Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

[Azure]

Seriously, trade work often involves apprenticeship training, which allows for on the job (while getting paid) training.

We sit and bitch about people not being able to make their living when they're on minimum wage, but why aren't we transitioning minimum wage workers into trade schools where they can quickly move up to middle class income levels within a few short years?

This is a good example of where policy makers are sitting in their fancy offices looking down on the rest of society while telling us all how programs like UBI will solve poverty, income gap, etc when in reality the work to solve those problems already exists, but it is just not politically correct to tell a student that hey, maybe you should take a serious look at being a welder or electrician, because those trades make a decent buck.

A good friend of mine went to Red River College as an electrical apprentice, got his ticket, worked 10 years in a plant as a technician, went independent and now makes over $250k per year. His biggest struggle? Finding someone to help him handle the work, DESPITE the fact that he would pay over $60k per year starting wage for good help.

The work and ability to move up the ladder is there. Our country is just run by a bunch of chicken #####s afraid to tell our kids that they might need to get their hands dirty in order to have a good life.

[Azure]

And if we think that there isn't a massive disconnect between what colleges and universities are teaching our kids, and what companies need, look at what Google is doing.

Hence Google's new Career Certificates in "the high-paying, high-growth career fields of Data Analytics, Project Management, and User Experience (UX) Design," which join their existing IT Support and IT Automation in Python Certificates. Hosted on the online education platform Coursera, these programs (which run about $300-$400) are developed in-house and taught by Google employees and require no previous experience. To help cover their cost Google will also fund 100,000 "need-based scholarships" and offer students "hundreds of apprenticeship opportunities" at the company "to provide real on-the-job training." None of this guarantees any given student a job at Google, of course, but as Walker emphasizes, "we will consider our new career certificates as the equivalent of a four-year degree."

http://www.openculture.com/2020/09/g...education.html

A 6 month program that is to Google, someone who is looking for high-end talent, the equivalent of a 4 year degree? Makes you wonder how bloody useless a company like Google thinks those 4 year programs have become.

Hopefully this spells the end of life for bloated tuition programs that accomplish nothing, and teach our kids nothing while at the same time spiraling them into massive loads of debt.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And then the parents get up set that their child who spent 6 years getting a Masters in Sociology works in a call center. The twin delusions that A) you need a university to degree to get a good job, and B) a university degree should guarantee a good job both need to die. They're a legacy of the 60s and 70s that the entitled professional class can't move past.

You think parents are upset at that, try putting their kids into the trades stream at age 12. The parents would go insane. Society is just different here. Bubble wrapped kids must to go the education route. Trades are shameful. Not only for the kid, but for the competitive parents too.


Azure: The disconnect isn't necessarily the school system or the government. This is what the parents want, they want that degree for their kids to put on the wall.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Azure

To me the biggest issue is the attitude. I have friends in Germany, and it is interesting how trades are looked upon as a great career. All the big German manufacturers have programs in place to get these kids into vocational programs when they are 15 already.



Here in Canada we think kids taking a 'year off' before going to post secondary is great. Why? We need to get kids into programs sooner, not later.



Teacher attitudes are the worst to me. I don't think a single teacher I had advocated for trade schools, and many of the kids that did end up going to trade school have great careers.

Yup, it's an odd phenomenon of the west and seemingly supported by many. I've never understood it for the most part. If the year off is spent legitimately exploring potential career paths, then great. Not a fan however of 17 year old kids taking a year off to sit around at home doing nothing that relates to their future career plans or even worse, going on some backpacking expedition in Europe or SE Asia to discover themselves.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Yup, it's an odd phenomenon of the west and seemingly supported by many. I've never understood it for the most part. If the year off is spent legitimately exploring potential career paths, then great. Not a fan however of 17 year old kids taking a year off to sit around at home doing nothing that relates to their future career plans or even worse, going on some backpacking expedition in Europe or SE Asia to discover themselves.

I think a backpacking expedition for a year is way better than a year spent watching Netflix in their parents basement. I've known people who have done both, and the "travel for a year" types often end up doing well, while the "year off" types seem to end up in a dead end job.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Yup, it's an odd phenomenon of the west and seemingly supported by many. I've never understood it for the most part. If the year off is spent legitimately exploring potential career paths, then great. Not a fan however of 17 year old kids taking a year off to sit around at home doing nothing that relates to their future career plans or even worse, going on some backpacking expedition in Europe or SE Asia to discover themselves.

I think you have this wrong. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to take time between high school and university. Some take the time to actually save money for university, which is very expensive. Some take the time off because they aren’t yet sure what they want to do, so instead of wasting money on a program they may switch out from later, they take the time before they start. Others use the time to travel or gain other valuable life experiences by interacting with other people, cultures, and getting a taste of life outside their possibly limited experience.

I think people who just take a year off to do absolutely nothing must be extremely rare, rich parents and no motivation. But everything else I listed is a worthwhile expenditure of your time. And many still simply don’t want to go university or into a trade, and find happiness working in retail or in odd jobs. Life for many people is about having enough.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think a backpacking expedition for a year is way better than a year spent watching Netflix in their parents basement. I've known people who have done both, and the "travel for a year" types often end up doing well, while the "year off" types seem to end up in a dead end job.

Both options are better than blowing money on schooling that you have no interest in, and that will inevitably provide you no benefit. And set you years behind your peers.

[FlamesAddiction]

I didn't go to university until I was 28 and have no regrets.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I didn't go to university until I was 28 and have no regrets.

Yeah I was the same, except for a short money wasting stint immediately after high school in “business”. Dropped out. Worked a buncha cool jobs over the next 10 years and then made a well thought out career choice that worked for me on multiple levels. Went to a targeted school for that.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

...
The video said autonomy, mastery, and purpose... not just mastery. It also talked about how people tend to operate at their best when they aren't thinking about money and stressing out over their finances.

What's more, a person spending all their days on hobbies is actually doing more good for society than a person who is getting involved in criminal activities. Like Carlin said, "You show me a lazy prick who's lying in bed all day, watching TV, only occasionally getting up to piss, and I'll show you a guy who's not causing any trouble."...

In the long run, Carlin is wrong though. Assuming that UBI does in fact promote proliferation of those lazy pricks, society will decay and become an easy target for suppression by countries who don't encourage their population to do so. Autonomy, mastery and purpose goal starts with purpose, not autonomy.

I do not have a strong position on UBI, because we already have some of it... sort of. But as I start building up qualifiers, answering the questions yes or no becomes much tougher.

Should taxpayers support some people (children, disabled, sick) to live comfortably? YES.
Should taxpayers pay for everyone to live comfortably? /NO
Deserved vs entitled?
Who determines comfort level and how do you choose them?
How to determine a universal comfort level?
Is it fair to price comfort level differently for different locales?

The most important question (to me) is: Should the society require physically–able, healthy UBI recipients to pay back (in community work, volunteering, other forms of repayment) or should it come with no strings attached? I answer it unequivocally in favour of the former. Then it starts making more sense.

[The Big Chill]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Yup, it's an odd phenomenon of the west and seemingly supported by many. I've never understood it for the most part. If the year off is spent legitimately exploring potential career paths, then great. Not a fan however of 17 year old kids taking a year off to sit around at home doing nothing that relates to their future career plans or even worse, going on some backpacking expedition in Europe or SE Asia to discover themselves.

Not everybody knows what they want to do at 17. I went to university at 17 and failed miserably because I didn’t care. After that I decided I wanted to do some travelling so I worked 60-70 hours per week at crappy jobs to pay for trips. Both the working and travelling were great experiences for me and I went back to university with a lot more focus and maturity and did very well the second time around.

I’m very happy I took a few years to do that before settling into ‘real life’, and Id highly recommend that to anyone who isn’t certain of their career path.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

In the long run, Carlin is wrong though. Assuming that UBI does in fact promote proliferation of those lazy pricks, society will decay and become an easy target for suppression by countries who don't encourage their population to do so. Autonomy, mastery and purpose goal starts with purpose, not autonomy.

I do not have a strong position on UBI, because we already have some of it... sort of. But as I start building up qualifiers, answering the questions yes or no becomes much tougher.

Should taxpayers support some people (children, disabled, sick) to live comfortably? YES.
Should taxpayers pay for everyone to live comfortably? /NO
Deserved vs entitled?
Who determines comfort level and how do you choose them?
How to determine a universal comfort level?
Is it fair to price comfort level differently for different locales?

The most important question (to me) is: Should the society require physically–able, healthy UBI recipients to pay back (in community work, volunteering, other forms of repayment) or should it come with no strings attached? I answer it unequivocally in favour of the former. Then it starts making more sense.

I like the idea of some sort of community work/volunteering being part of it. Society only works if it balances out between give and take. Some people will always take more than they give and others will give more than they take. Adding in a UBI could easily put that off balance, so tying that to some sort of active community involvement would help keep the balance.

[GirlySports]

UBI can't be tied to anything or it's no longer UBI as defined.

[JohnnyB]

I have come to feel much of the discussion around the future of work and STEM in the education space is very misguided. The conversations we ought to be having regarding our education systems are around the future of society, not merely the future of work. There will always be aspects of educational experiences that are just pragmatic and instrumental in moving towards a career, but our lives shouldn't be reduced to our careers and our education shouldn't be reduced to career prep. Education for wisdom, for joy, for mental health, for social cohesion, for meaning and purpose in life are all tremendously important, especially in a future of continued rapid change in industry.

Obviously, needs have emerged that can be addressed by new pathways like those provided by Google's certificates and others, but they're not replacements for a well-rounded education and we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in our rush to revolutionize education systems.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

UBI can't be tied to anything or it's no longer UBI as defined.

I don’t really care about how it’s defined, UBI is no less than a reimagining of how society functions. Something like it might be necessary in the future, but that shouldn’t stop us from thinking critically about how best to implement it for maximum benefit to society.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I like the idea of some sort of community work/volunteering being part of it. Society only works if it balances out between give and take. Some people will always take more than they give and others will give more than they take. Adding in a UBI could easily put that off balance, so tying that to some sort of active community involvement would help keep the balance.

So we’re going to tie UBI to community work or volunteering.... isn’t that just the same as having a job and being paid a wage ?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I have come to feel much of the discussion around the future of work and STEM in the education space is very misguided. The conversations we ought to be having regarding our education systems are around the future of society, not merely the future of work. There will always be aspects of educational experiences that are just pragmatic and instrumental in moving towards a career, but our lives shouldn't be reduced to our careers and our education shouldn't be reduced to career prep. Education for wisdom, for joy, for mental health, for social cohesion, for meaning and purpose in life are all tremendously important, especially in a future of continued rapid change in industry.

Obviously, needs have emerged that can be addressed by new pathways like those provided by Google's certificates and others, but they're not replacements for a well-rounded education and we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in our rush to revolutionize education systems.

Johnny the issue is two-fold, a double whammy. You are forgetting the other part, equality. Not only is STEM and higher education the measurement of success it is also the measurement of equality. Society is not just if there are not enough women and minorities in STEM studies and in exec positions. Do you ever hear that there are not enough female welders or female foreman? Both are also true.

Thus, the education bar has been raised way up here as a measurement of success, but then minorities have to also be pushed in that direction to prove equality. A woman may want to study something for their enjoyment, but that's not deemed good enough. There are already more females than males in University, but the next step is to get them in STEM. Talk about being reduced to just a career.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by The Big Chill

Not everybody knows what they want to do at 17. I went to university at 17 and failed miserably because I didn’t care. After that I decided I wanted to do some travelling so I worked 60-70 hours per week at crappy jobs to pay for trips. Both the working and travelling were great experiences for me and I went back to university with a lot more focus and maturity and did very well the second time around.

Same here. Like many (most?) 17-year-olds, I didn't have a clue what I wanted to do with my life when I enrolled in university. So I pissed around, got drunk, skipped classes. Dropped out after two years. Complete waste of time.

But then I spent four years working on loading docks and moving furniture, with a backpacking trip to Europe in there. I grew up real quick (much more than I grew up in university), and learned that I sure didn't want to do manual labour for the rest of my life. When I went back to college at 23 I had a completely different attitude, and excelled at school.

So I actually think too many people go straight to university at 17 and 18, just because it's what they're supposed to do. It's basically treated like an extension of high school. Except you run up 10s of thousands of dollars in expenses while you faff around.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The attitude that it is the low performers who should go into trades is the problem. I'm a university educated professional (P.Eng) and have huge respect for the trades. Those are often good, stable jobs held by smart people who make important decisions and do interesting work. In a previous job I worked with an instrumentation tech who was smarter than me and made more money than me. But I had way more social standing within the company and in society in general as a professional. Which is stupid.

We need more tradespeople way more than we need graduates of many different university programs.

If trades weren't looked down upon by so many they would be considered a more viable career choice for young people. Maybe then we'd have the high end manufacturing reputation of Germany.

To be clear. My point was that people have different skills. If your aren't excelling in one area you shouldn't be forced into it. I don't think that anyone who doesn't do well in the narrow academic fields you learn in school is lesser or even less intelligent.

I agree 100% that Germany's attitude towards trades is far superior. And yes, they do divert people who are not excelling at the purely academic aspects of schooling into trade programs. They however get diverted into "vocational schooling". It's actually takes considerable effort to stay in the German academic stream, and spots in universities are relatively limited.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t really care about how it’s defined, UBI is no less than a reimagining of how society functions. Something like it might be necessary in the future, but that shouldn’t stop us from thinking critically about how best to implement it for maximum benefit to society.

I don’t see a scenario where we can avoid that situation. Looking at it super simply (my favourite):
- there are more people every day
- every company on the planet looks for efficiencies constantly
- technology is a runaway train

I just don’t see a future where enough jobs exist for people to work. Maybe we can split aside some “legacy careers” that require more experienced people, and have everybody else retire at 40? Or younger?

Forget telling me about how UBI is a great idea or a terrible idea, and somebody tell me how there are enough jobs for people aged 17-65 in 30 years.