To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
* Norway's wealth is largely driven by extracting a valuable natural resource. Sweden actually makes some shit that people in N. Seattle and other parts of the world want to buy. Not sure what the Danes export...cookies? Queso?
I'd rather see UBI than the vast bureaucracy of government agencies. As a replacement to those I would be all for it. It will never be that though because of entrenched interests. It will be sold to us as an alternative and then end up a bloated mess like so many other government "services" for the poor.
Simple question to ponder. Which thing do the poor have better access to, cell phones or healthcare? Which one has a freer market?
Also, automation will only be a substitute for human labor when human desires for goods stop being exponential. Until then it is complimentary to human labor, not a replacement. People saying automation will end human jobs are falling for the same fallacies that those who thought the industrial revolution would end the job market fell for. As long as resources are scarce and demand increases with supply there will be jobs for people. They will just be better, more creative, and interesting jobs than before. None of that is bad for any of us. Except maybe Hondo because...Hondo.
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
* Norway's wealth is largely driven by extracting a valuable natural resource. Sweden actually makes some shit that people in N. Seattle and other parts of the world want to buy. Not sure what the Danes export...cookies? Queso?
I'd rather see UBI than the vast bureaucracy of government agencies. As a replacement to those I would be all for it. It will never be that though because of entrenched interests. It will be sold to us as an alternative and then end up a bloated mess like so many other government "services" for the poor.
Simple question to ponder. Which thing do the poor have better access to, cell phones or healthcare? Which one has a freer market?
Also, automation will only be a substitute for human labor when human desires for goods stop being exponential. Until then it is complimentary to human labor, not a replacement. People saying automation will end human jobs are falling for the same fallacies that those who thought the industrial revolution would end the job market fell for. As long as resources are scarce and demand increases with supply there will be jobs for people. They will just be better, more creative, and interesting jobs than before. None of that is bad for any of us. Except maybe Hondo because...Hondo.
Agree that it (UBI) would be difficult to near impossible to implement. But still, in theory, it could work better as a replacement of the existing welfare state. But the left will never sign off on this, so I don't spend too much time on it.
Healthcare purchasing decisions aren't exactly analogous to buying cell phones, but I am very much in favor of something like HSA accounts for non catastrophic medical expenses, and then insurance for that which it should be intended- i.e., shit that will bankrupt you. Health insurance now is like using auto insurance to pay for a fucking oil change. So, so FS (fucking stooped @dnc )....
I agree that there will still be jobs for people post A.I. and rise of the machines; but in my view it's a bit lazy for us to say that just because the creative destruction which has happened since the IR has to date created new and better jobs, that this will always be the case. There's no way to predict exactly how this will play out.
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
I still think you have to provide motivation to work and better yourself. UBI stifles this. And as we’ve seen, high percentage increases in minimum wage only stifles income growth for those that are making $20 per hour and the like. So that’s not the answer either, although that Cats already out the bag in many states already.
The solution as I see it, is to raise the tax exempt income to like 30,000 per year and make up the difference with higher tax rates for high income earners. Also split the difference for corporate taxes and raise them to like 28%.
Just as what was left of the USSR couldn’t do capitalism. I don’t see the US giving anyone something for nothing, who wants it, working here.
I still think you have to provide motivation to work and better yourself. UBI stifles this. And as we’ve seen, high percentage increases in minimum wage only stifles income growth for those that are making $20 per hour and the like. So that’s not the answer either, although that Cats already out the bag in many states already.
The solution as I see it, is to raise the tax exempt income to like 30,000 per year and make up the difference with higher tax rates for high income earners. Also split the difference for corporate taxes and raise them to like 28%.
Just as what was left of the USSR couldn’t do capitalism. I don’t see the US giving anyone something for nothing, who wants it, working here.
Let's be clear, I'm only in favor of UBI as a replacement to current government programs such as housing development, food stamps, lunch programs, tax incentives, etc. which require a vast bureaucracy to manage and get very little done while creating all kinds of market distortions.
Believe in transfer payments? Cool, here's a check, let the poor people figure out what's best for themselves and spend it how they see fit. The liberal "we know what's best for you" model is worst of both worlds in my eyes.
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
UBI is so fucking cheap in comparison to the welfare state you can make it pretty damn near universal with a tapered "cut off" being so high very few people would give a shit.
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
UBI is so fucking cheap in comparison to the welfare state you can make it pretty damn near universal with a tapered "cut off" being so high very few people would give a shit.
Say what you want about welfare being inefficient or what not. But not everyone qualifies for it. And most welfare payments are less than a 1000 per month. And then we’re still paying for healthcare and a portion of housing as well.
UBI gives welfare benefits to anyone who wants them. Just how is this gonna be less expensive than what we have now?
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
So somehow. Some way, the people on welfare now, that aren’t motivated to work . Will be magically motivated to work if you just call it something else. Say like UBI.
AND.... If you open this up to folks working part time taking home less than 1000 per month in a shitty job, they will still get out of bed every morning and continue to work for less money than they would by sitting on their ass???
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
UBI is so fucking cheap in comparison to the welfare state you can make it pretty damn near universal with a tapered "cut off" being so high very few people would give a shit.
Say what you want about welfare being inefficient or what not. But not everyone qualifies for it. And most welfare payments are less than a 1000 per month. And then we’re still paying for healthcare and a portion of housing as well.
UBI gives welfare benefits to anyone who wants them. Just how is this gonna be less expensive than what we have now?
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
So somehow. Some way, the people on welfare now, that aren’t motivated to work . Will be magically motivated to work if you just call it something else. Say like UBI.
AND.... If you open this up to folks working part time taking home less than 1000 per month in a shitty job, they will still get out of bed every morning and continue to work for less money than they would by sitting on their ass???
Nope.
You really have some misconceptions about what UBI is and isn't.
UBI doesn't just replace "welfare". It replaces ALL government subsidy programs. That would include the standard tax deduction which people already basically get as an "once per year" form of payment.
People wouldn't get healthcare, housing, food stamps, AND UBI. You give them a UBI check and they purchase those things in a free market without government subsidy at their own discretion.
There might be many people not motivated to work however how is that any different to our current system of giving people all this other shit for free? I'm not opposed to eliminating almost all government transfer payments entirely. About the only thing I really value is a school voucher payment as I do think you need to make sure every child gets a shot at a decent education. Will this result in market distortions and in some ways worse outcomes? Yes, but I think the trade off is worth it.
I'm going to give say, 20% of my income to "assist the less priviledged" and we will call that $20,000(of $100k) for ease of the example.
That $20,000 could just go directly to someone making $0 per year and they can figure out what is most important to them. I suppose you could say there would be a modest transfer fee & database. Call that 0.5%(high fund management costs) $100.
$19,900 to the recipient.
Or you can give it to the government, the government takes an immediate 10% off the top for "administration". So now we have $18,000. Now the government can't just buy things in the open market like you or I can. It has to go through a rigorous bidding and sourcing process. Say that takes another 5% administration fee (of total for ease). That can't be for all goods together though so it needs to be separate for food, housing, healthcare etc. So for the three listed we will call that $3,000 total($1k each). Now we are down to $15,000 to actually spend and we haven't even bought anything yet.
Next we will have to consider that suppliers who can both supply and manage to comply with all bidding and regulatory oversight will be limited. We will say that creates a 50% mark up from "competitive" free market prices. So now, you are down to purchasing $10,000 worth of goods for $15,000.
Also, the recipient will have to go through a set of administrators for each individual benefit because we can't just give these benefits to anyone. Subtract another $3,000 for that. Further consider the room for corruption, "loss", and people who con their way into the benefits that don't actually deserve them(such as illegals or people who lie on their taxes), we will call that minus $2,000.
$5,000 worth of goods as of now, purchased at the price of $20,000 to the recipient.
Further, those goods will be inferior, less personalized, and have a long list of restrictions (geographic availability, timeliness, accessibility, etc.) all while being managed by vast entrenched government bureaucracies that make the DMV look like a slick competitive start up. It will also screw up all kinds of other free markets(housing anyone?).
Are these numbers exact? Fuck no. Have I worked with enough government agencies and government contractors to know if anything they are modest and generous? Yeap.
Both ways you might end up with people that abuse the system and are disincentivized to work.
At least one doesn't create a government Leviathan and a captive population of voters.
Comments
Gas Pump Socialists sport hipster skinny jeans and beanies. They drive Bentleys, too.
Simple question to ponder. Which thing do the poor have better access to, cell phones or healthcare? Which one has a freer market?
Also, automation will only be a substitute for human labor when human desires for goods stop being exponential. Until then it is complimentary to human labor, not a replacement. People saying automation will end human jobs are falling for the same fallacies that those who thought the industrial revolution would end the job market fell for. As long as resources are scarce and demand increases with supply there will be jobs for people. They will just be better, more creative, and interesting jobs than before. None of that is bad for any of us. Except maybe Hondo because...Hondo.
Healthcare purchasing decisions aren't exactly analogous to buying cell phones, but I am very much in favor of something like HSA accounts for non catastrophic medical expenses, and then insurance for that which it should be intended- i.e., shit that will bankrupt you. Health insurance now is like using auto insurance to pay for a fucking oil change. So, so FS (fucking stooped @dnc )....
I agree that there will still be jobs for people post A.I. and rise of the machines; but in my view it's a bit lazy for us to say that just because the creative destruction which has happened since the IR has to date created new and better jobs, that this will always be the case. There's no way to predict exactly how this will play out.
Work on modifying that later but Jesus Christ just fix it for God's sake.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
I still think you have to provide motivation to work and better yourself. UBI stifles this. And as we’ve seen, high percentage increases in minimum wage only stifles income growth for those that are making $20 per hour and the like. So that’s not the answer either, although that Cats already out the bag in many states already.
The solution as I see it, is to raise the tax exempt income to like 30,000 per year and make up the difference with higher tax rates for high income earners. Also split the difference for corporate taxes and raise them to like 28%.
Just as what was left of the USSR couldn’t do capitalism. I don’t see the US giving anyone something for nothing, who wants it, working here.
Believe in transfer payments? Cool, here's a check, let the poor people figure out what's best for themselves and spend it how they see fit. The liberal "we know what's best for you" model is worst of both worlds in my eyes.
UBI gives welfare benefits to anyone who wants them. Just how is this gonna be less expensive than what we have now?
Spoiler alert. It won’t be.
AND.... If you open this up to folks working part time taking home less than 1000 per month in a shitty job, they will still get out of bed every morning and continue to work for less money than they would by sitting on their ass???
Nope.
UBI doesn't just replace "welfare". It replaces ALL government subsidy programs. That would include the standard tax deduction which people already basically get as an "once per year" form of payment.
People wouldn't get healthcare, housing, food stamps, AND UBI. You give them a UBI check and they purchase those things in a free market without government subsidy at their own discretion.
There might be many people not motivated to work however how is that any different to our current system of giving people all this other shit for free? I'm not opposed to eliminating almost all government transfer payments entirely. About the only thing I really value is a school voucher payment as I do think you need to make sure every child gets a shot at a decent education. Will this result in market distortions and in some ways worse outcomes? Yes, but I think the trade off is worth it.
I'm going to give say, 20% of my income to "assist the less priviledged" and we will call that $20,000(of $100k) for ease of the example.
That $20,000 could just go directly to someone making $0 per year and they can figure out what is most important to them. I suppose you could say there would be a modest transfer fee & database. Call that 0.5%(high fund management costs) $100.
$19,900 to the recipient.
Or you can give it to the government, the government takes an immediate 10% off the top for "administration". So now we have $18,000. Now the government can't just buy things in the open market like you or I can. It has to go through a rigorous bidding and sourcing process. Say that takes another 5% administration fee (of total for ease). That can't be for all goods together though so it needs to be separate for food, housing, healthcare etc. So for the three listed we will call that $3,000 total($1k each). Now we are down to $15,000 to actually spend and we haven't even bought anything yet.
Next we will have to consider that suppliers who can both supply and manage to comply with all bidding and regulatory oversight will be limited. We will say that creates a 50% mark up from "competitive" free market prices. So now, you are down to purchasing $10,000 worth of goods for $15,000.
Also, the recipient will have to go through a set of administrators for each individual benefit because we can't just give these benefits to anyone. Subtract another $3,000 for that. Further consider the room for corruption, "loss", and people who con their way into the benefits that don't actually deserve them(such as illegals or people who lie on their taxes), we will call that minus $2,000.
$5,000 worth of goods as of now, purchased at the price of $20,000 to the recipient.
Further, those goods will be inferior, less personalized, and have a long list of restrictions (geographic availability, timeliness, accessibility, etc.) all while being managed by vast entrenched government bureaucracies that make the DMV look like a slick competitive start up. It will also screw up all kinds of other free markets(housing anyone?).
Are these numbers exact? Fuck no. Have I worked with enough government agencies and government contractors to know if anything they are modest and generous? Yeap.
Both ways you might end up with people that abuse the system and are disincentivized to work.
At least one doesn't create a government Leviathan and a captive population of voters.