What would you do with 1,000 dollars a month?

Would giving people $1000 per month help employment, or would it be spent on things that are produced via automation, and mostly in other countries? So, rather than helping, it might make things worse.

In the area where I live, someone making $15 per hour would barely be able to afford rent on a decent apartment. But that would leave them with little for food, clothing, transportation and other necessities. If it were a couple both making $15 per hour, it would get a little easier, unless they have children. And a lot of people around here make less than $15. I am not sure how many of them survive. And since lower cost neighborhoods are being bulldozed to make space for businesses and more expensive housing, the situation will only get worse.

In summary, $1000 per month could help the lowest income people, but it would not solve the underlying problems.

I could see where it may provide some benefit to people at the lower end of the pay scale in the short term, say, they were automated out of their job that was paying $50k, and now have to take one that's $30k, that thousand a month would definitely help them close that gap.

...but I don't think it's a long terms solution for anything, especially in the realm of automation.

As automation increases, the number of jobs will become more and more scarce, and when that occurs, the $1000/month won't be a "supplement" anymore, it'll be the sole source of income.

Automation will also end up impacting people higher up the food chain, ones that $1000 a month won't even scratch the surface of covering their bills.

IE: The example Yang, himself, used in an interview was that "when we think about automation, we think about the cashiers, warehouse workers, and truckers...but what happens 20 years down the road when automation starts hitting people like $200k/year Radiologists when someone develops a piece of software that can detect cancer better than a human can"


I also think Yang is a tad optimistic in thinking that the stroke of a pen will be all it takes to get large companies to part with their automation profits to fund this program and comply. Unless, that is, he's confident enough to think that he'll be the first one in history to assemble a team that can formulate a tax law that people won't find a way around.

MorkandMindy said:

Hi Martinius, and Happy 2022

The money is sourced from manufactured imports as well as domestically produced, so moving a factory out of the country and automating there will not get around the charge.

The charge is only partial, so the company will keep enough so automation will still increase profits.

The cost of automation is a significant factor in the gains from automation. A general-purpose workstation robot now costs 55,000 dollars. It works both day and night, through lunchtime and bathroom breaks, making it a good value in any advanced country.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're arguing against the proposal.

I didn't mean to imply that a factory outside the U.S. would avoid the charge. What I am saying is that companies will look for the least costly way and place to produce their goods. Which means outsourcing to countries with lower wages. I doubt this idea would have any beneficial effect on that.

MorkandMindy said:

The source for this money is the money saved on labor by automation.

At present, the company that automates keeps this money as profit and makes no contribution to the workforce no longer required.

The workers released will then compete with others in the workforce. Some may have to retrain Etc. so Andrew Yang's plan is for the automation bonus to share around everyone over 18 in the country, with some money for younger people included.

This scheme is the Universal Basic Income plan he proposed in the 2018 Democratic Primary and has been promoting for a long time.

The source and destination for the money are known, but it is more difficult to assess whether people will benefit significantly from the funds. To help evaluate the benefits we need your suggestions.

Click to expand...

Don't give him a fish. Teach him to fish. In other words, as companies lay off people because of automation, the man or woman needs retraining in another line of work. Part company funded, part government funded.

The cost of receiving the 1,000 a month would be covered in rising inflation and tax rates. It would end up doing no good whatsoever.