So he was never paid to make accurate forecasts, got it. FYI macro funds don’t use outside consultant PhDs who read out of textbooks for a living, they hire people capable of making accurate forecasts in house given the confidentiality.
This will be an unpopular opinion: If UBI goes through, the amount of UBI one receives should be based on ones level of education. This does two things: 1) it allows those who have the potential to create the more disruptive technologies to begin spending more money on those ideas right away (this could coincide with cutting the normal work week down from 40 to 36 hours) and 2) incentivizes more people to get more education.
A few caveats with that though - admission standards at highly ranked schools must go up, hard sciences, healthcare, teaching, and engineering degrees get prioritized (or subsidized) more, And UBI must be spent on basic needs (think like the SNAP EBT cards) - housing, utilities, food, childcare etc…
1 Like
You know, when you start accusing people of feeling offended when they simply answer a question you asked, it kind of makes people think you are a troll. I didn’t even include an exclamation point, let alone type all in caps. My guess would be you are the one who is offended because I said economics is not a science. If it makes you feel better, I’ll say that economics is a social science.
I wouldn’t know that. I know that he got paid to lecture on economics and political science while you are posting here for free. Thank you.
I manage capital for a living, so I’m paid to make forecasts he was paid to lecture. That says it all now doesn’t it? Those who can’t do teach.
I’m not an economist, I’m indifferent as to what you call it.
This is a BS statement and you know it. Have you ever tried to teach? It’s incredibly difficult to do it effectively.
1 Like
No, I didn’t fail out of capital markets.
I am actually a bigger fan of expanding the EITC (earned income tax credit) than implementing UBI. I like it because it places incentives for people to work and try to make more money.
I will say when I am not convinced, and bring up examples of why that is when someone argues a point strongly.
I think we probably need to see what automation does to the labor market before making drastic changes. Maybe it creates more jobs than it destroys. That would be great, but if the opposite is true and the effect is large, then we probably need a social program like UBI.
He could have been your teacher.
Then how did you learn if they can’t do?
Good point. The problem with welfare as it stands (and lets be honest, UBI is expanded welfare) that I have seen is that it’s a catch-22. Those on welfare are encouraged to get off, but as soon as they reach the income threshold, everything is cut off and they effectively make less than when they were on welfare (the city I used to live in had this problem) so they just stay on welfare without seeing a good way out.
A tiered system of some sort would allow “climbing the ladder” so to speak.
1 Like
I laughed at my undergraduate professors in economics, they were clowns. One of who is “world renowed” (ivy league school). I learned more interning than four years of their useless Keynesian nonsense. Business school was better, but still inferior to an actual job. I learned from interning and working, working under people who live and work in the real world not a textbook. I went to school solely for the alumni network.
It also ignores the fact that many teachers, maybe most, of anything can do. An English teacher can read and write English. A math teacher can do math. Someone who instructs firemen was probably a fireman at one point. A mechanic probably teaches classes on fixing cars.
1 Like
I would encourage you to read up on EITC. It actually pays you more if you earn more up until a certain point. Buffet is a big proponent of it. IIRC, it has pretty good support on both sides of the aisle.
I definitely don’t know much about it, I will look into it. I am encouraged by something that both sides can actually agree upon. That rarely happens.
1 Like
Now things are even clearer. Anti-union, anti-intellectual. It’s starting to add up. The funny thing is, all of those theories you posted were developed by those “clowns.”
1 Like
This is not a BS statement, it is very true in many cases. Unfortunately.
@plinnyc88
I read most of the recent thread. I agree and disagree. I have already called the UBI stupid, way earlier in the thread. I happen to agree that jobs are generally displaed as opposed to truly lost.
People holding onto a dying indutry or trade do everyone a disservice. Advances bring change and people don’t like change. They want to continue to do what they do and be well paid for doing what they do, even if what they do doesn’t make sense any more. The real result of change is job displacement with increased earning potential long-term - but almost everyone thinks in the very short term. Sure, my kids will have a better job than me and the opportunity to have more, but it hurts me right now bbecause my career is becoming redundant. (Not me personally)
The UBI would fail for the same reason that it failed in Rome. It is really far from a new idea, and really far from a good idea.
1 Like
@zecarlo we don’t agree on much but here we are in lock-step.
People in my field who take this attitude make really crappy employees…just saying
An unfortunate, but true, statement, @hardartery…
1 Like