So, this is where Yang outlines his solutions for the problems presented in the previous sections. Rereading it, and comparing it to what I was thinking with my hypothetical book, he spends a lot more time talking about the problems, and I spend a lot more time talking about the solutions. He also doesn't present a ton of policy details, which speaks to his relative weakness as a presidential candidate (keep in mind how "wonky" I am with details of policies I tend to support). But this is encouraging. To some extent, I feel like I'm overthinking the book and rereading one of my favorite existing works on the subject it makes me realize I'm way overthinking it. I mean, some of my blog posts are quite frankly more detailed than some of Yang's book chapters here, for better or for worse.
Anyway, to get into it.
Chapters 16-17
This is where he outlines his case for the freedom dividend, his term for UBI. He discusses the history of the idea briefly, he outlines the benefits, and he pushes his idea for a VAT. While I understand why he pushes for a VAT, I'm going to be honest, I'm not particularly fond of using a consumption tax for the freedom dividend. It seems to draw in less revenue than would be had from an income tax, at least by my estimates, and the VAT does cut into the UBI itself, unless you carve our exceptions for essentials (which I think Yang wants to do), which further reduces its ability to raise revenue.
All in all, I love the idea, and I'm also a very pro UBI kind of guy, so, yeah. Easy policy to support for me.
With chapter 17, he goes a bit more into the history and the surrounding data of the proposal. He notes it's been successfully tried such as with Alaskan oil dividends, and also discusses the studies that took place in the 1970s and the obvious lack of significant work disincentives there. And of course, he briefly addresses all of the common criticisms like funding, inflation boogeymen, work incentives, and people wasting the money on drugs. So, he did a pretty decent job in this section. Admittedly, I feel like some of my posts are a bit more detailed and nuanced here, but still, that's where I struggle with writing seriously, I overthink it, whereas he just freaking writes it down plainly and simply in a to the point manner. So yeah, good section. I feel like he glosses over things here and there, but still, section.
Chapter 18
Here he talks about solutions for giving people stuff to do. As we discussed previously he thinks that jobs are essential for one's well being, and believes most people will pursue work even if UBI is implemented. He's not wrong, but in a world without jobs he talks about solutions to it. He obviously rejects the idea of a job guarantee. Good on him. I see the left pushing for this all of the time, and I find the idea cringe. Who wants a guaranteed job? Jesus. What is this, the 1930s? He points out how JGs are very expensive and not really worth the money, and I generally agree. And he has the receipts on this, talking about how it costs like $30-56k to train each person and that that's what the budget is for companies like his own venture for america and the peace corps. So yeah, not exactly a worthwhile discussion.
He talks about how UBI would allow people to work for less in fields where people work for reasons other than money, which I find kind of cringe, I mean, we should want people paid more, but eh, this is Yang, the entrepreneur we're talking about. He admits that businesses wanna hire people as cheaply as possible and that the market rewards efficiency, so...
To be fair he's not wrong either, I probably wouldn't push that as a selling point, lest we have leftists screeching into the void about underpaying people. They believe UBI is a trojan horse for that sort of stuff after all.
Honestly, I think if people work for reasons other than money, sure, yeah, people would work for less in some cases, but in most jobs, people would work for more. Because they wouldnt work at all unless jobs provide a minimum standard of pay and worker treatment. If people are underpaid and abused they'd just walk. So lefties, keep this in mind before you turn anti UBI. Look at the big picture.
Beyond that, Yang talks about his time banking idea, which he used to call "digital social credits", not to be confused with the Chinese "social credit" rating system. Basically, instead of working for money, we do odd jobs and are rewarded with some...alternate currency? Honestly, i never liked this idea, it comes off as money with extra steps. We already have "social credits", they're called DOLLARS AND CENTS. Like, I know in these kinds of books, I know Jeremy Rifkin discussed this in "the End of Work" too, but these guys always try to come up with alternative versions to jobs in order to give people stuff to do, and it always comes off as cringe for me. First of all, I dont think all jobs will be automated. There will remain jobs well into the future. It's just that without a shift to our capitalistic system, they will be unpleasant, extremely poorly paid, and be precarious. I tend to believe more in the polarization of the job market between the low end and the high end, with jobs always being available, but people being forced to jump through hoops to do increasingly degrading things.
And honestly, I DONT think work is the end all be all, or essential to human existence, that is the big ideological difference I have from Yang himself on these questions. He thinks automation will destroy all jobs and people will be left with nothing to do. I WISH that would happen, but I believe that jobists would keep us all on a treadmill working increasingly BS jobs that we hate doing, while we lose the dignity of the middle class we used to have. Capitalism has always needed the complete opposite of trickle down economics to function. I like to call left wing capitalist economics more like trickle up, or alternatively call it pinata economics, because sometimes you need to beat the rich with a stick before the candy starts trickling down (metaphorically of course, by beating them I mean taxes, regulations, safety nets, etc). Honestly, our future is more gilded age than anything, although areas like the Mississippi Delta and West Virginia speak to our future without intervention like a UBI. Just something to think about.
Honestly, my take? Just give people a UBI, let people choose what to do, let the federal reserve determine interest rates to create the right number of jobs, and over time, reduce the work week. That's my idea on moving away from work. And I believe it can be done. We just need to choose it over jobs.
Chapter 19
Here, he discusses human centered capitalism. While I generally agree with him, and believe we need to move away from GDP, I really believe this section could be so much more. As I said, with me, human centered capitalism is an ethos that has naturally come from my humanist worldviews. In reality, ALL human social conventions are to be human centered. Government, democracy, ethics, the economy. If this stuff does not exist to serve us and our needs, what is the point? We are merely slaves to our own social conventions. Human centered capitalism is needed to make capitalism work for people, rather than making us slaves to work, and to the rich property owners who control everything. Again, I kinda take Yang's core idea here and combine it with ideas like Karl Widerquist's indepentarianism, or Phillippe Van Parijs' real libertarianism. Both of these ideas essentially "justify" capitalism in some ways, by giving people maximal liberty under it, including liberty to withdraw from participating more than absolutely necessary. So to me, that seems to be the best way to ensure that the market serves us, and we don't serve it. I do appreciate Yang in trying to at least start to move in this direction though.
Chapter 20
Here Yang discusses his ideas to crack down on corruption in politics. These ideas include things like paying people more and forbid them from participating in money making activities related to their office after leaving it. He talks about jailing CEOs of companies fined heavy amounts, a proposal I'm not sure if I support, but it's worth thinking about at least. He talks about regulating technology, which Im more leery of. And he pushes some national service program to build unity, which I find creepy as fudge. Really, like, being the indepentarian I am, I just have to say this is authoritarian, and heck no, I don't support this. I know this idea made it into the original forward party too. If you guys recall, it was the one idea of Yang's I came out 100% AGAINST, unequivocally. So these aren't all winners. I appreciate the guy for trying, but some of these proposals just...don't resonate at all. He has some good ideas though.
Chapter 21
Here he discussed healthcare. He made some good arguments for single payer, although once again, he approaches it from his business background, whereas I look at it more as someone on the opposite side of things. Still, he makes good arguments about "job lock", and the need to reduce prices. He also discusses the high cost of education, and how that relates to high healthcare costs. Gee, if only we made college free too, why aren't you for that, Andrew? We'll discuss this a little later.
All things considered, he made some decent arguments for single payer, some of which I'd make, some of which I wouldn't. For me, it's about the fact that we have tons of uninsured people, healthcare costs are sky high due to blatant market failures, more piecemeal approaches like the ACA have largely failed to fully resolve the accessibility issues, and we need either single payer or a public option to step in and cover everyone. Many current costs like insurance premiums, employer contributions, and deductibles would be replaced with taxes, and people would be taxed (or in a public option, billed) in line with their income. Seems like a decent way to free people from the employer based system, and expand coverage to everyone without bureaucracy, paperwork, etc.
Chapter 22
Here, he discusses college. He talks about alternatives to college, and the need for in person interaction. IM not sure I agree with him given the prevalence of zoom post 2020. I also think online alternatives are okay too. STILL, I would support in person learning and interaction.
He doesnt support free college. While he acknowledges college is about more than just job training, but about building strong individuals, he seems to advocate for trade school instead, and talks about the perverse incentives universities have to overcharge and then have vast bureaucracies that aren't really needed. I cant help but think of my alma mater when reading this. I mean, i dont think they had insane bureaucracy per se, but they do have gall hitting people up who paid $30k a year for the privilege of going there for donations so they can rebuild the buildings they already have. When I left, they were rebuilding the science building. They already had a science building, why do they need another one? Then they purchased extra dorms by turning surrounding buildings into them, and yeah. Everything's about expanding expanding expanding. They could provide a decent experience for a fraction of the money. I mean, it dont cost THAT much for classrooms, desks, and white boards. But these colleges have to make everything bloated and expensive. Still, while I'd support forcing them to cut back, I still believe in free college.
College has a lot of positive benefits for me. It's basically needed to open the door for higher level jobs, so if we want a society based on merit and work ethic, we should be giving people the tools to compete in this new economy. A lack of that just leads to a wealthy aristocracy continuing to control the most privileged jobs and positions in society.
Second, college is about making strong citizens. Imagine how many people would vote republican if everyone had a college degree. We're talking a shift to around 60-40 in the democrats' favor if everyone had a college degree. Im not doing this simply to support the democrats, but let's face it. The GOP is a party full of people who are either very rich, or very ignorant. At this point, the party is represented by nutcases like Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Every time these people talk, I have to wonder why anyone listens, because the drivel that comes out of their mouths is so dumb idk how anyone can believe it. We have a clear education problem here. So by educating our populace, we encourage them to make better decisions.
Third, because college isn't a guarantee for success, but we want people to go anyway, and because the alternative under the status quo is being forced to pay tons of debt people cant pay off without a good job, well, free college would solve that problem. And based on his discussion on healthcare and doctors' salaries above and how med school costs are related to that, I would think subsidizing that crap would allow us to churn out doctors more, and not pay them insane amounts, driving up healthcare costs into the stratosphere.
So yeah. I just think free college would solve so many things here, and I think yang sleeps on this. Not saying he isnt wrong about bloat and bureaucracy and poor usage of resources in universities, that definitely happens. Again, i look at my alma mater and cringe. But, still, the solution comes with some level of free college and student debt forgiveness here.
Also, did we mention free college is relatively cheap? UBI costs like $4 trillion these days (Yang's plan is dated and has some drawbacks, but his cost $2.5-3 trillion IIRC). Medicare for all would require around $2 trillion in additional spending above what we already spend. Free college is just like, a couple hundred billion, at most. Seems like a no brainer to invest in our future.
Conclusion (of his book)
While the title "masters and servants" is interesting, I really think tying it in with human centered capitalism the way I often do would be a good idea.
Beyond that, his conclusion is short, he talks about how he fears for the future, and believes this automation wave is coming. I'd argue it's here, and it's been here since at least 2008. That's why so many cities are already struggling. This isn't something that happens overnight, it's a slow process that hollows out american society at large.
For as much as he talks about how he's fighting for his life here, and for the future of his children though, idk, I kinda don't feel that way about Yang at this point. Maybe he still believes this stuff deep down, but since writing this book, he's moved away from A LOT of his ideas. He's shifted away from medicare for all during the 2020 campaign itself. he shifted away from UBI post merging forward with other political parties. He's made some political compromises during the way where at least outwardly, it's like he's a different person. I know ive been very critical of yang both on this blog, and in these posts, questioning his dedication to these idea, but as I said, I feel like he merely adopted them, whereas I'm born into them and molded by them. This is personal FOR ME because I'm the one who lives in a burnt out rust belt style city in Pennsylvania that is the product of this war on normal people first hand. He talks about others living this with a sympathetic here, but I LIVE THIS. THIS IS MY LIFE. So I feel like I'm fighting for my life here in a more immediate sense than Yang, and thats why, as he distances himself from these ideas, I constantly grill him for it, and feel like I can NEVER back down. Because this stuff is real, I see it every day, and I feel like I myself have no future in this economy the way things are, and the way things are going. Yang's UBI is what's needed to make this economy serviceable for "normal people." Medicare for all is. Human centered capitalism is, for me, not just an idea, an entire ethos that sums up my entire ideological and existential approach to the economy. And I will keep pushing for it, even if Yang does not.
Conclusion (mine)
So....rereading this book in general, what do I think?
I think in defining the problems, in section 1, he's largely dead on. I might disagree with him on work and purpose, but other than that, we're in complete agreement. In section 2, I largely still agree with him, but out clear ideological differences on work tend to grate on me as the book goes on. Still, for a normie job creator explaining a variation of my ideas to other normies to convince them to join the cause? Excellent. I know not everyone will agree with me on work. I'm ANTI work, full stop. And I tend to believe his perspective is a little too protestant work ethicy for my tastes.
In section 3, I largely agree with him on solutions, but feel like he could have fleshed things out more at times. And I ultimately feel sad he has since backed away from most of these ideas. Even on the ideas themselves there were some points of disagreement. Time banking is kinda a cringey idea for me. I wish he was for free college, his national service plan is deeply authoritarian and cringey. There's a lot about Yang I like, but rereading it and thinking critically about our differences, it does seem like despite a lot of overlap, we do have some differing viewpoints on things.
Part of this is due to our perspectives. He's a "job creator" from the bubble who realized job creation isnt working. Im some dude who kinda approached this from my own perspectives in the labor market. He's not super educated on policy and while he had some good ideas he didn't seem very well versed in how to implement things. We've discussed his UBI plan on this blog before, it's kinda flawed. He had no plan to fund medicare for all and had since backed away from the idea, and seemed fair weather on supporting a public option, and yeah. He just....never really had the amount of education on policy that I had, I feel like in some respects, I did a better job on policy than he would, and I feel more knowledgeable and consistent on this topic.
All in all, Yang was great at diagnosing the problems with our economy, and sketching out a vision for solutions, but he seemed lacking in retrospect for the exact details of those solutions. And he seemed to waver in dedication to his original cause IMO.
On the flip side, when I've been looking into potentially writing my own book, I mean, this blog is a repository of solutions. I have tons of solutions, with tons of details, and feel like I myself do a better job than yang does. But, in trying to justify my solutions, I kinda feel like I suck at this, and Yang does a better job. The war on normal people is an excellent book, it's an easy 9/10 from me, but yeah, there are some points that need more exploring in my opinion. I feel like this blog has done a good job in doing that over the years, but yeah.
In some ways this is like the ideal book I wish I wrote 8-10 years ago, but in other ways, I just feel like Yang couldve expanded his ideas a lot. He is onto something here. I mean, UBI, medicare for all, human centered capitalism, all good things. But...he's not really been the best advocate for these ideas, both in terms of policy details, and in terms of his consistency in supporting them. I feel like Yang has essentially abandoned his original work, leaving it to rot, much like my community has been left to rot by the tides of change he discusses. And yeah. We kinda need better advocates for this set of ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment