Ok to your first point, regarding the effect on current aid programs, I will not pretend that the lessening of the cost of those programs is not intentional. However, it is not the goal to end these programs. This is intended as a selling point for conservatives, because we need their votes - in the GE and on Congress, to pass the program.

I will add that there are a lot of misconceptions about how his program stacks with some programs, but requires anyone on cash based assistance to choose one or the other. If you go and actually talk to the people who are using (or *trying* to use) these programs, the truth of the situation becomes undeniably clear.

Also, one final point on this topic, Bernie's FJG program also highlights the lessened use of social aid programs as a cost reduction, so many attacks on Yang's program seem dishonest.

On to your second point, all I can say is that many seem to be whistling past the graveyard. Automation is set to displace millions in the very near future. And even more importantly, the way people refer to the fact that we have bounced back after the precious 3 industrial revolutions shows that they may not fully understand the full impact of those previous changes. For more details on how it took us 7 decades to deal with those please see the article at the link below.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212926049

Further, I think many people seem to be avoiding one of Yang's biggest advantages over other candidates - electability. If you watched the video I linked in that other thread, you will clearly see how much of an impact he could have in drawing votes from people who otherwise simply do not get engaged in politics.

That is something we have claimed to want a candidate to do for years. Bernie has been doing a good job of this and I supported him last time partially for this reason. However, this time, on policy and due to divisiveness issues, I think Yang is truly our strongest candidate against Trump.

Totally agree about electability. What's not to like about Yang? He's smart, funny, charismatic, not an "insider", and obviously cares about the country. He's already getting support form across the spectrum, and from outside people who are normally politically engaged.

I agree his intent is obviously not to end the programs. Some lefties are a bit jumpy given that Republicans have for decades tried to use nice-sounding alternative things (vouchers, private retirement accounts) to cut social programs. I think they are wrong to paint Yang as "just another benefit-cutting centrist", but to be fair I see where their concern comes from. Also that, even if it's not Yang's intention, it could unintentionally lead to cuts for political reasons. And there's probably also some unfair guilt-by-associations because libertarians are big on UBI.

With automation, I don't know, either way. Yang makes a good case and so does that article. And Krugman and the others make a good case too. Figuring out who is right is beyond me. Probably a bit of both.

Thanks for the post. I'm still undecided, maybe Yang is for me.

Working 4+ decades in Retail Grocery I saw first hand the affects of automation and the jobs lost over time.

It was some little things (like automatic misters in the Produce department that cost each store 15 hours each week) to huge changes with advent of Universal Product Codes (UPCs) or bar codes that we see on everything in a store that cost bunches of hours on both the front end and the backroom where product was priced before heading to display. Later on it was more of an outsourcing where products came in prepackaged (such as cherry tomatoes, strawberries, boxed beef, etc) rather than being prepared in store. This outsourcing scaled up to eventually lead to full pallet displays that arrived on the back of the truck and were wheeled straight to the sales floor (cut off the plastic wrap, add a sign and bingo it's ready to sell), with minimal labor required.

Imagine the affect of self driving trucks on the transportation sector, the lost driving jobs, the truck stops and all.

As to the point regarding UBI vs the current assistance programs, folks have to make a choice which is better for them. I don't see that as a negative but a positive as anytime you have a choice it is the best way to tailor it for your own situation.

I admit I don't feel smart or informed enough to decide who is right about automation. Yang and you and others make a very strong case. Krugman and them make a strong case too. Even the stupid little analogy I made about Mrs Maisel (which everyone should watch!) kind of makes sense, I mean, the elevator operators all lost their jobs, but life went on. I know it's a totally different scale, of course.

The world went on after the passing of the elevator operators most certainly, but what was the affect on those individual elevator operators and their families while the world was moving on? I am sure that each and every one of them had a story to tell as to how the loss of the job affected them.

In my reply I noted the Produce Department misting systems. I was a clerk who every couple of hours had to take a few tubs of ice and water out to freshen the highly perishable lettuce items each shift. While using the hose to water things down, I was on the sales floor to answer questions and help customers while doing so. When those hours were cut out, I was still working, but I might be anywhere in the department or in the backroom. When the next automatic system or outsourcing idea came along to shave off more hours, there were again fewer clerks to help customers. We went from customer service, to "the stuff is on the pallet over there, so just buy it." I am sure that we have all been in stores with a question and there is no employee anywhere to ask. It is a slow degradation of jobs, service and we are all being trained by the companies to do their work for them, be it pumping our own gas, checking out our own purchases at Home Depot, bagging our own groceries at the Sav A Lot and alike.

Good questions from DanTex and solid answers from redqueen. Props to both for a much-needed civil, informed discussion here.