/biz/ - Business & Finance

Amazon now controls 43 percent of total e-commerce in the United States with a market capitalization of $435 billion. Overall, e-commerce has been rising by $40 billion per year since 2015, which is now pushing traditional retail into extinction. Amazon bought Whole Foods to expedite their move into grocery delivery. Most everyone has bought goods from Amazon. It is virtually impossible for any brick and mortar retailer to compete against Amazon on price as Amazon doesn't have to invest in storefronts and can focus on building an efficient delivery system at the highest volumes.

Here's their other advantage - Amazon doesn't need to make money. In its 20 years as a public company, Amazon often has not turned a profit. A number of years ago, some financial types noticed and shorted the stock, saying, "amazon doesn't make money." In response, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos stopped investing in anything new for a year and ramped up profitablity. Those who bet against Amazon were burned badly. Now, no one bets against Amazon, and it's stock price is over $900 per share, making Jeff one of the richest people in the world.

>Amazon
People like choice/variety, low prices, and fast/efficient shipping. There is no way around that. Also the product ratings/reviews can be extremely valuable as a consumer making a choice. If I'm in a physical store now and I see a product I'll go on Amazon just to check the rating or what people thought about it. Returns are just as easy, I don't even need to pack returns now. UPS does that for me.

>>17173618
All stores listed are pure trash, no tears will be shed

Yang is ahead of his time and I wish people would open their eyes. It doesn't really matter whether you are right or left when there is 0 need for you to work. Niggas can't into utopia

>>17173634
Amazon itself, is a host for vendors to sell their items on there. They take a cut for giving these vendors a marketplace like a flea market allows you to walk in and setup a table to sell your merchandise. Amazon makes money off multiple services other than a marketplace host. Jeff Bezos invested in warehouses, Amazon Prime, partnerships with other companies and brands.

Brick and Mortar stores don't provide convenience for everyone. They also don't offer as many products as Amazon does. Some don't have time or make time to go shopping in person because they have different priorities.

Should Amazon be taxed? Sure. Is it necessary to force taxation of many multinational corporations that reside in the USA according to what Andrew Yang's plan entails? Not so sure about that. Taxing the creation of a product from the beginning of the assembly line to the retailer and into the hands of the consumer will make people go broke. $1,000 in today's world a month only would help slightly, but only when products around you are cheaper. Yang's plan will increase the cost of products, it will increase consumerism, but production of goods will need to keep up with that and that's impossible.

>>17173744
>Yang's plan will increase the cost of products

VAT pass-through is around 50%. So his 10% VAT increases prices by 5% on average.

>>17173618
americans are sadly too stupid to do more than 5 minutes of research. people will only realize after the upcoming downturn, which is too late already.

>>17173722

It gets worse. The local mall is one of the pillars of the regional budget. The sales tax goes straight to the county and the state, and so does the property tax. When the property gets written down, the community loses a big chunk of tax revenue. This means shrunken municipal budgets, cuts to school budgets, and job reductions in local government offices. On average, a single Macy's store generates ~$36 billion a year. At current sales tax and property tax rates, that store, if closed, would leave a budget hole of several million dollars for the state and county to deal with.

Yang is the candidate of luddites and child molesters.

Always hilarious to see the mental gymnastics of yangbots defending this gook when he attends pedokike mutilation rituals.

>>17173618
>>17173634
>>17173867
All communists end up murdering and looting the kulaks they purport to be saving. All of them.

>>17173670
"in a decade or two"

2016 prediction didn't happen

ai is a meme

>>17173733
Yang is behind the times, UMI is the proletariat's salvation

>>17173899
Yang curses the rabbi.

Anyone with half a brain can see whats coming in terms of automation. UBI isn't about being lazy, just looking into the future

>>17173967
But wait anon:

“I support the freedom of parents to adopt circumcision for any religious or cultural ritual as desired. Actually have attended a brit milah myself and felt privileged to be there… Always up to parents.”

>attends baby cock sucking ritual
>up to the (((parents)))
>anti-circumcision

Explain this.

>>17173935
What is umi

>>17173618
Nice, accelerationism is becoming more relevant. The next decades shall be interesting if you like to watch the world burn

>>17174041
Doesn't want to commit suicide with a cordless phone.

>>17173935
Yang is way ahead of his time retard.

>>17173782
VAT is regressive.

So is UBI if it gives people making $100k a year an extra 12%.

Sometimes I think Yang is a puppet, poisoning the ide of a "universal" or "basic" or "minimum" with his shitty variations like switching "minimum" to essentially "maximum".

His idea is fundamentally wrong, I've mentioned they are regressive... elaborate the more salable pitch; ie., universal minimum.

>>17174041
>imagine being for adults making their own choices
fucking libcuck get the fuck off biz

>>17174133
Idiot, Universal income predates your cardboard candidate

>>17173782
That proposed VAT tax will not earn enough money to pay for the trillions of dollars the freedom dividend gives out. He's trying to promote more consumerism. You can't have too much consumption when the production can't keep up. The rich can still apply for that freedom dividend. It's a very miscalculated plan. In theory, it sounds good.

This is the same type of plan Obama proposed with Obamacare. The money to pay for patients using Obamacare came from the working and middle class. One person might take that $1,000 and pay bills while another person blows it all on shit they don't need. I could buy $1,000 worth of weed and smoke it all in a week and that's it instead of paying off a loan or buying tools to earn money with.

>>17174147
>adults making their own choices

U WUT

>>17174137
Nobody cares about a 10% increase on the price of iPhones when they are getting $12k per year.

>>17174165
1. You can't smoke $1000 in a week
2. You don't know how Obamacare works
3. A universal minimum income to replace current subsidy structure would be almost cost-neutral

>>17174137
>VAT is regressive.

The burden of a 10% VAT as Yang proposes on a low income individual is around $50 a month. They exist everywhere and are well studied.

Any economist will tell you a simple tax rebate negates the regressivity, let alone a $12k UBI which is equivalent to 20x the rebate necessary to negate the cost of the VAT for low income households. It decimates poverty and is the biggest increase in buying power for the poor and working class anyone is proposing. UBI+VAT amounts to a net transfer of wealth from the top 6% to the bottom 94%, the outcome is extremely progressive.

They're doing a really good job dividing Americans against each other

>>17174226
>A universal minimum income to replace current subsidy structure would be almost cost-neutral
Yang is not replacing the current subsidy structure. He's proposing an addition. Blacks would still get Affirmative Action and section 8 and food stamps and welfare, plus the 1k/month. You MIGHT get the 1k/month.

>>17174258
THIS

>>17174165
>That proposed VAT tax will not earn enough money to pay for the trillions of dollars the freedom dividend gives out.

VAT isn't the only source of funding. There's a number of other taxes generating a few hundred billion (e.g. lift cap of SS payroll tax, carbon tax and others), and some consolidation of welfare programs (about $150b crossover).

then you have massive cost savings from poverty representing additional multiple hundreds of billions in cost savings/additional tax revenue (look up gargantuan costs associated with poverty), and he's hoping economic growth will help close the deficit as well.

>>17173799
This. The populace is too stupid to heed Yang's warnings. The entire trucking industry is about to be BTFO by automation, and most truckers are oblivious to it. Then they will chimp out like they had no warning, and a lot of those guys are ex-military.

>>17174288
SNAP, TANF, WIC and SSI won't stack. The rest will be in addition.

People don't understand that central banking and government spending is what is destroying the economy, so they blame it on nonsense things like automation or "neoliberalism".

Wake up, end the federal reserve.

>>17174083
>ice, accelerationism is becoming more relevant.
towards what?

So what will happen since the proletariat isn't getting the bailout its going to need?

Serfdom with even less options/capital

OK then, guess not showing up to make it happen really wasn't a good idea

Take the logic of the plan:

>You need UBI because there will be no jobs available
>UBI is a way to get around this
>Yang is not going to win; UBI is about to be buried as a topic.
>You are literally 4 years into the shrinking window of 20 years (2016-2036) . (Read text: "several decades", )

>>17173670

>>17174346

they will get new jobs though, prices for goods will be cheaper as well, creating more jobs

>>17174165
You need to read more about his proposal because you don't get it.

People don't understand that the price of goods like FOOD are going to fall dramatically.
Our living standards will increase and a service sector economy will replace these old jobs.

Yang is not needed.

>>17174427
>You need UBI because there will be no jobs available

First part of your premise is already wrong.

Yang isn't envisioning some "end of jobs" scenario any time soon. He believes plenty of new jobs can and will arise out of the new economy.

The problem isn't no jobs, or even necessarily less jobs, but that new jobs have increasingly disparate demands to what workers displaced by automation can offer. So while successive generations can adapt to new labor demands, tens of millions of people in jobs currently at risk to automation won't be able to adapt and will be left behind. Therefore one purpose of his UBI (and a number of other programs Yang is proposing) is to ensure some basic degree of financial security and give them the breathing room required to prepare and adapt, and to stimulate new job growth particularly in small towns and rural areas that have been/will be hit hardest by automation in particular sectors. Then, outside of the impact of automation he thinks a UBI would offer a number of benefits that would make it worthwhile even if automation was a non-factor like directly tackling increasing financial insecurity and inequality, lower crime rates, better health and education outcomes, small business growth and general economic growth, lessens rural-urban economic divide, increases bargaining power for workers, greater geographic mobility, rewarding non-wage work like unpaid carers, volunteers and the like etc.

>>17174439
Dude no they will not. You don't know any real fucking truckers then. Most of them are literally brain dead retards.

>>17174439
What fucking jobs will they get? What jobs are the millions of truckers, call center and retail workers going to get? And I haven't even begun to talk about how medicine, law and finance are all about to get btfo by automation too.

>>17174439
People invoke the Industrial Revolution and say that we have heard these fears before, all the way back to the Luddites, that new jobs always appear. It is unknowable what the new jobs will be, as it is beyond human wisdom. Oftentimes the person who thinks that all will be okay is guilty of what I call constructive-institutionalism: Operating from a default stance that things will work-themselves-out. This is, to my mind, a disavowal of judgment and reality. History repeats itself until it doesn't.

Every innovation will bring with the new opportunities and some will be difficult to predict as self-driving cars and trucks will bring with them a need for improved infrastructure, and perhaps some construction jobs, at the demise of retail which could make drone pilots more of a need. Over time, the proliferation of data is already making data scientists a hot new job category. The problem is that the new jobs are almost certain to be in different places than existing ones and will be less numerous than the ones that disappear.

The new jobs will generally require higher levels of education than the displaced workers have, and it will be very unlikely for a displaced worker to move, identify the need, gain skills, and fill the new role. We can celebrate the 200 new robot supervisors in suburban California, and the 100 new logistics specialists in Memphis, and the 50 new web designers in Seattle and say "Hey, we didn't know we'd need these 350 college-educated people to manage our robots that eliminated thousands of positions. Hooray!" Meanwhile there will be 50,000 unemployed retail employees who will be looking fruitlessly for opportunities in their shrinking communities.


Take the example of a 1971 Volkswagen Beetle’s efficiency. If it had advanced according to Moore’s Law, the vehicle, in 2015, would be able to go 300,000 miles per hour and get two million miles per gallon of gas. That’s what’s happening with computers.

>>17174467
Everything is getting more expensive though idiot especially food.

Honestly Yang should "drop the mic" and "walk" off tomorrow's debate

Its over guys. Getting a UBI was not a 2 or 4 year goal, its going to take more than one presidential election to build political support.

Back to the drawing board, Andrew, go home and be with your autistic wife and kid, thanks for running!

>>17174475
>Most of them are literally brain dead retards.
that's why the new jobs they will get will be EASIER jobs

>>17174486
>What fucking jobs will they get? What jobs are the millions of truckers, call center and retail workers going to get?
A new service sector will be created.
People would be working a lot less hours as well leading to more jobs available.
You'll see.

>>17174489
Thanks to central banking, yes.
But this automation is going to drastically reduce food costs, making it much cheaper to produce and transport.

How would UBI not cause massive inflation?

>>17174543
>that's why the new jobs they will get will be EASIER jobs

That will pay LESS have SHIT hours and NO benefits

>>17174543
AI can drive trucks across the country, any job simpler than that can be handled by a robot.

>>17174557

Funding is not generated by printing money or raising personal taxes. It's done through a 10% VAT placed on the sale of luxury goods, and transactions made by large tech companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc, which are data mining personal information while making billions. A VAT on the biggest tech companies alone would generate billions of dollars in revenue, so increasing taxes on individuals is not necessary. People buy things, tax revenue is generated, they receive that revenue back in the form of a dividend.

Add in reduced welfare spending (the current system is bloated due to bureaucracy, most welfare programs are rendered unnecessary when UBI is implemented so money is saved when it is no longer allocated towards government programs), reduced incarceration rates, a carbon tax, and the 3 trillion necessary to fund it is easily generated. Of the ~3 trillion given in the form of UBI, 4.8 billion will be returned in the form of new tax receipts due to people spending the money.

The money will get spent, recirculate through the market, and, in some studies, boost the economy by ~$2.5 trillion.

If hypothetically the math doesn't add up, and money needed to be printed for this to happen, which isn't the plan, the federal reserve has printed trillions yearly since 2006 without hyperinflation yet occurring. Lest we forget the current incumbent recently authorized the purchase of 2 trillion worth of military artillery. In no timeline does this cause inflation that would crash the economy.

>>17174557
Why would it?

I'm pretty sure Mankiw, the 11th most cited economist and the 9th most productive research economist in the world, knows more about inflation than you or I, and here he is endorsing Yang's plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDKfdmbCuvw&feature=youtu.be&t=31615

There's no monetary inflation, and fears of some extreme demand-pull inflation aren't well founded either.

https://medium.com/basic-income/evidence-and-more-evidence-of-the-effect-on-inflation-of-free-money-a3dcc2a9ea9e

The Alaska example is particularly interesting. Granted it is a fraction of the amount proposed in Yang's UBI, but I'm yet to hear any naysayer explain why it has had the consistent, long term, *opposite* effect on CPI to their prediction with the UBI.

Those were Boomer stores that have no place in the modern economy

Fuck off commie

>>17173867

Sales tax and property tax are theft

>>17174563
>That will pay LESS
Less in marginal terms but a lot higher in real terms.
The costs of the things they purchase would have gone down considerably so their wages go further.
It's like if a taco bell employee made what a miner used to make.

>SHIT hours
They will be able to work less hours because they don't need to work as much to get the resources they need to live their lives.
The same thing happened during the late 1800s/early 1900s when productivity increased to the point where the workweek fell.

>NO benefits
Good. Government tax incentives for employers to provide benefits is one of the worst mistakes the US government ever did.
These benefits would be a lot cheaper if the employer simply gave their workers this money in cash and the workers themselves bought these benefits in the private market.

>>17174644
Economic collapse as capitalism grinds to a halt due to nobody having disposable income sure is great.

>>17174661
Yes, yes, taxes are theft, even though the prop up the value of the currency you're using unless you pay everything in monero and Pokémon cards.

>>17174613
>Funding is not generated by printing money or raising personal taxes. It's done through a 10% VAT placed on the sale of luxury goods, and transactions made by large tech companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc, which are data mining personal information while making billions. A VAT on the biggest tech companies alone would generate billions of dollars in revenue, so increasing taxes on individuals is not necessary. People buy things, tax revenue is generated, they receive that revenue back in the form of a dividend.
lol dude taking money away from saved capital and spending it on consumer goods WILL RAISE PRICES

How fucking stupid do you have to be to understand this?

>recirculate through the market, and, in some studies, boost the economy by ~$2.5 trillion.
LOL Spending money isn't what boosts the economy, this is a keynesian myth.
It's savings and investment that increases economic production.

>>17174667
That's not what's going to happen.
I can't wait for this change to occur for you Luddites to be utterly confused.
Enjoy your autonomous vehicle utopian future, faggot.

The simple fact of the matter is:
Imagine being so dumb you vote against getting 12k a year.

>>17174683

https://futurism.com/experts-universal-basic-income-boost-us-economy-staggering-2-5-trillion

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/modeling-macroeconomic-effects-ubi/

>>17174662
>The same thing happened during the late 1800s/early 1900s when productivity increased to the point where the workweek fell.

If you want to a historical comparison, you do realize the living standards of the working class fell and took almost a century to rise in the wake of the first industrial revolution and by the estimates of the most optimistic economic historians working class wages stagnated for 5 decades?

>>17174705
>rooseveltinstitute
>Carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

FDR should have been assassinated for destroying the american economy.

THIS is who you're modeling your UBI theories on?
Do you want another great depression?

>>17174727
>you do realize the living standards of the working class fell
Not true at all.

>>17174747
Yep

>>17174694
The Luddites were right and the literature bears that out: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Feinstein1998.pdf

Obviously, in the long run we will be much better off, but people will get left behind.

>>17174747
Imagine needing outdated boomer studies to rationally and logically think how everyone over 18 having 12k a year extra would affect our country.
>Protip: It would be extremely positive.

>>17174784
>The Luddites were right
No they weren't.
Historical reality disproves this.
Countless more jobs were created.
If the luddites got their way society would be much poorer than it is today.

>>17174789
>12k a year extra
They wouldn't have this lmao, it would just increase prices.

>>17174765
>GNP per capita is a proxy for living standards

anon...

and those figures aren't even from the first industrial revolution

>>17174829
Food production and consumption dramatically increased, stupid.

>>17174829
>and those figures aren't even from the first industrial revolution
My original point was about reduced working hours and increased living standards in the American industrial revolution in late 1800s, early 1900s.

>>17174829
also what's wrong with GNP per capita?

>>17174799
>a variable related VAT tax is worse than a free 12k a year for life
Pic related, it's you.
You must be under 25.

>>17174799
>>17174799
Nobody cares about a 10% increase on the price of iPhones when they are getting $12k per year.

Truck drivers who lose their jobs often drop out of the labor force entirely and resort to collecting disability.

Government retraining programs have a success rate of 0-15.3%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8l4Kn-j-5M

Artificial intelligence (machine learning) throws predictions based on all previous industrial revolutions out the window.

>>17173618
>it’s an Andrew Yang viral marketing thread
BORING

>>17174799
Holy fuck imagine being this dense. Try actually reading, there's a lot more nuance to this topic than your smooth brain can claw at.

> For the majority of the working class the historical reality was that they had to endure almost a century of hard toil with little or no advance from a low base before they really began to share in any of the benefits of the economic transformation they had helped to create.

The luddites were right to be afraid. Automation DID harm their living standards and suppress wages for decades... "Obviously, in the long run we will be much better off, but people will get left behind."

>>17174890
>>a variable related VAT tax is worse than a free 12k a year for life
It's just going to raise prices, I mean I don't know why you don't understand that a massive increase in demand for consumer goods wouldn't result in increased prices.
>>17174894
>Nobody cares about a 10% increase on the price of iPhones when they are getting $12k per year.
No, the price of goods would be proportional to the $12k in new money people are getting.

No new supply is created so prices will rise.

>>17174912
>Automation DID harm their living standards and suppress wages for decades...
How do you know that other factors weren't at play here? How do you know this study is accurate?

Why when production increased in the USA during the gilded age, real wages dramatically increased all while old jobs were being destroyed and new ones created?

>>17174874
It doesn't take into account distribution.

GNP per capita rose enormously in Britain between 1780 and 1830. Throughout that same time period working class wages were stagnant, food adulterated, massive slums emerged, welfare for the poor gutted etc. Not a good time for the poor and working class.

>>17174947
Prove it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iV_hB08Uns

>>17174973
>How do you know that other factors weren't at play here? How do you know this study is accurate?

This is an extremely well studied topic for literal centuries at this point.

Even by the estimates of the *most optimistic* economic historians (lindert/williamson) working class wages stagnated for 5 decades

>>17174947
>It's just going to raise prices
It's not going to raise prices more than 12k a year's worth. If you are buying stuff that has high enough taxes to put you over the 12k a year you need to re-think your spending.
> a massive increase in demand for consumer goods
This is simply not true. Not everyone is a mindless zombie, and those that wish to spend their "free" money on frivolous things can do so. Many people I know would use that money in good ways.

It's like this, if Mcdonalds went up 100% in price but I got 12k a year would I really care? No, because I rarely if ever eat mcdonalds.

>>17174978
Okay.
Well in the same image it's showing food production and consumption radically increasing during this time so clearly there was good distribution.
It comes from this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Transformation-American-Economy-1865-1914-Interpretation/dp/0471390038

>>17175000
>This is an extremely well studied topic
Really? Because the common consensus disagrees with you. It's common knowledge that the Luddites were wrong.
This study could just be inaccurate, it's only one study.

>working class wages stagnated
Real or nominal wages?

>>17175018
>It's not going to raise prices more than 12k a year's worth. If you are buying stuff that has high enough taxes to put you over the 12k a year you need to re-think your spending.
Dude the same amount of goods are being produced, it doesn't matter about money or spending or whatever, people would be consuming the same exact about of stuff.

>>17174258
VAT is the worst.

21% on everything except food, 9% on food

They put fucking VAT on taxes here. Cos you know, added value. Anyone defending VAT deserves the rope.

>>17175025
>tHe PaSt dIcTaTeS tHe FuTuRe
Fucking sub 90 iq boomer mindset.
Fact is, if everyone had 12k a year prices would rise but not to the point that it really mattered, because YOU HAVE 12K EXTRA A YEAR.

>>17175036
>Dude the same amount of goods are being produced
Absolutely not true. We are beginning to live in a world of abundance more than ever. You're simply just wrong. Also robots, AI, and automation will make that future even more abundant. You're a fucking sub 90 IQ boomer mongrel.
>people would be consuming the same exact about of stuff.
Kek. Thanks for agreeing with me.

>>17175066
>YOU HAVE 12K EXTRA A YEAR.
the value of the money would change lmao
why don't you understand this

the same exact supply and capacity to supply goods exists
You don't magically change this by trading more pieces of paper lmao

>>17175076
>Absolutely not true. We are beginning to live in a world of abundance more than ever. You're simply just wrong. Also robots, AI, and automation will make that future even more abundant. You're a fucking sub 90 IQ boomer mongrel.
Dumb dumb, I'm not talking about production increases, I meant if we implemented UBI and nothing else changed.

>Thanks for agreeing with me.
Then why even implement UBI if it wouldn't benefit you? lol

>>17174973
>gilded age

Yeah you know what we did following the gilded age? Universal high school, 8 hour work week, abolition of child labor etc. we took action, adjusted society with various social and economic reforms. Just like what is necessary now. UBI is one of the more elegant solutions on offer, and it's worth it even if automation were a non-factor.

>>17175104
>I have more customers now that everyone has more money, better raise prices to compensate for the VAT

>Where did all my customers go

>>17175104
>the value of the money would change lmao
>why don't you understand this
No it wouldn't. You cannot live off of 12k a year. The value of money would change for some people in that they have more to spend on things they need or want. That isn't a bad thing, if anything it's good for the market because people having money to spend == good. Also taking into account the fact that big corporations are fucking us over every single day and we get nothing to show for it means that UBI is the best solution to this.

>I'm not talking about production increases
>Dude the same amount of goods are being produced
This is where your misunderstanding of our world is. Production WILL INCREASE as automation takes more % of our markets.

>Then why even implement UBI if it wouldn't benefit you? lol
It would benefit me in some ways. Mainly letting me to take riskier investments or improve my overall health by worrying less about certain aspects of my life. I could also start a small business and not care if I failed.

I'm sure for other people it's similar. They would be more likely to produce more good things than bad things, which would be an overall huge boost to the economy and social aspect of it as well.

>>17175045
Fucking this. Can't stand Yangcucks handwaiving it away. "no it won't make stuff more expensive' they'll say "only rich people will pay for it". But the reality is you'll get 1k per month at the cost of your purchasing power getting motherfucking just'd.

>>17175154
Yeah basically, that dude I'm arguing with is the epitome of dunning-kruger effect. He doesn't understand markets or the social interactions within.

>>17175144
>8 hour work week, abolition of child labor etc
Yep, all things that happened long before government intervention or unions.

>we took action
Nope, you retards didn't do shit lmao. These changes took place before your dumb laws were enacted.

>>17175025
>Really? Because the common consensus disagrees with you. It's common knowledge that the Luddites were wrong. This study could just be inaccurate, it's only one study.

This is what I mean by dense. Yes obviously the Luddites were 'wrong' in a literal fucking sense. But generally, their inclination to fear the machines was based in the reality of what was happening to the working class.

It isn't "just one study", this is a debate spanning hundreds of historians/political scientists/economic historians etc.over two centuries now, and the MOST OPTIMISTIC of those admit the wages of the working class were stagnant for 5 decades. And yes, real wages OBVIOUSLY!

>>17175159
>But the reality is you'll get 1k per month at the cost of your purchasing power getting motherfucking just'd.
Sub 90 IQ take. Dunning-kruger in effect here.
Yang has specifically said some things will be taxed more than others. Luxury goods moreso, as it should be. Therefore, your argument is trash, because the 1k a month is more beneficial than a small VAT is negative.

>>17175174
>dunning-kruger effect
Holy fucking cringe. Are you wearing a fedora right now?

>>17174557
New money isn't created. It's plunder.

>>17174226
>You can't smoke $1000 in a week
I'm sure a methhead or heroin addict can. Personally I'd put each check into chainlink

>>17175207
I'm too lazy to keep arguing, but all you have to know is that you're going to be incredibly wrong, I can't wait for the next 20 years for you people to be utterly confused.

>>17175159
If you raise the price of eggs to $12, I will start selling them for $5 and you will go out of business.

Lest we forget: the proposed VAT applies to luxury goods. Food, clothes, most media (the most cost stable goods on the market) are exempt.

>>17175214
You are so easily understood it's hilarious. I see many people like you that think you know more than you do. It's so obvious you're a fake. You can't even rationally understand why UBI is important and how it would positively affect everything more than negatively.

>>17175233
yes, that's what happens in a free market, when you impose a tax, you now have a price floor and a deadweight loss. In short, you'll sell for just above the cost of production PLUS the new tax.

fuck off retard

>>17175236
I can see how emotionally attached you are to this theory, it's quite cute.
I'll leave you with this, you have some reading to do, kid.
https://mises.org/wire/dont-be-duped-latest-universal-basic-income-scheme
https://mises.org/wire/hidden-costs-universal-basic-income
https://mises.org/wire/dangers-universal-basic-income

>>17175159
>>17175045
retards

Yang's VAT is 10%

The burden of a 10% VAT on 25k income is somewhere around $50 a month.

>>17175231
The only person utterly confused is you.

I'm not arguing automation is somehow a net negative. I'm saying their are optimal ways to manage the economic transition.

>>17175273
Oh it's these articles again.

>>17175273
That's too much to read for a supporter of a luddite child mutilator.

>>17175273
>mises
>mises
>mises
fuck me anon, you're irredeemable

>>17175273
Studies are bullshit and often do not reflect how things perform in the real world. Not only that, but you can cherry pick negative studies about LITERALLY EVERYTHING, so you need to take them with a grain of salt instead of blindly believing the lies of wordsmiths.
You can find plenty of studies where economists agree that UBI is the inevitable way to quell the inevitable societal disruption from AI and automation, too, "kid".

>>17174226
1 ounce costs around $200 here, watch me bitch

>>17173867
>On average, a single Macy's store generates ~$36 billion a year

LMAO what?!? citation needed

>>17175365
These aren't even "studies", they're just glorified blog posts

One Department of Labor survey in 2012 found that 41 percent of displaced manufacturing workers between 2009 and 2011 were either still unemployed or dropped out of the labor market within three years of losing their jobs.

How do the 40 percent of displaced manufacturing workers who don’t find new jobs survive? The short answer is that many became destitute and applied for disability benefits. Disability rolls shot up starting in 2000, rising by 3.5 million, with the numbers increasing dramatically in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other manufacturing-heavy states. In Michigan, about half of the 310,000 residents who left the workforce between 2003 and 2013 went on disability. Many displaced manufacturing workers essentially entered a new underclass of government dependents who have been left behind.

In places where jobs disappear, society falls apart. The public sector and civic institutions are poorly equipped to do much about it. When a community truly disintegrates, knitting it back together becomes a herculean, perhaps impossible task. Virtue, trust, and cohesion—the stuff of civilization—are difficult to restore. If anything, it’s striking how public corruption seems to often arrive hand-in-hand with economic hardship.

Morgan Stanley estimated the savings of automated freight delivery to be a staggering $168 billion per year in saved fuel ($35 billion), reduced labor costs ($70 billion), fewer accidents ($36 billion), and increased productivity and equipment utilization ($27 billion). That’s an enormously high incentive to show drivers to the door—it would actually be enough to pay the drivers their $40,000 a year salary to stay home and still save tens of billions per year.

Other autonomous vehicle companies report similar timelines, with 2020 being the first year of mass adoption. The market rewards business leaders for making things more efficient. Efficiency doesn’t love normal people.

>>17175365
Really surprised you took the 8 day old baby cock out of your mouth long enough to type this.

Got them strapped to your face like a feed bag these days?

83 percent of jobs where people make less than $20 per hour will be subject to automation or replacement. Between 2.2 and 3.1 million car, bus, and truck driving jobs in the United States will be eliminated by the advent of self-driving vehicles.

The U.S. labor force participation rate is now at only 62.9 percent, a rate below that of nearly all other industrialized economies and about the same as that of El Salvador and the Ukraine.

The number of working-age Americans who aren’t in the workforce has surged to a record 95 million. The unemployment rate is defined as how many people in the labor force are looking for a job but cannot find one. It does not consider people who drop out of the workforce for any reason, including disability or simply giving up trying to find a job.

The proportion of Americans who are no longer in the workforce and have stopped looking for work is at a multi-decade high. There are presently a record 95 million working-age Americans, a full 37 percent of adults, who are out of the workforce. In 2000, there were only 70 million. The change can be explained in part by demographics—higher numbers of students and retirees, but there are still 5 million Americans out of the workforce who would like a job right now that aren’t considered in the unemployment rate.

>>17175316
The ones you didn't read? lol
>>17175333
I'm the ANTI-luddite.
Did you respond to the wrong poster?
>>17175348
You're irredeemable. You believe whatever the mainstream economists tell you when the answer to these solutions is staring you in the face.
>>17175365
>economists agree
Retarded keynesian/chicago school types aren't real economists.

>>17175497
They're called logical arguments, something yangtards don't understand.

>>17175498
You act like we have a free market or something?
Central banking and interventionism is what is making these people unemployed.

Today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits.

Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining.

The chances that an American born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent.

The share of GDP going to wages has fallen from almost 54 percent in 1970 to 44 percent in 2013, while the share going to corporate profits went from about 4 percent to 11 percent. Being a shareholder has been great for your bottom line. Being a worker, not so much.

>>17175537
No fren. The poster you were responding to is the luddite that advocated for pedokike child molestation on the grounds that it's the parent's choice to molest them, just like his hero YANG.

>>17173670
Absolute retard on teachers
Teachers cannot be automated, but they can scale like never before. Not only teacher can just record a lecture that can be reused forever without paying him multiple times.
The teaching itself can be automated, take for instance learn2code type of sites. Teachers will get absolutely rekt.

>>17173733
Yes, you will just lay back and Jews will make sure you have everything you need for living the comfy life in abundance .
Holy fuck, being this gullible

>>17174557

Do basic math. Simply take all of the eligible people getting it and multiply it by 1000 and then again by 12. You'll see that just three years of UBI in the US will cause hyperinflation.

Also, I refuse to accept the argument that other forms of welfare are going to be removed. Massive amounts of welfare leeches will get paycuts if they go down to only 1k. Democrats are not going to get rid of all of the other forms of welfare. It's a lie if you say they will.

>>17173618
with all that said, what do we do? am i safe with chainlink because it automates a bunch of services that we have people doing right now?