6 ms·

This is why I really like Andrew Yang for 2020. He wants to give everyone in the US $1000/month so people don't constantly have "the economic boot on their nec

This is why I really like Andrew Yang for 2020. He wants to give everyone in the US $1000/month so people don't constantly have "the economic boot on their neck". You can't worry about climate change when you are worried about paying bills and feeding your kids.

AJ007 7y ago
Increasing consumer wealth is precisely why we have climate change. One would need to also implement large taxes/bans on co2 and other non-renewables and pollutants. At best this would be a net-zero situation. More likely it would reduce the lower to middle class’s wealth in real terms. Less airline flights, leisure cruises, manufactured goods, imported foods, not more.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Why not just go after the much smaller number of boot-wearers?
caconym_ 7y ago
Basic income also means citizens can't be held as economic hostages by obsolete "too big to fail" industry players who've achieved significant regulatory capture. The labor market can't efficiently shift supply around when workers are trapped in crushing poverty and stressed to the breaking point.
- 14 7y ago
  When I think about basic income I see everyone suddenly being able to afford a lot more which is good and I like that. But what I do worry is that as soon as the stores realize people have more cash to spend they start to increase the prices to match that. So how do we prevent that if we implement a basic income? I think what would be better then a basic income is some sort of basic housing, health and food rights. I don't want 1000$ a month. I want to know every month I will have enough funds to feed my kids and house them and treat them when they are not well. I think this can be achieved by a number of means. I am Canadian so we have the health care mostly figured out though I would make changes to the cost of prescriptions for low income families. I have struggled at times to afford antibiotics for my kids and I make a lot more then minimum wage. The housing could be tackled as well. We have a lot of rules which I feel are restrictive for no reason in this day and age. For example the minimum square footage I can build a place for a person to live here is 700 square feet. My dad built a 2 level tiny home that was 100 square feet I would die to own. He had to put it on a trailer to avoid the 700 square foot rule. Why? My property could fit 20 tiny homes and have room left over to play. But the city would never allow it so I truly do think housing shortage is a political issue not a logistics issue. As for food, I would like to basically see a government funded/run food kitchen with basic foods offered to low income families where they can access nutritious food. I am thank full my kids school has a breakfast program, also thankful I do not need it, but come Christmas break, summer break, any break, my heart hurts a little knowing there are several kids that 100% rely on that program for getting food. One kid was caught stealing food and the teacher asked why are you trying to hide it you can eat as much as you like, his reply was his little brother at home who was too young to be in school was hungry so he was trying to take him something to eat. That is soul crushing to me. We live in such a damn rich county no kid should be left to go hungry at home. I don't have all the answers. I don't know how it would all be paid for but I do know something needs to change.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    700 square feet? That's 65 square meters, who even wants that much space for one person? A good-sized flat for a person here has around 40 square meters, so 430 square feet. Insane.
    - 14 7y ago
      My dads tiny home is 10x10 feet and has a second level which is really only 4 feet tall mainly for sleeping a tv and a dresser. The place is perfect for a single person. He went with closed cell spray foam and the place can be heated on a candle practically. It has a toilet and shower, mini fridge and sink. I will admit storage is a little tight but as for living space perfect for a single person. It was made to be extremely energy efficient and with climate change I think we should aim to be more like it not have some minimum.
simonh 7y ago
Wow. That’s not going to cause massive, crippling hyper inflation at all, is it.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  If people being able to feed themselves would cause unsustainable inflation, then we have bigger problems.
- luckydata 7y ago
  That's such a myopic, small way to see the world. Human dignity is the priority, if our economy doesn't work for that then we change the economy, we don't give up on dignity.
  - simonh 7y ago
    I agree completely. Nobody should go hungry, without basic health care or without a roof over their heads in a modern advanced economy. But $1,000 a month for everybody is insane. It would require a massive tax on corporations and the wealthy, and it’s just an objective fact that raising taxes that way does not significantly increase tax income. It just doesn’t. It’s been tried over and over in many countries and it never works. I live in the UK. We have universal health care, a robust social care model, my kids are getting a decent free education and we have a decent benefits system. I’m proud of all of those and don’t resent a single penny I pay in taxes towards it. But plonking big wadges of cash on everybody, funded by hammering anybody that looks even moderately successful, is a recipe for economic mayhem.
- Jeff_Brown 7y ago
  Inflation comes from an increase in the money supply. If we printed the money for it, it would cause inflation, but he plans to tax it. But even if we printed it, it would by no stretch of the imagination cause hyperinflation, just inflation. The M2 money supply -- still an incomplete measure, as there are lots of kinds of money -- in the US is 14 trillion and change, per Investopedia[1]. 12K per year * 350M people in the US = 4.2 trillion more dollars a year. Hyperinflation happens when a regime does something like double the money supply every week. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp

AJ007 7y ago

Increasing consumer wealth is precisely why we have climate change. One would need to also implement large taxes/bans on co2 and other non-renewables and pollutants. At best this would be a net-zero situation. More likely it would reduce the lower to middle class’s wealth in real terms. Less airline flights, leisure cruises, manufactured goods, imported foods, not more.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Why not just go after the much smaller number of boot-wearers?

caconym_ 7y ago

Basic income also means citizens can't be held as economic hostages by obsolete "too big to fail" industry players who've achieved significant regulatory capture. The labor market can't efficiently shift supply around when workers are trapped in crushing poverty and stressed to the breaking point.

14 7y ago
When I think about basic income I see everyone suddenly being able to afford a lot more which is good and I like that. But what I do worry is that as soon as the stores realize people have more cash to spend they start to increase the prices to match that. So how do we prevent that if we implement a basic income? I think what would be better then a basic income is some sort of basic housing, health and food rights. I don't want 1000$ a month. I want to know every month I will have enough funds to feed my kids and house them and treat them when they are not well. I think this can be achieved by a number of means. I am Canadian so we have the health care mostly figured out though I would make changes to the cost of prescriptions for low income families. I have struggled at times to afford antibiotics for my kids and I make a lot more then minimum wage. The housing could be tackled as well. We have a lot of rules which I feel are restrictive for no reason in this day and age. For example the minimum square footage I can build a place for a person to live here is 700 square feet. My dad built a 2 level tiny home that was 100 square feet I would die to own. He had to put it on a trailer to avoid the 700 square foot rule. Why? My property could fit 20 tiny homes and have room left over to play. But the city would never allow it so I truly do think housing shortage is a political issue not a logistics issue. As for food, I would like to basically see a government funded/run food kitchen with basic foods offered to low income families where they can access nutritious food. I am thank full my kids school has a breakfast program, also thankful I do not need it, but come Christmas break, summer break, any break, my heart hurts a little knowing there are several kids that 100% rely on that program for getting food. One kid was caught stealing food and the teacher asked why are you trying to hide it you can eat as much as you like, his reply was his little brother at home who was too young to be in school was hungry so he was trying to take him something to eat. That is soul crushing to me. We live in such a damn rich county no kid should be left to go hungry at home. I don't have all the answers. I don't know how it would all be paid for but I do know something needs to change.
- kaybe 7y ago
  700 square feet? That's 65 square meters, who even wants that much space for one person? A good-sized flat for a person here has around 40 square meters, so 430 square feet. Insane.
  - 14 7y ago
    My dads tiny home is 10x10 feet and has a second level which is really only 4 feet tall mainly for sleeping a tv and a dresser. The place is perfect for a single person. He went with closed cell spray foam and the place can be heated on a candle practically. It has a toilet and shower, mini fridge and sink. I will admit storage is a little tight but as for living space perfect for a single person. It was made to be extremely energy efficient and with climate change I think we should aim to be more like it not have some minimum.

simonh 7y ago

Wow. That’s not going to cause massive, crippling hyper inflation at all, is it.

nitrogen 7y ago
If people being able to feed themselves would cause unsustainable inflation, then we have bigger problems.
luckydata 7y ago
That's such a myopic, small way to see the world. Human dignity is the priority, if our economy doesn't work for that then we change the economy, we don't give up on dignity.
- simonh 7y ago
  I agree completely. Nobody should go hungry, without basic health care or without a roof over their heads in a modern advanced economy. But $1,000 a month for everybody is insane. It would require a massive tax on corporations and the wealthy, and it’s just an objective fact that raising taxes that way does not significantly increase tax income. It just doesn’t. It’s been tried over and over in many countries and it never works. I live in the UK. We have universal health care, a robust social care model, my kids are getting a decent free education and we have a decent benefits system. I’m proud of all of those and don’t resent a single penny I pay in taxes towards it. But plonking big wadges of cash on everybody, funded by hammering anybody that looks even moderately successful, is a recipe for economic mayhem.
Jeff_Brown 7y ago
Inflation comes from an increase in the money supply. If we printed the money for it, it would cause inflation, but he plans to tax it. But even if we printed it, it would by no stretch of the imagination cause hyperinflation, just inflation. The M2 money supply -- still an incomplete measure, as there are lots of kinds of money -- in the US is 14 trillion and change, per Investopedia[1]. 12K per year * 350M people in the US = 4.2 trillion more dollars a year. Hyperinflation happens when a regime does something like double the money supply every week. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp