Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Under the Murray UBI plan recipients would be required to spend $3000 per year on health insurance. That would be your mother's replacement for Medicaid. "Annual premiums edged beyond $17,500 for an average family." http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premium... And this is in the marketplace that purposefully excludes Medicare recipients, who are older and are disproportionately more likely to hav…
It seems to me the simple calculation is to see that, currently, the US spends ~$9,500 per capita annually for healthcare (that number seems so crazy to me, but therein lies the problem). The WSJ article didn't go into more detail, but I don't understand how $3k per year goes to cover that $9500 amount without huge deductibles and copays, which disabled people won't be able to pay because they will have no other assi…
A Guaranteed Income for Every American
251–260 of 387 posts
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#252Wouldn't the price of everything raise accordingly, so that you basically can't afford anything with the basic income?
Not quite: Consider a society with 2 members, Mr Rich (net worth $10M) and Mr. Poor (net worth $100). Mr. Rich is 100,000 X richer than Mr. Poor right now. Institute a ridiculous UBI of $1M/year for everyone. At the end of the year, Mr. Poor has $1,000,100 and Mr Rich has $11M but Mr Rich is now only ~ 11 X richer than Mr Poor. Now sure cheeseburgers at Micky-D's are now $700 but the fact has changed that before, Mr…
But what if Mr. Rich was rich because he owned a McDs? Now he's selling burgers for $700, and rolling around in his money like Scrooge McDuck.
Prices go up for two reasons, when they can and when they must. Which one do you think would be the factor here?
* Note, this is specifically in response to the parent's scenario - I actually doubt that a UBI like the one in the article would lead to appreciable inflation, as the current entitlement plans already spread around more money than this would.
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proposed problem - and it's an elitist one - is that if you try to solve the basic income problem with minimum wages, the skill level required to be productive also rises, and eventually you get to the point where employers try hard to automate the job out of existence. The argument is that at some point, the skill level required to justify an income becomes so high, large portions of the populace become unable t…
If there is a job that does not pay for a living, then there are two possible reasons. Customers actually value the work enough and pay enough for the product but the business owners take the money. In this case there should be a minimum wage cutting into the profits of the business owners making it a viable job. On the other hand customers may not value the work enough and the job is just not viable, there is no mar…
In parallel with everything relating to employment opportunities, I wonder if we are honestly doing enough about helping individuals with everything that goes with performing job tasks. Things like:
- being punctual
- staying healthy
- staying positive/motivated, not making excuses
- presenting and speaking well
- importance of attention to detail and initiative
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
If UBI seems possible to pass within 5 years, that will be signal to ramp up investments in low-end rental properties. You have to do it before it's certain to pass (else the purchase price runs up), but I can't see anything happening to rents other than a sharp move up.
I still don't understand this argument. The vast majority of people who would receive the UBI are not homeless . They live somewhere now. Why would the same number of people suddenly demand substantially more housing?
Have you ever counted the number of families that live in a single low-end housing unit? It's not uncommon for it to be 2 or 3 in more expensive areas. If those families each get $20k/yr in UBI, many of them would be looking to move out on their own.
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite: Consider a society with 2 members, Mr Rich (net worth $10M) and Mr. Poor (net worth $100). Mr. Rich is 100,000 X richer than Mr. Poor right now. Institute a ridiculous UBI of $1M/year for everyone. At the end of the year, Mr. Poor has $1,000,100 and Mr Rich has $11M but Mr Rich is now only ~ 11 X richer than Mr Poor. Now sure cheeseburgers at Micky-D's are now $700 but the fact has changed that before, Mr…
But what if Mr. Rich was rich because he owned a McDs? Now he's selling burgers for $700, and rolling around in his money like Scrooge McDuck. Prices go up for two reasons, when they can and when they must . Which one do you think would be the factor here? * Note, this is specifically in response to the parent's scenario - I actually doubt that a UBI like the one in the article would lead to appreciable inflation, as…
I think the most popular opinion around here is that once Mr. Poor is liberated by the UBI from the impossible treadmill of minimum wage working-poor jobs and a legal system that is outright hostile to those of lesser means, he might make a few burgers of his own and compete with Mr. Rich's defacto monopoly instead of being his near-servant at his former Mcjob.
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#256Wouldn't the price of everything raise accordingly, so that you basically can't afford anything with the basic income?
Only if the government added money to the system without removing it elsewhere. Any sane policy doesn't involve just printing money and giving it to people. It involves taking that money from someone else, through taxes, and THEN giving it to people.
We currently spend $1 for every $.60 we collect in taxes so clearly it's already way past your definition of 'sane'
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proposed problem - and it's an elitist one - is that if you try to solve the basic income problem with minimum wages, the skill level required to be productive also rises, and eventually you get to the point where employers try hard to automate the job out of existence. The argument is that at some point, the skill level required to justify an income becomes so high, large portions of the populace become unable t…
If there is a job that does not pay for a living, then there are two possible reasons. Customers actually value the work enough and pay enough for the product but the business owners take the money. In this case there should be a minimum wage cutting into the profits of the business owners making it a viable job. On the other hand customers may not value the work enough and the job is just not viable, there is no mar…
Why should every job provide a 'living wage'? A high school kid working through the summer at an ice cream shop is learning to work, learning responsibility, and getting a little spending money - why would you want to outlaw that?
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Well then cut down working hours instead of having half the population work full time and pay for the other half" That doesn't work. The reality is, and I'm sorry to say, but the required IQ to be economically relevant is increasing every year. Your plan doesn't work because you can't spread out the work that way. Increasing minimum wages will only just accelerate automation and exacerbate the problem. My concern ab…
The reality is, and I'm sorry to say, but the required IQ to be economically relevant is increasing every year. Your plan doesn't work because you can't spread out the work that way. That is only a real problem if the population does not keep up with this development. I can not tell whether requirements are (now) growing faster then capabilities but both certainly grew ever since. The other thing is that it seems to…
> If people are not willing to pay enough for getting their lawn mowed - not sure if that is a good example - to make a living from it, then there never was a market for lawn mowing.
You are actually in favor of outlawing lawn mowing as a job? My 14 year old kid can't take a $20 from my neighbor to get some fresh air and weekend spending money? Are you serious????
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#259> A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. Unfortunately, I have 2 problems with this: 1. Of the people that I see in SF who could use UBI, almost none of them seem the type who would clean up their acts with UBI. They have serious mental issues, and money means only 1 thing to them: a means to chemical substances. So what do you do…
> Where will the jobs come from for them?
That's a pretty weak criticism. Where are the jobs going to come from to employ the millions of people that used to be farmers (in 1875)? Where are the jobs going to come from to employ former delivery milkmen? Or what about the jobs for people that used to handle telephone call switching?
The same place they've always come from: economic dynamism. The solar industry, as one basic example, is adding 100,000 new jobs every four years at this point. In 20 years, that one industry will employ a million people - up from almost nothing in 2005.
We've got five million job openings presently. The labor market is quite healthy, with the U6 unemployment rate down to where it was before the recession.
Besides, unleashing all of that educated labor will result in increased innovation and economic growth, not less.
Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a UBI scheme. That's just welfare.
It's all the same. Otherwise, you're going to increase taxes even more for people making more than the UBI to compensate. This is simply pushing numbers around on the page - either you're getting the UBI and paying it all back in taxes, or you're not getting the UBI and not paying it back in taxes.
No, it's not the same, because the big benefit of UBI is you don't have to pay a huge gaggle of bureaucrats to verify this person gets benefits and that person doesn't.