181–190 of 474 posts
During the Great Depression/Dust Bowl in the 1920's, government officials were adamantly opposed to giving cash or food to citizens. Moral hazard, and all that.
The result was that:
- there were food riots
- some Americans starved to death
- Washington, D.C. was occupied by protesters living in tent cities, and the military had to intervene to prevent government buildings from being stormed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is only true if your only expense is labour, something that's true out-call prostitution and little else.
Productivity is defined as output per unit labour. This means any profitable investment the firm makes will increase productivity (assuming the number of employees remains the same). If the minimum wage was indexed to productivity, then any such investment would increase labour costs.
My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…
We should also have a voluntary charitable UBI. Encourage a culture where everybody contributes what they can to the fund, and then all donations are split equally among all citizens. That money won't be subject to the same political pressures; people who donate will feel good about themselves; and the bureaucracy needed to do this would be minimal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is only true if your only expense is labour, something that's true out-call prostitution and little else.
Productivity is defined as output per unit labour. This means any profitable investment the firm makes will increase productivity (assuming the number of employees remains the same). If the minimum wage was indexed to productivity, then any such investment would increase labour costs.
My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some are advocating for a value added tax with certain categorical exemptions. My limited understanding is this would make necessity purchases more secure while making discretionary “luxury” purchases more expensive
VAT is kind of a bad tax scheme. It's regressive and discourages consumption (which, like it or not, is the engine that drives our economy). It's better just to have income and wealth taxes.
no it doesnt. the US consumes a lot, but you are mistaking an accounting identity with something causal. if people decided to consume less, that means they are putting off current consumption for future consumption and saving those resources for investment to allow that to happen. don't worry - they'll consume at some point when they feel it is in their best interest (and if they don't, they basically just gave us a bunch of free labor).
all economies everywhere are driven by production. human desire is pretty much endless - you rarely have to incentive consumption. when people have the resource (ie, they produced), they will naturally consume.
the only way that long term standards of living improve is by increasing productivity (this is something virtually every economist agrees to). that is done by increasing capital stocks, machinery, technology. those are all production oriented activity.
My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…
Regarding Obamacare, there were a lot of issues, but a large one was the 'keep your hands off my health care' crowd. These folks were convinced they had good health care and that the government would ruin it (ironically, many of them were on medicare). So right off the bat, the constituency was fractured. And for this same reason, I actually think Universal Health Care will be a much harder sell in the US than a UBI. Despite our health care systems very obvious issues, too many people think their current plan is good enough (and may not even be aware of their plans shortcomings) and are too worried that any sort of change could put them in a worse spot. With UBI, its a blank slate and a pretty easy sell. Gov: Hey America, here is $1000. Us: Okay!
>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck; almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money. I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but 78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it together.
The median household discretionary income -- i.e. money you can waste on whatever -- in the US is more than $1,000/month. Per the official government statistics. That is after all ordinary household expenses. People in higher percentiles have considerably more. I am skeptical that 78% of Americans are "living paycheck to paycheck" unless that has been defined so loosely as to lose all useful meaning.
My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…
This is one of the bigger leftist critiques of UBI - instead of enacting meaningful change to the system, gifting the people just enough money to keep them docile and prevent upsetting the ruling class and, like you said, weaponising for further political gain
I sympathize with the left far more than the right but both sides seem perfectly happy to consider the proletariat as sheep when it serves their purpose. As far as I'm concerned, UBI would be meaningful change to the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything that generates a feedback loop where politicians give you tax money to spend on politicians has an instant smell to me. There may be other ways to accomplish this, but that feedback loop stinks to high heaven on initial examination.
You mean the entirety of corporate America? All those tax loopholes? Agreed, I think they stink as well. Good thing Yang's Democracy Dollars idea has no strings attached unlike that sticky lobbyist cash.