That is a Really Dumb Idea, Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang says technological unemployment will eliminate not just the jobs of half the workers, but the job category itself.  It looks probable that he is correct over the next 20 years or so.  That is, indeed, a problem.  They will need to be retrained and low unemployment will go away for a very long time.  Also, right now, 4.7% of the adult population, due to various disabilities, are essentially unable to create value added at a rate sufficient to justify the minimum wage.  Technological unemployment will likely increase that to 15%, because the remaining jobs will be somewhat more intellectually or socially challenging.  So, about 50% of the workers are good. 35% are going to go through some tough times as they go through retraining.  For them, it is essentially a temporary problem. And 15% will never be able to support themselves through work.

Giving everyone $1,000 per month is a really stupid way to solve any of that.  The 50% don't need it, which means that the other 50% should get $2,000 per month.  If that is the budget.  That is good, because, in the U.S. $1,000 per month does not finance a life worth living, but $2,000 at least gets one close.  The 35% do not need $1,000 per month for life.  But they probably do need at least a 60% of salary unemployment benefit extended for at least three years.  That way they can afford to be retrained without their life falling apart. The 15% should get the SSI disability for which the 4.7% currently qualifies.  Now, that is a bit more complex than Universal Basic Income (UBI).  But it makes sense and UBI doesn't.  Apparently, Andrew Yang thinks you are too dumb to follow all that, so you need something simpler.

We have this basic issue that Americans, more and more, do not want their citizens to lack a livable income or access to health insurance.  I sympathize.  The U.S. is the richest non-boutique nation in the world and if it can't assure a good life for its citizens, who can?  But it needs to be done intelligently.  In other words. we want to incentivize people to succeed while assuring that those who are not up to the challenge or who have suffered a 'good faith' setback are cared for.  But, UBI doesn't do either well.  At http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com I will be publishing articles that take on the major issues of today and, hopefully, provide sensible, non-partisan ideas to deal with them.  Like this.  Please visit and when you do, be sure to sign up for my newsletter.