- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Universal Basic Income advocate: Give people money, require less of them.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 7/8/18 at 3:59 pm
Featured editorial in yesterday's New York Times. This is now approaching mainstream thought, I am afraid. We are doomed.
LINK
quote:
Just giving people money: It’s a method backed by extensive research, and it has a bipartisan pedigree. But it is a method the Trump administration, which is likely to oversee a better economy than any administration in two decades, seems loathe to consider. Instead, the president is choosing to increase the ranks of the poor and to slash what support this country does offer those who need it.
quote:
The most radical and potentially transformative idea would be to grant all Americans a monthly cash payment, a policy commonly known as a universal basic income. In the past few years — with the middle class being squeezed, trust in government eroding, technological change hastening, and the economy getting Uberized — the idea has vaulted to a surprising prominence, even moving from airy hypothetical to near-reality in some places. Mark Zuckerberg, Hillary Clinton, the Black Lives Matter movement, Bill Gates and Elon Musk are just a few of the policy proposal’s flirts, converts and supporters.
Under such a proposal, Uncle Sam would send every American $500 or $1,000 a month, likely eliminating other stingier and less-effective programs. The price would be significant, though financing it would not raise taxes higher than they are in similarly prosperous countries. The benefits would flow not only to the very poor but also to working Americans given leverage to demand better wages, to the unemployed, to students, to the elderly, to caregivers, to young parents. In a society as rich as ours, the argument goes, everyone deserves a guarantee of financial security, and we’re better off trusting each citizen to make the best decision for herself.
LINK
This post was edited on 7/8/18 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:01 pm to Slippy
quote:
Give people money, require less of them
Isn't that what we've been doing for all these years prior to TRUMP?
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:02 pm to Slippy
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/6/21 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:02 pm to Slippy
quote:
Mark Zuckerberg, Hillary Clinton, the Black Lives Matter movement, Bill Gates and Elon Musk are just a few of the policy proposal’s flirts, converts and supporters.
Um...
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:05 pm to Slippy
quote:
The price would be significant, though financing it would not raise taxes higher than they are in similarly prosperous countries.
Before we start down that road, make those "prosperous countries" pay for their own military/defense then get back with us on who actually has a prosperous model for their country and who doesn't.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:06 pm to Slippy
One of the problems with such a proposal, and there are many, is that it would require the cancellation of every other form of welfare. That wouldn’t happen and we would end up with this on top of everything else we already have.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:06 pm to Slippy
quote:
we’re better off trusting each citizen to make the best decision for herself.
So the author believes in rugged individualism AND state provided income.
Interesting set of contrary beliefs.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:06 pm to Slippy
If everyone gets it, then no one gets it.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:07 pm to Slippy
A couple of things:
1) UBI is definitely preferable to the host of welfare programs we have now. If we are going to continue to support those in need with public funds (which we clearly are) then we should work to do so in the most efficient means with least amount of bureaucratic overhead. The answer, it seems, is UBI.
2) We aren't here yet but I can see UBI being the result of expansive automation where a significant portion of the population lacks any type of skill to perform in an advanced, automated economy.
1) UBI is definitely preferable to the host of welfare programs we have now. If we are going to continue to support those in need with public funds (which we clearly are) then we should work to do so in the most efficient means with least amount of bureaucratic overhead. The answer, it seems, is UBI.
2) We aren't here yet but I can see UBI being the result of expansive automation where a significant portion of the population lacks any type of skill to perform in an advanced, automated economy.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:09 pm to graychef
quote:
Everyone quit their jobs. US government loses tax revenue. Then what?
What makes you think that would be the result? The people who are comfortable living on the minimum acceptable income are already doing so, and we're already paying for it. A UBI doesn't change that aspect of our welfare system.
This post was edited on 7/8/18 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:10 pm to Slippy
To me, it's always only been viable as a last ditch, machines replaced 80 percent of the work force move. Insane that there are currently advocates for it when there's such a massive glut in skilled tradesmen.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:10 pm to graychef
quote:Well one of the hypothesized benefits, based on the discoveries and advancements from wealthy people “without jobs” during the enlightenment, is that if you give enough for people to meet their minimum needs, then they can choose work that fits their interests and strengths, rather than just to get by.
Everyone quit their jobs. US government loses tax revenue. Then what?
Plus the reasons Friedman and Hayek were for it, despite being the major economists of modern day conservatism and libertarianism is that our current system essentially makes the incentive not to work, by creating a nearly 100% marginal tax rate on work and creates a coercive relationship where the government creates dependency, rather than advancement.
I'm not sure if it will ever be feasible, but giving everyone from Jeff Bezos to some homeless person the opportunity to have their needs met is a lot better than the dependency system we have in place now.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:11 pm to Antonio Moss
It could work and we could get rid of EBT, welfare and all other programs to help the poor and save money by getting rid of a bureaucracy. We would still face problems with housing though and not everyone would spend their money wisely ending up with people who still don't have enough to eat and children who will suffer because their parents are screw-ups.
$1,000 per person is still not a lot of money and you would still have a strong incentive to work. The money put into the economy would be beneficial.
$1,000 per person is still not a lot of money and you would still have a strong incentive to work. The money put into the economy would be beneficial.
This post was edited on 7/8/18 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:11 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
A UBI doesn't change that aspect of our welfare system.
In theory it wouldn't, in actual practice you and I both know it would. There's not a single way in this world a Louisiana cpa making 100k a year is getting the same amount of money from the government as Trailer Park Jim who reports zero income.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:12 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
The money put into the economy would be beneficial.
Money taken from individuals at force of gun point and spread to everyone is not money put into the economy.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:13 pm to Slippy
Didn't Finland experiment with this the last couple years as a way to overhaul their social welfare system? I think it was a Bama fan over there who posted extensively about it.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:14 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
To me, it's always only been viable as a last ditch, machines replaced 80 percent of the work force move
I think that number is way lower than 80%.
If 20% of the workforce becomes unemployable due to automation, we would have a significant problem under are current welfare system.
Just using some rough numbers -
Right now we are at 62% workforce participation. That comes out to 203 million Americans in the workforce out of 325 million. If you lose 20% of your workforce, that drops you another 40 million meaning a little less than half of the U.S. would hold a job.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:15 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
A couple of things:
1) UBI is definitely preferable to the host of welfare programs we have now. If we are going to continue to support those in need with public funds (which we clearly are) then we should work to do so in the most efficient means with least amount of bureaucratic overhead. The answer, it seems, is UBI.
2) We aren't here yet but I can see UBI being the result of expansive automation where a significant portion of the population lacks any type of skill to perform in an advanced, automated economy.
Do you realize how very very bad for society it would be to have a bunch of humans with no jobs just sitting around for their entire lives?
Do you realize what the people turn to who do that very thing right now? How about any welfare area of inner cities.
You cannot just hand people money, tell them to just sit around and do nothing and expect a good result.
Are we really looking up to guys like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk to give us expert advice on the social/societal implications of UBI?
It's going to be a social disaster.
These people who also live off government funds with no jobs or education typically also are the ones who pop out the most children...
So how many children are going to be born with absolutely no path at improving their own lives? Living with no purpose and no meaning in their lives.
Technology may be at an all time high but living a meaningful existence will be at an all time low.
Humanity has to evolve and count on including everyone in the economy.
Even right now you see a bunch of young college kids with no jobs and money to spend and they turn to radicalism and violence.
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:18 pm to SCLibertarian
Are we prepared to let people starve? Because for this system to work, people will have to starve.
If we are going to replace the current safety net with a monthly cash payment, then people will waste it. They will have no money for food. We will have to ignore calls for additional welfare to take care of these people.
I’m fine with this, but not sure our weak arse nation is.
If we are going to replace the current safety net with a monthly cash payment, then people will waste it. They will have no money for food. We will have to ignore calls for additional welfare to take care of these people.
I’m fine with this, but not sure our weak arse nation is.
This post was edited on 7/8/18 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 7/8/18 at 4:19 pm to Slippy
quote:
everyone deserves a guarantee of financial security
This is where the concept of the USA has been hijacked. Guarantee of opportunity to obtain financial security is there for all, however no guarantee from failure exists, nor should it. Fear is the biggest motivating factor, without it the lethargy and complacency continue the downfall of this once great Republic.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News