Very well said, and the same feeling I have. I like his ideas (most of them), but I distrust political amateurs and I don't like political amateurs thinking they can come in at the top job. If you're really committed to public service and you really think you can help, run for Rep, run for Governor. When you show you're effective at governing, then you have some credibility to ask for the presidency. Even guys like Pete or Beto, they put in some time but I'd like them to put in a bit more. EDIT: I would like to see him as a VP. He can get some good seasoning and meanwhile can push his president towards more forward-thinking solutions.
A president has to know how to twist arms and bend people who don't like you to your will. This what hampered Obama and made Clinton a great executive.
At the end of the day it’s about writing political power right ? Twisting arms is one way . I have a feeling If he’s elected , Yang will have the ability to use the bully pulpit to get republicans and democrats to play along . Obama made a mistake imo by trying to play fair with republicans and make his bill seem bi-partisan ... when he could have passed whatever he wanted his first term . He also faced A LOT of opposition when he was elected . Almost as much as trump Which is to say ... half the country hated trump when he was sworn in and 35-40 percent of the country strongly disliked Obama . I’d be curious to see what the case is with Yang . He’s got a lot of appeal to both sides
Yang is a man ahead of his time, if this was 2040 instead of 2020, he would have a great shot, by then AI and robots would have probably started taking over many of if not most of the jobs.
Nobody had more of a bully pulpit than Obama I don't have any idea why you think Yang would be different or anywhere close to Obama. I get you really like him and thats great to be that engaged but I don't see that great of an appeal on either side and its why he cant crack 5%.
I’ll admit I’m biased haha Like I said , I think Obama made a mistake by not being aggressive enough and trying to compromise too much , eventually he lost momentum.
People do not realize that is the future we are headed for. China, India and Mexico will all become secondary concerns in a few decades. There will be less and less jobs for humans in any country, not just the USA.
Well said. I mused elsewhere that we have too many “spokespersons” but “consultant” seems apt too. I wish Yang would run for Congress/Governor/mayor of large liberal city where he can actual put his ideas into motion.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s in a few decade. It's in 5-15 years. And more critically, when it hit an industry, it's almost instant in relative time. There won't be much of any time for folks displaced from jobs to learn new skills. If they already have skills that allow them to move elsewhere, good. But most probably will be left behind. The case of Netflix and online video overtaking BB is one example of how quick it happen and how the new workers created from the new model is a fraction of the number of workers from the old model. (all of this doesn't matter much - people can't see past a few months) https://devops.com/the-blockbuster-effect-in-the-age-of-automation/ As automation eliminates jobs in the modern world, new jobs for humans will NOT be created at levels required to keep a workforce fully employed. Rather, AI will do more and require less. The lead up to large-scale unemployment will not be slow. It will happen fast, over a period of a year or two. And, it very well might happen within a decade rather than decades in the future.
Blockbuster is a terrible example and Netflix is the epitome of how we should be evolving. There was nothing positive in keeping Blockbuster around. It primarily composed of minimum wage jobs, required brick and mortar stores to shelf media that inevitably ended up in the landfill in a few years. Then there is the aspect of using fossil fuels requiring a person to make two trips to blockbuster for a rental cycle. Netflix streamlined the physical media by utilizing the postal service that already existed. It completely cut out the high impact B&M stores, did away with the millions of pounds of plastics for media casings all while offering a better cost solution to the consumer. When the streaming media took off, it created thousands of high paying tech jobs to build and manage the distribution of bandwidth, both directly and indirectly. One could make an argument that it fast tracked high speed internet. Once it streamlined the delivery of content, it moved directly into providing its own content, which again, created many high paying jobs throughout the world. All for the cost of 2-3 rentals a month at blockbuster, Netflix transformed the industry into a high efficient machine. Which would you rather? 80k minimum wage and/or part time jobs or the thousands of high paying full time jobs?
I’m for technology, progress and advancement. I’m against holding back to avoid disruptive changes. So except for the part where it’s a great example of how fast thing can change and how things will change, I agree with almost everything else. I rather we realize what’s coming and have some type of solution for it, even if is to dampen the effect. Displacing massive number of workers within short timeframe will have huge societal and political consequences.
I agree - but its also nothing new. Technology has been revolutionizing the world for thousands of years. The internet, industrial revolution, the cotton gin, printing press, the wheel. All of them lead to rapid and crazy changes in society. But we always seem to find a way forward.
We will find a way forward, with newer types of jobs that have different sets of requirements, which itself drives labor (educators, explorers, artists, ...). There will be a large displacement of workers during the transitions. The big unknown isn't any of that, it's how fast the transitions will be. I think there is a good chance it's faster this time and more continuous. Past revolutions were driven by human innovation. Tomorrow revolution may start with humans, but machines are now and will become more capable of changing on its own. That part - machine-driven technology is what may blow the roof of as far as how fast things can change and how often. What we may see is sustained mini-revolutions that continuously display workers.
The argument isn't whether or not we will move forward, it's how painful the process will be. Everybody seems to gloss over the bloodiness and civil unrest endured in the last industrial revolution. Better to undertake the revolution than have it undertake you.
The ego is such a fascinating psychological concept. Its not that modern humans are more intelligent, its just we have much better tools. To imply our ancestors were bumbling fools who had no foresight is just silly. They had similar debates just as we are today.
With much better tools, we have both better foresight and the capacity to do something about it than our ancestors.
