Andrew Yang

[mcliu]

What do you guys think of Andrew Yang?

He's obviously a really long shot. I actually thought it was all a gimmick ($1,000/month UBI, etc) at first, but after listening to the debates and a few of his speeches, I thought he actually defined some of the biggest problems pretty clearly (better than some of the leading candidates) and offered some interesting solutions..

 

[SafetyinNumbers]

I really like him and most of his ideas. I think the Freedom Dividend is much better than government picking winners and losers.

[Nell-e]

Here's how I think about it if I go by process of elimination:

 

Biden - old, about as out of touch as can be

Warren - totally polarizing, can't win over swing voters, can't trust a word she says #powwowchow plus her plans suck i.e. wealth tax would precipitate enormous capital flight

Sanders - totally polarizing, more authentic than Warren but his plans suck even more

Buttigieg - he's the mayor of a small town and I don't know why he's qualified nor do I really know what he stands for other than the same middle of the road Dem ideas

Harris - totally polarizing, her ideas are just the same ineffective Dem proposals, pretty much unelectable

All of the others will drop out soon because they're not catching on.

 

So by default, Yang seems like the best Dem option.  If you listen to his long form podcasts, he's a thoughtful person whether you agree with him or not.  If you're a conservative, listen to his Ben Shapiro interview on YouTube.  If you can't stand Shapiro, then listen to the 2hr Joe Rogan podcast.  If 1 hr is too long, then here's a 18 min video

 

 

I think it really, really makes sense to have someone who understands science and technology in the White House.  Also, where I agree with Yang most is that we need to de-emphasize GDP as the primary measure of prosperity.  GDP is going up but life expectancy is going down so it seems like a pretty flawed way of looking at our collective well-being.

 

I'm an independent who changed my registration just so I can vote in the primaries.  If you think Bernie or Warren will be disastrous you should do the same.

 

Full disclosure: I'm a Yang supporter because he's data driven and authentic.

 

[Castanza]

What do you guys think of Andrew Yang?

He's obviously a really long shot. I actually thought it was all a gimmick ($1,000/month UBI, etc) at first, but after listening to the debates and a few of his speeches, I thought he actually defined some of the biggest problems pretty clearly (better than some of the leading candidates) and offered some interesting solutions..

 

 

When are people going to learn that guaranteed money by the government doesn't ever work? All it does is drive prices up.

 

I really like him and most of his ideas. I think the Freedom Dividend is much better than government picking winners and losers.

 

Individuals decide to be losers or winners, not the government. A better option for welfare would be a negative income tax (as a temporary solution). Yang often likes to misquote Friedman and MLK saying he has the same idea. It's not even close. Also for a guy who claims to be good at match he basically can't do math...

 

Here is a sample of his other proposals:

- He wants to further politicize the supreme court by putting in term limits which will guarantee appointment based on

  party affiliation.

- He has an irrational fear of automation (not a policy but utterly ridiculous imo)

- Put the government in media.

- Free marriage counseling for all

- Medicare for all

- Increase welfare for single parent with subsidies

- Forgive student debt

- Increase gun regulations

- He wants the government to come in and prop up failing malls to "revitalize" communities and give the impression of a

  solid local economy.

- Increase capital gains tax

- Early childhood education for all

- Paternal leave for both parents

- Federal govt subsidy for people who need to move for work

 

 

That's a hard pass from me. Also I think his extreme fear of automation is a bit ridiculous.

[Nell-e]

How would you rank the Dems?  To me, Bernie and Warren have the worst ideas.

[Castanza]

How would you rank the Dems?  To me, Bernie and Warren have the worst ideas.

 

I thought Bullock from Montana was reasonable on some things. I like Tulsi's foreign policy yet she is bat shit crazy on everything else. Quite honestly I don't really care about anyone who is still running. As I've said before they are all mirror images of each other. It's basically take your pick based on skin color and gender. Plus I don't think there is a chance in Hell any of them will win. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. They are all too extreme.

[mcliu]

I don't think Yang fears automation. He's saying that automation is a) increasing the pace that old jobs (retail clerks, truck drivers) become irrelevant and b) creating a class of huge winners (Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc..). It's hard to see millions of 40/50/60 year old retail clerks and truck/taxi drivers retraining to become programmers.

 

I think Buffett's been hinting at this problem too. At his 2017 (could also be 2016?) annual meeting, he suggested whether the current redistribution system is fair in an extreme case where if a single person could push a button and produce all the goods of the economy.

[Gregmal]

After Biden, Yang would be my preferred choice. Only because Biden is a more predictable candidate since he's been around so long. But on substance, I actually like a lot of what Yang has to say.

[Cardboard]

Hasn't ever occurred to you that there are enough problems to fix right now vs trying to fix those that may or may not arise?

 

Fear of automation has been there for decades if not a full century. Yet we are at full employment and I see no sign of lack of jobs, more the opposite.

[Castanza]

I don't think Yang fears automation. He's saying that automation is a) increasing the pace that old jobs (retail clerks, truck drivers) become irrelevant and b) creating a class of huge winners (Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc..). It's hard to see millions of 40/50/60 year old retail clerks and truck/taxi drivers retraining to become programmers.

 

I think Buffett's been hinting at this problem too. At his 2017 (could also be 2016?) annual meeting, he suggested whether the current redistribution system is fair in an extreme case where if a single person could push a button and produce all the goods of the economy.

 

Truck drivers aren't going anywhere. If anything the technology will simply aid them and increase safety. It will help over the road drivers with sleep deprivation, lane assist, braking, etc. I mean planes have been able to fly and land themselves for a long time now. Yet we keep hiring pilots. The logistics industry can't even develop software to properly define routes, yet somehow they are going to completely get rid of the driver?

 

Why would you listen to Buffett on technology?

[Nell-e]

 

I don't think there is a chance in Hell any of them will win.

 

Whoever is the D-nominee has a very real chance of winning just by virtue of 2 ppl being left in the general election.  2016 was decided by thousands of votes in swing states.  Therefore, Sanders and Warren have a very good chance of winning.  They're the ones with momentum.  To me, the earlier you can eliminate both of them, the better.

 

Yang's foreign policy stance is non-intervention like Tulsi.  Automation is here and it's going to accelerate.  When the next recession hits, call center workers, retail workers, and fast food workers are going to be hit hard as companies focus on spending in down times.  I find it interesting that Trump voters who support him as being farsighted in his war on China because of IP theft are also the same ones downplaying the effects of automation.  Technology will displace millions of repetitive blue and white collar jobs.  It's not if.  It's a matter of when.

 

The problem is that economically challenged voters in swing states hold the keys to our political future.  The more they fall behind, the more they'll look towards candidates like Sanders.  Traditional Dems see govt institutions as the way to help these voters but past programs have been ineffective.  Tax cuts don't help if you're not paying taxes.  Yang's Freedom Dividend seems like the best way to help the economically challenged swing state voters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Castanza]

 

I don't think there is a chance in Hell any of them will win.

 

Whoever is the D-nominee has a very real chance of winning just by virtue of 2 ppl being left in the general election.  2016 was decided by thousands of votes in swing states.  Therefore, Sanders and Warren have a very good chance of winning.  They're the ones with momentum.  To me, the earlier you can eliminate both of them, the better.

 

Yang's foreign policy stance is non-intervention like Tulsi.  Automation is here and it's going to accelerate.  When the next recession hits, call center workers, retail workers, and fast food workers are going to be hit hard as companies focus on spending in down times.  I find it interesting that Trump voters who support him as being farsighted in his war on China because of IP theft are also the same ones downplaying the effects of automation.  Technology will displace millions of repetitive blue and white collar jobs.  It's not if.  It's a matter of when.

 

The problem is that economically challenged voters in swing states hold the keys to our political future.  The more they fall behind, the more they'll look towards candidates like Sanders.  Traditional Dems see govt institutions as the way to help these voters but past programs have been ineffective.  Tax cuts don't help if you're not paying taxes.  Yang's Freedom Dividend seems like the best way to help the economically challenged swing state voters.

 

A plumber is much less likely to be automated out of a job than a programmer. Are fast food workers and grocery store clerks considered blue collar? That's part of the issue right there. Why is fear mongering with automation for jobs which should not be considered careers? These jobs should be filled by retired people, students, or stay at home moms looking for some supplemental income.

[Nell-e]

Ok, I'll abstain from the labels blue and white collar jobs.  Repetitive jobs whether they are cognitive or manually labor intensive will be automated away.

 

There's no fear mongering.  It's stating the current situation.  In 2015, Trump supporters were downplaying the unemployment numbers because of the participation rate.  Participation rate is still low.  Unemployed manufacturing workers in swing states have not found new jobs.  Life expectancy down because of suicides and drug overdoses.  So what's the solution?  Typical full of shit politicians say we should retrain displaced workers but the re-training success rate is 0 to 15%.

 

 

 

 

[Castanza]

Ok, I'll abstain from the labels blue and white collar jobs.  Repetitive jobs whether they are cognitive or manually labor intensive will be automated away.

 

There's no fear mongering.  It's stating the current situation.  In 2015, Trump supporters were downplaying the unemployment numbers because of the participation rate.  Participation rate is still low.  Unemployed manufacturing workers in swing states have not found new jobs.  Life expectancy down because of suicides and drug overdoses.  So what's the solution?  Typical full of shit politicians say we should retrain displaced workers but the re-training success rate is 0 to 15%.

 

If people want a job then they need to work on themselves. It's called capitalism....I mean does it really matter if fast food workers and retail clerks get automated away? Society needs a fire lit under its ass. They don't need to be coddled, because ultimately the 1k wont cover enough expenses to make it worth it. People will simply ask for more once they become dependent on big daddy govt.

 

Plus it's probably cheaper to move your factory to China than it is to replace all your workers with automated processes.

[Cardboard]

"So what's the solution?  Typical full of shit politicians say we should retrain displaced workers but the re-training success rate is 0 to 15%."

 

Can't see how handing out $1,000/month for doing nothing accomplishes anything. It certainly isn't a solution. Most people want to be useful, have a good future and not sit at home collecting subsistance like income.

 

And regarding income equality, on what planet do these socialists live on? Freebies have to be paid by someone you know?

 

It is like this LC that believes that no matter what policies are by the administration that is has no effect on the economy!!! History is filled with failed nations that came down due to bad economic policies.

 

The same people that spend countless hours trying to figure out what this CEO has done and will do? How much cash is the business generating, how is it allocated? What is the debt level, ratings, etc.? But, when it comes to the government none of that matters. Are you ok?

 

 

[mcliu]

From what I've seen, the $1,000/month UBI isn't meant to replace your job/income. The stats show almost half of American families (working families) are struggling to make ends meet and don't even have a few hundred $ in case of emergencies. The UBI will help these people shore-up their finances.

 

Is it really socialism? I doubt anyone on this investment forum believe in socialism.. It's more about fairness and taking care of the less fortunate. In some ways, the system is skewed to the rich. ex. Amazon became a trillion-dollar company but have barely paid any income taxes..

 

Hasn't Alaska been paying a $2k oil dividend for decades?

 

I do see how this can go very wrong if not implemented properly. ex. People will just keep voting for a bigger UBI.

[Gregmal]

I rather give every working family with income under say $250K $1,000 per month than continue to dump money into all these other garbage social welfare ideas and programs. Just give people the money and let them spend it. If they still can't make ends meet then they deserve to be where they are.

 

This is a large enough sum that it really could stimulate many different areas. Heck, plenty of places, that $1000 could more than pay for one's housing.

[Nell-e]

We live in a democracy with an electoral college process.  U.S. has 325m ppl.  70% of workers live paycheck to paycheck, 48% can't afford an unexpected $500 emergency as seen in last year's govt shutdown.  The subset of this demographic who live in the swing states control our political future and they are gravitating toward candidates like Trump & Bernie.

 

I care about the debt and neither of these candidates is fiscally responsible.  If you support Trump's policies, fine.  But if you think he's the best leader for enacting the policies then I don't know how to convince ppl who tolerate a lazy narcissistic person who acts like a 5 y/o.  To me, Bernie is the worst Dem option given policies on Fed Jobs Guarantee (FJG) and Wealth Tax.  Warren's policies about as bad plus she's more polarizing.  I really would like to avoid both of them.  Biden would be more of the same.  My best guess is that the demographic who determines our political future will keep voting in their perceived self interest.  So what's the best solution out of this cycle?

 

Opponents of UBI have not proposed a better solution.  They just criticize.  FJG and Wealth tax would be disastrous.  That's socialism and the outcome we MUST avoid.  I have no idea what Republicans propose to help the swing voters who live paycheck to paycheck (the deplorables or Romney's 47%) other than tax cuts and deregulation.

The swing state small towns have been economically decimated so if we let the market's invisible hand do its thing, they're going to get worse because it's unprofitable to set up shop in a town with no money.  So the cycle of brain drain will continue but the electoral college will persist and the remaining deplorables will vote in their self interest and we're going to get worse and worse candidates.  All of these candidates will be fiscally irresponsible.

 

UBI isn't about fairness.  It's about pragmatism.  I'm open minded to another way out of this vicious voting cycle if anyone suggests it.  A possibility is if a candidate lies their way into office promising the deplorables all the things they want and then enacts fiscally responsible policies but that candidate would get voted out of office in 1 term and the chances of that candidate getting anything done in a divided congress is close to nil.

 

 

 

 

[Castanza]

From what I've seen, the $1,000/month UBI isn't meant to replace your job/income. The stats show almost half of American families (working families) are struggling to make ends meet and don't even have a few hundred $ in case of emergencies. The UBI will help these people shore-up their finances.

 

Is it really socialism? I doubt anyone on this investment forum believe in socialism.. It's more about fairness and taking care of the less fortunate. In some ways, the system is skewed to the rich. ex. Amazon became a trillion-dollar company but have barely paid any income taxes..

 

Hasn't Alaska been paying a $2k oil dividend for decades?

 

I do see how this can go very wrong if not implemented properly. ex. People will just keep voting for a bigger UBI.

 

Did you even watch the video I posted in my original response? You have a lot of misconceptions about how this works. It's not "fair" that you're forcing people to give money to others. That is called cosmic justice and it always fails. You can't legislate the unfairness of life away.

 

The thing about UBI is it completely ignores the unintended consequences. I think there will be many negative things that happen as a result.

[Castanza]

I rather give every working family with income under say $250K $1,000 per month than continue to dump money into all these other garbage social welfare ideas and programs. Just give people the money and let them spend it. If they still can't make ends meet then they deserve to be where they are.

 

This is a large enough sum that it really could stimulate many different areas. Heck, plenty of places, that $1000 could more than pay for one's housing.

 

Greg I agree that people need help. But not in the form of UBI. And certainly not everyone. The poor need to be targeted and I think negative income tax is a far more efficient manner to do this. It gives them a lump sum and removes the majority of administration costs.

[Castanza]

We live in a democracy with an electoral college process.  U.S. has 325m ppl.  70% of workers live paycheck to paycheck, 48% can't afford an unexpected $500 emergency as seen in last year's govt shutdown.  The subset of this demographic who live in the swing states control our political future and they are gravitating toward candidates like Trump & Bernie.

 

I care about the debt and neither of these candidates is fiscally responsible.  If you support Trump's policies, fine.  But if you think he's the best leader for enacting the policies then I don't know how to convince ppl who tolerate a lazy narcissistic person who acts like a 5 y/o.  To me, Bernie is the worst Dem option given policies on Fed Jobs Guarantee (FJG) and Wealth Tax.  Warren's policies about as bad plus she's more polarizing.  I really would like to avoid both of them.  Biden would be more of the same.  My best guess is that the demographic who determines our political future will keep voting in their perceived self interest.  So what's the best solution out of this cycle?

 

Opponents of UBI have not proposed a better solution.  They just criticize.  FJG and Wealth tax would be disastrous.  That's socialism and the outcome we MUST avoid.  I have no idea what Republicans propose to help the swing voters who live paycheck to paycheck (the deplorables or Romney's 47%) other than tax cuts and deregulation.

The swing state small towns have been economically decimated so if we let the market's invisible hand do its thing, they're going to get worse because it's unprofitable to set up shop in a town with no money.  So the cycle of brain drain will continue but the electoral college will persist and the remaining deplorables will vote in their self interest and we're going to get worse and worse candidates.  All of these candidates will be fiscally irresponsible.

 

UBI isn't about fairness.  It's about pragmatism.  I'm open minded to another way out of this vicious voting cycle if anyone suggests it.  A possibility is if a candidate lies their way into office promising the deplorables all the things they want and then enacts fiscally responsible policies but that candidate would get voted out of office in 1 term and the chances of that candidate getting anything done in a divided congress is close to nil.

 

 

 

 

 

We live in a democratic republic. Not a democracy. UBI is not about fairness, it's about greed. If it were about fairness then it would be only directed at people in need.

 

"Why is it considered greed to want to keep money you earn yet it's not considered greed to want to take money you did not earn?" - Thomas Sowell

 

"The Transformation of charity into legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude" - Justice Scalia

Society needs to start looking at itself. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Helping your neighbor and working in your local community? Everyone wants to look to big daddy govt for a handout because it takes less work and effort to legislate from the bench than it does to walk next door and see how that old lady is doing. When in the end you have worse results with far more expense. It's a joke. This isn't the mentality of caring or fairness. It's the mentality of lets throw some slop to the pigs and hope they dont go hungry. Out of sight out of mind. The majority of people who advocate for this probably don't even give to charity or try to help people themselves. People on here are quite financially savvy. How many of you have taken someone under your wing, maybe helped them out financially with both money and decisions? Hell you could take 20k, write OTM puts and give the premiums you make to someone you know is in need. You wouldn't lose a dime and it would be far more cost effective than UBI. And if you have I applaud you because you're better than most.

 

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.” - Thomas Sowell

 

This same logic can be applied to charity as well. Gov't wast 1 out of every 2 dollars. That 10-15% I give every year will be cut in half and used in a less effective manner. It negates building relationships and building community. It removes that human aspect and dependence upon each other which also helps instill personal responsibility and accountability.

 

At the end of the day $1k won't be enough and people will ask for more and society will hear their plea and re-direct it to big daddy govt who will answer the call. Society will continue to degrade. Charity from gov't isn't always a good thing. Look at Africa, a nation which gets tons of charity from US startups etc. Toms shoes and companies alike are directly responsible for stiffing local businesses. Handouts don't create incentive, they create dependence which is the opposite of Capitalism. Even Yang himself said on JRE podcast that most people would probably just stash the money and not use it to contribute to the economy.

 

 

If that's what society wants then that's what society gets. I can live with it, but I think it's a mistake long term. If welfare is any type of track record then everyone should be scared of UBI and the unintended consequences. How about just lower taxes and let people keep more of what they earn?

 

Poverty is less than 1% across all races and genders in the US if you follow three rules

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child in HS

3.) Take any full-time job upon graduation (minimum wage or not)

 

[Liberty]

Nothing about his specific proposals, but Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him.

 

This podcast with him was a good listen:

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/8-andrew-yang-dangerously-different-candidate-media/id1469999563?i=1000452045633

[Castanza]

Nothing about his specific proposals, but Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him.

 

This podcast with him was a good listen:

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/8-andrew-yang-dangerously-different-candidate-media/id1469999563?i=1000452045633

 

I agree that Yang is good hearted and seems to be genuine with good intentions. But that doesn't always translate to quality policies. Thirst for power often doesn't start until one has sampled it. Even Lincoln said that.

[Liberty]

Nothing about his specific proposals, but Yang is smart, honest, willing to listen and change his mind, optimistic, entrepreneurial, has empathy, isn't thirsty for power, not particularly political... I wish all politicians were more like him.

 

This podcast with him was a good listen:

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/8-andrew-yang-dangerously-different-candidate-media/id1469999563?i=1000452045633

 

I agree that Yang is good hearted and seems to be genuine with good intentions. But that doesn't always translate to quality policies. Thirst for power often doesn't start until one has sampled it. Even Lincoln said that.

 

When you're at the bottom of the barrel, anything would be an improvement. I can't believe that he could do worse even if he tried. And I believe that if his policies didn't work, he'd change them and try something else. We need more people like that, rather than those who think they have all the answers and that changing your mind is a vice.

[DTEJD1997]

We live in a democracy with an electoral college process.  U.S. has 325m ppl.  70% of workers live paycheck to paycheck, 48% can't afford an unexpected $500 emergency as seen in last year's govt shutdown.  The subset of this demographic who live in the swing states control our political future and they are gravitating toward candidates like Trump & Bernie.

 

I care about the debt and neither of these candidates is fiscally responsible.  If you support Trump's policies, fine.  But if you think he's the best leader for enacting the policies then I don't know how to convince ppl who tolerate a lazy narcissistic person who acts like a 5 y/o.  To me, Bernie is the worst Dem option given policies on Fed Jobs Guarantee (FJG) and Wealth Tax.  Warren's policies about as bad plus she's more polarizing.  I really would like to avoid both of them.  Biden would be more of the same.  My best guess is that the demographic who determines our political future will keep voting in their perceived self interest.  So what's the best solution out of this cycle?

 

Opponents of UBI have not proposed a better solution.  They just criticize.  FJG and Wealth tax would be disastrous.  That's socialism and the outcome we MUST avoid.  I have no idea what Republicans propose to help the swing voters who live paycheck to paycheck (the deplorables or Romney's 47%) other than tax cuts and deregulation.

The swing state small towns have been economically decimated so if we let the market's invisible hand do its thing, they're going to get worse because it's unprofitable to set up shop in a town with no money.  So the cycle of brain drain will continue but the electoral college will persist and the remaining deplorables will vote in their self interest and we're going to get worse and worse candidates.  All of these candidates will be fiscally irresponsible.

 

UBI isn't about fairness.  It's about pragmatism.  I'm open minded to another way out of this vicious voting cycle if anyone suggests it.  A possibility is if a candidate lies their way into office promising the deplorables all the things they want and then enacts fiscally responsible policies but that candidate would get voted out of office in 1 term and the chances of that candidate getting anything done in a divided congress is close to nil.

 

 

 

 

 

We live in a democratic republic. Not a democracy. UBI is not about fairness, it's about greed. If it were about fairness then it would be only directed at people in need.

 

"Why is it considered greed to want to keep money you earn yet it's not considered greed to want to take money you did not earn?" - Thomas Sowell

 

"The Transformation of charity into legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude" - Justice Scalia

Society needs to start looking at itself. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Helping your neighbor and working in your local community? Everyone wants to look to big daddy govt for a handout because it takes less work and effort to legislate from the bench than it does to walk next door and see how that old lady is doing. When in the end you have worse results with far more expense. It's a joke. This isn't the mentality of caring or fairness. It's the mentality of lets throw some slop to the pigs and hope they dont go hungry. Out of sight out of mind. The majority of people who advocate for this probably don't even give to charity or try to help people themselves. People on here are quite financially savvy. How many of you have taken someone under your wing, maybe helped them out financially with both money and decisions? Hell you could take 20k, write OTM puts and give the premiums you make to someone you know is in need. You wouldn't lose a dime and it would be far more cost effective than UBI. And if you have I applaud you because you're better than most.

 

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.” - Thomas Sowell

 

This same logic can be applied to charity as well. Gov't wast 1 out of every 2 dollars. That 10-15% I give every year will be cut in half and used in a less effective manner. It negates building relationships and building community. It removes that human aspect and dependence upon each other which also helps instill personal responsibility and accountability.

 

At the end of the day $1k won't be enough and people will ask for more and society will hear their plea and re-direct it to big daddy govt who will answer the call. Society will continue to degrade. Charity from gov't isn't always a good thing. Look at Africa, a nation which gets tons of charity from US startups etc. Toms shoes and companies alike are directly responsible for stiffing local businesses. Handouts don't create incentive, they create dependence which is the opposite of Capitalism. Even Yang himself said on JRE podcast that most people would probably just stash the money and not use it to contribute to the economy.

 

 

If that's what society wants then that's what society gets. I can live with it, but I think it's a mistake long term. If welfare is any type of track record then everyone should be scared of UBI and the unintended consequences. How about just lower taxes and let people keep more of what they earn?

 

Poverty is less than 1% across all races and genders in the US if you follow three rules

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child in HS

3.) Take any full-time job upon graduation (minimum wage or not)

 

Castanza:

 

I would shout this from the rooftops X1000!

 

Fairly simple actions will keep the vast majority of people out of poverty.

 

I engage in helping/charitable actions/giving....but I could do 10X better than what I have.  I am embarrassed to admit this.  I would challenge other members of the board to increase their helping/charitable acts.  I certainly will.

 

Engagement with your neighbors/neighborhood and other citizens would go a long, Long, LONG way to improving society.

 

We are blessed to live in the time/place that we do.