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

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.

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

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

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.

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 KZfaq. 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 KZfaq. Not Netflix, though, I cannot afford that!

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

Of course not. Yang 2020!

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.

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?

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.

Vashti Perry loool

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.

@mark yeah okay grandpa, facebook is that way

It's true that people are lazy, but automation would get implemented even if we had a 100% dedicated workforce, it's non-sense not to automatize what can be automatized.

There’s always going to be work. Even working 3 hours a week is showing you are willing to contribute to society. Although that’s totally abusable and not easy to enforce - if I sell a painting, that’s work. Lol. Basic universal income for all is a good ideal though.

@mark you don't even use critical thinking do you? No? It shows... Here... Let me walk it through for you: You think people are being replaced because they're getting too lazy. So let's use that as an assumption and see what happens. If people are too lazy, what happens in the real world? They get fired. They get fired, and someone else gets hired in their place. So the threat of being fired from your job will likely keep people from being lazy, or at the least, meet the minimum standards set by the employer. There's so many people looking for a job out there that people are easily replaceable, so there's a natural competition to be motivated to not get fired (AKA work harder). So if being lazy is not the reason why automation is becoming a thing, what else could it be? Well... maybe the machines does a better job than the most hard working, most efficient humans? A single machine can do the job of 1000 hard working humans. So it doesn't matter if someone is lazy or not, they WILL get replaced once a machine is built capable of that job. So these are all just words... so let's get some visual demonstration: In this video, this machine is modifiable and modular to do almost any hardware manufacturing: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/htqXoLxm2KzYdKc.html See how fast it produces things? Find me ONE human in this world that can produce at this speed. On top of that, this is just CURRENT day technology! With artificial intelligence and smarter and smarter computers, these tasks can become more and more complicated. Here are a list of jobs that can (and probably will) be replaced by machines in the future: Gaming dealers (think Vegas delaers) Accountants Broadcast Technicians Construction workers Office assistants Atmospheric and space scientists Dental Hygienists Security guard Bus, taxi, semi truck drivers Waiter/waitresses Boring and drilling machine operators Cargo and freight agents Correctional officers and jailers Social science research assistance Locksmiths Restaurant cooks Oil, gas, and mining operators Private detectives Recreational vehicle service technicians Highway maintenance workers Certain types of electricians Flight attendants The list literally goes on almost forever! Type a job in here (even complicated jobs) and you'll be surprised who gets replaced, or click on the "random generator" to see a bunch of random jobs you wouldn't even think about: willrobotstakemyjob.com/

That's actually not true. From an economic standpoint firms will only automate if it reduces average total cost of production, hence increasing profits, and that isn't always the case surprisingly.

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

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 KZfaq 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.

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

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’.

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. :)

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.

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.

Straight into the pool of lava

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

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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 KZfaq comments I’ve ever seen. I was very surprised to agree with that last paragraph.

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: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jbl7nJt5y8ncdZ8.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.

Then you should have linked the evidence.

Till the currency ran out Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.

Barskor1 The point was that it helped improved people's lives and got them self-sufficient. Not necessary become reliant and lazy as was assumed.

Got proof?

+Valentin Li Short term extra money means you don't get lazy on it Life Time money lets you get lazy and none of these UBI studies were permanent or lasted more than ten years.

@ what a coincidence that's exactly what I just ate

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?

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

he's really awful

Yep, I also felt like he is constantly pissed off by the idea itself, and it shows

Idk, I think an effective way to get the most out of an interview is to set it up in a way such that the interviewee is required to counter an argument. I feel like he did an excellent job though I feel like the questions could have been edited out.

No he is playing devil's advocate. This an experiment not a communist revolution. It is logic to be secptical of such a radical plan, relative to conventional advice. Also if the show persented it's self in favour of the plan the show would be biased and alienating to people who don't already agree with universal living wage. Additionally if the program fails, assuming positive bias, the show would also fail.

his face - i feel like i'm on LSD when i watch him talk

Harshit Singla because FAKE

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.

Dimas Ramatika ❤️ 100% true.

Yes

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.

He didn’t say any of that, liar.

But why would you pursue a better job for small increase in overal wealth if goverment taxed you heavilly for your hard work So they can give your money to others?

@@azmomadius UBI will be funded from consumption side not the production side.

@@crazieeez thats ignoring basic economics. For the entire population below a certain wealth level to have this. You would have to tax either sales to the point where a gallon of milk it 10 a gallon. Or youd have to tax those above this line to the point where it would be better for them to work at poverty levels instead of middle class wages.

"no one wants to live in a tiny apartment and not afford luxuries" That's not true. Not everyone have aspirations not even for luxuries, but for a materialized way of life. I know from myself.

Muhammad Ahmed nothing works in a vacuum. Your proposed sources of funding are not sustainable over the long term. You can’t jack up taxes and expect everything to hum along like nothing happened. The best thing you can do over the long term is pursue faster overall GDP growth which creates more surpluses to take care of those who can’t earn their own way.

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?

You would still have to work if you ever wanted more than basic housing and no starvation.

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.

Lol to bad he wont make it....

@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.

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.

how much do you think they’re giving out

The difference is with business, we pay for services we want. With government, we are forced to pay for services and regulatory regimes that sometimes undermine our prosperity and societies progress.

Nicholas Thales That’s very vague and it depends on what services you are referring to. There are some services like health care and pharmaceuticals that I feel might be better provided by public rather than private business. There are some services from the government that I don’t think operate quickly or efficiently enough. What regulations specifically do you mean? Like net neutrality?

Lets take healthcare. Health insurance is expensive in the United States. On the Government regulatory side we have Pre-existing conditions, Regulatory Paperwork and blocking individuals to purchase insurance across state lines. These regulations raise the cost of health insurance. Net Neutrality should have been rescinded. Net Neutrality has only existed for a few years. Netflix, KZfaq and Google should be paying Higher fees to the ISPs to carry their traffic.

Nicholas Thales All I know is that in America medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy for individuals. The Affordable Care Act sought to alleviate that. Admittedly it hasn’t worked as well as hoped but I think it’s still better than what we had before. It’s another situation where it’s hard to establish exactly what the benefits are because how do you measure the value of a life? In my eyes repealing net neutrality takes away a fundamental part of how the internet has worked from the beginning and would be similar to the current healthcare problem. Telecom companies already have monopolies in numerous areas and people have very few options to choose from. By telecom companies forcing content providers to pay the cost will eventually get passed down to the consumer. When have companies ever chosen to take a loss like that? Similarly people have very few health insurance options and are forced to pay. I really don’t see how you can be against public health insurance but against net neutrality at the same time. You should probably look into net neutrality a little more.

ceasetheday, Medical costs are indeed a huge financial burden. This is largely due to regulation, high-cost services, and a lack of transparency. The ACA took those who do not pay and put them on the public dole. This shifted a large cost to the taxpayers. It didn't lower costs. Taxpayer funded programs require a lot of regulatory documentation. Net Neutrality started in 2015. The internet existed ling before. Health Insuramce options are limited. This is due in large part to our employer driven healthcare. State and ACA regulations have increased cost. It appears that the ACA is a backdoor to single-payer via bankrupting insurance companies. A Single-payer system would be ruinous for American Taxpayes. 43% of individuals who have taxable income don't pay taxes.

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

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

Exactly, people already do it.

@@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.

Bootstrapping with diminishing returns the customer will pay for the tax that then has to pay for all the bureaucracy that the former customer gets a small portion of back in UBI.

You bring to the table an idea that is very interesting: the cost of unmotivated workers and filler work. The current system says everybody should work, but that may exists a hidden cost due to people working on things that take value away from society. E.: unneeded bureaucracy, crime (which is a kind of work), political propaganda, etc.

Quick, someone bomb the Cayman Islands before they evade your clever tax plan.

Because companies like McDonald that would develop automated system to replace workers are given billions of dollars in tax cuts for having so many people employed. innovation is being held back by the government for the sack of keeping people working.

But what if gov never does that?

Jennifer Brazil You are only looking at one side of the argument. As somebody who knows many people who have- and have myself - struggled with such things, the vast majority find that inactivity and lack of direction only hinders recovery. Enabling this by removing the urgency to go out, work through your problems and busy yourself will likely harm more people than it helps.

Thinking people should have to work is an old way of thinking. If they don't want to work to earn more money, they shouldn't have to. We are about to enter an age of automation. All physical labor will be done for us, by robotics. There's nothing wrong if someone wants to live their entire life without working. We are beginning to get the technology required for human labor to no longer be a necessity.

True, there is nothing wrong if someone wants to live their entire life without working, so long as nobody else is forced to pick up the slack, bail them out, or prop up their lifestyle.

+Enida Bonghit That falls back to what I said before, "We are about to enter an age of automation. All physical labor will be done for us, by robotics." Currently it's not really possible, but in anywhere from 10-30 years it will be.

+name I do not believe this will ever occur. Economies are more resilient than most people realize. We can not observe the unseen because there are too many variables.

Rightfully so. Isn't that the definition of freedom. Free to fly free to fail free to freeze etc.

Means-tested welfare is what Andrew Yang seeks to slowly siphon from, because it is an enormous, inefficient mechanism that most who need it can't use. Things like SS, SS disability, and unemployment/veterans benefits are okay though because they are contribution based - practically insurance.

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.

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.

Simone The Swedish state is almost bankruptcy. The Norwegian would be too if it wasn't for oil. question is who going to pay for all the non working?

Kjetil Factually wrong. Our economy is one of the strongest in Europe, and our state finances are healthy and well within limits in terms of dept/GDP. You should probably check your sources.

"who going to pay for all the non working" Probably the working. Like is already done. UBI studies have shown no significant increases in unemployment. Why? Because people still want to buy a 50 inch TV, the new Galaxy phone, etc. They want luxuries. UBI doesn't give you luxuries, it gives you the peace of mind that if you work in a specialized field and all of a sudden that field is gone, you can still pay your necessary bills like housing, food, electricity, etc. while you train up for a new job. If you're a mother making $12/hr and want to get a 2-year degree so you can earn more and work in a field you're passionate about, you can still keep food in the belly of your 8 year old, rather than flipping burgers for the rest of your life. UBI isn't a free ride to Las Vegas. It's a guarantee that you and your neighbors won't die if you don't/can't work for a while or ever again. We do more for our prison population than we do for our law-abiding citizens, and I'm pretty sure we're on the right track with the prisons so that leaves us free-folk on the high and dry.

Billionaires and Millionaires have enough money to pay for the non-working and then some. Every body needs to pay their fair share in taxes so that we can share the wealth and not hog it all for a select few rich people. The class system of upper class, middle class, and lower class has to be destroyed because it has turned out to be a caste system.

Sweden will slowly decay into a 3rd world country, give it another decade. Considering that your debt/gdp still increased despite having tax rate close to 80% shows that its not sustainable. Even worse Sweden has welcomed millions of "refugees" who only takes and not contribute. To make matters even worse, Sweden is slowly turning into a totalitarian society of extremist political correctness.