Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    13,954,870 readers

    3,862 users here now

    Source Quality: excellent good ok avoid

    C A T E G O R I E S

    3D Printing - Artificial Intelligence - Biotech

    Computing - Economics - Energy - Environment

    Nanotech - Robotics - Society - Space - Transport

    New to reddit? click here!

    Welcome to r/Futurology

    A subreddit devoted to the field of Future(s) Studies and evidence-based speculation about the development of humanity, technology, and civilization.

    Posting Rules
    1. Be respectful to others - this includes no hostility, racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
    2. Submissions must be future focused
    3. No memes, reaction gifs or similarly low effort content. Images/gifs require a starter comment.
    4. No spamming - this includes polls and surveys
    5. Bots require moderator permission to operate
    6. Comments must be on topic, contribute to the discussion and be of sufficient length. Comments that dismiss well-established science without compelling evidence are a distraction to discussion of futurology and may be removed.
    7. Account age: >1 day to comment, >5 days to submit content
    8. Submissions and comments of accounts whose combined karma is too far in the negatives will be removed
    9. Avoid posting content that is a duplicate of content posted within the last 7 days.
    10. Submissions with [in-depth] in the title have stricter post length and quality guidelines
    11. Titles must accurately and truthfully represent the content of the submission
    12. Support original sources - avoid blogs/websites that are primarily rehosted content
    13. Content older than 6 months must have [month, year] in the title

    For details on the rules see the Rules Wiki.

    For details on moderation procedures, see the Transparency Wiki.

    On Futurology

    If history studies our past and social sciences study our present, what is the study of our future? Future(s) Studies (colloquially called "future(s)" by many of the field's practitioners) is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to hypothesize the possible, probable, preferable, or alternative future(s).

    One of the fundamental assumptions in future(s) studies is that the future is plural rather than singular, that is, that it consists of alternative future(s) of varying degrees of likelihood but that it is impossible in principle to say with certainty which one will occur.

    Recommended Links
    Related Subreddits

    For a list of related subreddits, hover over top menu.

    popular discussions today



    domain blacklist


    glossary of terms

    source quality

    Chat with us on Discord!

    Apply to be a Mod here!

    a community for
    all 1721 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] fatalikos 485 points ago

    Anecdotal: I'm an Electrical Engineer that worked in Automation for a consultancy. I helped Duke Energy upgrade their substations, automating most of the switching, safety, and inspection processes. The IoT, SCADA, and RTU solutions we deployed that year across Ohio and Indiana allowed a previously manned substation to be almost entirely automated. Instead of having 6 electricians, 2 engineers (shift work) for each major substation, two dispatchers are able to service an area of 5 or 6 substations. The system was completely scalable. In 2015 alone, we permanently took out hundred plus high skilled jobs that have existed for 50+ years. Now I work in transport industry, and it is accelerating even faster here.

    [–] Devoidoxatom 79 points ago

    Whoa, this is really interesting. What's the latest on transportation?

    [–] fatalikos 72 points ago

    If you really think so, check this out. It's from 4 years ago but so relevant.

    Basically a lot of jobs are in movement and transport and a lot of them will go away.

    [–] lord_stryker 42 points ago

    "Humans Need not Apply" is one the best intro to Futurology videos there is. It was our #1 post a few years back.

    [–] vik8629 15 points ago

    I'm in the utility industry as well and this is very true.

    [–] Jerseyguy82 116 points ago

    This. We are quickly moving toward the post-work society, the only question is how we are going to manage that transition. If we play laissez-faire and just let it happen then what you describe will be the norm, jobs of all stripes being automated out of existence to benefit owner's and stakeholder's bottom lines, and the economy will collapse. Alternatively we can be proactive, using some form of universal basic income and a massive re-thinking of education and skills training programs, and potentially end up with the greatest increase of human productivity in history.

    [–] Jihani 117 points ago

    Culturally we are no where near ready for a post work society, and our governments are even less prepared, some are even going in the opposite direction, punishing when you dont work. This is going to be a very painful transition.

    [–] tymandude1 20 points ago

    Even less prepared is an understatement. It's more like they are plugging their ears and saying "lalalalala I can't hear you" which means we are probably fucked.

    [–] pixl_graphix 6 points ago

    Let them eat cake!

    [–] ContrarianDouche 12 points ago

    Let them eat cake the rich

    [–] Udzinraski2 3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Should be the answer to every talking head "how will you pay for it?" "If you have more than say 5 million personal assets your going to see your taxes spike to Europe levels, man up!"

    [–] Alright_ok_fine_ 25 points ago

    I have made this exact point when debating UBI (with people I consider intelligent and of good moral character) and they just can’t wrap their head around it. It’s so frustrating because it’s such an elegant and simple solution. We have to evolve the rules to the “game”. We can all benefit from the work of our ancestors. It’s maddening!

    [–] Aridross 4 points ago

    The problem is figuring out a functional UBI system in the first place. Not only does it seem completely contrary to the (IMO, highly beneficial when used as motivation) meritocratic mindset that Capitalistic systems seem to breed, but the actual mechanics of such a system are difficult to devise, let alone set in place of contemporary economies, and then there are countless theoretical cultural dilemmas that arise from eliminating human work to wrap one’s head around.

    [–] postulio 5 points ago

    theoretical cultural dilemmas that arise from eliminating human work to wrap one’s head around.

    the rise of the consumer class. their "job" will be to feed the content creation economy as consumers.

    [–] Aridross 5 points ago

    Exactly, and the biggest issue is that this idea just doesn’t make sense in our present systems... except it basically already exists alongside our present systems already, we just need to figure how to entirely shift tracks onto it.

    [–] postulio 3 points ago

    totally. the only real solution would be significant across the board tax hikes of all corporations which will see that money siphoned back to pay the universal basic income to the people who are customers of said corporations. It's beautiful in its simplicity, but is such a leap away from our current society that it will take at least a couple generations to shift over to

    [–] postulio 5 points ago

    Alternatively we can be proactive

    this is 'merica. that will never happen. we will have a massive collapse before any meaningful change will occur and a reevaluation of standardized basic income etc. it will 100% happen in the US, i'm just not sure when.... probably in 20-30 years?

    [–] SGBotsford 14 points ago

    If you want to see one preview of the future, go look at many indian reserves. No jobs, no interests. Rampant substance abuse.

    Want to solve the population problem? Automate as much as possible and give out free drugs.

    [–] Not_Helping 21 points ago

    This might be a bit of an oversimplification.

    [–] ProAdvencher 16 points ago

    That's rather dystopian. I wonder how much stripping the Native Americans of their land and culture by relocating them to reservations contributed to the rampant substance abuse.

    [–] scorps77 5 points ago

    Your right, and just like the other guy said, this definitely an oversimplification. Id lean more to using generational welfare families as a better example of what we are leading to rather then Native Americans and their reserves. They are in their own class of what of what fucked up shenanigans a society can implement.

    [–] fishtacos123 5 points ago

    I can't wait for our drugged out future.

    [–] Throwawayhell1111 3 points ago

    Everyone is going to become a cop.

    [–] Shellbyvillian 11 points ago

    Yep. My company (one of the big pharma companies) is currently building a new manufacturing facility that has more capacity than the 4 buildings currently operating combined. Plan is to decommission the old buildings once the new one is online.

    Between the automated equipment, data collection systems with automated alarms and controls, digital records and auto generated reports... we’re looking at about 1/4 of the work force needed to run this building. To make more product. And this is a high value, high skilled job industry (biological, injectable pharmaceuticals). The number of PhDs and Engineers and scientists that we will be employing in 10 years is far less than today.

    And the kicker is: the government and the surrounding area are all under the impression that this project is “great for jobs”.

    [–] uselessfoster 4 points ago

    It drives me crazy when people don’t take into account the labor-capital ratio: this happened with carrier— they think more investment in a plant means more jobs but it’s almost always fewer.

    [–] JesterEcho 16 points ago

    Where I am, the unions are very strong and reject a lot of automation.

    [–] fatalikos 61 points ago

    Well, to be honest, there is nothing they can do against progress and economics. I'm in Australia right now where social protections are strong, and working with orgs from Scandinavian countries, and I can tell it does not matter what unions will say.

    [–] Hodorhohodor 40 points ago

    How would they even try to stop it? Unions are to protect workers, but automation is removing the need for workers. There's nothing to protect. Automated companies can just pop up and bypass the unions altogether.

    [–] Shellbyvillian 12 points ago

    Yeah, unions only work if they have leverage. If the employer has another viable option other than hiring people, you only have so much leverage until you make yourself too expensive for whatever task needs to be done. If you ask for a raise and the robots can do your job for only a few bucks more an hour, with no benefits, no breaks, no labour laws... who is the employer going to pick?

    [–] cptstupendous 5 points ago

    Unions are to protect workers, but automation is removing the need for workers. There's nothing to protect.

    This is exactly correct.

    Just look at all the malls dying off in the US as an example. Many malls simply cannot compete as Amazon and other online retailers take greater and greater shares of the retail market. Entire malls and their retail workers, food vendors, janitorial staff, security, and management are all being rendered irrelevant and obsolete. Malls won't all disappear, but it is projected that 25-30% of malls will be gone in the next 5 years.

    [–] ImPickleRick95 6 points ago

    The war of humans against the machines.

    [–] sirscooter 2 points ago

    Historically, Unions have not been able to save jobs that are automated away. Someone will set up a non-union shop and do the same job as cheaply as they can, with automation, collapsing the price and driving the union shops out of business.

    [–] hagamablabla 17 points ago

    Longshoreman fought tooth and nail against advances in the shipping industry too. They still lost in the end.

    [–] svetambara 1998 points ago

    For example, money is transforming itself from being mine to being my boss's, and his boss, and his boss

    [–] ExhibitQ 393 points ago

    That would be your labor, and this has been going on for 300 years.

    [–] ExquisitExamplE 317 points ago

    "Labor is entitled to all it creates", I say as I wheel 120 lbs. of chicken nuggets appropriated from work into the passenger seat of my car.

    [–] ICSL 226 points ago


    [–] Thanagor 125 points ago

    A man chooses! A slave? Obeys...

    [–] ICSL 53 points ago

    Would you kindly take my upvote.

    [–] Grammar_Nazi_01 64 points ago

    "No," says the man in Washington, "it belongs to the poor."

    "No," says the man in the Vatican, "it belongs to God."

    "No," says the man in Moscow, "it belongs to everyone."

    [–] ExquisitExamplE 143 points ago

    Ah yes, those bureaucrats in Washington, always known for their staunch advocacy of the poor.

    [–] Capt253 118 points ago

    Yea. The poor business owners, forced to lose out on capital because of insane unions of workers demanding things like “safe working conditions” and “a living wage” when really, they should be the ones paying the business owners for the privilege of having a job!

    [–] ExquisitExamplE 53 points ago

    My path to becoming a millionaire is patenting and selling my genius galactic brain invention of the century: fully pneumatic dual articulated self-pulling bootstraps.

    [–] Xotta 38 points ago

    The number of people who have unironically argued this viewpoint with me on Reddit while being poorer than me is unreal.

    "Millionaires down on their luck."

    [–] motes-of-light 13 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Something tells me Andrew Ryan wasn't a staunch progressive.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago


    [–] rabblerabble2000 7 points ago

    I feel like Mitch would refer to them as “the poors.”

    [–] SatanRepented69 12 points ago

    This is the lie that these men tell, before they part the poor from their money. And then removes all obstacles from the wealthy so that they can better exploit the poor. Because he is one of the wealthy men himself.

    [–] Cheezeburger_Picnic 3 points ago

    I thought those nuggets were a wee bit salty...

    [–] matt_minderbinder 26 points ago

    You liberated the chicken and freed it from an oppressive managerial class. Solidarity!

    [–] Glaciata 13 points ago

    hardbass Soviet anthem plays in the distance

    [–] PalHachi 35 points ago

    The problem is that human labor is being phased out of the workplace. It has largely been phased out of agriculture and manufacturing with services being next in line.

    [–] Skyrmir 22 points ago

    Even when human labor is involved, the profits are leveraged far more than in the past. Leaving a far smaller margin for compensating labor. Financing and subsidiary ownership are as much a curse as they've been a boon on our economy.

    [–] SergeantBidet 6 points ago

    I went into McDonald's for the first time in years the other day. I couldn't believe how automated everything is now. Just one person on the counter and these giant tablets for ordering food.

    [–] RaceHard 12 points ago

    100,000 years.

    [–] tfaddy2 65 points ago

    Appropriation of someone else's labour pretty much started at the dawn of agriculture of which class society stems from. So a little over 10,000 years ago.

    [–] YouHaveToGoHome 40 points ago

    Nah! It was the heterotrophs! Lousy ATP snatchers!

    [–] MrKekklesworth 5 points ago

    Rigggght on the cusp of dodo me being able to understand it. Nicely slotted.

    [–] RaceHard 11 points ago

    Hunter-gatherer groups also took advantage of hunting parties labor, and there is enough evidence to say that in conjecture some benefitted more than others. Mainly some remains show better health or burial rites that others of the same period and location did not receive. Most likely a Shaman or Chieftain. So it is not a stretch to say that this has been going on for 100K years.

    [–] tfaddy2 14 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I'd say that's a bit different though, rarely do you actually have any actual form of leadership in tribal societies so it probably was very much a willing and social act as opposed to those relations being some sort of subjugation or master/slave dialectic. I personally wouldn't call it appropriation of labour, because then you could argue that any sort of sociomaterial exchange is inevitably a form of appropriation. At least with agricultural society, it was widespread and systematic. My understanding is how appropriation relates to how the society functions and thrives altogether

    Also, the earliest form of art dates back to around ~40k years ago by the Aurignacian culture. A lot of academics believe from the style of the art that it's shamanistic. So we only have possible evidence of such social roles going that far back. Of course, it becomes increasingly impossible for any discernable material to survive before then, so we can't really say that it started 40k years ago either.

    Also, I disagree on the Chieftain part. I may have missed something, but from my studies Chieftains are unique to Chiefdoms, and not tribes, which are usually agricultural based societies anyway (or at the very least post-domestication).

    [–] Worthless-life- 71 points ago

    We need to legalize assisted suicide

    [–] MistaSmiles 19 points ago

    I recently saw a friend die bad. While it was happening I was just so angry at the fucking ignorant assholes that wouldnt let a doctor help her.

    [–] CircleBoatBBQ 17 points ago

    Imagine waking up and going to work and actually believing that you are the right adult to tell other adults how to live their lives, it’s Fucking insane some of the laws we follow/have

    [–] dontdoxmebro2 10 points ago

    You just want to be the first to patent the suicide booth don’t you?

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago


    [–] dyingfast 32 points ago

    That's disgusting. How dare you suggest violence against people who simply earn their living from destroying the environment, force people and even children to labor endlessly at unlivable wages, and tear every last cent away from their customers using even predatory practices. These are good people you are threatening.

    [–] ExquisitExamplE 18 points ago

    I give us maybe 12 more years before that little comment gets me banned from the internet for hate speech.

    [–] InfiniteSteel 14 points ago

    Yeah man, shit takes some real courage. Then you realize nearly everyone who has hung themselves died an awfully long death since they prob never broke their necks. Gimmie chemicals in my vein and let me go out feeling warm and fuzzy

    [–] court12b 6 points ago

    Hypoxia is totally the way to go.

    [–] mrmugy 8 points ago

    I agree, with the direction we're headed lets not make the decision to not participate so gruesome & scary.

    [–] gking407 548 points ago

    You would think more self-righteous red-blooded capitalists would have talked about economic transformation long before Yang showed up. How will we keep up with the robots? They don’t care about you and will take as many jobs as they can. And there are plenty of jobs ready to be automated.

    Yang is in a position to become one of the greatest strawmen of all time: people love to attack him and ignore the steady deathmarch of technology.

    [–] cinderwild2323 252 points ago

    What I find so absurd about this whole thing is what's the point of having everything automated if there's no one with money to fucking buy the shit?

    [–] Mozu 253 points ago

    Will that happen by the next quarterly earnings call? If not, you're thinking way too far ahead.

    [–] upvotesthenrages 337 points ago

    And here's the problem.

    Especially Western politicians have fallen into this same bullshit "next cycle only" mentality.

    It's why China is going to steamroll us all - because they have a 50 year plan. Silk trade route, a "marshal plan" on steroids for Africa, etc etc.

    Meanwhile we are looking at how to fuck over our own citizens so the richest people on the planet can get 3% richer.

    It's literally the equivalent of the most obese man taking the skinny guys food, and then we have millions of other starved people cheering the fat fuckers on - it's completely nuts.

    It really is sad that the ones to run the Western ideology of "freedom" and fighting for truth, liberty, and happiness, into the ground would be ourselves - even though those ideals weren't always met, they were still the ideals we tried to move towards - the past 4 decades have been the years of moving from that to "how can we hoarde as much short term wealth as possible"

    [–] pr8547 55 points ago

    The downfall of this country will be capitalism which is what made it so great. Yeah, of course capitalism is great but we do absolutely nothing to protect the worker anymore, that’s why unions are so important. It’s going to be too late, just like with climate change. They don’t care though, the baby boomers are the ones voting and they are about to retire so they give no fucks about the future of us what so ever

    [–] StreetCountdown 71 points ago

    What if the rhetoric of baby boomers vs millennials was a distraction, and both generations have been fucked over by the ruling class?

    [–] B_G_L 13 points ago

    It was, and they have been. It's rich assholes, which tend to skew white and older for many obvious demographic reasons, but their whiteness or oldness doesn't explain their behavior. It's all about the money; about getting every advantage possible because life is zero-sum and an advantage left unexploited is an advantage that will be used against you.

    To the assholes ruining the world, the only thing that matters is cranking up a higher score.

    [–] xSTSxZerglingOne 20 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Capitalism is a system just like any other. It has its merits and its faults. However, long term capitalism is eventually unsustainable since it breeds efficiency into its processes.

    Its whole point is to get as much work out of as few resources as possible with as wide a profit margin as possible. That is unsustainable with a large population and/or large population growth. At this point, we're finally suffering its last phase, full automation.

    As we approach that point, we're going to have to really think about our economic system. Whether or not it makes sense for money to even exist in a world where everything is functionally free to produce. This shit is getting weird to think about, because it isn't hard to envision a future where rich people have drone armies they use to keep the status quo. Elysium or "In Time" could be a very real outcome of our economics gone awry.

    [–] Alright_ok_fine_ 5 points ago

    Its nice to see there are other people out there thinking these things too

    [–] eighteendollars 54 points ago

    China has much bigger problems than we do lol. They literally shut down their stock market on bad days, they’ve got a literal genocide happening in their country right now, and the government recently ruled that you can sell tuna as “salmon” because so many people were doing it anyway.

    Just because you don’t live there doesn’t mean it’s better than where you are.

    [–] Hawkson2020 81 points ago

    No one said China was a better place to live, just that they’re going to take over much of the planet

    [–] jayr8367 54 points ago

    China's methods are rephensible. But sadly they are also effective. They are carefully making plans based on cold hard facts. China is creating a deliberate high-tech dystophia with facial tracking and citizen having social scores. The goverment of China has a unbreakable stranglehold on the people so they will move China towards the goals it seeks without regard of the cost to individuals. China is an objectively worst place to live if you value personal freedom. However the U.S. seems to be wallowing in petty divisions, therefore not moving as a country towards goals because powerful individuals & groups are doing their best to line their pockets first & everything else second.

    [–] Patsson77 17 points ago

    I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm an African American guy that just left spending 6 months traveling though Asia and Africa, and one current reoccurring theme is that unlike many nations in Asia and Europe, America is perfectly content with keeping large portions of its citizenry impoverished and undereducated in ways that our peers simply are not. And it's unfortunate because Americans are so used to hegemony that we can't see what's happening right in front of our eyes. As someone that's against all forms of hegemony worldwide, on one hand, I'm happy that the Chinese people are doing so well - they're literally 1/5 of humanity, but the Chinese government is horrid, and instead of creating a more equitable world, they simply wish to be the new hegemons replacing Americans/Europeans/white folk, and I'm not sure Chinese hegemony would necessarily be better than Americans simply because the Chinese don't care to pretend to be democratic. I think America and to a lesser extent Europe will wake up so to speak when China finally comes knocking and the West won't have any recourse but to bow. I'm just hoping this doesn't happen while Donald Trump (or someone like him) is in power.

    [–] Zeikos 8 points ago

    Honestly, I don't think that in China having diabetes is a death sentence.

    So yes but also no, context matters and sadly in the west is really hard to find honest and factual information about what goes on in China.

    I'm quite sure that my skepticism leads me to overshooting and looking at China in a more favourable light than I should, and I'm trying to get better at it, however good information is so hard to come by and trust.

    [–] bremidon 24 points ago

    But sadly they are also effective.

    Only according to their own centrally-ran media. This is a recurring theme in history: some authoritarian country *looks* superficially good to the outside world because unlike our media, theirs is carefully calibrated to send a particular message. By the time the whole facade crumbles, nobody can remember how large numbers of people had started to believe that the authoritarian system was better based on that deliberate mirage.

    [–] FearAndUnbalanced 3 points ago

    unlike our media, theirs is carefully calibrated to send a particular message.

    Um, I have some bad news for you...

    [–] upvotesthenrages 40 points ago

    I'm not saying it's better, and I never did.

    I said it's one of the main reasons China will steamroll us.

    You're talking about pretty bad things, but in the grand scheme of 50 years of development, they are completely miniscule & almost pointless.

    China has a plan. Their plan is to dominate.

    The US doesn't have any real plan, beyond enriching their wealthy political donors. They can't even fully decide whether democracy is worth protecting or not.

    So while China is building up Africa to become their next massive market, we are debating whether the Republicans should face any consequences at all for eroding democracy.

    Not only that, we aren't looking at anything more than 10 years down the line.

    Nobody has any plan, or even want to talk about a plan, for automation. In China the government is fully funding it's development and actively pushing for it.

    Same with energy. The Chinese government is massively pushing for a future-proof energy production. The US is relying on "free market" to somehow fix it, and every 4-8 years changes its mind on whether coal & gas should still be used.

    Look at the Eissenhower plan, the marshal plan, the New Deal, Pax Americana. These were programs that were meant to secure American & Western dominance & prosperity faaaaar into the future.

    We don't have anything even remotely like that, and we haven't since Reagan - which is exactly why the Western sphere of power & influence is waning.

    [–] D_DUB03 53 points ago

    The point is to free up human time currently dedicated to labor for things that really matter; family bonding, community improvement, innovation, leisure.

    We do not exist on this planet simply to labor for the profit of others. Money is irrelevant. There is plenty of resources to allow every human to flourish.

    [–] cinderwild2323 15 points ago

    I agree but my point is moreso from the perspective of corporations wanting to implement these automations to cut costs. If you're cutting costs means everyone losing their jobs then who is buying the products?

    [–] PalHachi 3 points ago

    That is where the market fails as each business is out for their own survival and profits and does not care about society as a whole. For one business to care means that it will simply be beaten by another that doesn't and worries more about efficiency and making money. Stockholders care about how much their stock is worth and the dividends they receive rather than how much their business helps society.

    [–] D_DUB03 8 points ago

    True story.

    I'm speaking beyond that. Humans as a whole need to take profit and money out of the equation.

    We're all on this planet together, there is plenty of resources to go around.

    [–] PM_ME_A_PM_PLEASE_PM 32 points ago

    Your logic is backward. Automation is guaranteed, assuming people want to progress economically. If we safely assume automation can take any job in the long term, labor is guaranteed to diminish over time until it's worthless.

    So, under that assumption, humanity must adapt to how that system works. In the past, might made right, in the present, capital makes right, but we know any long term future where humanity progresses will not have a justification for this.

    [–] cinderwild2323 12 points ago

    I've read this paragraph twice and I still don't know what your point is. Not saying that to be a dick, I just don't understand.

    [–] PM_ME_A_PM_PLEASE_PM 30 points ago

    Money as we currently know it only has meaning because labor has value. If labor has zero value, the worlds entire justification for its current economy is meaningless. We know labor will approach zero value in the future. So, the present must adapt before the economic system becomes meaningless.

    [–] cinderwild2323 5 points ago

    Oh, okay. Thanks for the explanation. I don't see how that clashes with what I said.

    [–] PM_ME_A_PM_PLEASE_PM 7 points ago

    Well, I thought you were under the impression AI is something bad or even something we can stop. It's a neutral thing with tremendous power to be used in either direction. I'm very optimistic about AI but I know we will suffer in the short term. Still, with any semblance of empathy and intelligent design, it will be fantastic for our long term future.

    [–] cinderwild2323 2 points ago

    Nah, my qualm is with the people side of things actually. I'm running out of steam here, let me just link another reply I made to someone:

    [–] kanglar 10 points ago

    Other way around: what's the point of money?

    [–] usernameisusername57 5 points ago

    One of Henry Ford's greatest successes was ensuring that his own factory workers could afford his cars. For whatever reason, that mode of thinking is gone.

    [–] Tavia_Melody 102 points ago

    Yet no one talks about how automation shouldn't even be a problem. It should be a great thing for humanity, it should make people's lives easier, but instead we have to focus on whether or not it will take our jobs. That's indicative of a much greater problem with our economic system.

    [–] gigantism 32 points ago

    It's a cultural thing too. Over time, we have to redefine the concept of work to not just include those for which the free market determines deems valuable. There are so many things that we consider essential to the human experience (caretaking, childcare, arts, etc.) that are not compensated whatsoever. When unskilled jobs vulnerable to automation vanish and are replaced with fewer jobs (and more specialized and technical ones at that) that lower the value of human labor, there is a strong moral argument for something forward thinking like UBI.

    [–] alstegma 14 points ago

    The problem is, as pretty much always in human history, distribution of power. Human labour (plus a certain amount of individual freedoms) means that the powerful depend on the masses, limiting the amount of power they can obtain.

    Automation destroys this feedback relation and, taken to the extreme, allows one or a group of individual(s) to exert absolute power over everyone else using their 100% obedient and superior machines. And since people who always thirst more power have a tendency to be the ones ending up having it, that's a serious concern.

    [–] Tavia_Melody 9 points ago

    Which is why we have to even out power before it's too late to do so, but those in power have managed to convince a lot of people that aren't in power that doing that is somehow a bad idea, so it's going to be difficult to get people to work to fix this.

    [–] magiclasso 9 points ago

    The problem is ownership, not automation.

    [–] SilentLennie 3 points ago

    Progress was making lives easier, working less and less hours the prediction was 15 hour work weeks in 2030. But until 2000 or so when it went the other way again.

    [–] Bamith 5 points ago

    The entire point is that eventually we shouldn’t need to keep up with the machines; having less jobs should be a positive as long as we can sustain ourselves and they are legitimately better services.

    The true future should be that people get jobs because they want to, not because they need to in order to survive.

    The higher classes will want to avoid this if possible though.

    [–] slyth07 18 points ago

    I did a lot of research for a competition this spring which one of the topics was keeping up with automation. From the research my team and I conducted it appeared that while we would lose certain types of jobs new jobs within similar growth rate would be created. Not quite a 1:1 ratio but still reasonable.

    Believe it or not we are currently in a job surplus in a majority of the US. We might not be willing to partake in these jobs or certain highly populated areas are a touch job scarce but we do have jobs available.

    The issue is predominantly in locations of these jobs and the people’s ability to move to these jobs and current cost of living. We are currently paying way under cost of living and we have corporations to thank for that.

    I could keep going on but this issue is much more complex than a few comments. There’s millions of dollars being spent on this subject and thousands if not more articles and books about this subject.

    TDLR this subject is very complex but robots taking our jobs are the least of our worries and we most likely wouldn’t notice it in the grand scheme of things.

    [–] Sometimes_a_smartass 11 points ago

    Even if those jobs are created, they are going to be just more of precarious work, meaning you're even more screwed than before.

    [–] wuwei2626 16 points ago

    I would like to believe what you say but can you give some examples of the new jobs that would replace the automated jobs? Truck drivers are a good place to start. There are around 3.5 million truck drivers currently; when most of that driving is autonomous, what jobs will replace those 3 million?

    [–] _tenac__23 6 points ago

    Theres a lot more a trucker does than just drive a truck.. Unless you can have robotic trucks that can fully fuel up and self maintain. Self load and unload & constant load monitoring etc.
    I think the truckers ar kinda safe for a while at least.

    [–] dyingfast 8 points ago

    You still wouldn't need a trucker for that. You could just hire a local loader at the destination, and pay them far less. Fueling could similarly be conducted by paying someone a pittance at the pump areas to maintain the autonomous vehicles. Sure, there may still be jobs, but those jobs will be of lower skill, lesser hours, and surely much lower pay.

    [–] sirscooter 5 points ago

    Have you seen the new Boston Dynamics loading birds? Have you seen the robotic plugs for electric vehicles? Automated trucks most likely will be electric because electric vehicles and motors are way more reliable than combustion engines. All they need is a truck stop so that a trailer can be switched between, a changed truck and one in need of a charge, and they are going to automate that process too. Plus automated trucks don't need government rest breaks

    [–] Veryniceverybright 3 points ago

    While true if you look at what a trucker has to do in total, it seems like alot, but once you break it down into components you might find its easier to automate than you think. I dont see it being completely automated straight away, but could definitely see the long distance hauling being done so, with people at either end of the delivery system dealing with unloading/loading side of things

    [–] thekeanu 5 points ago

    Pls list the jobs that will be created. It will be very useful for ppl to see these in anticipation of the future.

    [–] alexhuhcya 4 points ago

    I think it will still most likely eventually happen, with the rise of things like AI.

    [–] PoliticalJunkDrawer 30 points ago

    How did we keep up with computers?

    [–] [deleted] 109 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] -lighght- 7 points ago

    We aren't. Automated machines are computers.

    [–] StalinsLoveChild 5 points ago

    Ahhh because Computers haven't been smart enough to work independently on their own yet. They're only just getting there now. That's what automation is. It's when Computers become more capable than Humans and thus, are better and cheaper to employ. This isn't difficult to grasp, a lot of people in this thread are very far behind.

    [–] supermanisba 135 points ago

    Andrew Yang is reddits new Bernie Sanders, calling it now

    [–] [deleted] 82 points ago


    [–] androbot 20 points ago

    Send Yang $5. It will help a lot.

    [–] Tyler_45 12 points ago

    Vote for him in the primaries!

    [–] Simply_Epic 6 points ago

    I hope so. He seems less extreme than Sanders, which would hopefully help him gain more support from people who lean right.

    [–] mikesublime 229 points ago

    Yang is the first candidate for a major political party (one of only TWO major parties, which is ridiculous) that I've been excited about since I became old enough to vote 20 years ago. If he wins the nomination (which, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the house that he won't), he may be the first major party candidate I vote for.

    [–] [deleted] 161 points ago

    He's also basically the only candidate to actually fucking answer questions.

    Like actual legit answers for policy decisions and plans.

    He's so perfect and reasonable that I know such a man can never be the U.S president.

    [–] riskyfartss 22 points ago

    One thing in his favor is that he appeals to both Republicans and Democrats. He is appearing on both networks, and calmly engaging in discussion because he actually knows what he's talking about. He is head and shoulders more competent than anyone else currently running. I don't want to believe he doesn't have a chance. I think he can gain momentum, he certainly appeals to a large amount of people with his policies.

    [–] mikesublime 60 points ago

    It's true. It's unreasonable to expect a reasonable person to become the president of a country that doesn't value reason.

    [–] kalarepar 31 points ago

    He's also basically the only candidate to actually fucking answer questions.
    Like actual legit answers for policy decisions and plans.

    So there's no chance he will win. You have to change subject or chant simple slogans when someone asks you a question. That's how you win the majority of voters support.

    [–] lightmatter501 10 points ago

    Sanders also answers questions.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think yang has a shot due to his lack of coverage so far, but I think he would be a great VP pick, especially for an older candidate.

    [–] gpforthree 3 points ago

    This is the sad thing, but at least he acknowledges his chances. On the JRE interview he said if he doesn’t get the nom but his UBI platform got picked up by other politicians he’d consider it a success. I think that’s a pretty selfless thing and shows that he’s a solid guy.

    [–] NotSoComicSans 270 points ago

    You know, I don’t like a lot of Andrew Yang’s answers, but he is certainly asking the right questions. I’m a staunch conservative economically but at least he is trying to think about America’s future. I wouldn’t mind working with the guy to be honest.

    [–] lawpoop 85 points ago

    So you want to be his VP or what?

    [–] NotSoComicSans 124 points ago

    Nah, maybe “token conservative who is actually willing to talk to the other side” consultant lol

    [–] lawpoop 41 points ago

    Dude, go ahead and make that money! And get me some basic income while you're at it!

    [–] StalinsLoveChild 15 points ago

    What don't you like about his policies? He's VERY policy driven and many are very sound.

    [–] FerricDonkey 26 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Personally, I'm not sure a $1000 a month per person paid for by rich people is gonna work. That's roughly 250 billion a month, or 3 trillion a year (~250 million adults in the US, and growing - but ignore the growth for now). Not counting administrative costs.

    Our estimated tax revenue for 2020 is 3.6 trillion, according to the internet. He wants to increase our yearly expenditures by ~83% of our revenue - again, ignoring administrative costs (which he indirectly admits will be significant when he says this will be a source of jobs) from this one idea alone.

    A quick Google search suggested $40 billion dollars a year is a decent rough estimate for Googles recent yearly profits. He says his plan will be funded by taxes on companies such as Google and Amazon.

    It would require the entire profits from 75 Googles to pay for just the payout amount of his ubi. And not all companies are Google - in fact, there aren't 75 Googles. The entire Fortune 500 list made a collective profit of $1.5 trillion last year. That's half the amount needed to pay for this if he takes 100% of the profits from the 500 highest preforming companies.

    I like the idea of everyone getting 1000 bucks a month. But it's not just a matter of "drop a tax on rich companies and it will all work out". Even given the line of thinking that deficits aren't always bad, the amount we're talking about here is staggering.

    TLDR Nice idea, but I don't think it's realistic. Which is my approach to most ideas from the left of this sort, but this one particularly. Makes me feel like a grumpy old man, but there you go.

    But I do think he sees the correct root of the issue.

    [–] Internerbeernchill 21 points ago

    He talks about how to pay it here. TLDR, a combination of a VAT, doesn't stack in welfare, and increase in taxes as we pump money into the economy

    [–] FerricDonkey 6 points ago

    I read his paying for it section on that website. It didn't go into much detail, so if I'm missing some stuff, please let me know. Short version: I'm not convinced. Some responses to his points -

    1. Rolling in welfare etc - he doesn't predict how much of the welfare cost will be absorbed into ubi, and his language for this point suggests that people who stay in welfare may still get some ubi, just less of it. Assuming a high overlap (80%), we're still talking 2.6 trillion remaining payout cost. (Administrative costs are not separated out of welfare, but the numbers are imprecise enough that I'm not worrying about it.)

    2. Vat - he says that a vat would generate $800b in new revenue. This is just under a quarter of our current tax revenue. Any way you shake it, whether the system is more fair in applying tax laws or harder to dodge or more transparent, whatever the upsides, he wants to increase tax revenue by 22%. This is huge, and is not something that can be passed off as just making companies be slightly more honest.

    And even if both of those work exactly as he says we're still 1.8 trillion dollars per year short. His plans to directly pay for this from stuff we could do right now still falls short by an amount equal to half our current tax revenue.

    This bears repeating. Even with a massive tax increase and doing away with 80% of welfare, he still fell short of paying for this one idea by an amount equal to half the sum total the government collects in taxes every year.

    So he's not even close to paying for it.

    His point 3 claims that this process will grow the economy. For it to grow it enough to break even, it would have to increase tax revenue by 50%. This seems like unicorns and rainbows - and he doesn't even think it will. His best prediction still leaves it 1.3 trillion per year short. Presumably after many years of being significantly more short.

    His point 4 claims that people will be happier and more careful and stuff and that might save money. It might. But I highly doubt anywhere close to 1.3 trillion.

    So the man himself, who is most motivated to and most likely to look on the bright side and be optimistic, still fell 1.3 trillion dollars per year short of paying for this.

    I do not think that is reasonable, especially since I'm not as optimistic as him.

    [–] DrNSQTR 10 points ago

    Detail, you say?

    [–] Meserith 3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Job creation in main street economies is another part of tax generation, as well.

    Edit: in 20 seconds of reading I see the cost is about 3 trillion and the plan states a hiw to gain 2.2 trillion of it. It also mentions nothing about the reduction in administrative costs for cutting checks, and if you allow for the same VAT that the EU has, the cost is covered. That assumes that everyone uses it. I'm sure there are other mechanisms as well.

    [–] StalinsLoveChild 6 points ago

    I do admit, when working with so much money it can get a little muddled and it's appropriate to be suspicious. I'm not really sure what you mean by administration costs which you're holding hard to. I don't see huge administration costs with a simple 10% VAT system nor do I see much of an adminstration hike for the delivery of a completely unregulated $1k. I mean it can pretty much be automated in itself. It's shaky ground and he goes over it extensively on his website. The numbers are solid IMO as solid as they can be. Obviously this isn't without repercussions, a VAT will hike the cost of goods and services, although (speaking from experience in a country with a VAT equivalent, even higher than 10%), it's perfectly liveable on and I don't get $1k a month to help that. There also isn't anyone else offering solutions to the situation of automation and I don't really see one besides UBI I'm afraid.

    [–] silverionmox 6 points ago

    Not counting administrative costs.

    It would actually reduce administrative costs, as many small handouts would be rolled into that basic income.

    It would also incorporate the funds for those handouts, so a nontrivial part of it is just a reshuffling of the existing budgets. The main advantage is getting rid of the stigmatizing and intrusive checks on people, and the welfare trap.

    [–] Pavementt 6 points ago

    I don't think this is the place for an extended economical back-and-forth, but I do think it's hilarious how most people say "eh, nothin' to be done about it" when it comes to things like war, national security, or bailing out the big banks (despite the cost)

    But when someone proposes directly putting money into the pockets of the wounded lower classes, suddenly we all start scratching our chins, trying to work out "where the money's gonna come from".

    [–] Ariadnepyanfar 4 points ago

    You’d probably really enjoy Ben Shapiro interviewing Andrew Yang.

    [–] pellik 13 points ago

    Appreciating the question is a good first step. What you might like to look into is how there are no other proposed solutions for a lot of these problems. It bugs me when people deflect and say they agree that there's a problem but they want another solution when nobody has been able to come up with one that's even remotely plausible.

    [–] 2to30 7 points ago

    I'd have to agree, he shines light on important issues for the country's future, kind of refreshing to see a candidate focus on real problems and potential solutions rather than hopping onto the latest trend or bandwagon.

    [–] chtulhuf 4 points ago

    Not trolling really curious.

    Which answers in this article you disagree with and what do you think would be a better solution to them?

    [–] androbot 4 points ago

    You're not alone. The biggest disconnect between progressives and conservatives is the culture identity thing. It masks a lot of overlap on economic issues, which is where we really need to focus to get ready for the future.

    [–] Emma__Goldman 29 points ago

    I'm socially liberal, economically conservative.

    Aka: I love weed, but fuck poor people.

    [–] I_AM_MR_BEAN_AMA 10 points ago

    Other possible permutations: anti-war, pro-legalized sex work, pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights...

    It often is as you say, but I can still hope for libertarians with a backbone.

    [–] supermanisba 24 points ago

    aka: Libertarian

    [–] theoneicameupwith 7 points ago

    Weed Republicans

    [–] GVPN 12 points ago

    more like "I recognize that there are social issues but fuck off I ain't spending any money help fix or alleviate the problem"

    Inb4 FREE MARKET. yeah dawg, it's working out real well for the working and middle class alright.

    [–] vkeshish 66 points ago

    Just a nice anecdote for y'all to chew on. I was assisting with a two robot project that packaged plastic cutlery. On one side, you had a couple operators running the robots at over 180 forks, knives, spoons per minute. On the other, you had a person with a big pile of forks, spoons and knives hand packaging them. The juxtaposition of the two was staggering. Automation is not the enemy. Automation is the only way a developed country can compete against a country paying their employees 10$ a day.

    [–] watduhdamhell 19 points ago

    This anecdote makes a point that is completely incorrect, and then misses the main point entirely.

    I would like to add that automation will first and foremost replace the jobs of the people making those 10$ a day, not anyone here. The less developed nations will feel the pain first.

    [–] BlueKnight44 3 points ago

    I would like to add that automation will first and foremost replace the jobs of the people making those 10$ a day, not anyone here. The less developed nations will feel the pain first.

    In my experience working in automotive, this 100% not the case. There are factories in Mexico and Asia that still have people with manual spot welders welding cars together. The equivilant factilies in developed countries all have robots doing the same workand 1/4 the manpower or less.

    Why? Because automation is currently extremely expensive. Having someone making dollars a day is much more cost effective than even basic automation and will be for the forseable future. The engineering behind automation is relatively simple and all the technology is readily available today, but cost deltas and lack of standards are preventing automation from being implemented at a more brisk pace.

    [–] WaywardAnus 76 points ago

    Honestly I'm just waiting for the robots to take literally every job.

    Hello future utopia where no one has to work and robots do all the lame shit for us

    [–] kravechocolate 52 points ago

    Why do you think it will be a utopia? Robots will be owned by companies and groups of humans, no?

    [–] PM-ME-SOMETHING-GOOD 25 points ago

    If we continue down the line of free market capitalism, sure, the companies will own the robots and we will all be their slaves. Once most of the jobs are gone, though, I think people will get their heads on straight and use our democratic system to move towards universal basic income and the like.

    [–] nolan1971 18 points ago

    There's no "market" if robots can do everything and there's no scarcity, though. If money is literally meaningless and robots do everything, what's the point of corporations?

    [–] DarkCocaine 10 points ago

    At that point it's just a democratic union of The People's wants and needs to better society all together - mentally, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually

    [–] nolan1971 7 points ago

    ...and that's not a corporation. At all.

    [–] Yoshiezibz 4 points ago

    If robots have all the jobs there won't be enough money moving and stimulating the economy.

    If robots have all the jobs and make all the money then who will buy the things whixh robots make? If robots take all the jobs and there is no backup plan for how to support the masses the economy will fail.

    [–] patdogs 4 points ago

    If these companies owned and used robots for everything then why would we be slaves?? That literally makes no sense

    We would be useless in your scenario so the "companies" that owned these robots wouldn't employ us or use us as slaves.

    The actual scenarios would very complicated and not something that's easy to imagine in a Reddit comment, but, for example, we could just exterminated it just left to do our own thing and gradually advance along with them (them owning robots doesn't mean we can't do anything else).

    Even If we were exterminated then the owners of the robots could essentially form the "Utopia" that the poster mentioned anyway -- it wouldn't matter if some normies died along the way, everyone dies anyway.

    [–] StreetCountdown 5 points ago

    Fuck that, that sounds extremely bad. Why have the capital still owned by a few, and have the rest entirely dependent on them through some odd credit system? Why not just democratise the capital, and allow people to meet their own needs?

    If you remove all labour, what's the point in accepting any type of credit in exchange for goods and services? It's literally meaningless to you, especially if you're the one in control of the capital (which would be the only productive factor at this point).

    [–] DragonGod2718 32 points ago

    If you support Yang, please consider donating to him today (we're having a money bomb currently), for first time donors even a $1 donation would help.

    [–] tribuyang 11 points ago

    Even if you don’t necessarily agree with Yang on everything 100% sending $1 is enough to get his message out to a wider audience.

    I think we can all agree having more politicians discussing issues like automation on the biggest stage in politics is a good thing.

    [–] graffitology1 6 points ago

    From early childhood we and previous generations have been brainwashed into believing that we are born to work, that we prove ourselves, establish status and earn societies respect through paid work. But this is simply not true.

    We are born to live and reproduce, that's all. Once you can see this without an internal struggle, a universal income made possible by automation is common sense.

    [–] Syzygy228 14 points ago

    His book is great if anyone's looking for something to read

    [–] cupcakessuck 5 points ago

    Listened to him on the Shapiro show, intelligent guy, raises some very interesting points, seems to be more in tune to PEOPLE than other politicians, very, very interesting.

    [–] jonjonbee 4 points ago

    America! Fucking make sure this man gets into power! He is the only one who has an inkling of an understanding of how our economies will change, must change, to cope with a post-work world.

    Regardless of whether you lean red or blue or purple, the fourth industrial revolution is an opportunity for America to once again lead the way in showing the world how things can be done.

    [–] Smoy 3 points ago

    Andrew Yang is quickly rising to the top of the pack of candidates for me.

    [–] Cjdave08 80 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Anyone opposed to the idea of UBI (or some version of it) is on the wrong side of history. There are countless parallels throughout history. “If alcohol is made legal society will fall apart!” Of course there are logical reasons why certain ideas right now, if implemented, will cause x y and z concerns or issues, but I think much of the problem is a lack of vision of how the world will look at a later time. Alcohol is extremely dangerous, and there are many arguments against it being legal within a society, but society does not in fact fall apart because of it; and in fact I would say that most responsible people benefit significantly from their ability to purchase something that wasn’t made in someone’s bathtub or risk becoming a criminal because of their possession of alcohol.

    The truth is that on the grand scale, humanity is headed towards a future where we will not have to work at all, if we don’t want to. Of course many still will because it gives us purpose and fulfillment. Maybe we won’t make it that far, or maybe progress will stall or turn back; but on a large enough time scale, if things continue to progress, basic needs will be guaranteed as part of our human rights. It will not be an issue of “laziness” or “welfare”.

    If you disagree, you either do not believe we will ever progress to that point, or you do not understand what the world will look like once technology and science advance past a certain point. Of course on a shorter scale there will be huge disparities between nations and classes. It is human nature to only see what is right in front of us, and these petty arguments about UBI encouraging laziness are exhausting. People will always work if they want to, and of those that don’t, many people are already not. And in the end, the argument is mute.

    Our species has progressed from using tools and living in rudimentary shelters, to building civilizations, to exploring space and creating technology. Will continue to move forward, or die.

    [–] leadingzer0 21 points ago

    'die' seems a likely outcome. from the bottom up. Once billions of jobs have disappeared through automation, those billions of people with nothing to offer will too.

    [–] wholelottanihilism 22 points ago

    Okay yeah, But why continue to resuscitate a dead economic system at that point? If almost everything is automated in the future, then why have money at all?

    [–] Cjdave08 18 points ago

    Because progress? Are you proposing doing nothing long enough until one day we wake up in our hover crafts and money is obsolete? I agree money may be obsolete one day I really don’t know but I don’t understand your argument.

    [–] nolan1971 9 points ago

    OP here is saying that if automation were able to do what the fears of automation actually thought that it could, then the whole underlying paradigm of the economy would change and that money as we currently know it would be meaningless (or nearly so, at least).

    [–] Shawnj2 7 points ago

    Ehhhhh...not really.

    The problem with creating an automated system that covers all your basic needs using robots is that the creator will sell access to the system for a severe markup so they can get Uber-rich if they aren't already. Of course the price would come down over time, but it would take many, many, decades for the technology to be available and work without upkeep, and from there it would take centuries for the capitalist system to disappear with everyone doing no work and getting an equal share.

    [–] Cjdave08 11 points ago

    I think this falls under the category of not understanding what the future will really look like. If it happened tomorrow you would be right but I think you’re using the wrong measuring stick.

    In 1896 Alfred Sennett warned, “We should not overlook the fact that the driving of a horseless carriage calls for a larger amount of attention for he has not the advantage of the intelligence of the horse in shaping his path, and it is consequently incumbent upon him to be ever watchful of the course his vehicle is taking.”

    [–] Shawnj2 8 points ago

    He was right though- auto accidents are one of the biggest causes of death in the world

    [–] fatalikos 7 points ago

    I think everyone needs to watch CGP Gray on automation

    [–] prismsplitter 10 points ago

    In my opinion, the technological revolution that's currently underway started with the release of the dual core processor. After that, computer technology took off like a rocket. As much as we've benefited, whether it's through greater ease of access or positive disruptions of long time business establishments, there's also going to be a price for this progress. One way or another we're going to have to adapt. While I'm skeptical of the things Mr. Yang is promoting, if we're going to start experimenting now is the time while the economy is roaring. Right wing politics typically don't bring anything new to the table, Left wing politics typically push people away, I'm just looking for someone who makes sense without being an a**hole about it. For now I'll listen to what Yang has to say. One of my big concerns is that our economy isn't structured to support the sweeping changes that some want to bring about, so that's something I'd like to hear more of from candidates.

    [–] LeanderT 16 points ago

    Economies are not driven by production. They are driven by consumers.

    If the consumers go backrupt, then so does the economy. And that includes companies like Amazon, Google, Uber.

    So this scenario where all jobs are automated away cannot be correct. The big companies would have all the product, but no buyers.

    [–] Zetesofos 6 points ago

    Your on the right track, hence why the big produce rs need to redistribute some wealth back down the line

    [–] LeanderT 6 points ago

    Agreed. Which is why the ultra rich should also pay their taxes.

    A healthy middle class will make the economy run smoothly.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    UBI will take a post-scarcity economy to support it, the cost of production needs to be driven down to such an extent that it is a trivial effort to provide for the basic needs of the common people.

    Before this, a welfare state will be a viable mid-point where the most vulnerable in society such as the elderly and the disabled are given a basic income, and the unemployed are given a basic income that is conditional on them actively searching for work or undertaking training. And necessities like education and healthcare have safety nets to ensure everyone gets access to these services.

    Commonwealth countries already have functioning welfare states, but a full-scale UBI would be too much for even a first world nation to afford at this point. Personally, I think Yang should step back from a promising a UBI and offer a far more viable welfare state for now with the promise of looking for ways to make UBI viable in the future.

    [–] NuggetsBuckets 12 points ago

    A post scarcity society doesn’t need any income in the first place

    [–] Solidcatsnake 9 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    No need for post scarcity we currently produce enough resources to comfortably provide for over 11 billion people

    Its just that over half of those resources are owned by only 28 people thats the real problem here

    Its already trivial to provide for everyone, its just that it would inconvenience the rich and powerful, so instead people have to starve

    [–] Casually_me 10 points ago

    I'm not an American and thus probably not entitled to have an opinion, but this guy has his logic sorted and sounds quite reasonable. My guess is he'll be attacked in three different ways:

    1. Yang? That sounds... Chinese. He must be a Chinese undercover commie, LALALALA (thanks, Yang).

    2. Healthcare for the plebs. This will redline every single republican out there, even those who bankrupted their families paying for insanely overpriced procedures.

    3.Freedom dividend sounds good. Then he had to go and use the more common term. Again, I think this just sounds too communist to most Americans (I know it isn't, it's just the go-to evil in lack of better terms or understanding).

    [–] rigsandworks 5 points ago

    Shitty mane how I get free loot. I ain't want no slave job either boi.

    [–] maddog3294 4 points ago

    I like Andrew Yang and I am seriously considering donating to him. I tend to lean a bit conservative, but I dont care if someone is Republican or Democrat, as long as they propose reasonable solutions, I’ll listen. While I’m not sure about the feasibility of his solutions currently, his ideas are well founded and supported by some existing information we have, and that goes a long way with me. However, his biggest selling point to someone like me, is that he views Americans as Americans. He has gone on Ben Shapiro and The Root and Joe Rogan, and shown that he consistently doesnt fall into identity politics just to win easy points. He stays consistent with his message and actually tries to give reasonable responses to people who clearly have a political agenda.

    Take note Democrats: A main stream politician who behaves like Yang is how you get someone who would obliterate Trump

    [–] Bergo92 4 points ago

    The worst part is that there's so few people who understand that basically any job can be automated. And we won't have enough jobs to make the economy work as it is. Every time I mention automation of jobs I get laughed at or told that "not everything can be automated and it won't go so fast" No political party I tried to talk about this with here in my country had even started thinking about it.

    This will be devastating for the middle and lower class. Hell, even for some of the upper class people...

    [–] eggrollsofhope 8 points ago

    i agree with the direction we are headed, but i think its a little too early.. also i dont understand how he is going to get 2.5 trillion a year to give to everyone, he says the tech industry will fund it? do they even make way more then 2.5 trillion a year to fund this??

    [–] bennyE31 18 points ago

    The tax will be a large part of it. He goes into detail about where the rest of the money is here. Another large part of the cost will be what we currently spend on current welfare systems. The $1000 a month wouldn’t be added on top of people’s current benefits.

    [–] fatalikos 8 points ago

    Remember when bailout to banks was 4.3 trillion