Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
1–10 of 251 posts
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#2letting politicians keep all the money has not worked either
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#3Relative poverty is insoluble without totalitarian levels of redistribution to a very low common denominator, and that is unlikely to include the inevitable oligarchs. Absolute poverty is rapidly being solved (https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_...) by markets and globalization, and radical redistribution such as a basic income tends to interfere with that.
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#4I made the same submission here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11806509
Maybe they should be merged.
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#5Relative poverty is insoluble without totalitarian levels of redistribution to a very low common denominator, and that is unlikely to include the inevitable oligarchs. Absolute poverty is rapidly being solved ( https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... ) by markets and globalization, and radical redistribution such as a basic income tends to interfere with that.
By some measures, poverty already is a solved problem in the United States. Relative poverty is all we have left to solve....
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#6The very first argument in the article is flawed which leads me to wonder how much of it is or isn't flawed. It talks about a Universal Basic Income for everyone over 21.. then it complains that would cost 3 trillion dollars for all of the 300 million Americans. According to the Census Bureau as of 2015 there were 321 million Americans and 24% were under 18. No clue how many were under 21. But that still takes it down to 244 million people. If we left Social Security alone then that would cut another 46 million people out as well.
The article doesn't even attempt to explore cost savings by eliminating excessive management of all of the existing programs.
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#7Relative poverty is insoluble without totalitarian levels of redistribution to a very low common denominator, and that is unlikely to include the inevitable oligarchs. Absolute poverty is rapidly being solved ( https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... ) by markets and globalization, and radical redistribution such as a basic income tends to interfere with that.
Poverty is an issue long solved in USA. We are talking about relative poverty and governments are trying to push totalitarian redistribution schemes everywhere.
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#8>[...] Why not subsidize workers’ wages instead?
Sounds like a great idea! Companies get to save money and the tax payer effectively pays the companies profit.
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#9Relative poverty is insoluble without totalitarian levels of redistribution to a very low common denominator, and that is unlikely to include the inevitable oligarchs. Absolute poverty is rapidly being solved ( https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... ) by markets and globalization, and radical redistribution such as a basic income tends to interfere with that.
Many people are still homeless in the US. Calling that 'relative' poverty is abusing the term enough to become meaningless.
The most enlightening thing about this debate is the idea that we don't care about peoples basic standards of living and are happy to pretend there is no problem.
PS: Although the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in January 2012 annual point-in-time count found that 633,782 people across the United States were homeless, other counts vary widely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...
Note: Many people end up homeless temporarily which makes counting complex.
Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty
#10Relative poverty is insoluble without totalitarian levels of redistribution to a very low common denominator, and that is unlikely to include the inevitable oligarchs. Absolute poverty is rapidly being solved ( https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... ) by markets and globalization, and radical redistribution such as a basic income tends to interfere with that.
Poverty is an issue long solved in USA. We are talking about relative poverty and governments are trying to push totalitarian redistribution schemes everywhere.
> Poverty is an issue long solved in the USA.
EDIT: While I disagree with the parent poster, primarily because I've seen plenty of homeless, underemployed, malnourished individuals in my travels around the US my entire life, and no significant decline in the past several years, my questions were not meant entirely sarcastically.
If poverty is solved, explain how or by what measure you consider it to be solved.
My viewpoint:
From a purely technical standpoint it could be considered solveable. We have sufficient housing, clothing, food for literally everyone in this country, and more. The issue becomes one of distribution. But just having the resources doesn't mean that the problem itself is solved.