I guess the transition will be long and stormy as with all human things.
Yea he had a certain... Judgmental tone. The negativity was subtle but there. I don't know if legacy media is failing but I do know this video was a little bias. Then again, what isn't?
A genuine scientific study hopefully wouldn't be biased towards any one conclusion. Unfortunately, something like this needs some pretty massive funding, and whoever funds it is probably going to be expecting a certain answer ahead of time. And it really bothers me, because this issue deserves a fair look. It's not some distant philosophical notion, these are people's lives being deeply affected. A potential root change to societal structure. But no, instead it's all point and laugh. "More puppets". Of course.
Framed? What you mean? I saw a comment say how he was being negative idk if that's what you mean but you have to challenge something like this because people will cheat and it ain't that easy to just give everyone money.
There are better ways to deal with income inequality, without turning the U.S.A. into a communist nation. We start by abolishing the federal reserve. You people are stupid if you trust Mark Zuck. He wants you to be dependent on government cheese, do you think there is a reason for that ????
Jmoney No a VAT (Value Added Tax) will be added and it's a better and more effective way of getting tax revenue from companies in small quantities. Europe tried wealth taxes and it didn't work and so they implemented a VAT and it's successful.
@@billboyd2009 And the people that Yang "doesn't like" are the many companies who not only hoard wealth thru taxes evasions & lay off people to boost their CEOs' salaries, but also preach on the old beliefs in the "trickle-down economy" to fool us AND the government into thinking that this is ok, so.... yeah. I think it's pretty understandable for the average working-class, tax-paying American to NOT like these companies, not just Yang. :)
Jason Bellini isn't a very good journalist in this video. Just comes off really ignorant and worse, arrogant in this story process. I hope he develops.
Alexey Vedernikov 400 study articles on basic income. There are still 70 more experiments you can look up. Believe me man, I had no idea of these either. Basic income is that best stimulus for the people backed by data. You should read his book on the topic. basicincome.org/research/
Is it worth sacrificing the benefit this could have on all of the honest, struggling families out there to avoid the risk of the few who would exploit it? I'm thinking no.
Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, they are all visionary people, listen to them explaining what the future will be and why we need basic income Andrew Yang 2020
@@vishalgiraddi5357 How about people being provided with access to the Earth's natural resources and not be required to rent one's body to the rich just for basis sustenance?
@@shaaronie yes, America needs to tame it's corporations, Insted of "providing people with earth's natural resources", focussing on state owned enterprises, more regulations on private enterprises would be better At the same time we need to ensure we don't overstep and introduce excessive regulations
Yeah i thought that was abit stupid but when no one works anymore people will focus on their hobbys they will focus on achieving their dreams insted of working a job they don't like just to survive while someone gets even richer from your slavery. It will be pure freedom and as technology gets better living costs will go down eventually money won't have value. People will be rewarded in ways for contributing something to society
stupid typical media... he probably said somethings that were brilliant... and it was all cut out to make him look stupid. as of this posting there is a major topic on this on reddit shower thoughts
With a UBI you can replace all existing welfare programs and because it's way more efficient to give one lump sum payment, instead of sifting through bureaucratic inefficiency, you can provide an all encompassing social welfare program that will consequently drive up productivity and safe tax payers millions of dollars.
A negative income tax, as Friedman put forward, is much better than UBI. Both are better than current day welfare, which discourages work and promotes breaking up families.
Champraves311 i dont think ubi will work but a basic living package will work better. You get a tiny home enough food to eat and water to drink. Thats it no money can go into your hands but you can live a full life but it would be without entertainment. The way to ger entertained would be to work
The issue is, we as a species are in a transition period. We are still caught in the old capitalist way but we are coming into the automation era. And this era is something we haven't seen, we won't be training up our cab drivers to engineers because AGI will be doing the engineering. As more jobs fall to automation, this will be more and more of a problem.
People have been saying that sort of thing since the Industrial Revolution... There will be different opportunities that arise. There always are. It's why it's called "Creative destruction".
Here: ruclips.net/video/WSKi8HfcxEk/видео.html This is the first time that jobs that are going away are not being replaced by a growing number of new jobs. So your rebuttal is false I'm afraid. People were saying it when new jobs were outpacing the destruction of old jobs, this is not the same as those times.
markj6700 This is bigger. Potential beginning of a reshift of the very structure of society. A shift from a capitalist society to a hybrid combo of capitalism and socialist as we become very good a production. That or government heavily regulates automation to keep things similar in the free market
Automation has been a part of our lives since the day the wheel was invented. Jobs have been shifting and new ones created for centuries, nothing has changed.
zdrux I hate to use the cliché, but this paradigm shift, the likes humanity has never encountered before. This is nothing like the industrial revolution. We are not just replacing physical labour with machines anymore. We will be replacing thinking "labour" with machines.
@@Sky.Lukewalker Trust me it gets boring. You only have to look at people that are on disability and see what they do with their time. Eventually you can watch pretty much everything you want to on Netflix within a short period of time. For video games it takes a little longer to get bored of them, but this also happens. I'm not saying some people won't play video games all the time. The idea that most people will play video games daily for 3 plus years is false. This is coming from someone who has spent probably 10k hours playing video games, but admittedly I've always wanted to quit. I'm not saying some people won't play video games all the time, but it just isn't as interesting as real life, and most people get bored of it.
He could have at least asked: are you worried that drug addicts will overdose? If you aren't screening, then you won't know if someone has a habit. And money in that case would cause more harm than good.
Also getting people to have money to learn for themselves how to manage money will support mandated High School Financial Literacy classes (ala Andrew Yang)
The point of ubi is to have a base income for all people. It's not enough to live a nice life but it is enough to cover food and rent. So if you blow it all on dumb things then that's your problem but if you use it to support yourself through school or periods of unemployment then that reduces the stress and anxiety that people deal with at that time..... assuming it has not effect on inflation.
@@DebraJohnson it's pretty much a consumer tax on big tech companies like Amazon transactions, facebook Ads, robot/self driving car miles, google search, gps, youtube ads, so much more with innovative technology. Everything we use is technology and will continue to grow and advance in the next decade.
Basic income aka free money derives from the Idea that people are inherently motivated and that (a lack of) money only holds them back. I think there is some truth to that idea. I'm not a true socialist in classic political terms but I have reached the point to where I'm basically convinced that money does not truly propel society but really mostly divides people. Therefor I think UBI is nothing but an intermediate step to another much greater idea and that is that when we become a highly advanced technical society we can simply rid ourselves of the concept of money and probably even possession. I think we have no choice as human beings when we want to save our planet and our species in the process. A lot of aspects of current society simply make no sense. Having to work for money simply to survive might one day be considered as a cruel form of slavery in a time where 1% owned the planet and the rest were up for scraps.
Thank you WSJ for this short video. I have been on a "basic income" since 2008. In the beginning (in 1996) it was named "Guaranteed Basic Income", it was a governmental program, and it was written into law. The government meanwhile changed its name, and now there is no "guaranteed" word in it and the law is a bit different. IMO it only creates jobs for social workers. Once I was unemployed after college, and started to go to a bank's library that was a public place, it was the library of the bank's administration and they all the exclusive banking publications. I went there for 10 years. I lived with my parents, they were sick, but they could support me, we had our house, and they did not need much care, and sometimes even helped. I read banking law among other things, and learned "everything" about money, so to speak. It all this horrific experience, I had to rethink my life, and I decided to keep several ideas in my mind. 1. From banking law I learned: "All individuals, companies, and corporations must have their expenses domiciled". 2. From sociology I learned: "All human beings need four things: (1) earn a living, (2) social recognition, (3) love, and (4) leisure". 3. From contracts law: "Capacity: (1) material conditions, (2) know-how, (3) will, (4) really doing it - absence of impediment such as in "force majeure"". I strongly recommend the WSJ, to listen to this man, because having unemployed, I really understand what he means, and he really covers all the angles: ruclips.net/video/ei_e7xR_fM0/видео.html Only to give you an idea, I have learned computer science, and three programming languages, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, was not even born when I went to college, I never had even a job, it happens, and people need something "guaranteed", like when we have parents, which not all but most of us do.
"Why aren't you screening for people that are more likely to take advantage of this opportunity to better themselves?" What makes you think we (government) have the capability to even answer to that question? Or to put it another way, what makes you think we know how to screen for people who will take advantage of it?
A better answer is that it defeats the purpose of the pilot if they do that. If they screen for motivated people it doesn't represent the populace at large. They need to know what the populace at large do and how they react before they think about rolling it out.
Finland did the same UBI experiment too, worked well, the only difference is- it stops after two years which was not preferable, but helps a lot for participants who really needs money to survive.
Host: "So you mean to tell me you think there's a down side to this?" Interviewee: "Possibly, but many of the people we've experimented with have gone to school to learn skills" Host: "So you think it'll fail?" Interviewee: "That's not what I said. I'm saying that a number of countries have tried this and it shows promise." Host: "I hear you, but what I think you're saying is that there's negative incentives here." Interviewee: "Well it depends on the person. Again, we have to look at the data." Host: "Hmmm... so basically it's not a good idea? Where's that puppet guy again?" The host isn't a true journalist, he's a shill.
I disagree with the meaning of work bit... People working in Retail, Fast Food, Trucking, etc. have no meaning in life... It's just a paycheck to support their family. These people would use their free time to do something they like. Maybe start a local bakery, produce art/music/theater, participate more in church or local community events, start a tech company, carpentry business, etc... This will become the new economic engine that will take us to the next century. As opposed to the current system which is basically based on Wall Street gambling with everyone's money. We need to pump money back to MAIN ST not WALL ST!!!!!
mrbam88 these people are in bad situations because they have a history or making the wrong decisions- getting pregnant before they are able to support another life, not continuing school by choice, not making smart choices with what money they do have, partners who don’t help them get ahead in life, mental instability that leads to bad decisions. Getting free money will not change bad decisions for the majority of them. A small percent will actually do something to better themselves with the money.
@@KaygeedageeYou're missing the point. Letting people struggle in society hurts all of us. We want these people ( who make bad decisions) to not hurt the overall economy. We need everyday people to spend money! It's the fuel to a healthy economy. Otherwise, we are no different than a 3rd world country. It's about increasing overall economic growth for Main Street. Obviously, the big cities will be fine, but what about rural America? Let's not focus on identity politics! It's just a tool to divide us. Let focus on helping everyone. It like in sports, you have to get everyone on the team involved to win! You got to have a strong bench to win a championship! You shouldn't only care about the superstars...
Terrible interviewer. I’m not even for basic income as I think there are better ways to spend the money, but good lord that was biased. The interviewer came off as disingenuous and seemed to have a lack of basic understanding on the subject. The questions were awful.
Emma Renee you also have to fix the mentality that most poor people have. My parents have made terrible financial decisions throughout my life. Its knowledge and attitude, which can both be adjusted through guidance.
this isn't about lack of knowledge. what would knowledge do when you have no opportunities to earn money? I say do both, teach em about money and give em basic assistance. It's basic and serves like the company's infrastructure. Otherwise I can say send this dude out to an island and teach him how to build his own housing, water well, garden, etc. Of course that would work but as a society, I think we've evolved to the level where we can afford for our people to work off a better foundation.
People need to stop worrying about people being lazy and "stealing" $17,000 and start being concerned about the millionaires and billionaires who steal every year through tax loop holes.
Zach N I’m very capable of doing my taxes and I’m not sure why your character attacks are relevant to the video or my comment. My comment is regarding the critique in the video about people getting $17,000 a year for not doin g “anything”. My point is there are larger losses of revenue from tax loopholes that rob the government of money. Your comment that I can take part in large corporate tax loop holes isn’t accurate But thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Yeah, because starting a business and being successful should be punished right? I had a business in California and as soon as my business earned over 600k it was not worth it to get any bigger I actively too steps to prevent growth, finally I had to make a decision. I literally closed down and moved to Texas now I employ four times the people. Sorry California, there a reason why the jobs are leaving.
@@amelliamendel2227 hey that's really cool that your business is growing so well but I'm not sure what or if you were trying to make a point. If you would like to clarify, please do.
@@Evan-wv4hz my only point is that California is a horrible place to try to grow a business. The bureaucracy is out of control, taxes are beyond absurd, and the regulations are unbelievable. I don't see how a universal income could ever be sustainable. What you consider to be the rich are the people with the best mobility of anyone. I will eventually earn over 100k a year, not there yet, but if everything continues on track I will. Should I get punished for creating a product made in the USA and literally creating jobs out of nothing but my hard work? Should I pay a crazy tax that makes it again not worth it to operate where I am? If I have to leave Texas I will take my business and the jobs it creates out of the country completely. And how does that scale, an I evil if I make 100k and employ 23 people, what about a million and 250 jobs, at what point does a small business owner become large enough that they're hated and should pay 70% tax? What about a millionaire who provides 250k jobs with benefits? Just curious what you think. Apparently employing 566,000 people makes you a horrible person that should pay 90% tax, as at least one politician said about Jeff Bezos
did you watch the video they are trying it in a limited population first and the person in charge of it admits that there is a possibility that it can totally fail. And it is true it can fail but we'll never know unless we try it.
Sith'ari Azithoth says: "Problem is that if it goes badly, there will be nothing you can do about it to go back..." == Do you know the history of minimum wages? It's pretty hard even today when almost every country has some form of it to explain to the people. Imagine how difficult was it to start. Once one country tried it in late 1800s, it just kept spread to the rest of the world, at least in the developed countries. It wouldn't have spread if the first try was a failure. Somethings in economy you just have to try it.
Here is my story on this. We have a son with a BS ME (State University) working in automation. He decided at age 35 that he hated his job. Two failed marriages may have something to do with that. He decided to become a writer and live on some island in SC. He could not make a living and pressured us to finance him. We refused. He ran out of money. He returned to work in automation and married again. He is now gainfully employed making over $100 k /year and said he is happy. I think a BMI would have derailed my son and he would pursue his Hobby as a writer of who knows what.
@@MichaelMusson-en7be You may be amazed. There is this famous poet/singer Leonard Cohen. Like my son he did not want to do his fathers business but become a poet. His father put him on a small annuity on which he lived on some Greek island. No electricity or utility. His poetry did not pay the bills nor did the annuity. But he did it until his 40's. Next he became a song writer and singer. He became famous but his girl friend/financial adviser cleaned him out. He died a few years ago supposely poor.
Because it's a societal problem to be solved in the population. The money comes from the spending of all Citizens. What your spending level is is up to you. But the capitalism is already is full swing.
@@JohnnyCatFitz Your lack or abundance of money is not the business of the population. What you are referring to is called communism/socialism, which has always ended in starvation and mass genocides.
@@louisphilippe1100 You can call anything any dirty name you want to, if it serves the whole it serves. But peaceful radical change may be in the interests before it becomes drastic. Nobody caring is a symptom of the problem. I doubt you'll be forced to take money or quit your job or anything at all, is that communist or socialist, fine, it's also democracy. It's also what people that are on the other side of poverty say is necessary, don't believe them?
I work for a company that make automated parts and software, and we are very busy working 7 day a week to keep up with sale. The more we shipped out our products the more peoples getting lay-off. Soon even our job will be automated too.
One of the main problems I see are RENTS seemingly every other product in the modern world has been improving in quality while simultaneously dropping in price (cars, shoes, communication, food), thus leading to a higher standard of living even amongst the "poorest" (i.e. even some cheap 20 dollar Walmart sneakers you buy today are better than what most people wore in the 80s). However, RENT and property taxes and housing prices in general seem to be what keep people in poverty, and they are a "product" that seems so arbitrarily priced -even with advances in building technology, building materials, etc used to make housing, which you would think would make it cheaper than ever to find housing, the arbitrarily determined "market price" of rent keeps the cost of living high.
So so crucial, but you left out another monster aspect, which is to stay out of debt and pay for things with cash. The one mistake, or detrimental choice I made, was financing my house instead of living with family for a few years to save up what I needed.
As long as people have freedom there will always be poverty. A guaranteed wage won’t stop some people from wasting it on drugs alcohol, gambling and prostitution.
Since ancient days government employees, ministers, and everyone part of the government are the beneficiaries of UBI. Oh yeah they are doin some work(?) for the people.
As a Muslim i see this 'basic income' to re-distribution wealth is kinda late. 1400 years. We been thought about sharing basic income since in childhood. We call it infaq & zakat. Infaq basically you give your some of your money in your own will to help others. Zakat means you have to give some of your wealth to the government.when it meet a certain term & condition. Government will re-distribut your wealth to everyone who deserves it. There are 8 type of people as i remember. Sorry for bad English and please correct me if im wrong. You can search by yourself for better understanding.
If I had a UBI, I would cut my hours at work in half, pay off my credit cards, and then when I am finished with that, go back and finish college and become a writer. If that fails, and it turns out an Am a terrible writer or don't have any good stories to write, I would teach philosophy at some high school somewhere.
"Nightfall Shadow so you admit you would reduce your productivity?' No it is not. Finishing college is also productivity. Different kind of productivity,. It sounds more like finding a purpose, which is a reason to implement UBI
@@koenp1292 college isn't production. And in it's current form it barely teaches people to be productive. The only thing college is good for is producing mass amounts of debt.
I find so many of the responses to UBI to be very classist/racists in nature. Why, why we talk of giving "free" money to individuals we assume they will not work or it's an incentive for mass laziness but when we give "free" money, especially here in the U.S. In the form of tax credits/cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations, we assume they will automatically and benevolently put it to the best use for society? I wish someone would do a piece on these biases because I really can't understand them.
MitchisCharlie The rich have more responsibility, they had to work harder to get where they are today so pay is higher. Ive seen how poor people think about money. Theres a reason they dont have it and it isnt because they have so much other responsibilities. Alot from what Ive seen arent willing to learn and dont have the work ethic neccisary to succeed.
Bored Boar This isnt about dividends? On your other point, not everybody can run a successful corporation but thats the beauty of capitalism, its fair cause the hardest working and smartest individuals win. We all have equal opportunity, some have it easier then others but the opportunity is equal.
By that logic Ford should be the only car company around. Capitalism benifits those with a willingness to learn, an unbeatable work ethic and an innovative idea. If 500 people want to start a phone company the first one with the idea will likely succeed because of innovation, the next one will likely too because of pace and the others will be judged on their cappacity to out innovate, out smart or out work the competition.
I dont really get your point on the bs job part. But to counter your poverty point.. In some ways I agree, when dealing with people who are disabled or people who´ve lived a very abusive childhood they should be taken care of because they cant help it. When you´re talking about regular people its really up to them to take control of their lives but I see so many failing to do that and blaming it on somebody or something else. If you want to tackle poverty you have to go to the root of the problem which is the education system. These people lack financial knowledge because nobody ever taught them about money and they lack the interest to self study about it. Thats why giving people free money is a bad idea, they dont know how to manage it and so in no time they are back where they were only now with more liabilities. If you gonna give them free money atleast let that be controlled by a money manager.
MitchisCharlie company create jobs, business owner and top management have to work harder to keep the business running because they have their whole livelihood there, managing resources is not easy.
Why not just do the UBI like yang wants but instead of 12k a year, we go at exactly half the poverty threshold (so a little over 6k a year). That cuts the cord of it right in half, and I think it’s much more motivating to be given a very small amount because it makes you really want to get more, and that in turn pushes you to work for it.
I agree because as someone well below the poverty level, even "just" 6k guaranteed a year would be a life-changing amount of money. I can only imagine what that kind of money would mean to those in even worse conditions than myself, like the homeless.
My question is: Are these young brilliant minds, such as Hughes, Tesla and Zuckerberg providing the sample program within their companies to prove their points? Do they pay their employees a "across the board" wage? Are these leaders willing to live on $17,000 a year?
I think there's a misconception here, UBI doesn't level out wages like communism. On the low end, it leaves the 'losers' in a competitive capitalist society with enough money to survive and participate in the economy, while on the high end encouraging potential entrepreneurs and business owners (people have more buying power, entrepreneur has extra 1k to invest). Also, as Yang points out, it's more likely to work if everyone gets it to reduce the stigma attached to welfare.
Equality of outcome is the most ridiculous idea ever. Just look at literally all countries who tried implementing such ridiculous policies. Start with the USSR....
@@louisphilippe1100 It's more ridiculous that some people genuinely believe that “equality of outcome” in economic context is anything but propagandist demagogy, which had never even been tried in practice on a remotely significant scale. USSR like any socialist state adhered to its classic *socialist* motto. Do you have reasoning skills to realize the implications of “according to his contribution” part?
If the insanely wealthy really believe that the poor have some profoundly profitable ideas, it would be in their best interest to pay for them directly.
@James Franko If the insanely wealthy really believe that the poor have some profoundly profitable ideas, it would be in their best interest to pay for them directly.
Sadly but truly, it'd be in their best interest to pull the ideas from them on the promise of money and then not actually follow thru on bringing the originator onboard.
If my corporate overlord would pay me a fair wage, just $1-2 more from a little over $13 now and I'd say no thanks to the U.B.I. I'm not greedy, I just wouldn't worry anymore, and might start a side business.
This is such an important advancement that mankind inevitably needs to get to, even if the idea currently seems to foreign and unprecedented. Many studies show that most people will continue seeking ways to contribute to society even if they don't have to. More studies like this are needed. Most experts agree that a Universal Basic Income is simply inevitable. There are other problems that are will need addressing (such as preventing overpopulation and climate change).
The results are really exciting: the provincial government changed hands to, basically, Donald Trump of the North, and they cancelled this experiment on the first day of office.
I'd like to see a UBI experiment that truly randomizes its selection of subjects--not targeting just the poor. It'd be interesting to see if that would lead to more new businesses, families, and home purchases that would aid the economy. Focusing on the impoverished limits other potential effects of a true UBI.
What's tragic about this is that the government in Ontario, Canada killed this experiment before the results could be measured. I am beyond angry that they were so ignorant. This research is critical to understanding how to make Universal Basic Income work.
Do it! It's a clever way to walk your talk. An idea who's time has come. As an entrepreneur I'd focus on doubling that money. Loans are hard to come by.
UBI is a good idea because: 1. It reduces bureaucracyof welfare. 2. It reduces stress > loss of work from sickness, cost of treatment, even more bureaucracy of welfare. 3. It reduces crime > costs of security, investigation, courts, prisons, insurance, mental help to victims etc.
It's a basic principle of justice that people need to be free to pursue their own ends. Freedom doesn't come without basic financial security, and basic income provides that security.
So great! What I'm hearing is that these extremely wealthy people are willing to come down to my level and give most of their money to help others. Bravo!
The same would happen if officials pocketed the money and spent it on whatever. Its not an argument. Anyway helping poor people get on their feet is in no way bad. But this "experiment" will tell us nothing about what kind of effects UBI would have because: 1) the people in the test are not random 2) the experiment does not last their whole lives. In short its not an experiment about the effects of UBI.
Right, this is not about having corporate handouts either, because then we will just be beholden to them. Yang's plan of having a sales tax, likely skewed towards luxuries, will mean that every dollar from that tax will return to everyone, but disproportionately, it'll be returning to poorer people who cannot spend $1000 on sales taxes each month. Basically, don't take it directly from the wealthy, but make them pay for the privilege of spending their wealth.
It doesn't work that way. Money cycles through the entire system, Government can't just print money, and thus, the UBI wont cause inflation. I can't really explain it here, I will take more time when I have the time.
@@theevermind I will be posting a more detailed answer to this soon. However, it is quite evident that the Employers and the big companies are not going to issue these UBI. In fact, they would also benefit from these UBI as cash flow more quickly and gave people more buying capacity, giving companies even more profit. It would be a similar method to Henry Ford's idea to give high wages to his workers in order for them to be able to afford a Model T.
Little does this guy know journalism is one of the jobs expected to be gone by 2030.
Uh oh!
source? lol
@@7PropagandaPanda7 how about Andrew Yang.....he's only a presidential candidate. With your sassy bs fuc outta here.
Little do you know that Andrew Yang has specifically stated that he wants to aid local journalists to give more nuance to lobby-supported News Corporations.
7PropagandaPanda7 you could google it I’m sure. I was even surprised at the number of automatable jobs this is all I could find so far I’ve seen an article on it can’t find it. www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/01/25/these-workers-face-the-highest-risk-of-losing-their-jobs-to-automation.html
The video was great, but the interviewer seemed massively biased tru the whole thing unfortunatly.
Yeah he was extremely judgmental
I didn't like his attitude. He could challenge the people he is interviewing without making that dumb face and talking about Netflix.
Yeah, he failed as a journalist. He should maybe consider a job he is more suited for like a puppet since he clearly has someone pulling his strings to skew the attitude of this piece.
Are we surprised? It’s the Wall Street Journal.
How do you have bias to a theory's unknown effects? What are you a practicing master engineer of economic systems?
Andrew Yang 2020
Yes!!!
Andrew Yang wants a national social credit score for each individual. Not too far from what China does.
G D Wrong. You are purposefully being ignorant and trying to push people away. Maybe if you took a moment to read his policies, you wouldn’t be so uninformed.
@@AliBooondok I'm sure it doesn't sound as bad as China. You have to move in baby steps to stay below the radar. Your trustworthiness of government is frightening.
@@gfdthree1 yep
Does this host not recognize this is a UBI EXPERIMENT? The whole point is to learn how people would use a UBI, so they want to make it randomized with minimal requirements, and they want people to have the freedom to use the money how they see fit so they can track outcomes. Some people "slacking" is an almost certainty, but if the cost of those "slackers" is cheaper than paying for the bureaucracy required to prevent "slacking," UBI will have been worth it.
But clearly this host knows how it's going to turn out, which is why he is considered an expert in government assistant programs #SaidNoOne
I agree completely
I'm not entirely certain that the host actually thinks this way. Consider that he is asking the question that a lot of people want to know about this, to the people who have the potential actual data to answer it, rather than guess. Look at any article or video on the subject and the comments are full of people making the assertion that it can't work, people will be lazy, etc. This is a real fear that people have, whether founded or not.
What he failed to get into this video (though it is a series so perhaps the point will be made) is that people already game the system.
As for me, UBI is a genuinely interesting idea, and the potential upsides have already been shown to be possible in various ways (consider inexpensive micro loans in developing countries). The potential downside is something that already exists in the current system, so it's worth finding out if that will get worse, or the upsides make it better.
He is an ignorant idiot. He doesn't understand the statistics that show how people preffer to work instead of doing absolutly nothing the entire day. Maybe he would do nothing with that money because he had a privileged life and he is not used to struggle, but people suffering do the opposite, they work according to the numbers. So lets see how this EXPERIMENT does.
Clearly someone slacking is much worse than homelessness or poverty.
"I would rather 99 people suffer than 1 person be able to slack." - some people.
Misinformation campaign in full swing.
It's not free money, everyday citizens contribute to the economy and they're getting it back like they should.
Why can't they just keep it in the first place?
@@thebrand14ify I think what he means is that like citizens buy new phones, which increases a corporation's profit, which is good for the economy. And after all of that, the corporation should hand that money back to citizens. TOTALLY MAKE SENSE!
@@thebrand14ify Some people don't have it in the first place, but this will help them to be in a place to contribute rather than being on the streets which helps no-one. The money goes right back into the economy, only people will have something to eat and the ability to pay for a roof over their head. Any luxuries will have to be gotten by finding a job, but a full belly and a warm bed will help them to get that job. It's a meagre amount in the grand scheme of things, but one that could do so much good.
@@louisphilippe1100 WHAT IS THE CORPORATION GOING TO USE TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE WHO WORK TO MAKE THAT PHONE AND GIVE THEM BENEFITS.. THE CORP PAY THE STOCK HOLDER THE PROFIT BECAUSE STOCK HOLDER INVESTED THEIR MONEY IN THE CORP. YOU BUY THE PHONE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BECAUSE YOU NEED IT. SO YOU WORK TO MAKE MONEY. YANG VAT WILL MAKE THAT PHONE COST MORE. MONEY THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR.
I don't think it's a good idea to simplify an idea that needs an actually good explanation into whatever you wrote there.
Why do people like the host believe that people are inherently lazy?? Most if not all people would probably hate to just sit around and do nothing all day for years. I feel horrible if I go one weekend not doing anything, let alone months. Most if not all people WANT to work, we as humans like to feel useful and we like to have goals. To think that people will just sit around and do nothing indefinitely if they could is so unrealistic.
I have a guaranteed basic income known as a widow's benefit. I have been laid up for a year with health issues. I have been forced to do internet surfing and reading. Done all my books sometimes twice or more; my subscriptions, etc. It hurts to sit for very long so can't feel comfortable except in bed or draping in a chair. I have had a very active life until now. Not fun and wouldn't be this way if I could avoid it. During my younger years, laying around just wasn't in my nature unless it was to think. As for the reporter, it's tough being young because you haven't got a clue about life. Not a put down. Just is the way being a human being is.
Look it's not that people wont do anything for years, it's that they won't do anything productive for years. Sure, right now it feels awful if you do nothing all week and then go to work having "wasted" your free time, but in basic income you dont have to go back to work at all. If work was voluntary, can you really say everyone will still work? Take weight loss for example, it requires voluntary work to balance calories vs exercise. How many people choose to take on that work?
Not to mention this is based on automated businesses paying heavy taxes to fees their own customers, not only would this system fail to give people more than minimum opportunities but it'd keep them in the welfare cliff.
It actually doesn't matter whether people are lazy or not.
The cost of living would just follow an upward trend to match the rising cost of doing business incurred by the very producers who subsidize your life (because their profit gets funneled to you, and they want it back). So if $17,000 were the UBI figure, then $17,000 would be the new zero after producers correct for the UBI tax. Imagine grocery stores increasing prices to offset UBI, then car companies, gas stations, etc.
This isn't rocket science.
@Jeremy Jackson regardless is its stuff they dont need, if they are spending it, they are spur the local economy which is another reason why UBI is being proposed. The majority of wealth is going to the few and far between who dont spend it on you or me or at the local stores and thus put those out of business.
I can tell you for sure that I am lazy. I meet my work deadlines and I try to finish them early, but I have a school quiz this afternoon and after skimming one chapter, I am back at RUclips. I started painting Mom's house almost a year ago and still have not finished. My car is up on blocks in the garage, waiting for me to finish. I have endless projects waiting for me, but here I am on RUclips. Not Netflix, though, I cannot afford that!
It seems that the host doesn’t understand that it’s an experiment. The randomized trials are good because that means it’s generalizable to the population as a whole. If they made a work requirement, and the working people were successful but when applied to the whole population those that didn’t work failed; then they made a policy based on false information. If it fails then it fails and won’t be made policy because the evidence isn’t there that it will assist people. He seems to be campaigning against something that may just end up proving his point.
It’s not even costing them that much money so the program is probably worth it in the long run just to get the data.
he's indoctrinated with the mentality that capitalism is the only way and people will just laze around if you give them money.
@@HamguyBacon Capitalism is trade by choice. So yes, that is far more preferable than trade by force.
He is not campaigning against it, he is practicing good journalism. This video paints basic income in an incredible favorable light considering that everyone interviewed was for the idea. The host is simply asking contrary questions to get answers from the interviewees. This is a good way to understand the deeper reasoning of the projects and start a conversation. He doesn't put forth an opinion, he just asks questions that any rational person should ask, and the interviewees are free to respond.
Socialism has been tried over and over. This is not an experiment. The outcome is predictable because this has been done before. Families barely making their expenses will be taxed to make lazy, unproductive people, richer. Venezuela tried the universal income strategy and now they starve. Socialism kills opportunity, confiscates property and takes freedom.
@Jonathan Rolfsen the majority of legal votes were for Trump.
It's interesting, if people get a UBI they're looked down upon by some in society for not working. If they work 40 hrs a week but can't escape poverty, they're looked down upon by society.
Here's the thing, you can't escape the fact that some will become complacent, but most will not because the UBI is help but doesn't provide enough to get whatever they want in life. Therefore, they use the UBI to help getting what they want easier. This is effectively what rich children have and look what it's done for them. They are much more successful on average than those who have no assistance
Of course, if we were to implement a truly UNIVERSAL basic income then there would be no stigma associated with receiving it because even the top 1% would get it.
GoErikTheRed and that really is the goal I think. Welfare systems that stop providing at a certain income don't work. My mom works in administration in her company, she's the boss. She had a girl working for her on welfare who refused a promotion multiple times because she wouldn't be able to get her welfare check anymore
I'm going to be gardening & woodworking even if I got free money. Some people find passion in their work, but most people would rather sit around doing nothing.
Darin Gainey I feel like with all the extra free time on your hands, you would find some way to contribute to society. Also studies have shown that this isn't true
Psychology also tells us that people are happier working and tend to seek work - although what 'work' means differs among people. For some people making RUclips videos is their preferred line of work - I'm sure many economic conservatives would scoff at the idea of recording yourself play video games as a form of work via entertaining others, but many people have shown it is viable if poorly paying. If people refuse to work if they don't have to, that would imply that everyone who is wealthy enough to retire for life do so immediately when they are able - but this isn't the case. The vast majority of human beings are psychologically driven to solve problems.
This idea that UBI's would drive people to do nothing is bogus.
Wow I'm not sure the interviewer could appear more condescending if he tried.
Sounds like he's doing bad impression of Christopher Walken. Very bad. Did I mention it was bad?
haha.. WSJ lookin' bad with this guy.. just canceled my subscription.
I could be more condescending.
It's humanly impossible.
This guys interview skills are too distracting to enjoy this video. He obviously doesn’t understand The basics of this experiment.
I think part of it was voicing the main talking points of each side of politics with regards to UBI. Most right wing inidviduals I talk to and even many left wing call UBI a handout and that if everyone got it then no one would work and watch Netflix all day. Well, he voices that talking point to figure out people's response.
He kind seemed impartial to the couple's problems, though.
@@floormatt3Only stupid people or children would believe that. A thousand dollars isn' better then two and also all the small businesses made from this would boost productivity. You people need think better.
Clearly! But to be fair i dont follow the "Logic" of giving a painter who makes $200 a YEAR an income because they "Work". Or $17,000 to a guy because he wants to make puppets and not get a job with a better wage.
Dustin Draper man, you guys are all right, this guy interviewing is terrible.
I'd rather people watch Netflix all day than starve.
This
Lol what's wrong with Netflix
Netflix is lit if you know how to find the good shows and movies
Would you also pay for it with your own money?
If the answer is yes, you can already do that, nothing is stopping you from donating to food programs.
If the answer is no... well...
Or let me guess you have no income because you are still in school right?
Transition from a work based economy to a robot economy will not be easy. Who decides who will work and who will not? How do you continue to reward work and effort and discipline in the future when people see their neighbours "lazing around", "having a better time" etc. In the past the absence of work was seen as a luxury, now it is a burden imposed on some people not lucky enough to have a job. The big question for the future will be who works and who doesn't. Do you share out all the hours and duties available in a society? Do you change the motivation for working from survival (food, shelter, healthcare ) to other more lofty goals? Would it be possible to reserve luxuries such as holidays, fashions, etc for workers and only give credit to non-workers for essentials such as food? This is the case in the US with food stamps. While the end goal might be reached where everyone who wants a job gets a job and those who don't wnat a job get the essentials for life, I guess the transition will be long and stormy as with all human things.
Watching Netflix without eating will make you starve.
“More puppets! I don’t work well with people” 😂😂😂😂
I need to know if he got them puppets!
I identify with him 100%. People suck.
seems like a stable levelheaded person
This is proof that the program will and has failed
I invite him to join us in the real world
I hope it's obvious to everyone how this piece was being framed.
A great example of why legacy media is failing.
it is the wall street journal, after all - thanks for the good point made
Yea he had a certain... Judgmental tone. The negativity was subtle but there. I don't know if legacy media is failing but I do know this video was a little bias. Then again, what isn't?
Misinformation begins years before the issue ever hits the ballot.
A genuine scientific study hopefully wouldn't be biased towards any one conclusion. Unfortunately, something like this needs some pretty massive funding, and whoever funds it is probably going to be expecting a certain answer ahead of time.
And it really bothers me, because this issue deserves a fair look. It's not some distant philosophical notion, these are people's lives being deeply affected. A potential root change to societal structure. But no, instead it's all point and laugh. "More puppets". Of course.
Framed? What you mean? I saw a comment say how he was being negative idk if that's what you mean but you have to challenge something like this because people will cheat and it ain't that easy to just give everyone money.
Andrew Yang is running for President of United States, you all should vote for him.... this is one of his main policies...
Darren Pang where is this money coming from? Are we going to tax everyone an extra 50%? All that for an extra 1k a month?
There are better ways to deal with income inequality, without turning the U.S.A. into a communist nation. We start by abolishing the federal reserve. You people are stupid if you trust Mark Zuck. He wants you to be dependent on government cheese, do you think there is a reason for that ????
Jmoney No a VAT (Value Added Tax) will be added and it's a better and more effective way of getting tax revenue from companies in small quantities. Europe tried wealth taxes and it didn't work and so they implemented a VAT and it's successful.
Just saying Andrew Yang
Hey I don't live in the USA, does Andrew Yang support universal basic income?
@@200Carl YES :) His platform centers around UBI.
Universal for the people he likes, Universal obligation for the people he doesn't like!
@@billboyd2009 And the people that Yang "doesn't like" are the many companies who not only hoard wealth thru taxes evasions & lay off people to boost their CEOs' salaries, but also preach on the old beliefs in the "trickle-down economy" to fool us AND the government into thinking that this is ok, so.... yeah. I think it's pretty understandable for the average working-class, tax-paying American to NOT like these companies, not just Yang. :)
Jason Bellini isn't a very good journalist in this video. Just comes off really ignorant and worse, arrogant in this story process. I hope he develops.
you're right
Larry Wong that’s because the idea is idiotic and he can barely hold himself from yelling BS!!
Alexey Vedernikov 400 study articles on basic income. There are still 70 more experiments you can look up.
Believe me man, I had no idea of these either. Basic income is that best stimulus for the people backed by data.
You should read his book on the topic.
basicincome.org/research/
@@AlexeyVedernikov Except that only willfully ignorant complete idiots think that UBI idea is ’idiotic’.
Is it worth sacrificing the benefit this could have on all of the honest, struggling families out there to avoid the risk of the few who would exploit it? I'm thinking no.
Of course not. Yang 2020!
Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, they are all visionary people, listen to them explaining what the future will be and why we need basic income
Andrew Yang 2020
They're the same human gods who have sucked up all of our resources making UBI absolutely necessary! Andrew Yang 2020!
the movers of our generations vs that dude that represented Mitt Romney in his horrible presidential campaign.. hmmmm.
How about kicking robos out of the economy...... provide people with work not free money
@@vishalgiraddi5357 How about people being provided with access to the Earth's natural resources and not be required to rent one's body to the rich just for basis sustenance?
@@shaaronie yes, America needs to tame it's corporations,
Insted of "providing people with earth's natural resources", focussing on state owned enterprises, more regulations on private enterprises would be better
At the same time we need to ensure we don't overstep and introduce excessive regulations
MORE PUPPETS!
LOLed :D
For the love of god YES!
Yeah i thought that was abit stupid but when no one works anymore people will focus on their hobbys they will focus on achieving their dreams insted of working a job they don't like just to survive while someone gets even richer from your slavery. It will be pure freedom and as technology gets better living costs will go down eventually money won't have value. People will be rewarded in ways for contributing something to society
Yaayyyy MORE PUPPETS
I hate puppets
stupid typical media... he probably said somethings that were brilliant... and it was all cut out to make him look stupid.
as of this posting there is a major topic on this on reddit shower thoughts
With a UBI you can replace all existing welfare programs and because it's way more efficient to give one lump sum payment, instead of sifting through bureaucratic inefficiency, you can provide an all encompassing social welfare program that will consequently drive up productivity and safe tax payers millions of dollars.
Champraves311 The left will not let governmet gove up on other entitlements
Champraves311 more spending
A negative income tax, as Friedman put forward, is much better than UBI. Both are better than current day welfare, which discourages work and promotes breaking up families.
Think of the millions of jobs that would be lost that serve that bureaucratic nightmare if it was gone.
Champraves311 i dont think ubi will work but a basic living package will work better. You get a tiny home enough food to eat and water to drink. Thats it no money can go into your hands but you can live a full life but it would be without entertainment. The way to ger entertained would be to work
The interviewer needs to be replaced by a robot because baby he is giving me straight AT-TI-TUDE!!!!!! 🙄
Vashti Perry loool
More puppets
I want to work with him!
I don't work well with others
I think we are all in agreement that we need more puppets. Especially from creepy gingers.
more puppets equals more profit right?
Vali Lazarescu 😂 isn't that what everybody really needs? More puppets! Haha
Yang2020
Thank you Andrew Yang! He is not LEFT or RIGHT he is FORWARD!!! We love Andrew Yang on the Politricks Podcast!!!
Straight into the pool of lava
The issue is, we as a species are in a transition period. We are still caught in the old capitalist way but we are coming into the automation era. And this era is something we haven't seen, we won't be training up our cab drivers to engineers because AGI will be doing the engineering. As more jobs fall to automation, this will be more and more of a problem.
People have been saying that sort of thing since the Industrial Revolution... There will be different opportunities that arise. There always are. It's why it's called "Creative destruction".
Here: ruclips.net/video/WSKi8HfcxEk/видео.html
This is the first time that jobs that are going away are not being replaced by a growing number of new jobs. So your rebuttal is false I'm afraid. People were saying it when new jobs were outpacing the destruction of old jobs, this is not the same as those times.
markj6700 This is bigger. Potential beginning of a reshift of the very structure of society. A shift from a capitalist society to a hybrid combo of capitalism and socialist as we become very good a production. That or government heavily regulates automation to keep things similar in the free market
Automation has been a part of our lives since the day the wheel was invented. Jobs have been shifting and new ones created for centuries, nothing has changed.
zdrux I hate to use the cliché, but this paradigm shift, the likes humanity has never encountered before.
This is nothing like the industrial revolution. We are not just replacing physical labour with machines anymore. We will be replacing thinking "labour" with machines.
Interview in a nutshell
Host: BUT AREN'T YOU WORRIED THEY'LL WATCH NETFLIX?
Protected Method Would be great for Netflix's pocketbook then... they should be lobbying for this ^_^
I would play video games
@@Sky.Lukewalker Trust me it gets boring. You only have to look at people that are on disability and see what they do with their time. Eventually you can watch pretty much everything you want to on Netflix within a short period of time. For video games it takes a little longer to get bored of them, but this also happens. I'm not saying some people won't play video games all the time. The idea that most people will play video games daily for 3 plus years is false. This is coming from someone who has spent probably 10k hours playing video games, but admittedly I've always wanted to quit. I'm not saying some people won't play video games all the time, but it just isn't as interesting as real life, and most people get bored of it.
He could have at least asked: are you worried that drug addicts will overdose? If you aren't screening, then you won't know if someone has a habit. And money in that case would cause more harm than good.
Alice Ying Shan exactly why a rich man would lobby for it....... cough cough mark zuckerberg
teach every one about how to handle money in school and you solve your problem.
Also getting people to have money to learn for themselves how to manage money will support mandated High School Financial Literacy classes (ala Andrew Yang)
The problem currently is not the management of money, it’s the lack of money to manage.
@@Daniel-lm6yf yes. We need both: education and actual cash to practic3
unless the problem wasn't mean to be solved but instead perpetuated?
UBI is the ultimate tool for money management.
The point of ubi is to have a base income for all people. It's not enough to live a nice life but it is enough to cover food and rent. So if you blow it all on dumb things then that's your problem but if you use it to support yourself through school or periods of unemployment then that reduces the stress and anxiety that people deal with at that time..... assuming it has not effect on inflation.
If everyone is on UBI, who pays for everyone's UBI?
@@louisphilippe1100 value added tax on tech companies. Check out Andrew Yang.
@@DebraJohnson it's pretty much a consumer tax on big tech companies like Amazon transactions, facebook Ads, robot/self driving car miles, google search, gps, youtube ads, so much more with innovative technology. Everything we use is technology and will continue to grow and advance in the next decade.
The solution is more puppets
This is why we need to listen to Andrew Yang
Zuckerburg may have said ‘cushion’ but he said to enable people to develop more ideas, not just to sit on a cushion!.
Basic income aka free money derives from the Idea that people are inherently motivated and that (a lack of) money only holds them back. I think there is some truth to that idea.
I'm not a true socialist in classic political terms but I have reached the point to where I'm basically convinced that money does not truly propel society but really mostly divides people. Therefor I think UBI is nothing but an intermediate step to another much greater idea and that is that when we become a highly advanced technical society we can simply rid ourselves of the concept of money and probably even possession. I think we have no choice as human beings when we want to save our planet and our species in the process.
A lot of aspects of current society simply make no sense. Having to work for money simply to survive might one day be considered as a cruel form of slavery in a time where 1% owned the planet and the rest were up for scraps.
md you might be more a socialist than you think.
You will grow up and realize the World is more complex than childish communist ideas.
Honestly this is one of the smartest RUclips comments I’ve ever seen. I was very surprised to agree with that last paragraph.
Thank you WSJ for this short video.
I have been on a "basic income" since 2008. In the beginning (in 1996) it was named "Guaranteed Basic Income", it was a governmental program, and it was written into law. The government meanwhile changed its name, and now there is no "guaranteed" word in it and the law is a bit different. IMO it only creates jobs for social workers.
Once I was unemployed after college, and started to go to a bank's library that was a public place, it was the library of the bank's administration and they all the exclusive banking publications. I went there for 10 years. I lived with my parents, they were sick, but they could support me, we had our house, and they did not need much care, and sometimes even helped. I read banking law among other things, and learned "everything" about money, so to speak.
It all this horrific experience, I had to rethink my life, and I decided to keep several ideas in my mind.
1. From banking law I learned: "All individuals, companies, and corporations must have their expenses domiciled".
2. From sociology I learned: "All human beings need four things: (1) earn a living, (2) social recognition, (3) love, and (4) leisure".
3. From contracts law: "Capacity: (1) material conditions, (2) know-how, (3) will, (4) really doing it - absence of impediment such as in "force majeure"".
I strongly recommend the WSJ, to listen to this man, because having unemployed, I really understand what he means, and he really covers all the angles:
ruclips.net/video/ei_e7xR_fM0/видео.html
Only to give you an idea, I have learned computer science, and three programming languages, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, was not even born when I went to college, I never had even a job, it happens, and people need something "guaranteed", like when we have parents, which not all but most of us do.
"Why aren't you screening for people that are more likely to take advantage of this opportunity to better themselves?"
What makes you think we (government) have the capability to even answer to that question? Or to put it another way, what makes you think we know how to screen for people who will take advantage of it?
A better answer is that it defeats the purpose of the pilot if they do that. If they screen for motivated people it doesn't represent the populace at large. They need to know what the populace at large do and how they react before they think about rolling it out.
@Jeremy Jackson where do you live, that literally never happens here in California. They may be unfriendly here but the system runs like clockwork.
What Is "better themselves"? Who decides what makes skills desirable?
Finland did the same UBI experiment too, worked well, the only difference is- it stops after two years which was not preferable, but helps a lot for participants who really needs money to survive.
I've been living so frugal that would be like the lotto for me. Being broke really sucks
@ what a coincidence that's exactly what I just ate
#YANGGANG
Host: "So you mean to tell me you think there's a down side to this?"
Interviewee: "Possibly, but many of the people we've experimented with have gone to school to learn skills"
Host: "So you think it'll fail?"
Interviewee: "That's not what I said. I'm saying that a number of countries have tried this and it shows promise."
Host: "I hear you, but what I think you're saying is that there's negative incentives here."
Interviewee: "Well it depends on the person. Again, we have to look at the data."
Host: "Hmmm... so basically it's not a good idea? Where's that puppet guy again?"
The host isn't a true journalist, he's a shill.
He didn’t say any of that, liar.
I disagree with the meaning of work bit... People working in Retail, Fast Food, Trucking, etc. have no meaning in life... It's just a paycheck to support their family. These people would use their free time to do something they like. Maybe start a local bakery, produce art/music/theater, participate more in church or local community events, start a tech company, carpentry business, etc... This will become the new economic engine that will take us to the next century. As opposed to the current system which is basically based on Wall Street gambling with everyone's money. We need to pump money back to MAIN ST not WALL ST!!!!!
mrbam88 these people are in bad situations because they have a history or making the wrong decisions- getting pregnant before they are able to support another life, not continuing school by choice, not making smart choices with what money they do have, partners who don’t help them get ahead in life, mental instability that leads to bad decisions. Getting free money will not change bad decisions for the majority of them. A small percent will actually do something to better themselves with the money.
@@KaygeedageeYou're missing the point. Letting people struggle in society hurts all of us. We want these people ( who make bad decisions) to not hurt the overall economy. We need everyday people to spend money! It's the fuel to a healthy economy. Otherwise, we are no different than a 3rd world country. It's about increasing overall economic growth for Main Street. Obviously, the big cities will be fine, but what about rural America? Let's not focus on identity politics! It's just a tool to divide us. Let focus on helping everyone. It like in sports, you have to get everyone on the team involved to win! You got to have a strong bench to win a championship! You shouldn't only care about the superstars...
Andew Yang supporters here!
Terrible interviewer. I’m not even for basic income as I think there are better ways to spend the money, but good lord that was biased. The interviewer came off as disingenuous and seemed to have a lack of basic understanding on the subject. The questions were awful.
You also have to teach people about money. Just giving them money won't fix a lack of knowledge.
Emma Renee you also have to fix the mentality that most poor people have. My parents have made terrible financial decisions throughout my life. Its knowledge and attitude, which can both be adjusted through guidance.
this isn't about lack of knowledge. what would knowledge do when you have no opportunities to earn money? I say do both, teach em about money and give em basic assistance. It's basic and serves like the company's infrastructure. Otherwise I can say send this dude out to an island and teach him how to build his own housing, water well, garden, etc. Of course that would work but as a society, I think we've evolved to the level where we can afford for our people to work off a better foundation.
People need to stop worrying about people being lazy and "stealing" $17,000 and start being concerned about the millionaires and billionaires who steal every year through tax loop holes.
Amazon anyone. Andrew Yang for 2020 I hope others in researching UBI listens to his Freedom dividen proposal before dismissing opportunity.
Zach N I’m very capable of doing my taxes and I’m not sure why your character attacks are relevant to the video or my comment. My comment is regarding the critique in the video about people getting $17,000 a year for not doin g “anything”. My point is there are larger losses of revenue from tax loopholes that rob the government of money. Your comment that I can take part in large corporate tax loop holes isn’t accurate But thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Yeah, because starting a business and being successful should be punished right? I had a business in California and as soon as my business earned over 600k it was not worth it to get any bigger I actively too steps to prevent growth, finally I had to make a decision. I literally closed down and moved to Texas now I employ four times the people. Sorry California, there a reason why the jobs are leaving.
@@amelliamendel2227 hey that's really cool that your business is growing so well but I'm not sure what or if you were trying to make a point. If you would like to clarify, please do.
@@Evan-wv4hz my only point is that California is a horrible place to try to grow a business. The bureaucracy is out of control, taxes are beyond absurd, and the regulations are unbelievable. I don't see how a universal income could ever be sustainable. What you consider to be the rich are the people with the best mobility of anyone. I will eventually earn over 100k a year, not there yet, but if everything continues on track I will. Should I get punished for creating a product made in the USA and literally creating jobs out of nothing but my hard work? Should I pay a crazy tax that makes it again not worth it to operate where I am? If I have to leave Texas I will take my business and the jobs it creates out of the country completely. And how does that scale, an I evil if I make 100k and employ 23 people, what about a million and 250 jobs, at what point does a small business owner become large enough that they're hated and should pay 70% tax? What about a millionaire who provides 250k jobs with benefits? Just curious what you think. Apparently employing 566,000 people makes you a horrible person that should pay 90% tax, as at least one politician said about Jeff Bezos
Let's try it and see how it goes.
Sith anybody who allows this to happen deserves any negative consequences. It's worth the experiment, we should let them do this to themselves.
Let do what to themsleves?
did you watch the video they are trying it in a limited population first and the person in charge of it admits that there is a possibility that it can totally fail. And it is true it can fail but we'll never know unless we try it.
Sith'ari Azithoth says:
"Problem is that if it goes badly, there will be nothing you can do about it to go back..."
==
Do you know the history of minimum wages?
It's pretty hard even today when almost every country has some form of it to explain to the people.
Imagine how difficult was it to start.
Once one country tried it in late 1800s, it just kept spread to the rest of the world, at least in the developed countries.
It wouldn't have spread if the first try was a failure.
Somethings in economy you just have to try it.
Sith'ari Azithoth Hasn't stopped Republicans from implementing supply-side economics again and again even though it never works.
Here is my story on this. We have a son with a BS ME (State University) working in automation. He decided at age 35 that he hated his job. Two failed marriages may have something to do with that. He decided to become a writer and live on some island in SC.
He could not make a living and pressured us to finance him. We refused. He ran out of money. He returned to work in automation and married again. He is now gainfully employed making over $100 k /year and said he is happy. I think a BMI would have derailed my son and he would pursue his Hobby as a writer of who knows what.
@@MichaelMusson-en7be You may be amazed. There is this famous poet/singer Leonard Cohen. Like my son he did not want to do his fathers business but become a poet. His father put him on a small annuity on which he lived on some Greek island. No electricity or utility. His poetry did not pay the bills nor did the annuity. But he did it until his 40's. Next he became a song writer and singer. He became famous but his girl friend/financial adviser cleaned him out. He died a few years ago supposely poor.
Andrew Yang is a proponent of this, so far looking like the best candidate for the 2020 race
Lol to bad he wont make it....
That dude was all about giving “workers” money until he was told to fund it😂
Yeah Love That One Fo Sho !
Because it's a societal problem to be solved in the population. The money comes from the spending of all Citizens. What your spending level is is up to you. But the capitalism is already is full swing.
@@JohnnyCatFitz Your lack or abundance of money is not the business of the population. What you are referring to is called communism/socialism, which has always ended in starvation and mass genocides.
@@louisphilippe1100 You can call anything any dirty name you want to, if it serves the whole it serves. But peaceful radical change may be in the interests before it becomes drastic. Nobody caring is a symptom of the problem. I doubt you'll be forced to take money or quit your job or anything at all, is that communist or socialist, fine, it's also democracy. It's also what people that are on the other side of poverty say is necessary, don't believe them?
I work for a company that make automated parts and software, and we are very busy working 7 day a week to keep up with sale. The more we shipped out our products the more peoples getting lay-off. Soon even our job will be automated too.
What's wrong with having a cushion and helping your people and communities thrive.. Lord forbid.
People suffer due to lack of money. This is a reality.
Its way more efficent than give to charity because charity is basically the middle man that keeps a good part.
So it's 2019 now, does anyone know the results of that experiments?
that old couple was too good maintaining a smile in the most difficult time of their life
Harshit Singla because FAKE
One of the main problems I see are RENTS seemingly every other product in the modern world has been improving in quality while simultaneously dropping in price (cars, shoes, communication, food), thus leading to a higher standard of living even amongst the "poorest" (i.e. even some cheap 20 dollar Walmart sneakers you buy today are better than what most people wore in the 80s). However, RENT and property taxes and housing prices in general seem to be what keep people in poverty, and they are a "product" that seems so arbitrarily priced -even with advances in building technology, building materials, etc used to make housing, which you would think would make it cheaper than ever to find housing, the arbitrarily determined "market price" of rent keeps the cost of living high.
"I'm not looking for a handout, I'm looking for a hand up"
Then use your hands working more jobs.
It is a hand up, it's meager amount of money but it's enough you won't have to worry about surviving. Simple, now please be quiet about it
Just don't have kids, and you can live an okay life
So so crucial, but you left out another monster aspect, which is to stay out of debt and pay for things with cash. The one mistake, or detrimental choice I made, was financing my house instead of living with family for a few years to save up what I needed.
Kids cost a quarter million each minimum.
As long as people have freedom there will always be poverty. A guaranteed wage won’t stop some people from wasting it on drugs alcohol, gambling and prostitution.
Since ancient days government employees, ministers, and everyone part of the government are the beneficiaries of UBI. Oh yeah they are doin some work(?) for the people.
It could be a bad idea. Imagine if the government gave you an extra $700 a month. All the landlord has to do is just raise the rent+$700
I would raise rent but not that full amt lol
Lol he would jist leave house and buy his own on loan based on his basic income😋
@@anandsuralkar2947 Tf, that literally makes 0 sense. Have you ever bough a house????
alvisc2002 Regardless of the idea, landlords are raising rents anyways.
“You and Zuckerburg should give checks to 1 million people”
“That’s not fair, the government should do it”
I'm all for basic income.
I truly support the idea, can't wait for it to happen, I hope this will make the world better.
"I just don't work well with other people." The puppet dude is my spirit animal!
Free money? While I have to work hard, very hard for mine? No.
Grant Hill what happens when robots replace you? Where will you work hard? Where will you get money from?
You would receive it as well. If you lost your job...
@@StephenJohnson Find another job.
Keep your job and stay ahead.
As a Muslim i see this 'basic income' to re-distribution wealth is kinda late. 1400 years.
We been thought about sharing basic income since in childhood. We call it infaq & zakat.
Infaq basically you give your some of your money in your own will to help others.
Zakat means you have to give some of your wealth to the government.when it meet a certain term & condition. Government will re-distribut your wealth to everyone who deserves it. There are 8 type of people as i remember.
Sorry for bad English and please correct me if im wrong.
You can search by yourself for better understanding.
Dimas Ramatika ❤️ 100% true.
I love how people think you can ship people free money to people without any negative consequences.
If I had a UBI, I would cut my hours at work in half, pay off my credit cards, and then when I am finished with that, go back and finish college and become a writer. If that fails, and it turns out an Am a terrible writer or don't have any good stories to write, I would teach philosophy at some high school somewhere.
Provided someone wanted to hire you.
You don't need college to be a writer, you need a portfolio or just to start writing and publish (depending on the type of writing).
Nightfall Shadow so you admit you would reduce your productivity?
Sounds like a reason to not go UBI
"Nightfall Shadow so you admit you would reduce your productivity?' No it is not. Finishing college is also productivity. Different kind of productivity,. It sounds more like finding a purpose, which is a reason to implement UBI
@@koenp1292 college isn't production. And in it's current form it barely teaches people to be productive.
The only thing college is good for is producing mass amounts of debt.
I find so many of the responses to UBI to be very classist/racists in nature. Why, why we talk of giving "free" money to individuals we assume they will not work or it's an incentive for mass laziness but when we give "free" money, especially here in the U.S. In the form of tax credits/cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations, we assume they will automatically and benevolently put it to the best use for society? I wish someone would do a piece on these biases because I really can't understand them.
MitchisCharlie The rich have more responsibility, they had to work harder to get where they are today so pay is higher. Ive seen how poor people think about money. Theres a reason they dont have it and it isnt because they have so much other responsibilities. Alot from what Ive seen arent willing to learn and dont have the work ethic neccisary to succeed.
Bored Boar This isnt about dividends? On your other point, not everybody can run a successful corporation but thats the beauty of capitalism, its fair cause the hardest working and smartest individuals win. We all have equal opportunity, some have it easier then others but the opportunity is equal.
By that logic Ford should be the only car company around. Capitalism benifits those with a willingness to learn, an unbeatable work ethic and an innovative idea. If 500 people want to start a phone company the first one with the idea will likely succeed because of innovation, the next one will likely too because of pace and the others will be judged on their cappacity to out innovate, out smart or out work the competition.
I dont really get your point on the bs job part. But to counter your poverty point.. In some ways I agree, when dealing with people who are disabled or people who´ve lived a very abusive childhood they should be taken care of because they cant help it. When you´re talking about regular people its really up to them to take control of their lives but I see so many failing to do that and blaming it on somebody or something else. If you want to tackle poverty you have to go to the root of the problem which is the education system. These people lack financial knowledge because nobody ever taught them about money and they lack the interest to self study about it. Thats why giving people free money is a bad idea, they dont know how to manage it and so in no time they are back where they were only now with more liabilities. If you gonna give them free money atleast let that be controlled by a money manager.
MitchisCharlie company create jobs, business owner and top management have to work harder to keep the business running because they have their whole livelihood there, managing resources is not easy.
Why not just do the UBI like yang wants but instead of 12k a year, we go at exactly half the poverty threshold (so a little over 6k a year). That cuts the cord of it right in half, and I think it’s much more motivating to be given a very small amount because it makes you really want to get more, and that in turn pushes you to work for it.
I agree because as someone well below the poverty level, even "just" 6k guaranteed a year would be a life-changing amount of money. I can only imagine what that kind of money would mean to those in even worse conditions than myself, like the homeless.
Woohoo, free Jordans and a Cadillac in every garage!
how much do you think they’re giving out
I have some interesting anecdotes I could share if I didn’t have to work.
Send me money!.
You would still have to work if you ever wanted more than basic housing and no starvation.
My question is: Are these young brilliant minds, such as Hughes, Tesla and Zuckerberg providing the sample program within their companies to prove their points? Do they pay their employees a "across the board" wage? Are these leaders willing to live on $17,000 a year?
I think there's a misconception here, UBI doesn't level out wages like communism. On the low end, it leaves the 'losers' in a competitive capitalist society with enough money to survive and participate in the economy, while on the high end encouraging potential entrepreneurs and business owners (people have more buying power, entrepreneur has extra 1k to invest). Also, as Yang points out, it's more likely to work if everyone gets it to reduce the stigma attached to welfare.
Equality of outcome is the most ridiculous idea ever. Just look at literally all countries who tried implementing such ridiculous policies. Start with the USSR....
@@louisphilippe1100 It's more ridiculous that some people genuinely believe that “equality of outcome” in economic context is anything but propagandist demagogy, which had never even been tried in practice on a remotely significant scale. USSR like any socialist state adhered to its classic *socialist* motto. Do you have reasoning skills to realize the implications of “according to his contribution” part?
@@MistorDi sooo, where in the USSR did they have a UBI?
I know they had "ration cards" , just like the USA for the past 200 years
If the insanely wealthy really believe that the poor have some profoundly profitable ideas, it would be in their best interest to pay for them directly.
@James Franko If the insanely wealthy really believe that the poor have some profoundly profitable ideas, it would be in their best interest to pay for them directly.
@James Franko The middle class is wealthy by almost all metrics.
Sadly but truly, it'd be in their best interest to pull the ideas from them on the promise of money and then not actually follow thru on bringing the originator onboard.
So many people will waste that on drugs.
"Hey rich guys share you money like you are proposing..." "That's not fair!" I think this is proof that the middle class carries the tax burden.
If my corporate overlord would pay me a fair wage, just $1-2 more from a little over $13 now and I'd say no thanks to the U.B.I.
I'm not greedy, I just wouldn't worry anymore, and might start a side business.
It's a cushion or a springboard; IT'S UP TO YOU!
Rightfully so. Isn't that the definition of freedom. Free to fly free to fail free to freeze etc.
We need to take this mainstream!! YANGGANG!!
This is such an important advancement that mankind inevitably needs to get to, even if the idea currently seems to foreign and unprecedented. Many studies show that most people will continue seeking ways to contribute to society even if they don't have to. More studies like this are needed. Most experts agree that a Universal Basic Income is simply inevitable. There are other problems that are will need addressing (such as preventing overpopulation and climate change).
Who is the Asian man standing next to Joe Biden?
Media needs to stop telling ppl to just go to college or get a higher paying job. If it was that simple we wouldn’t have this issue.
If we can't agree on a universal basic income then within our lifetime artificial general intelligence will solve the problem for us.
Why should it. Once it can make itself, who needs grumpy primates who always seem to fight with each other.
#YangGang2020
NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE! SOMEONE PAYS!
The results are really exciting: the provincial government changed hands to, basically, Donald Trump of the North, and they cancelled this experiment on the first day of office.
Yea what a waste of time and resources now that it's been canceled to early
Really, that's a bummer. I really wanted to know how it would turn out. Got any links to the cancellation?
Christones Michel www.cbc.ca/news/canada/basic-income-pilot-project-ford-cancel-1.4771343
@@jbre7233 Thanks, brother. Much appreciated. Hopefully, another government takes initiative to complete this experiment
I think Zuckerberg should start his own experiment.
I'd like to see a UBI experiment that truly randomizes its selection of subjects--not targeting just the poor. It'd be interesting to see if that would lead to more new businesses, families, and home purchases that would aid the economy. Focusing on the impoverished limits other potential effects of a true UBI.
What's tragic about this is that the government in Ontario, Canada killed this experiment before the results could be measured. I am beyond angry that they were so ignorant. This research is critical to understanding how to make Universal Basic Income work.
No one would watch Netflix all day or doing nothing at all becausr it would out to be very boring.
Me: hold my beer.
Exactly, people already do it.
Do it! It's a clever way to walk your talk. An idea who's time has come. As an entrepreneur I'd focus on doubling that money. Loans are hard to come by.
UBI is a good idea because:
1. It reduces bureaucracyof welfare.
2. It reduces stress > loss of work from sickness, cost of treatment, even more bureaucracy of welfare.
3. It reduces crime > costs of security, investigation, courts, prisons, insurance, mental help to victims etc.
not so sure about number three. you'd think we'd need more drugs brought in. supply and demand and all that.
This is just an anecdote, but if I had a UBI I'd just drink booze all day.
Don't have children out of wedlock
It's a basic principle of justice that people need to be free to pursue their own ends. Freedom doesn't come without basic financial security, and basic income provides that security.
So great! What I'm hearing is that these extremely wealthy people are willing to come down to my level and give most of their money to help others. Bravo!
Well everything is going up exept wages ..so no wonder people want it .
"it will cost $50 million a year" BUT that money will go back into the economy, it's not wasted it will be used.
The same would happen if officials pocketed the money and spent it on whatever. Its not an argument.
Anyway helping poor people get on their feet is in no way bad. But this "experiment" will tell us nothing about what kind of effects UBI would have because:
1) the people in the test are not random
2) the experiment does not last their whole lives.
In short its not an experiment about the effects of UBI.
8:00: why don't you and mark fund this for some people now? Uhhhhh...... Well that would require me spending MY money....so no.
Right, this is not about having corporate handouts either, because then we will just be beholden to them. Yang's plan of having a sales tax, likely skewed towards luxuries, will mean that every dollar from that tax will return to everyone, but disproportionately, it'll be returning to poorer people who cannot spend $1000 on sales taxes each month. Basically, don't take it directly from the wealthy, but make them pay for the privilege of spending their wealth.
The problem may be broken families. The first person they introduced was a single mom.
Having cash on hand seems to work pretty well for rich people. No one asked if they use their money responsibly.
Does anyone consider inflation?
Will this be given to citizens only?
How much is $1,000 worth if everyone has it?
It doesn't work that way. Money cycles through the entire system, Government can't just print money, and thus, the UBI wont cause inflation. I can't really explain it here, I will take more time when I have the time.
Or rather, if you give everyone $10k more per year, why do we think employers won't slowly reduce wages by $10k/yr?
@@theevermind I will be posting a more detailed answer to this soon. However, it is quite evident that the Employers and the big companies are not going to issue these UBI. In fact, they would also benefit from these UBI as cash flow more quickly and gave people more buying capacity, giving companies even more profit. It would be a similar method to Henry Ford's idea to give high wages to his workers in order for them to be able to afford a Model T.