·
- As it stands, most U.S. welfare programs are tied to the institution of work. That leaves gaps in the safety net, and frequently analysts will decry this imperfect coverage. I take this criticism seriously, but I see merit in tying welfare to work as a symbolic commitment to certain American ideals.
- If the kinds of jobs created by the modern service economy can be made more attractive, I think much (not all) of the work problem will take care of itself. Most people do wish to work in jobs they enjoy, as a source of pride, money, and social connection.
Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for how to get there, but I worry that permanent subsidies for those who don't work wouldn't lead toward solutions.
flagamuffin · 748 days ago · link ·
US-enacted, entirely domestic policy has to take into account its global humanitarian impact these days? Interesting. I can pretty much guarantee you, Tyler, that the UK, China and India aren't doing the same, to say nothing of Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's a noble sentiment, of course, and one that will feature in my next bestseller, "How to Finish Dead Last and Then Die."A backlash could turn the net global humanitarian impact of a universal basic income plan negative.
Basic income should be an economic modifier much as the federal interest rates are. The higher inequality rises, the higher basic income, and taxes, should rise with it. Imagine a world where jobs start dropping away quickly, allowing production to go on without paying workers, killing off the middle class. With a ramping basic income you quickly get compensation for that imbalance that allows jobs to be created again before the tax ramps down when the economy has finished its adjusting in a healthy way. Or it doesn't adjust and the basic income becomes a part of society by default.
–
Imagine a world where quick fixes didn't have to be accounted for.. oh wait that's the mainstream think tank in a nutshell.Imagine a world where jobs start dropping away quickly, allowing production to go on without paying workers, killing off the middle class. With a ramping basic income you quickly get compensation for that imbalance that allows jobs to be created again before the tax ramps down when the economy has finished its adjusting in a healthy way
–
–
your imaginative thinking seems to me a bit linear. The basic function of money today has become inundated with narrow minded-ness. What happens when people don't buy in to the idea, and simply give zero reason, or one that is ideologically oppossed? Does the idea still work without full support?
–
Again, what? What does this mean? What are people's opinions on money that could be made more open minded? What is being missed? Why is that thing valuable? Into what idea? Basic income? Taxes?The basic function of money today has become inundated with narrow minded-ness.
What happens when people don't buy in to the idea
–
yes. What is being missed? Fundamentals. First: Fundamentals concerning the role of money in social architecture. Second: Fundamentals concerning how to value investment of labor and capital with a sound sense of value placed on the monetary unit of exchange. Why are ethics stressed so much in business-related academia now days?
NinjaKlaus · 752 days ago · link ·
While that's true for most people to eventually feel that way, look at people who complain about the current social programs, a lot of people don't see it this way, at least not yet. But, It's not really something we'll probably have to worry about in our lives, the cost of such a program at just the poverty line is out of this world, way more than all our other programs combined. 11880 is poverty level in the US this year for 1 person, we had something around 200mm between 18-65 in the 2010 census, at the poverty level that's 2.35 trillion dollars. The US government last year officially only spent only 3.7 Trillion on the entire budget.