What do you think of andrew yang?

Since no one will post a video, I'll post one I found.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/937392/Andrew-Yang-and-the----Freedom-Dividend-----Universal-Basic-Income-

T.L.Since no one will post a video, I'll post one I found.
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/937392/Andrew-Yang-and-the----Freedom-Dividend-----Universal-Basic-Income-

this videos actual trash imo. very poorly researched and very surface level arguments. im just going to skip the part where he discredits yang's research because honestly who cares? it has nothing to with policy whatsoever; it is simply an opener to a speech. in his first argument he attacks yang's claim that we are losing manufacturing jobs to automation. to attack his argument he only mentions that we are also losing manufacturing jobs to other things as well. he doesn't deny that we are losing manufacturing jobs, and he doesn't give any other solution to the problem. he also claims that automation wont kill any of the jobs yang lists, but he only attacks truck driving by using a statement from a .org site. he has a clip where andrew yang is giving an example of retraining truck drivers to be software engineers and how that would not work. in the video the clip is completely out of context and its used to make yang look bad. if you go to the actual joe rogan interview you can see the full length of the clip and what he is actually talking about. he also uses this statement as an argument "Very few occupations -- less than 5% -- consist entirely of activities that can be fully automated." this statement still means that jobs are going to be automated and americans will lose their jobs. it doesn't even argue his point. he also uses "However, in about 60 percent of occupations, at least one third of the activities could be automated, implying substantial workplace transformations and changes for all workers". he is trying to say that this statement means that 1/3 of jobs could be "enhanced" by automation "potentially". this statement never says that. he is trying to bend the truth of the statement. throughout the video he uses statement that mean something else that he says in the video. he uses a headline from a wall street journal article that came out in 2018 to try and say that iowa doesn't need more jobs. which it does. also, his argument is only attacking iowa out of many other states effected by automation. he also says that giving people $1000 dollars a month doesn't create jobs, but doesn't elaborate on that point any further, or attack any of yangs points. he just moves on. he says that the 10% value added tax that companies will have to pay will be paid for entirely by the consumer, which is literally impossible. he uses clips from the joe rogan interview that are completely out of context as well. yang mentions that "some" of the money will go back to companies, but this dude is trying to say that it means "all" of the money will go back to the companies. he also says that all the ways we would pay for UBI is "not tangible" and goes surface level into what yang says on his site, not attacking any of the main points behind yang's argument. for example, we would save money on incarceration because people would not recieve UBI in jail, which would give people a reason to stay out of jail. in the video however he doesn't mention this argument. he also talks about how most people would save the money given to them. this is not true either. 74% of americans couldn't afford a 500$ emergency bill. most of the money would not be saved. if you were poor why the hell would you save this money? you would spend it on things you need to survive. of course some of the money would be saved, but the money spent would be much more.

TL:DR
this dude talked less than half of yangs argument. he used shitty sources. his arguments are based on statements that don't actually mean what he says they mean. this guy is basically the dude that hears about UBI and thinks it wont work because "inflation bruh" and "it would cost money lol". @T.L. if you believe this video ur fucking stupid to say the least and do some research instead of trusting this retard in the video.

yanggang2020 he will save the world

**This post was edited on Aug 14th 2019 at 12:28:05am

TOAST.Prices won't increase much unless it costs more to make them, which thanks to automation would remain level in many industries. For a lot of goods there is plenty to go around therefore I dont think that demand would pass the supply which would justify price increase. I can however see the price of rent or housing going up especially in urban areas where there is already a shortage.


My only fear is that a UBI might encourage automation and putting people out of work. At the same time though automation will be necessary to compete with other countries. I like the idea of UBI I just dont think it is time yet maybe in 10 or 20 years.

Yang seems to be addressing the future unlike most politicians. If technology continues to improve many more people will be out of work especially low skilled people and I doubt there will be enough new jobs to replace those.

False, when demand rises it will drive supply down, thus increasing prices. I didn't read your post, but it seems pretty simple to me. This isn't worth my time arguing about this with you. Look up price equilibrium and research supply and demand curves if you still disagree.

T.L.Since no one will post a video, I'll post one I found.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/937392/Andrew-Yang-and-the----Freedom-Dividend-----Universal-Basic-Income-

Videos where it's just one person talking without anyone interjecting to argue the other point are the worst videos ever.


https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/937403/Andrew-Yang---The-Ben-Shapiro-Show-Sunday-Special-Ep--45

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/937404/Joe-Rogan-Experience--1245---Andrew-Yang

yungonathis videos actual trash imo. very poorly researched and very surface level arguments. im just going to skip the part where he discredits yang's research because honestly who cares? it has nothing to with policy whatsoever; it is simply an opener to a speech. in his first argument he attacks yang's claim that we are losing manufacturing jobs to automation. to attack his argument he only mentions that we are also losing manufacturing jobs to other things as well. he doesn't deny that we are losing manufacturing jobs, and he doesn't give any other solution to the problem. he also claims that automation wont kill any of the jobs yang lists, but he only attacks truck driving by using a statement from a .org site. he has a clip where andrew yang is giving an example of retraining truck drivers to be software engineers and how that would not work. in the video the clip is completely out of context and its used to make yang look bad. if you go to the actual joe rogan interview you can see the full length of the clip and what he is actually talking about. he also uses this statement as an argument "Very few occupations -- less than 5% -- consist entirely of activities that can be fully automated." this statement still means that jobs are going to be automated and americans will lose their jobs. it doesn't even argue his point. he also uses "However, in about 60 percent of occupations, at least one third of the activities could be automated, implying substantial workplace transformations and changes for all workers". he is trying to say that this statement means that 1/3 of jobs could be "enhanced" by automation "potentially". this statement never says that. he is trying to bend the truth of the statement. throughout the video he uses statement that mean something else that he says in the video. he uses a headline from a wall street journal article that came out in 2018 to try and say that iowa doesn't need more jobs. which it does. also, his argument is only attacking iowa out of many other states effected by automation. he also says that giving people $1000 dollars a month doesn't create jobs, but doesn't elaborate on that point any further, or attack any of yangs points. he just moves on. he says that the 10% value added tax that companies will have to pay will be paid for entirely by the consumer, which is literally impossible. he uses clips from the joe rogan interview that are completely out of context as well. yang mentions that "some" of the money will go back to companies, but this dude is trying to say that it means "all" of the money will go back to the companies. he also says that all the ways we would pay for UBI is "not tangible" and goes surface level into what yang says on his site, not attacking any of the main points behind yang's argument. for example, we would save money on incarceration because people would not recieve UBI in jail, which would give people a reason to stay out of jail. in the video however he doesn't mention this argument. he also talks about how most people would save the money given to them. this is not true either. 74% of americans couldn't afford a 500$ emergency bill. most of the money would not be saved. if you were poor why the hell would you save this money? you would spend it on things you need to survive. of course some of the money would be saved, but the money spent would be much more.

TL:DR
this dude talked less than half of yangs argument. he used shitty sources. his arguments are based on statements that don't actually mean what he says they mean. this guy is basically the dude that hears about UBI and thinks it wont work because "inflation bruh" and "it would cost money lol". @T.L. if you believe this video ur fucking stupid to say the least and do some research instead of trusting this retard in the video.

yanggang2020 he will save the world

**This post was edited on Aug 14th 2019 at 12:28:05am

Thanks for the tldr, skipped the rest since you don't seem to know about sentence structure, paragraphs, or basic punctuation.

If you believe Andrew Yang is going to save the world, you have the intellect of a walnut.

I'm liking him more and more. Think he'll be concerned for everyone's interest not just the rich and not a egotistical, corrupt, bonehead who costs the taxpayers 500k everytime he goes golfing.200 times since he's been elected? That's a lot of Americans taxes.

Chron_RabbitFalse, when demand rises it will drive supply down, thus increasing prices. I didn't read your post, but it seems pretty simple to me. This isn't worth my time arguing about this with you. Look up price equilibrium and research supply and demand curves if you still disagree.

I didn't know Janet Yellen was on NS

T.L.Thanks for the tldr, skipped the rest since you don't seem to know about sentence structure, paragraphs, or basic punctuation.

If you believe Andrew Yang is going to save the world, you have the intellect of a walnut.

you obviously think what the dumbass in the video says is true. pretty ironic making fun of my intellect when you listen tor retards like this

SnickleFrizI didn't know Janet Yellen was on NS

You must've missed first day of econ class?

Chron_RabbitYou must've missed first day of econ class?

I think I may have.. still got the degree.

SnickleFrizI think I may have.. still got the degree.

C's get degrees baby

Good to see so many bright progressive economists sharing their opinions on NS. I can't believe you guys would take time out of your busy careers to educate the masses!

TRVP_ANGELGood to see so many bright progressive economists sharing their opinions on NS. I can't believe you guys would take time out of your busy careers to educate the masses!

wats a progressive economist

TRVP_ANGELGood to see so many bright progressive economists sharing their opinions on NS. I can't believe you guys would take time out of your busy careers to educate the masses!

finally the retard says somehjbg smart

TRVP_ANGELGood to see so many bright progressive economists sharing their opinions on NS. I can't believe you guys would take time out of your busy careers to educate the masses!

Finally getting my damn respect.

Chron_RabbitFalse, when demand rises it will drive supply down, thus increasing prices. I didn't read your post, but it seems pretty simple to me. This isn't worth my time arguing about this with you. Look up price equilibrium and research supply and demand curves if you still disagree.

If demand increases and supply remains the same, then yes prices will go up. I'm more referring to necessities that most people are already buying therefore the demand will not increase a whole lot and neither will price. Plus it's not like we are at our peak manufacturing limit therefore supply may also increase because of competition and the buyers reluctance to want to spend significantly more on an item then they did in the past.

Say I'm making shirts and I decide to increase the price a ton just because I know people are getting an extra 1000 a month. If my and my competitions manufacturing prices didn't go up when this happened, then somebody else is going to be just fine selling more shirts at the original price.

Like I said in my last post that you didn't read I think that housing/rent would probably encounter problematic increases because there is such a limited supply.

Pretty much our current system is going to end up fucking us all over so why not start having these conversations now to try to find a better way to deal with the future instead of just dismissing people that dont agree with you.

TOAST.If demand increases and supply remains the same, then yes prices will go up. I'm more referring to necessities that most people are already buying therefore the demand will not increase a whole lot and neither will price. Plus it's not like we are at our peak manufacturing limit therefore supply may also increase because of competition and the buyers reluctance to want to spend significantly more on an item then they did in the past.

Say I'm making shirts and I decide to increase the price a ton just because I know people are getting an extra 1000 a month. If my and my competitions manufacturing prices didn't go up when this happened, then somebody else is going to be just fine selling more shirts at the original price.

Like I said in my last post that you didn't read I think that housing/rent would probably encounter problematic increases because there is such a limited supply.

Pretty much our current system is going to end up fucking us all over so why not start having these conversations now to try to find a better way to deal with the future instead of just dismissing people that dont agree with you.

again, I didn't read your post except for the first sentence, so I assume you agreed with me. have a nice day.

Chron_Rabbitagain, I didn't read your post except for the first sentence, so I assume you agreed with me. have a nice day.

dam ur stupid bruh

yungonadam ur stupid bruh

dis