Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Some VERY interesting ideas coming out of this guy’s camp.

Anyone heard of him?

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/4/17/18408685/andrew-yang-2020-president-democrat-candidate-policies-universal-basic-income-reddit-twitter

Andrew Yang is the candidate for the end of the world

He’s a fringe presidential hopeful who thinks automation is the country’s greatest threat — and the answer is to give every American human $1,000 a month

 

Since we’ve been talking automation/AI developments impacting economics and society...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah. My friends and I are very politically attuned. He's puts his priorities as:

1. Deal with inequality

2. The environment

3. Resolving the deadlocked American political system. 

Seems to be fairly sensible when he speaks. Has a massive meme following along the lines of #yanggang.

Hope he wins the presidency but it's America so no chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's definitely a welcome contribution to the political debate. Has he been clear on how he would reform benefits though? Sceptics from the Left seem to think his plan is to remove other benefits and replace them with $1,000 per month. Some UBI proponents think it should replace other programmes and others think it should be in addition to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His policies are very mundane with little substance and naively assume that work is only about pay. There are plenty of jobs just not ones people want to do. An ageing population will comfortably provide work for all these people. Far better to say if your job is automated you get a universal income to be a care worker/nurse/teacher, or find a job on your own.

Trump's anti immigration policies would be far better at mitigating any possible AI automation job issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Killian said:

His policies are very mundane with little substance and naively assume that work is only about pay.

I'm not sure this is true. I think he - and other UBI advocates - thinks that jobs are important for giving people purpose, so people who can't find work will still have problems if they have a sufficient income. But having a sufficient income helps.

13 minutes ago, Killian said:

There are plenty of jobs just not ones people want to do.

There are plenty of jobs now, but a significant proportion of them are capable of being automated. Some are already being automated (like retail, some services, administration) and will continue to decline. Others are likely to fall suddenly if a certain level of innovation is achieved (notably diverless vehicles). The problem is that a large proportion of jobs which are unskilled, or require limited intelligence will disappear. Let's say in theory millions of opportunities could exist for the millions who lose their jobs in trucking, warehousing, retail and fast food. But if these jobs require a level of intelligence or skills which they do not possess, they will remain unemployed.

43 minutes ago, Killian said:

An ageing population will comfortably provide work for all these people. Far better to say if your job is automated you get a universal income to be a care worker/nurse/teacher, or find a job on your own.

I'm not sure why we would need more teachers. I'm sceptical of automating them, but think if anything we could probably get by with fewer - teachers are important, especially for young children who need guidance, but for more mature children a lot can be learned with direct contact with teachers. Maybe fewer classes will be required as children learn from instructional videos first and can have follow-up sessions with teachers if required.

I think Japan is already making strides in automating some care worker functions.

27 minutes ago, Killian said:

Trump's anti immigration policies would be far better at mitigating any possible AI automation job issue.

There is one very easy way to drastically reduce the hiring of illegal immigrants: make employers responsible for hiring legal immigrants. If employers faced long jail terms and very high fines for employing illegal immigrants, it simply wouldn't be worth the risk. They would terminate them and millions would return to Mexico. Why do you think Trump and other prominent anti-immigrant politicians don't advocate this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that they should target the employers, I always wondered why it was never implemented. As you allude to, most probably because Trump and co. want the people's votes but are in the pay of big business and they know the electorate don't want to do those jobs. An anti immigration policy without changes to the benefit system is basically meaningless.

Teaching is much broader than that just for children and lifelong and adult teaching is where I see a lot of growth. As someone who has experienced the full spectrum of learning modalities I think nothing compares to small group face to face teaching with enthusiastic, insightful teachers. I think there are many opportunities here.

In regards to automating care, it has been mentioned before that Japan are automating this but I have seen no evidence and can't see how it would work. The fact a society would try to automate care functions, where people are vulnerable and in need is an indication that the society has much greater issues than the the automation of jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Killian said:

I agree that they should target the employers, I always wondered why it was never implemented. As you allude to, most probably because Trump and co. want the people's votes but are in the pay of big business and they know the electorate don't want to do those jobs.

The popularity of anti-immigration movements amongst the unemployed, and unskilled and poorly paid is due in large part because they do want to do jobs done by immigrants. I'm not sure what proportion of the jobs done by immigrants, but I expect it's significant.

 

13 hours ago, Killian said:

An anti immigration policy without changes to the benefit system is basically meaningless.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything. Can illegal immigrants get benefits?

13 hours ago, Killian said:

Teaching is much broader than that just for children and lifelong and adult teaching is where I see a lot of growth. As someone who has experienced the full spectrum of learning modalities I think nothing compares to small group face to face teaching with enthusiastic, insightful teachers. I think there are many opportunities here.

Do you think truck drivers, workers in retailing, warehouses and fast food will be able to teach? I think most won't. Maybe you believe everyone has the same potential, but I think at the very least a large minority of people working in these areas will struggle to move into the new areas.

13 hours ago, Killian said:

In regards to automating care, it has been mentioned before that Japan are automating this but I have seen no evidence and can't see how it would work. The fact a society would try to automate care functions, where people are vulnerable and in need is an indication that the society has much greater issues than the the automation of jobs.

I think it just means automating some of the functions. I remember watching an interview with John Zerzan on youtube where he mentions a machine which washes someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washing someone is much more than just the physical process. It is another opportunity for human contact, it is also an opportunity to look for ulcers and signs of infection amongst others.

I don't believe everyone has the same potential but I do believe most people are capable of much more and have something that they are passionate and knowledgeable about which they ciukd teach.

An immigration policy needs to be combined with benefit reforms because if you reduce immigrantion a number of jobs will go unfilled but only because people receive benefits for doing nothing. Higher benefits for those genuinely incapable of work and none for the lazy will sort this.

I would recommend some time in the health care industry, the majority of the lower undesirable jobs are being done by immigrants. Without them it would collapse. A number of these jobs are not desirable at all and the natives do not want to do them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/04/2019 at 00:21, Kosmin said:

There is one very easy way to drastically reduce the hiring of illegal immigrants: make employers responsible for hiring legal immigrants. If employers faced long jail terms and very high fines for employing illegal immigrants, it simply wouldn't be worth the risk. They would terminate them and millions would return to Mexico. Why do you think Trump and other prominent anti-immigrant politicians don't advocate this?

We'll never know. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jsvine/trump-winery-seeks-to-hire-more-foreign-guest-workers

Quote

 

Trump Winery, also known as Trump Vineyard Estates, LLC, is seeking the workers under the federal H-2 visa program, which permits US employers to hire foreign laborers under temporary work visas as long as no qualified US workers want the jobs. The work on the 1,300-acre estate, which would pay $11.46 an hour, is to start in February and could run through late July.

The posting Thursday did not describe working conditions, but in the past, foreign workers at the winery have been warned they would have to labor outside in weather as cold as 10 degrees while “on their feet in bent positions for long periods of time.”

Since 2003, more than 100,000 foreigners have been brought into the country under the H-2 program each year.

Among the other Trump properties that have requested H-2 workers is Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. On Thursday, the New York Times reported that at least two housekeepers who worked at that club were undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally.

A 2015 BuzzFeed News investigation found that the H-2 program was rife with abuse. Trump companies have not been accused of mistreating H-2 workers, but in a range of industries they have been exploited, beaten, or raped. BuzzFeed News also found that many Americans were denied jobs in favor of guest workers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, APerson said:

Unironic #YangGanger checking in.

Secure the bag.

Having read a few articles about him now I feel entitled to reply, 'Math.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Killian said:

An immigration policy needs to be combined with benefit reforms because if you reduce immigrantion a number of jobs will go unfilled but only because people receive benefits for doing nothing. Higher benefits for those genuinely incapable of work and none for the lazy will sort this.

A market can solve this. If nobody wants to pick fruit, then no fruit will be picked and nobody will eat fruit. Maybe it has to be twice as expensive in order to cover the cost of native people not wanting to do it.

You seem to have a very optimistic opinion on people's ability to teach, but a very low opinion of people's tendency to choose welfare over jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, APerson said:

Memes aside, hearing a non-geriatric candidate capable of calm, reasoned debate without resorting to puce-faced hysteria is a blessed relief. Long may his attempt continue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kosmin said:

A market can solve this. If nobody wants to pick fruit, then no fruit will be picked and nobody will eat fruit. Maybe it has to be twice as expensive in order to cover the cost of native people not wanting to do it.

You seem to have a very optimistic opinion on people's ability to teach, but a very low opinion of people's tendency to choose welfare over jobs.

That assumes market forces apply to that sector. Fruit = care in this case and you can't just not care for patients. I am not sure where the government is going to find money to pay these higher salaries.

Try working in some of the worst roles an HCA can have, let me know how much you enjoyed it and whether you would prefer to do nothing for your money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Killian said:

That assumes market forces apply to that sector. Fruit = care in this case and you can't just not care for patients. I am not sure where the government is going to find money to pay these higher salaries.

Try working in some of the worst roles an HCA can have, let me know how much you enjoyed it and whether you would prefer to do nothing for your money

Offering people the choice of doing nothing for money instead of a job is choosing not to allow markets to operate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kosmin said:

A market can solve this. If nobody wants to pick fruit, then no fruit will be picked and nobody will eat fruit. Maybe it has to be twice as expensive in order to cover the cost of native people not wanting to do it.

You seem to have a very optimistic opinion on people's ability to teach, but a very low opinion of people's tendency to choose welfare over jobs.

But at that "price" level (eg: low(er) salary) there is no (or seriously curtailed) labour supply because similar levels of income can be obtained through state support with no personal effort required.

It's not that the price of fruit needs to be twice as high (not for this reason anyway) ... it is that the labour supply for local nationals is constrained.

I don't want to pick fruit for a living. I am lucky/have worked hard enough/was born into the right socio-economic space to enable a white collar job ... but if my only choice was to toil in the sun every day OR claim benefits ... as much as I might pretend to have a backbone ... I am pretty sure i know which I would choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

But at that "price" level (eg: low(er) salary) there is no (or seriously curtailed) labour supply because similar levels of income can be obtained through state support with no personal effort required.

It's not that the price of fruit needs to be twice as high (not for this reason anyway) ... it is that the labour supply for local nationals is constrained.

I don't want to pick fruit for a living. I am lucky/have worked hard enough/was born into the right socio-economic space to enable a white collar job ... but if my only choice was to toil in the sun every day OR claim benefits ... as much as I might pretend to have a backbone ... I am pretty sure i know which I would choose.

People do a lot less pleasant things than pick fruit for about the same money. I don't think it will ever happen and I don't advocate it, but if all immigrants left, firstly I think markets would handle fruit picking. If it was actually impossible to hire fruit pickers, I suspect benefits might be reformed to incentivise people to take such jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Offering people the choice of doing nothing for money instead of a job is choosing not to allow markets to operate!

Exactly. That is why a reform of immigration is unworkable without a change to welfare. Which is what I stated earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kosmin said:

If it was actually impossible to hire fruit pickers, I suspect benefits might be reformed to incentivise people to take such jobs.

You mean if immigration (labour supply) was reduced there might need to be a benefit reform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Killian said:

You mean if immigration (labour supply) was reduced there might need to be a benefit reform?

Yes, there might need to be, but I think it's very unlikely. You seem to be arguing that there would definitely need to be. First of all, as I've said the operation of the price system might lead to high enough wage increases to entice people to do "unpleasant" jobs.

There are at least a couple of other points worth noting.

I don't have experience of unemployment benefits, but I didn't think it was necessarily particularly easy to obtain and keep benefits. I've read about cases of people facing benefit sanctions for seemingly very little. I imagine the system is applied inconsistently, so experience might depend on the particular bureaucrats involved. Are people allowed to just turn down work? I thought you had to actually seek a job to get jobseekers allowance, so if there were legitimately a lot of vacancies, I don't think people could en masse just decide not to do these jobs.

Also I think there are restrictions on the benefits you can receive if you have savings. This might not affect the typical prospective benefit receiver, but perhaps during a recession there will be quite a few middle class people who lose their jobs. They can't receive benefits without running down their savings, so they'd probably take a low paying job instead.

Also culture is important. It would have been unthinkable in the early days of the welfare state that anyone would choose to take benefits if a job was available, or so I'm told. I'm not sure when this changed. It may be possible to change cultural attitudes back. And it's worth noting that people are generally happier when working. People need an occupation. That can be looking after children or it can be some self-directed project, but most people feel best about themselves when they have a job. The non-monetary benefits of working will usually mean that even those in a poverty trap (e.g. receive £50 per day not to work or £40 per day to work) would be better off working. A routine, meeting more people, being active mentally and physically, dealing with challenges, feeling useful are worth much more.

But in an extreme scenario where millions of immigrants left and millions of British people just decided that they would not do these jobs, I think there would likely be a political consensus to effectively force these people to work, either using carrots (higher pay) or stick (low or no benefits for those who refused to work).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kosmin said:

But in an extreme scenario where millions of immigrants left and millions of British people just decided that they would not do these jobs, I think there would likely be a political consensus to effectively force these people to work, either using carrots (higher pay) or stick (low or no benefits for those who refused to work).

Strong arguments in there. Made me think. Thanks!

Though perhaps I am just too cynical. I think it might be that in this scenario - the politicos might just find it easier to get voted back in by maintaining the status quo (that is: do nothing to either the carrot(s) or stick(s)) because the voter fallout of endless MSM articles about the "hardship" of people who's benefits are delayed or cut.

Two significant asides to my view:

i) I have a very good friend who is an upstanding contributor to society at every available opportunity but is on disability benefits and gets hammered every time she tries to do anything that has any form of remuneration AND has been hit hard by reforms in benefits many times over the years

ii) I was born in a state/nation that has no such "safety net" support - and so, yes, I have seen real suffering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/04/2019 at 10:30, Killian said:

Washing someone is much more than just the physical process. It is another opportunity for human contact, it is also an opportunity to look for ulcers and signs of infection amongst others.

I don't believe everyone has the same potential but I do believe most people are capable of much more and have something that they are passionate and knowledgeable about which they ciukd teach.

An immigration policy needs to be combined with benefit reforms because if you reduce immigrantion a number of jobs will go unfilled but only because people receive benefits for doing nothing. Higher benefits for those genuinely incapable of work and none for the lazy will sort this.

I would recommend some time in the health care industry, the majority of the lower undesirable jobs are being done by immigrants. Without them it would collapse. A number of these jobs are not desirable at all and the natives do not want to do them.

They are not desirable because they are not valued monetarily or looked upon as a job a person would aspire to do by others......we need to change how we think/judge what we see as a low valued job such as caring, against a so called high valued job such as gambling, fee capturing, making from the conflicts and disagreements of others etc.

Maybe we will go back to a past when people provided food and shelter in exchange for people to work and care for them, servants..... where the weak, addicted and homeless will have to rely on family, friends and charity.......can see it already with the cutting and doing away with social services people used to rely on to help them......;)

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 296 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.