This Presidential Candidate Wants to Give Every Adult $1,000 a Month - Polidicks

Yeah this calculaiton is like the first thing I did when I saw this. Yang's proposal is closer to 4 trillion a year.

Mandate a minimum number of part-time, full-time, and internship positions with respect to a company's revenue. Block the cunts out of holding new policy hostage by firing or relegating their own employees.

Healthcare being tied to your employer is something I will never understand

That's not really going to work. Say a company that makes enough money to be capable of hiring 3 more people than what it has, but it doesn't need those workers. Especially with something like my job, where we clock out whenever the work is done. Sometimes it's 8 hours, sometimes it's 12 hours - adding too many people, even if it's financially possible, would reduce everyone's hours to 5 or 6. Then everyone lose.

Assuming you mean "trades" as in mechanic, plumber, etc: Speaking as a tradesman in Canada, trade schools are sort of bogus unless you're actually in that trade to begin with. Very, very few people land jobs in trades from trade schools, without prior work experience, knowing what trade they want to be in. I can't say how well this pertains to your situation, but if you're in a somewhat urbanized area I can almost assure you that there are companies looking for new apprentices, but they almost never advertise or reach out to contact anybody. I shit you not, if you can find a plumbing/carpenter/framer/etc contractor in town and walk in to their headquarters looking for a job, you'd probably get hired, and then you'd move on to be a "trainee" or apprentice from there. Generally speaking, apprenticeships are usually started once you already start working in the field. IE: You land a job as a helper/laborer in the trade, then once you are shown the ropes you sign up and become a registered apprentice, and then after becoming an apprentice you take periodic breaks from work to go to school to take various levels of training, before getting your final certification. This is how it works in Canada, and my province, so I can't speak to how that relates to the US and what state you're in, but I'm sure it must be a very similar work situation.

South Jersey is one of the most rural regions on the east coast unfortunately.

Insurance is expensive. Some smaller companies don't even offer it because it's outside of their budget range, even the so-called "good paying" industries, like trade jobs. Even if a job offered to pay you, say, $16 an hour (which around here is pretty good wages), but offered no insurance options, a good chunk of that would be going to whatever insurance option you decide to pursue, and because insurance companies aren't allowed to operate outside of certain areas, options are sometimes dramatically limited.

Can I ask something? What exactly would this system achieve? Like, what would this system fix or prevent, and would is be worthy of the expenditure put into it. If we are giving every American adult past the age of 18, a $1,000/month, would we be able to offset the investment with net gains? 70 to 80 million of the population are under 18, which leaves us roughly what... 245 million people..? This would come out too spending several billion dollars, if not hundreds of billions every month. Such a system is not economically feasible. Even if we were doing it for a lesser number, say just every adult aged 18 to 24, we'd still be giving 30 million people about $1,000 per month, roughly 30 billion USD... Every month. For such a system to be even considered, we'd need concrete data to give a good damn reason to actually introduce it.

Are you for real right now? You don't understand what doubling a person income to raise them above the poverty level would do? Here's some concrete data, by 2030 65% of current service, domestic trade, and construction jobs can be automated, by 2040 they will be.

But how would UBI be the solution for such problems? This has been mentioned quiet frequently in this thread, but it's economically unsustainable to give everyone a $1000 paycheck every month. Not even locking it down to those which are between the ages of 18 to 24, would make it sustainable. Not to mention, with automation, how exactly are we to expect tax revenue from lower or middle classes? This type of system is utopian at best.

UBI or something similar has to be implemented for society to continue functioning. Automation is real and unskilled labor and a huge chunk of skilled labor might be virtually eradicated within our lifetimes. Imagine trying to get an entry level job as a teenager, when cashiering, waiting tables, and stocking, among others, have all been eradicated. Our current system cannot handle the strain of that much job loss. This isn't one of those issues our great grandkids will have to deal with, there are children walking and talking and going to school who will likely have no prospects in the future because the job market has no place for them anymore. Their families won't be able to afford a higher education. The unskilled labor market will be shaved to such an extent that there's way way more people than there are places for them to work, and the places that do hire unskilled 18 year olds have all the reason to be picky as fuck. They can't pay for their education, they can't pay for rent, they need experience for the few jobs left but they can't get those jobs because they lack experience and aren't as favorable as the kids who got luckier. I imagine homelessness and poverty will soar and the average rate of teens living with their parents will soar and the economy will end up in fucking shambles. And then, people are gonna get violent. The only argument that I've heard against this is that 'more jobs will appear to replace the ones we lost, like it always has throughout history' but the only jobs that will appear from the replacement of cashiers with self checkout cashiers is labor that requires an education that you won't be able to afford because the unskilled labor doesn't exist. Maybe UBI isn't a perfect system. And yes, whatever we come up with will HAVE to be scarily liberal by the standards of our youth pre-automation and the more conservative among us will not like the way it feels. But we literally can't just do nothing. This is what the capitalism that conservatives adore is leading us to. I genuinely think humanity needs to get over the idea that people have to work. Technology is making that outdated. I think technology can't replace every job, but it will replace so many of them that we have to shift over to a society that is work optional. Where we have to fill our time with something else. Or we have to be regressive and force companies to limit automation in order to preserve the status quo.

... By 2030, 70% of current custodial and infrastructural jobs will be gone with virtual certainty, by 2040 they WILL be gone with absolute certainty. It is entirely economically feasible and not only is it feasible but the bottom 3% of the nation economically support the rest and form 98% of gross domestic monetary throughput. It's time for rich to get of their asses and put grandaddy's funbux into circulation, because the alternative is literally eat the rich.

"Everyone lose" because they have more free time for the same pay? I don't follow. You're literally describing the utopian working conditions and workload reduction that people a century ago imagined automation would bring.

Well shit ok everyone, pack up your bags. All you economists and scientists who've been studying the subject for years and years, shut down your PCs and delete all your working folders, Trixil said it's not feasible. Sorry for the snarky answer but feasibility is something determined by the scientists who know what they're talking about, not people on an internet forum who probably don't have a relevant degree even

This guy's platform is described as "idiosyncratic" by the article, but tbh it's so normal and reasonable it's almost boring. Also, as much as I am in favour of UBI in a sense, we need to frame it as a stop gap because it's only treatment for a larger problem. I would vote for this policy if somebody in the UK proposed it. But I don't believe that this is "the smartest solution to a poverty problem that will only be exacerbated by future increases in automation", in fact I don't believe we're currently really capable of a smart solution to this. UBI is really is just taking painkillers rather than undergoing surgery. Automation should not be making people poorer, it is literally having machines do the work for us, in any rational reasonable world it would mean that we have to do less work to survive. But the benefits of automation are going to the richest few, not everybody else, simply because they have the wealth horded to buy these machines which allows them to horde more wealth. Really we need to pass that ownership on the the benefits belong directly to everybody, passing it through the government takes power and bargaining away from people. Also, I suppose it's not something any opponent really considers but this would boost the everloving fuck out of local economies. The claim of costing 3 trillion a year is awfully misleading when you take that into account. It's like claiming a school will cost x mil to build, what's the point in that statistic but scaring "fiscal conservatives" when you never mention the countless millions are added in the value those educated at the school provide and the jobs that school provides and the business from equipment and supplies that school buys?

It's almost as if you fail to read the part in my comment that said it could be doable.

You never mentioned anything about public acceptance. You said "That's still a lot of money, but that could be doable with the current state of the US economy" The only statement you made in that post was "the cost would be staggering. You wouldn't be able to do $1000 per person" which you factually are able to do. I didn't mention anything about whether Americans would accept it or not because you didn't even mention it.

Fair, I did say that, but you’re taking my wording in such a literal sense to just make a point (semantics). When I said “wouldn’t” I was more or less stating that idea is far too optimistic to think you could get people onboard with it. I didn’t feel like I needed to be overly specific. You factually could do anything, but it would greatly depend if you could feasibly get it to pass.

I don't want to be rude or pry, but how do you even live in the US with such low income?

We're paid hourly. Less hours = Less pay

So if you do your job fast, you're paid less? Kinda weird.

Pretty much, yeah. I fulfill customer orders at a warehouse. When all the orders are fulfilled, there is no more work to be done. There literally is nothing else to do at the facility to warrant keeping us for another few hours just to round it to 8. It balances throughout the week as some days are always 9 or 10 hours long. But adding more people to the shift, even if we can afford them, will turn those into 8 hour shifts and turn the 8 hour shifts into shorter ones. Not to mention that it's a 45-60 minute commute for me to get to work, at which some point if the day is too short it's not worth the gas to get there.

I have a bunch of money saved up from when I had a job. I'm running out.

Christ, that sounds terrible. I used to live on a 350 euro wage on an intern job, even in my country where 1000 euros is a very good, above average wage, I needed support from my family till I was offered a full time contract.

Average apartment rents across the US are around $1,400, for reference.

Yeah my friend who’s a teacher and lives on the coast of South Carolina makes about $2500 a month and he’s barely keeping his head above water. He’s having to live with four other people because the rent is so damn high on the coast. A one bed apartment in an okay area is $1350 a month and that’s not including any utility bills.

I remember working in a dying factory, having days where we'd do nothing but pretend to clean all day because there wasn't any work. It got to the point where the supervisor started shifting assembly workers onto maintenance and grounds keeping just to avoid sending most of the cell home, but eventually it got to the point where they would just have to send most of the place home unpaid because there wasn't enough work to do.

I want to point out that $15/hr isn't even enough to live comfortably where I live and I work full time. I had to move back in with my parents.

This is the direction that we will have to begin moving in as a society, or face complete collapse and regression to feudalism. Our culture of defining people by how valuable they are as workers cannot survive the coming century of technology, when human labor in all domains will be eclipsed by machines and algorithms.

Raise the minimum wage up to $15 an hour will also increase the cost of basic goods, rent, etc. Raising minimum wage =\= ability to live comfortably, it just means everything will naturally move up with it. I work full time at $17 /hr and worked my ass off through college and a trade school both for an entry level position here. Will raising the minimum also affect my wage? Because if it doesn't I certainly would be pissed that I'm making a mere $2 more an hour over someone flipping burgers at McDonalds as their first job at 16.