111–120 of 161 posts
I think this (COVID relief) is the closest America is going to get to a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI we're going to get for a while so it's rather heartening to see the drop in family poverty.
The pandemic spending is unsustainable.
I’m a bit surprised by these comments. This seems like data driven evidence of a government policy working quite well. Yet there are people complaining about this causes inflation and is “printing money”. The article clearly points out that most of the spending is on essentials and directly contributing to the children’s quality of life. Not the article I would expect to see fiscal hawks on.
It’s not that it’s not working. It’s that it’s not a sustainable model. Or if it is, we need to cut a LOT of other stuff.
I’m a bit surprised by these comments. This seems like data driven evidence of a government policy working quite well. Yet there are people complaining about this causes inflation and is “printing money”. The article clearly points out that most of the spending is on essentials and directly contributing to the children’s quality of life. Not the article I would expect to see fiscal hawks on.
I think this (COVID relief) is the closest America is going to get to a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI we're going to get for a while so it's rather heartening to see the drop in family poverty.
> a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI The pandemic spending is unsustainable.
I think this (COVID relief) is the closest America is going to get to a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI we're going to get for a while so it's rather heartening to see the drop in family poverty.
> a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI The pandemic spending is unsustainable.
These programs are also an investment in the economy that pays itself forward in the form of increased social mobility, and thus increased future tax revenue, so it is by no means a net loss. It could even be the case that every $1 invested in these kinds of programs results in more than $1 in created new tax revenue a few years down the road. This is called investing in our future. A new concept, I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am aware that most of my knowledge about income distribution comes via news articles/videos. In the instances where they DO cite sources (which is rare), I have never personally investigated the data behind claims. That is why I prefaced my comment about being "primed" by media.
Then perhaps the question is, 'what causes the high rate of child poverty in the US, can anyone provide some substantive information?' The claim is baseless and thus not relevant; posting it just spreads a baseless claim, which we have plenty of on the Internet! > In the instances where they DO cite sources (which is rare) If it helps, try higher-quality news. The journalism I read always cites sources; it's a rule o…
Try shedding light instead of nit-picking. Your proposed question is not as superior to OPs as you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> providing a baseline income to a whole community The rich oil sheikdoms in the Gulf are already providing a good income to all their citizens (not the working class gastarbeiters). We should definitely observe them and learn from their experience. It is not precisely the same as UBI, but closer than anything else I can think of.
Canada has also carried out a few interesting UBI experiments with pretty positive feedback - but I think America needs to see something happen domestically to give it a serious consideration.
I think this (COVID relief) is the closest America is going to get to a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI we're going to get for a while so it's rather heartening to see the drop in family poverty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI The pandemic spending is unsustainable.
Parent said "experiment".
I think this (COVID relief) is the closest America is going to get to a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI we're going to get for a while so it's rather heartening to see the drop in family poverty.