• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Andrew Yangs new Pay-To-Win strategy for the nomination: Give $2000/mo to Families for Childcare and medical FREE.

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,266
3,560
1,010
  • Yang leaned into his call for universal basic income — his main platform has been offering $1,000 per month to every American — to help fix the problem. He said he would give families up to $2,000 per month to spend on child care.
  • “We should not be pushing everyone to leave the home and go to the work force,” Yang said. “Many parents see that trade-off and say if they leave the home and go to work, they’d be spending all that money on child care anyway. In many cases, it would be better if the parent stayed with the child.”
While a bit unclear, after watching a YouTube interview, from what I understand Andrew Yang is still pushing $1000 for every American (and apparently that may include non-citizens as well, but not illegals, yet.) but now he will give $2000 to families who have children and who can prove the need for assistance with childcare, including medical care.

So if you have kids you can receive double the UBI. It's still not enough to live off of alone, making the name completely bullshit, but now you will get an even bigger give away if you have kids. FREE FREE FREE!!!

Oh, I'm sorry, it's called the "Freedom Dividend" now. I guess this is the "Pregnancy and pediatric dividend bonus package" that you can get as an add-on option? ;)
 
Oct 26, 2018
6,245
5,595
505
That's great.

Give people more incentive to stay home, which in the long term makes it worse because that parent won't have job skills or a good track record on their resume when they do get a job later on.

So Yang's view is that instead of someone working and blowing all their money on child care (break even), it's better for them to stay home and make no money, but have the government give even more money which comes from working people's taxes (so they stay home and actually gain money).

The next time you play Monopoly with drunk friends, try to change the rules before the game. Instead of everyone starting with $1,500 and collecting $200 passing Go every lap around the board to pay for costs and landing on other people's spots, everyone starts with no money. Every time you move around the board there is nothing to buy or pay for. But when you pass Go you still get $200.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,648
4,284
1,640
The actual quote

So we need to have a freedom dividend in place from day one, $1,000 a month for every American adult, which would put in many cases $2,000 a month into families' pockets, so that they can either pay for childcare or if they want stay home with the child. We should not be pushing everyone to leave the home and go to the workforce. Many parents see that tradeoff and say if they leave the home and work, they're going to be spending all the money on childcare anyway. In many cases, it would be better if the parent stays home with the child.
He's saying that two parents, receiving the dividend, would have $2,000 a month. Not some kind of extra 2,000 a month for a family with children to pay for childcare/health only nonsense. Can people not read or listen?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
6,245
5,595
505
The actual quote



He's saying that two parents, receiving the dividend, would have $2,000 a month. Not some kind of extra 2,000 a month for a family with children to pay for childcare/health only nonsense. Can people not read or listen?
Sounds close enough to me.

A family with two adult parents would be banking $2,000 total per month, where the parents have a carrot to take the money and stay home instead of working for money and paying for childcare themselves.

The majority of people who are lazy and have lousy jobs will likely take the money and stay home.

So the net result is you got people at the bottom rung of the ladder of success, now actually getting off the ladder entirely while the guys at the top working hard painting and roofing end up paying $2,000 per month for the guy who just quit working.

Sounds great.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,648
4,284
1,640
Sounds close enough to me.

A family with two adult parents would be banking $2,000 total per month, where the parents have a carrot to take the money and stay home instead of working for money and paying for childcare themselves.

The majority of people who are lazy and have lousy jobs will likely take the money and stay home.

So the net result is you got people at the bottom rung of the ladder of success, now actually getting off the ladder entirely while the guys at the top working hard painting and roofing end up paying $2,000 per month for the guy who just quit working.

Sounds great.
If that's how you think the Yang's UBI "Freedom Dividend" would work.

I dislike framing this as a "new strategy" and acting like it is somehow even more money he is giving to families. It's the same shit he's been saying this whole time.
 

Tesseract

Banned
Dec 7, 2008
42,676
21,015
1,490
The Pentagon
we already have SSI(D) and such, welfare in worst cases

not against ubi but it's too soon, maybe (late) 2030ish we can have that conversation

it's fun to think about tho
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
6,245
5,595
505
If that's how you think the Yang's UBI "Freedom Dividend" would work.

I dislike framing this as a "new strategy" and acting like it is somehow even more money he is giving to families. It's the same shit he's been saying this whole time.
For sure.

His $1,000 per month per adult has been the same since the beginning. The only clause he has is some kind of "no double dipping" for people getting certain social assistance programs. You pick one or the other. But most 18 year olds would qualify, even a billionaire technically gets it, since he never said the $1,000 is only for poor people.

The difference is he's pinpointing a reason for taking the money and quitting working, as a parental strategy.

Which IMO, is a "lazy tard" strategy. Get your ass to work even if it pays $10/hr. Not only will it teach someone work ethics (instead of leaching), but by having a resume of a steady working career (even if it's shitty jobs), it hows future employers view you as a worker, and don't sit at home.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,977
5,085
800
Yang seems like a closet stoner to me. Puff puff, I'm gonna literally say I'll give them free shit, puff puff pass. Puff puff, Bernie and Liz are wasting time on describing free shit via programs, I'm gonna literally just say here's more free shit, puff puff pass.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,648
4,284
1,640
For sure.

His $1,000 per month per adult has been the same since the beginning. The only clause he has is some kind of "no double dipping" for people getting certain social assistance programs. You pick one or the other. But most 18 year olds would qualify, even a billionaire technically gets it, since he never said the $1,000 is only for poor people.

The difference is he's pinpointing a reason for taking the money and quitting working, as a parental strategy.

Which IMO, is a "lazy tard" strategy. Get your ass to work even if it pays $10/hr. Not only will it teach someone work ethics (instead of leaching), but by having a resume of a steady working career (even if it's shitty jobs), it hows future employers view you as a worker, and don't sit at home.
I think this is meant to help stay at home temporary parents and childcare costs when both parents go back to work. I don't think he is intending for everyone to be a stay at home parent.
 
Oct 26, 2018
6,245
5,595
505
I think this is meant to help stay at home temporary parents and childcare costs when both parents go back to work. I don't think he is intending for everyone to be a stay at home parent.
But some will though.

$12,000/yr is the same as a $6/hr job (assuming FT hours). I'd say that for all those people making around $10-12/hr or less, its an option to take the money. The lower the hourly wage someone is working for, the more enticing it becomes.

At $12k/yr UBI, the taxes paid on it is low (and that assumes' the UBI is even taxable). If someone is making $20-24k/yr, the taxes increase, so the net gain decreases.

Some people will take the UBI. And the longer they take the money, have fun trying to get a job later. The person will probably be a UBI taker (with no job) forever.
 
Last edited:

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,648
4,284
1,640
But some will though.

$12,000/yr is the same as a $6/hr job (assuming FT hours). I'd say that for all those people making around $10-12/hr or less, its an option to take the money. The lower the hourly wage someone is working for, the more enticing it becomes.

At $12k/yr UBI, the taxes paid on it is low (and that assumes' the UBI is even taxable). If someone is making $20-24k/yr, the taxes increase, so the net gain decreases.

Some people will take the UBI. And the longer they take the money, have fun trying to get a job later. The person will probably be a UBI taker (with no job) forever.
How do you live off of $12,000 a year? Turning tricks? Selling illicit stuff? As part of the $1,000 they will not be getting any other welfare assistance..
 
Oct 26, 2018
6,245
5,595
505
How do you live off of $12,000 a year? Turning tricks? Selling illicit stuff? As part of the $1,000 they will not be getting any other welfare assistance..
Someone making $8/hr ($16k) isn't making livable money either. But what you lose in $4k, you gain back in time, spending less money on commuting etc....

It is also more enticing to take the cash if they live with someone who is making ok wages already.

So as Yang even says, taking the money is an option to stay home and cut out daycare and not bother working.

Then again, that's just my opinion. I'm all for the usual welfare safety net for people who are down it and out, and unemployable due to disease or disability.

But for anyone who can get off their ass, get a job. Even if it's flipping burgers. Even my siblings and myself got jobs during school. And at that time, we didn't even need to since my dad made good money and we could leach off him money when we needed to..... like buying Genesis games. He would even drive us to the store too half the time.

But looking back it made sense when dad would tell us to get a job at dinner time and cut down playing games or watching TV. It wasn't really for the pocket money, it was for work ethic, so you could sustain working and not get too accustomed to sitting around all day like a lazy fuck.

Turns out nagging dad was right the whole time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,648
4,284
1,640
Someone making $8/hr ($16k) isn't making livable money either. But what you lose in $4k, you gain back in time, spending less money on commuting etc....

It is also more enticing to take the cash if they live with someone who is making ok wages already.

So as Yang even says, taking the money is an option to stay home and cut out daycare and not bother working.

Then again, that's just my opinion. I'm all for the usual welfare safety net for people who are down it and out, and unemployable due to disease or disability.

But for anyone who can get off their ass, get a job. Even if it's flipping burgers. Even my siblings and myself got jobs during school. And at that time, we didn't even need to since my dad made good money and we could leach off him money when we needed to..... like buying Genesis games.

But looking back it made sense when dad would tell us to get a job at dinner time and cut down playing games or watching TV. It wasn't really for the pocket money, it was for work ethic, so you could sustain working and not get too accustomed to sitting around all day like a lazy fuck.

Turns out nagging dad was right the whole time.
Aah I gotcha. The worry would be that some people would not even want to enter the workforce at an entry level wage, thus hopefully starting a career of continual professional work, if they are already getting money that amounts to a little less than minimum wage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract
Oct 26, 2018
6,245
5,595
505
what happens is you pile a bunch of friends and family in homes like sardines and split the bills, the neighborhood deteriorates with drugs and crime, and the systemic issues you wanted to solve get worse
Thankfully, I live in a neighbourhood which looks like the families works. And some of them have retired seniors, which is good because it means they have money to float their home. Nobody seems begging to jam in 12 family members for modest houses meant for maybe 4-5 people. No scuzzy shit or shady strip malls around me. There aren't any of those low income apartment buildings near me for probably a 5 block radius either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract
Oct 26, 2018
6,245
5,595
505
Aah I gotcha. The worry would be that some people would not even want to enter the workforce at an entry level wage, thus hopefully starting a career of continual professional work, if they are already getting money that amounts to a little less than minimum wage.
I didn't think of the point of entry levelers balking at crap jobs...... probably because I've done the shitty entry job out of school..... "field marketing" which is doing sketchy odd jobs for marketing companies where I got paid an avg of about $10/hr depending which vendor campaign I was doing.

You know those annoying jobs where you are walking around and some guy wearing a logo'ed t-shirt is trying to give you free samples, or trying to sign you up for stupid shit? That was me for a bit. About $10/hr. And they didn't even pay for gas money to drive to different locations. They paid for parking spots if there was paid parking, but gas was on me.

The issue you brought up will be a deterrant for some people.
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,807
644
510
When both my kids were in day care 5 days a week, it was costing me 1,500 a month. For context, my mortgage for my house is 1,475. Thank god they’re both school age now.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
1,096
685
580
But some will though.

$12,000/yr is the same as a $6/hr job (assuming FT hours). I'd say that for all those people making around $10-12/hr or less, its an option to take the money. The lower the hourly wage someone is working for, the more enticing it becomes.

At $12k/yr UBI, the taxes paid on it is low (and that assumes' the UBI is even taxable). If someone is making $20-24k/yr, the taxes increase, so the net gain decreases.

Some people will take the UBI. And the longer they take the money, have fun trying to get a job later. The person will probably be a UBI taker (with no job) forever.
In every roughly comparable UBI experiment, people don't just stop working. Unlike with welfare, you don't risk losing benefits by working and earning more. Money you make on top of the UBI goes into your pocket. Taxes don't go up much at that income level.
 

KorbinDallas

Member
Oct 8, 2019
273
208
255
When both my kids were in day care 5 days a week, it was costing me 1,500 a month. For context, my mortgage for my house is 1,475. Thank god they’re both school age now.
My co-worker is paying $1800 per month. It's going to go higher too.
 
Aug 29, 2018
1,901
3,020
420
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
In every roughly comparable UBI experiment, people don't just stop working. Unlike with welfare, you don't risk losing benefits by working and earning more. Money you make on top of the UBI goes into your pocket. Taxes don't go up much at that income level.
Please post the results of those experiments, because every UBI experiment I've ever heard of ended in absolute failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
1,096
685
580
Please post the results of those experiments, because every UBI experiment I've ever heard of ended in absolute failure.
They're all conveniently linked here. "Absolute failure" is a major mischaracterization. Some experiments ended prematurely because the funding was cancelled. You may be thinking of the Finland case, where they were actually checking if UBI would result in more people going to work, but instead the employment level stayed about the same. People didn't stop working, except for a few new mothers taking more time off and students staying in school. They did find other positive outcomes, though.

Outcomes that can result from UBI (aside from the obvious) include:

Greater happiness
Lowered stress
Improved education outcomes
Improved mental health
Lower crime
Lower incarceration rates
Fewer emergency room visits

As a teacher, I particularly emphasize that lower stress levels in the households of kids is a big deal. Childhood trauma affects far too many kids, and it isn't their fault.

Also notable: no evidence of increased alcohol or drug use
 
  • Like
Reactions: crowbrow

Captiosus

Member
Jun 7, 2013
1,655
136
485
They're all conveniently linked here. "Absolute failure" is a major mischaracterization. Some experiments ended prematurely because the funding was cancelled.
And the Alaska one in his list isn't UBI. It's a dividend fund paid from oil revenues. I have family who lived in Alaska and they knew that the amount wasn't guaranteed and that if the oil fund were reduced, so were their PFD amounts. I can't speak for all Alaskans but I can say that none of my family or their friends when they lived in Alaska relied on PFD for anything. Certainly not to pay for social needs. It was just viewed as a perk for putting up with living in Alaska.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
1,096
685
580
And the Alaska one in his list isn't UBI. It's a dividend fund paid from oil revenues. I have family who lived in Alaska and they knew that the amount wasn't guaranteed and that if the oil fund were reduced, so were their PFD amounts. I can't speak for all Alaskans but I can say that none of my family or their friends when they lived in Alaska relied on PFD for anything. Certainly not to pay for social needs. It was just viewed as a perk for putting up with living in Alaska.
None of the experiments was precisely giving every adult in America $1000/month. They still offer glimpses of what happens when a wide cross-section of people are given money unconditionally. Alaska is illustrative because it's popular across partisan lines in a deep-red state, and it does benefit a whole lot of people.
 
May 17, 2018
554
333
320
I really like Yang, but he is going to far and off his principles lately to appeal to more voters to win the nomination.
UBI is UBI. If you also add X, Y and Z for other groups in need it becomes just regular redistribution.


edit:
Seems like this topic is a total misunderstanding.
That $2000 for families is just the $1000 for each individual parent combined.

So you better fix that Afro Republican Afro Republican
 
Last edited:

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,601
1,171
455
Sounds close enough to me.

A family with two adult parents would be banking $2,000 total per month, where the parents have a carrot to take the money and stay home instead of working for money and paying for childcare themselves.

The majority of people who are lazy and have lousy jobs will likely take the money and stay home.

So the net result is you got people at the bottom rung of the ladder of success, now actually getting off the ladder entirely while the guys at the top working hard painting and roofing end up paying $2,000 per month for the guy who just quit working.

Sounds great.
Besides the fact that you don’t have a clear understanding of how UBI works - the “guys at the top working hard” are not paying $2000 per month to cover ol’ Quitty -but let’s assume your picture of the lazy masses at the bottom is accurate: why do we want lazy people in the labor pool? Couldn’t it be more efficient to buy them out?
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Banned
Dec 7, 2008
42,676
21,015
1,490
The Pentagon
Besides the fact that you don’t have a clear understanding of how UBI works - the “guys at the top working hard” are not paying $2000 per month to cover ol’ Quitty -but let’s assume your picture of the lazy masses at the bottom is accurate: why do we want lazy people in the labor pool? Couldn’t it be more efficient to buy them out?
why would we do that, buy them out

that's retarded
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,668
9,310
890
Fundamentally I am not opposed to UBI, because I don't mind getting extra money in my pocket. But in the USA it won't work. First off its too big of a country, and second off it will become a money pit with red tape and bureaucracy up the ass, and third off illegals will end up eating into UBI and bankrupting the country. We all know where this slope goes, first its citizens, then residents, then anyone who wanders into the USA will get 1000$. Then the illegals will take 750$ of that and send it back to their country.

And no one can argue that it won't happen because we know that the Dems already want to get rid of the illegal part in illegal immigration, want to extend free health care to them etc... So of course they will want everyone from South America to flood into the US pay them 1000$ a month so they vote Dem and just keep the borders open until the US has 800-1 Billion people. I am just waiting for an SJW to tell us how UBI is racist and part of the systematic system of white privilege.
 

Tesseract

Banned
Dec 7, 2008
42,676
21,015
1,490
The Pentagon
Why not? It makes labor more valuable and I’d argue higher quality at the bottom end.



What do you think the “lifeblood” of this country is?
they'll become useless creatives who tank already devastated neighborhoods further with drugs and crime

i don't want a bunch of garbage anteing up under one household income

the lifeblood of the country is the working class, don't wanna diffuse their potential by propping up deadbeat trash who want easy outs because they made poor choices in life

inequality is good, the meritocracy works
 
Last edited:

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,601
1,171
455
they'll become useless creatives who tank already devastated neighborhoods further with drugs and crime

i don't want a bunch of garbage anteing up under one household income

the lifeblood of the country is the working class, i don't wanna diffuse their potential by propping up deadbeat trash who want easy outs because they made poor choices in life

inequality is good, the meritocracy works
I don’t disagree that the scenario you describe is a possibility for some - we suffer it now, and I don’t think UBI is a panacea- but for everybody?

For every “useless creative”, is it so hard to imagine someone else who can now invest in their future- both time and money - be it through education, saving, investing, entrepreneurship, etc.? Do you really believe the only people who want better for themselves or their families are those who already have it? You say “inequality is good”, but how much?

I think you’re mistaking the effect of UBI on the working class, and my proposed knock-on effect: it only diffuses it in the sense of a new potential class mobility. Less inequality of opportunity, and something closer to a true meritocracy.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,336
34,221
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
This will merely prop up another market in need of reform. Giving the insurance companies more money via the ACA didn't help things, did it? Why should we pour more money into the hands of insurance companies and big pharma? In 5 years they'll be saying "$2000 per month is simply not enough to cover the expenses for modern childcare and medical attention. It needs to go to $4000".
 
  • Like
Reactions: DESTROYA

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,272
31,987
1,170
This will merely prop up another market in need of reform. Giving the insurance companies more money via the ACA didn't help things, did it? Why should we pour more money into the hands of insurance companies and big pharma? In 5 years they'll be saying "$2000 per month is simply not enough to cover the expenses for modern childcare and medical attention. It needs to go to $4000".
Everything will inflate when they know there is “free money” on the table.

You think rent is expensive now?

:messenger_weary::messenger_ok:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torrent of Pork

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,336
34,221
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Everything will inflate when they know there is “free money” on the table.

You think rent is expensive now?

:messenger_weary::messenger_ok:
Speaking of rent, a UBI will encourage tenement housing / sardine living conditions for all the fresh faces who want to survive on their free $2000/mo while paying as little as they can for rent/utilities. More money for drugs, alcohol, and other forms of hedonism.
 

mcz117chief

Member
Sep 29, 2013
10,899
2,092
685
Bohemia
we already have SSI(D) and such, welfare in worst cases

not against ubi but it's too soon, maybe (late) 2030ish we can have that conversation

it's fun to think about tho
Conversation at most. I think UBI will never be necessary. There will always be something to do, most jobs we do today didn't exist a century (or even a few decades) ago and more will open up as we make the most menial jobs obsolete. There will be more and more jobs focusing on IT and human interaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,272
31,987
1,170
Speaking of rent, a UBI will encourage tenement housing / sardine living conditions for all the fresh faces who want to survive on their free $2000/mo while paying as little as they can for rent/utilities. More money for drugs, alcohol, and other forms of hedonism.
And when these types of programs start to dry up due to lack of funds and everybody wanting to dip their hands into it, see social security in that regards...
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
1,096
685
580
An area I've been learning more about is how people's minds actually work. There are many things that either seem counter-intuitive, or at least contradict conventional wisdom. For example, stress - such as poverty - lowers people's functional IQ by about a standard deviation. IQ is not fixed and unchanging. Lowering people's stress levels effectively makes them smarter.

Childhood poverty is also an item of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), and tends to increase likelihood of other ACEs such as abuse, having a parent imprisoned, and so on. ACEs have all kinds of negative implications, including being the root of many addictions. They are so impactful that they result in massively reduced life expectancy even for those who manage to avoid addiction.

Reducing childhood trauma is a strong argument for UBI by itself as you begin to get the picture of how significant a problem childhood trauma is.

That there is no evidence that UBI has resulted in increased drug and alcohol use in all the trial runs, even though those were not permanent so they could have increased impulsivity and wouldn't have the same stress-reduction as a permanent program. In the long run, UBI would very likely reduce addiction considerably.

Edit: I just found that UBI advocate Scott Satens has hit on similar ideas; and supports it with results from other UBI experiments.
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Banned
Dec 7, 2008
42,676
21,015
1,490
The Pentagon
we'd need to trial balloon it in various states to see what kinda evidence pours out

i've said it before but free capital swallows easy when your society is homogenized

personally i think ubi would be disastrous unless tethered to nuclear families
 
Last edited:

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
1,096
685
580
we'd need to trial balloon it in various states to see what kinda evidence pours out

i've said it before but free capital swallows easy when your society is homogenized

personally i think ubi would be disastrous unless tethered to nuclear families
I've heard the point about how homogenous societies have higher trust, and less resistance towards social welfare programs. Unfortunately the alt-right tend to be the only ones willing to address it, and their responses are not really constructive.

Yang's belief is that a scarcity mindset with many losers in the economy will tend to push resentment and racism, but a shift towards an abundance mindset is the solution. The UBI is supposed to be a floor that everyone can count on being there, but it's not the only part of his program. He advocates "human-centered capitalism" with a focus on wellbeing, time-banking to encourage community volunteer work, and so on. I thought this testimony by someone who was deradicalized by Yang's campaign was very compelling.

As to nuclear families, welfare as we know it has tended to break up families. UBI wouldn't force nuclear families, but it suddenly becomes a much better idea to have two parents living together (possibly with adult children) when each adult is getting UBI and you don't have to worry about more household income disqualifying you from receiving aid. Add to that the lower stress levels from having a guaranteed income, and families would get quite a boost.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

Tesseract

Banned
Dec 7, 2008
42,676
21,015
1,490
The Pentagon
I've heard the point about how homogenous societies have higher trust, and less resistance towards social welfare programs. Unfortunately the alt-right tend to be the only ones willing to address it, and their responses are not really constructive.

Yang's belief is that a scarcity mindset with many losers in the economy will tend to push resentment and racism, but a shift towards an abundance mindset is the solution. The UBI is supposed to be a floor that everyone can count on being there, but it's not the only part of his program. He advocates "human-centered capitalism" with a focus on wellbeing, time-banking to encourage community volunteer work, and so on. I thought this testimony by someone who was deradicalized by Yang's campaign was very compelling.

As to nuclear families, welfare as we know it has tended to break up families. UBI wouldn't force nuclear families, but it suddenly becomes a much better idea to have two parents living together (possibly with adult children) when each adult is getting UBI and you don't have to worry about more household income disqualifying you from receiving aid. Add to that the lower stress levels from having a guaranteed income, and families would get quite a boost.
maybe yes or no on most of this, which is why we'd need to trial balloon it over the coming decades

you could just a well make the argument that it'd rip two parent households apart forever

i like yang but i think his proposals are structured in such a way that our economy would collapse (ymmv, just my opinion)
 
Last edited: