[The Black Knight]

(03-09-2019 03:20 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

Andrew Yang is running for president on the Democrat side.


And the solution is UBI, or Universal Basic Income. Everyone USA citizen would receive 1000 dollars a month. If you are already receving 200 dollars in food stamps then you would receive 800 in UBI. If you are already receiving welfare and food stamps in an amount greater than 1000, then you receive no UBI.

If you are not a citizen or under the age of 18, then you receive no UBI. As far as what I understand, only Iran has a country wide UBI. Some other countries like India, Switzerland, Finland, France, Canada, US in Alaska, and Brazil use it in regions.

Here is the Joe Rogan video with Andrew Yang.

What I bolded is completely incorrect and you should have gotten this right if you're going to start the master thread on this when many people barely know anything about Yang and his platform.

You get 1000/month OR the current welfare. NOT both. No double dipping. It's a small minority who get 1000/month plus in welfare from the federal gov't and they would keep what they got if they so chose.

Yang makes this very clear in the podcast. Since a lot of people receive some sort of welfare that is less than 1000/month and with restrictions, they will very likely take the no strings and efficiently administrated 1000/month, this means a) no money going out from the welfare pool and therefore b) saving money from less administrative costs associated with the respective welfare program. In theory, many current welfare programs would be heavily reduced in cost and ultimately consolidated/eliminated.

I know you meant well but if you are pro-Yang, it's very important to get the details rights given how controversial and unknown his ideas are to the vast majority.

[The Black Knight]

This is my slightly updated post (from 2 weeks ago) on Yang based on the podcast and some new immigration platform info for people who are looking for a overview opinion:

Being a fan of Lee Kuan Yew [911 had said he saw a little bit of him in Yang during the podcast] and what he was able to do in a single lifetime (i.e. turn Singapore from a backwater town into a major world player), I decided to watch the entire interview. For anyone that hasn't watched videos on Lee Kuan Yew and have an interest in how to build/run societies, I highly recommend looking over some videos of/about him on YouTube. Fascinating guy.

Anyhow, I really like what I saw with Yang for the most part.

Some PROS I heard:

1. He really gets it on many fronts; especially how the tech sector is wiping out entire industries and making out like bandits while everyone else is holding a big bag of shit. And ultimately, what this is doing to society and especially men. He gets that if you destroy a ton of men economically, the society is pretty much lost.

2. His basic case on UBI is that we need it ASAP because there is no way to create enough jobs to replace what will be rapidly lost over the next several decades due to AI/automation/robots and that 12k/year will cushion the blow; giving people a lifeline to work with. Money will come primarily from streamlining welfare benefits and a VAT (valued added tax); with the intention that if companies are gonna kill massive amount of jobs, the overall society should benefit as well and a VAT will redistribute some of the gains. This makes sense even though it goes against initial intuition.

3. He emphasized on numerous occasions not just men, but how blue collar white men especially, are really getting the shaft in modern times and how the current democrat party doesn't give a shit about them.

4. Middle aged truckers and most people are not going to learn to code. Re-training into hot sectors for most people is a proven failure.

5. I dig his emphasis on how being a stay-at-home parent or taking care of an elderly parent isn't really acknowledged by modern economic standards and the measuring standards of a country's success need to change. He wants to move from GDP being the primary metric to other things that measure human well-being (suicide rates, mental health, mortality, etc).

6. Free college is stupid and won't fix anything. He says what anyone with common sense knows: we don't need more college grads; we need more vo-tech/apprenticeship training into jobs that are way less likely to be automated.

7. Regarding feasibility of implementing a UBI: it's very possible because while the government sucks at lot of things, it's pretty good at giving (certain) people money.

The CONS for me (for now):

1. The big one for me immigration. He comes from educated/professional immigrant parents and he acknowledges that they are a different profile from your typical Latin American immigrant (illegal and legal) but he wants to give a path to citizenship to illegals anyway assuming they follow certain standards like maintaining/having a clean background. Apparently, it's not practical to remove 10 million plus illegals. I disagree enormously but Trump obviously isn't going to do it and it would take a revolt at this point probably and so, this is likely the next best realistic alternative. From a democrat especially in 2019.

From his website:

Pathway to Citizenship (Make Them Earn It).

Quote:

Problems to be Solved

--1 1+ million undocumented immigrants are currently living in the United States

-- While the vast majority of these immigrants aren’t a security risk, having that volume of individuals in this country that aren’t known to the US government is itself a security risk

-- It would be prohibitively expensive and disruptive to deport all these individuals

-- These individuals tried to circumvent the legal immigration system into the US, and any pathway to citizenship for them must reflect this fact.

[the following is the juicy bits]

As President, I will…

-- Secure the southern border and drastically decrease the number of illegal entries into the US

-- Provide a new tier of long-term permanent residency for anyone who has been here illegally for a substantial amount of time so that they can come out of the shadows and enter the formal economy and become full members of the community.

-- This new tier would permit individuals to work and stay in the country, provided they pay their taxes and don’t get convicted of a felony.

-- This tier would put them on a longer, eighteen-year path to citizenship (the same amount of time it takes those born in the US to get full citizenship rights) [don't like this line but whatever; I got my citizenship day fucking 1], reflecting our desire to bring them into our country but also their decision to circumvent legal immigration channels.

-- Invest heavily in an information campaign to inform immigrant communities of this new tier of residency, and deport any undocumented immigrant who doesn’t proactively enroll in the program

Source: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/pathwa...m-earn-it/

Goddamn, that is pretty fuckin awesome and reasonable for a democrat in 2019. Shit, this is just reasonable period.

18 years and no felonies? Don't get in the program, get the fuck out!

I can dig that (if it is actually enforced).

Think about it on his immigration platform:

1a. 18 years without citizenship would keep illegals out of presidential elections for 4 cycles. Most democrats want them voting as illegals right now and/or want to give them citizenship and voting rights right now.

1b. The felony deal will get rid of the real scumbags and 18 years is a LONG dragnet to catch a lot of dirt bags.

1c. If they don't get with the program, instead of just floating through life, they have to get the fuck out.

1d. This answers a big question I had about UBI and illegals and the circumstances if/how they would get: Since these people won't be citizens, no 1000 bucks for them for 18 years! He says that illegals that have only been here for a "substantial amount of time" would qualify for the PR status; which implies he understands that there would be a mad rush of illegals to the US to get the free money if he won the election. And therefore, he needs to have a past time period qualifier to prevent the mad rush.

Big fear is this would get water down in Congress from 18 years to 5 or something. But the initial platform is solid and incredible for a democrat in 2019. Trump clearly has lost the will or ability to remove illegals on a mass scale and will probably get nothing done of significant substance except some partial wall built. So, given that the Trump base is majorly deflated and the demographics are working against the GOP, this is probably the realistic next best alternative with regards to illegals. It's WAY better than any other democrats platform on this issue. That's for fucking sure.

2. He wants to do Medicare for All but where doctors get a flat salary instead. I'm just going off his website but I'd be really worried about flat salary doctors in America if the VA and military medical are anything to go by. I know those are true socialized examples with gov't workers but I'd like to see some sort of tiered model based on body fat percentage and other poor lifestyle choices.

Fat ass who abuses their body? You're paying a surcharge.

That said, Trump has done barely fuck all to fix the healthcare system. At this point, I'd rather have Medicare for All than the expensive as hell disaster we have right now.

Bottom line for me so far:

For a democrat in 2019, he is about as good as it will ever get I think. The rest of the field with the possible odd or so exception is such a hot fire cluster fuck of worthless retards; none of which are worth remotely considering at a basic level.

I could see the democrat base and a lot of crossover Trump voters getting behind his UBI deal but I would imagine by not playing the identity politics game and God forbid, acknowledging poor white people, he could be shoved to the side similarly to how Jim Webb was ignored in 2016 when he tried to acknowledge poor white people problems during the debates. As a minority advocating for medicare for all and a UBI, he might be able to overcome it though.

In such a large primary field of retards, he could come out like the semi-sensible one in the clown house if he has strong debate performances. There is also the asian-american race factor which could be a major pull for him in places like California (which moved up its primary to Super Tuesday I believe) as well as Washington state, NYC area, and other locations with significant Asian populations. Asian-Americans to my recollection have never had a serious US Presidential contender or even primary contender and with many Asian-Americans becoming more politically aware and active (ex: Harvard admissions lawsuit), it will be interesting to see how they vote when given a choice to vote for one of their own.

Whether Yang could actually win anything, it's possible. He is selling something that is rooted in genuine concerns that appeals across the entire political spectrum and even across socioeconomic classes (plenty of white collar work will be automated soon as well); while also appealing to peoples natural desire for free stuff. He has obvious high raw intelligence and if he can combine that with some charisma and strong debate performances, he could be a powerful contender.

That all said, if we are going to get stuck with a democrat super majority in the near future, which is likely the case with the demographic war largely lost from the looks of it unfortunately (excluding secession/revolt/Trump declaring martial law), I would rather someone like this Yang guy setting the tone/agenda by a significant margin vs the rest of the democrats currently running. The rest of the field makes me want to abandon ship or start a civil war if they win in 2020.

[CaptainChardonnay]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...-happiness

An experiment with a state-sponsored basic income didn’t encourage the unemployed to look for work. But it did increase their sense of well-being.

By Leonid Bershidsky
February 9, 2019, 1:00 AM GMT-5

Quote:

The first results of Finland’s two-year experiment with a universal basic income are in, and if they’re confirmed by further research, they will probably hurt the unconditional income cause. The trial run showed that “money for nothing” makes people happier but doesn’t inspire them to find work any more than traditional unemployment benefits would.

The Finnish experiment, conducted in 2017 and 2018 by Kela, the country’s social insurance institution, was extremely important for world policy makers looking at variations of unconditional income as a way to offset job losses brought on by technological change. So far, the only other large-scale experiment in a wealthy Western nation that could have rivaled it took place in the Canadian province of Ontario; participants were recruited by April 2018 — but after a change of government, the trial is being wound down prematurely. This means the only solid data for researchers interested in how UBI works in industrialized nations are from Finland.

Perhaps the most important parameters for policy makers in those data concern the unconditional income’s effect on employment and on the government’s social spending. On both these counts, the Finnish experiment failed to produce a breakthrough for UBI proponents, in part because of its flawed design.

Finland paid 2,000 unemployment benefit recipients 560 euros ($635) a month without requiring them to go through the bureaucracy involved in applying for the traditional benefits and regardless of whether they landed a job. Given a median income of 2,900 euros, this is well below poverty level. But recipients didn’t have to give up other social benefits such as social assistance and housing and sickness allowances. They could even continue to apply for unemployment benefits if the amount due to them was higher than the basic income, a frequent situation for families with children. This worked to muddy the UBI’s effect: It didn’t really pull people out of dire poverty or rid them of the cumbersome welfare bureaucracy.

So far, Kela and a group of academics from Finnish universities studying the results of the experiment have only analyzed one full year of data. It’s possible that data for 2018 will alter their conclusions, but, based on 2017, UBI hasn’t increased people’s propensity to find work. People in the treatment group (UBI recipients) worked an average of 49.64 days in 2017, while people in the control group (those on traditional benefits) worked 49.25 days. There were no significant differences in their earnings, either.

The basic income recipients, on average, got 16,159 euros from the government in 2017, including the UBI; people in the control group received 11,337 euros. This means the government spent an additional 5,000 euros per experiment participant to get the same labor market outcome. Few policy makers would be inspired by such a result.

Other parts of the study are less discouraging. The Finnish researchers also did a survey of treatment and control group members at the end of 2018 to assess their subjective sense of well-being after two years of the experiment. The survey showed significant improvements in how people felt about their health and prospects if they received the unconditional income.

The UBI recipients’ self-reporting indicated they were more optimistic, more interested in finding full-time work, and less stressed than their peers on traditional unemployment benefits. They even showed more trust in politicians (although still less than the general population).

The survey results should probably be taken with a grain of salt because of the low response rate to the researchers’ questionnaire — just 31 percent of the treatment group and 20 percent in the control group. It’s possible that self-selection bias interfered: People who were relatively happy with the experiment responded in greater numbers than those who weren’t. For example, 30 percent of the respondents who had received a basic income were working at the time they were surveyed; only 25 percent of the control group respondents were employed.

Intuitively, however, it seems right that people who feel secure about even a small income display more optimism and report they’re functioning better. And some hard data confirm this, too: UBI recipients only claimed an average of 121 euros in sickness allowances in 2017, compared with 216 euros for non-recipients.

The question governments need to ask is whether a “soft” outcome — considerably happier, less depressed people at the bottom of the income ladder — is worth a significant increase in social system costs. Obviously, a decrease in jobless rates or a demonstrable improvement in the quality of jobs the unemployed eventually land would be a much stronger argument for an unconditional income. But in some advanced societies, more happiness also could be judged a desirable enough result to justify an increase in the tax burden.

[Caduceus]

The only thing that really matters for any US presidential candidate is his personal relations with powerful jews.
Everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) else is just smoke for common people to waste endless time on.

[TigerMandingo]

(03-09-2019 11:55 AM)Caduceus Wrote:  

The only thing that really matters for any US presidential candidate is his personal relations with powerful jews.
Everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) else is just smoke for common people to waste endless time on.

True, but let's be real, this isn't gonna change anytime soon. I don't expect Yang to break traditions with this long-standing policy, and I wouldn't be surprised or disapppointed once he speaks at the annual AIPAC conference and pledges his allegiance to Israel. Besides, Asians tend to have an affinity for Jews since they share cultural traits like an emphasis on good education and status-seeking. It is what it is.

[Rhyme or Reason]

So we endorse socialists now?

[Caduceus]

(03-09-2019 12:09 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

So we endorse socialists now?

Agreed....looks like the price of many people's loyalty here is a low 1000 dollars a month.
People sell their souls cheap nowadays

[Once Was Not]

(03-09-2019 03:58 AM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

He doesn't respect the 2nd amendment. Will go after guns hard with registration, storage, restrictions, etc.

[url=https://twitter.com/andrewyangvfa/status/1056334803501543426?lang=en][/url]

My state lost gun rights with a Republican governor while Republicans had the house, senate, and executive branch. Even my Republican senator liked it. The legislation passed in my state was copied by several others. Trump himself even passed some form of gun control.

Republicans, the GOP, and Trump will not defend the 2nd amendment or gun rights. They folded under pressure and crying women like a soggy piece of cardboard. Now we have tax paying citizens eligible for the draft who are being denied their constitutional rights and absolutely no one gives a fuck besides the NRA.

[zigZag]

UBI is Dumb as Hell. We have like 250 million people over the age of 18. Giving them all 1000 per month comes out to like 3 TRILLION dollars every year. Last year all our tax revenues were 3 trillion and we spent 4 trillion leaving us 1 trillion in the hole. It's impossible to pay for UBI. Cause then we will still need to pay for healthcare and education. I'm sure Democrats will push Medicare for all BS still.It will simply accelerate America being bankrupt and heading towards lawlessness violence and probably a scenario worse than the great depression.

With that being said I'm on the Yang train. Just not 2020.. Let's do 2024 since I need more time to grow my crops and gather ammunition and guns for survival.

[aeroektar]

I personally can't wait for my $1000 check, permanent VR headset, and life support tube shoved up my ass.

[CaptainChardonnay]

(03-09-2019 12:41 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 03:58 AM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

He doesn't respect the 2nd amendment. Will go after guns hard with registration, storage, restrictions, etc.

[url=https://twitter.com/andrewyangvfa/status/1056334803501543426?lang=en][/url]

My state lost gun rights with a Republican governor while Republicans had the house, senate, and executive branch. Even my Republican senator liked it. The legislation passed in my state was copied by several others. Trump himself even passed some form of gun control.

Republicans, the GOP, and Trump will not defend the 2nd amendment or gun rights. They folded under pressure and crying women like a soggy piece of cardboard. Now we have tax paying citizens eligible for the draft who are being denied their constitutional rights and absolutely no one gives a fuck besides the NRA.

Yang will be like that on steroids. I heard he wants everyone with a gun to have mandatory safes and that it will take a year before you can buy "assault weapons". I think his ideas come from the Canadian system.

[PapayaTapper]

(03-09-2019 12:20 PM)Caduceus Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:09 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

So we endorse socialists now?

Agreed....looks like the price of many people's loyalty here is a low 1000 dollars a month.
People sell their souls cheap nowadays

The "Wall" isn't getting built so fuck it...we may as well get our Bolshevism on. Makes sense to me.

^Thats meant sarcastically in the event that isnt clear

[eradicator]

(03-09-2019 01:24 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:20 PM)Caduceus Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:09 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

So we endorse socialists now?

Agreed....looks like the price of many people's loyalty here is a low 1000 dollars a month.
People sell their souls cheap nowadays

The "Wall" isn't getting built so fuck it...we may as well get our Bolshevism on. Makes sense to me.

^Thats meant sarcastically in the event that isnt clear

Why do you talk like that? Trump declared a national emergency to build the wall.

[Caduceus]

(03-09-2019 02:27 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

Why do you talk like that? Trump declared a national emergency to build the wall.

Make up your mind man.
You've been a hardcore Trump supporter for years & calling out Trump blackpillers for months now.
Now suddenly you dump Trump, and donate 20 dollars to a communist/socialist style democrat, and start a whole thread on him just cause he makes vague promises of free cash on the youtube channel of a pot smoker ??!

Who's side are you on exactly ?

[eradicator]

(03-09-2019 10:25 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 03:20 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

Andrew Yang is running for president on the Democrat side.


And the solution is UBI, or Universal Basic Income. Everyone USA citizen would receive 1000 dollars a month. If you are already receving 200 dollars in food stamps then you would receive 800 in UBI. If you are already receiving welfare and food stamps in an amount greater than 1000, then you receive no UBI.

What I bolded is completely incorrect and you should have gotten this right if you're going to start the master thread on this when many people barely know anything about Yang and his platform.

You get 1000/month OR the current welfare. NOT both. No double dipping. It's a small minority who get 1000/month plus in welfare from the federal gov't and they would keep what they got if they so chose.

Yang makes this very clear in the podcast. Since a lot of people receive some sort of welfare that is less than 1000/month and with restrictions, they will very likely take the no strings and efficiently administrated 1000/month, this means a) no money going out from the welfare pool and therefore b) saving money from less administrative costs associated with the respective welfare program. In theory, many current welfare programs would be heavily reduced in cost and ultimately consolidated/eliminated.

I know you meant well but if you are pro-Yang, it's very important to get the details rights given how controversial and unknown his ideas are to the vast majority.

I'll listen again later, but I am pretty sure he said, it was 1000 in aid total.


He went down the logic that if implemented correctly it would cost us less than you might think, as we already have a form of UBI in the form of welfare, food stamps, and other social safety nets


From Yang's website

Quote:

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.
The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:
1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.
2. A VAT. Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.
3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.
4. We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

I can't go back and change the OP, if it is indeed wrong. His point was that we would be paying less in social safety nets and people would just get the UBI. I checked his website before making the post, but he did offer more detail in the JRE podcast.

[The Black Knight]

It's all good Eradicator.

The triggering would have been the same regardless.

[eradicator]

The Vat taxes to pay for all of this would still be rather high, especially on big ticket purchases like cars or home appliances or home furniture. Even if it’s only like 1.5 trillion instead of 3, we would have to tax the hell out of everything .

Don’t get me wrong I like Yang, and we need some sort of plan for all of the jobs that will be displaced by machines, but I think this needs some tinkering

[Once Was Not]

(03-09-2019 01:23 PM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:41 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 03:58 AM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

He doesn't respect the 2nd amendment. Will go after guns hard with registration, storage, restrictions, etc.

[url=https://twitter.com/andrewyangvfa/status/1056334803501543426?lang=en][/url]

My state lost gun rights with a Republican governor while Republicans had the house, senate, and executive branch. Even my Republican senator liked it. The legislation passed in my state was copied by several others. Trump himself even passed some form of gun control.

Republicans, the GOP, and Trump will not defend the 2nd amendment or gun rights. They folded under pressure and crying women like a soggy piece of cardboard. Now we have tax paying citizens eligible for the draft who are being denied their constitutional rights and absolutely no one gives a fuck besides the NRA.

Yang will be like that on steroids. I heard he wants everyone with a gun to have mandatory safes and that it will take a year before you can buy "assault weapons". I think his ideas come from the Canadian system.

It's hard to get much worse than denying constitutional rights through age discrimination.

But, as I said, no one gives a shit. Which is why we'll lose the 2nd at some point.

It wouldn't even matter if he were strong on firearms. Rubio, the aforementioned senator, was highly rated by the NRA and strong on firearms. Didn't matter, he flipped. Who's to say Yang wouldn't do the same?

It's just a matter of how fast we get to the destination at this point.

[CynicalContrarian]

Wait... is Yang now the boss of the DNC...?

[nomadbrah]

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Is there any greater symbolism possible than an Asian guy harnessing the powers of weaponized autism?

[nomadbrah]

He who lives by the meme, dies by the meme.

[Spectrumwalker]

Instead of giving away 1000 bucks a month to make up for automation....how about they just make automation illegal and stop it from happening in the first place. Government already shows it's got no problem meddling in the private sector, so fuck it, just make it illegal. A country needs to recognize for the sake of it's collective national mental health the necessity that men need and are designed to work so they have purpose in life, value, and a sense of self worth. Which ultimately in the end helps get them girls and keeps em outa trouble. We think drugs, slothfulness, and narcissism are bad now, wait til everyone starts getting Yangbucks.

Fuck you Yang and the horse you rode in on. And your momma too! 1000 bucks a month my ass. Where's it all gonna come from. Won't be long til there's nothing left steal....I mean "redistribute".

*Edit- I tried to calculate what would 12k a year multiplied by an estimated percent of the population receiving this so called UBI and my calculator started smoking and almost exploded.

[BeardedMastodon]

I believe the automation is a scare.

Mining for example... a mine that might employ 2000 people will use 50 heavy mining trucks that will become automated. Dozers, graders and other equipment that need more skill will not be, you need to feel the equipment. No way around that in the near future.

Since automation is cheaper, it allows projects to become economical that were not before... so we will have all of those technical jobs now.

Mechanics cannot be replaced, railroad workers cannot be replaced, some underground miners, etc. and with all of the automation we will need more mechanics to work on the automation robots when they break and more IT techs....

[CynicalContrarian]

^
For every measure, there is usually a counter measure...

Cyber warfare is rapidly emerging as a big component of national defence worldwide.
However. What of corporate cyber warfare?

Does anyone doubt an unscrupulous figure such as Elizabeth "Theranos" Holms wouldn't setup up an internal cyber warfare department to screw over their highly automated corporate competition...?

Just as the advancement of tech allowed YouTube folk to become quasi celebrities as opposed to becoming accountants or dentists.
A highly automated world will most likely also open up new markets & frontiers not readily explored yet.