Short answer: weath inequality has nothing to do with right or left politics, and everything to do with cashflow. We are at a crossroads in technology where many jobs are obsolete - we do not have enough jobs (that pay reasonably) for the number of workers.
My proposed solution would be:
1 - reduce the work week to 20 hours but higher more workers. 2 main shifts.
2 - regulate the banking industry
3 - reduce taxes on businesses that dont outsource, really, fix the tax code in general
4 - some kind of universal healthcare plan. The US is pathetic compares to most major countries in this regard.
5 - regulate education and student loan debt. Even middle eastern countries have cheap education.
6 - invest heavily in renewables, robotocs, space travel, and medicine.
The experiments that have been done in the past did not result in inflation nor did those receiving the UBI work less, if I recall correctly. However, those were done some time ago (Nixon was actually pushing for a Negative Income Tax that never passed). In addition to the Finnish one you posted, thereās one underway in Canada now too.
Well, in Aeroās world, if you have people work 20 hrs/week, and pay them with the UBI, more people are āemployeed,ā instead of just sitting around soaking up $$$ in a world where there may be less total jobs.
What happens to all those people whoās jobs were just cut in half?
You also still have the issue of people lacking the skills to fill these new part-time positions (Or I guess 20/h is now full-time, which means employment expenses just went up). .
Yeah youād have to totally re-think benefits. If there was Universal Healthcare etc then it wouldnāt be an issue, but I donāt see that happening in this country, nor do I really want to.
As an aside:
We have a huge issue with following the āentitlementā model of other countries, partly due to our founding principle of liberty, but also because we arenāt a small homogenous group like some of those Nordic countries.
If your job got cut in halfā¦youāre getting paid in addition to your UBI so you wonāt need as much pay from your job. That could allow companies to pay less I suppose. Itās going to be a headache for whoever has to formulate this stuff. Above my paygradeā¦at this time
Right, we need to use guns to take their wealthā¦ for their own good.
āOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baronās cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.ā
-C. S. Lewis
Itās looking that way ā¦ which, imo, will fix absolutely fuck all.
People who are bad with money will now have more money to be bad with and no one to tell them otherwise.
People who are good with money will now have more money to be good with it. There MIGHT be a net gain on this with a lot less administrative drain on the resources - but ultimately it will lead right back to a bloated welfare state UNLESS we start educating ourselves better (in that I mean, improve schools, teach more finance, economics, philosophy, maths/STEM shit - more emphasis on work/study programs in high schools that focus on skills needed in the job mkt, etc. etc.).
All the UBI will do is throw money at a problem w/o addressing the core reason why money needs to be thrown in the first placeā¦
Which is, as I mentioned above, dwindling/outdated skills and an education system overhaul
People who are good with money will have less money to be good with because people who are good with money are never poor in this country. Giving money to the poor is always giving money to people bad with it.
Holy broad generalization batman. By this logic, anyone with the knowledge of how to be good with money by default CANāT be poor or become poor for any reason.
It would be incredibly rare to be good with money and poor on any moderate to long term scale. Short term, yeah, it can happen. Long term? No, if you are good with money, you arenāt going to be in poverty for very long. One rare exception would be someone who chooses not to pursue wealth.
Exactly how many long term poor people who are good with money do you know?
If the economy craters badly enough to where the social order crashes, being very wealthy will suddenly become a lot less meaningful. Thatās what I mean by āfor their good.ā
You must not have read the rest of my post. I know why you think itās for their good. My post indicated that believing you can use coercion for the good of the victims of that coercion is morally and in practice worse than just being a mugger.
I spent most of my college years working as an independent contractor doing foreclosed home inspections. The number of people Iāve seen that lost everything due to a spouse getting cancer/insert expensive illness here and crippling them with hospital bills would blow your mind.
How about young people that havenāt feasibly had enough time to make enough money to not ābe poor?ā
How about people who lost their jobs to outsourcing or the economy crashing?
How about people who suddenly lost 60% of the value in their homes after the 07 crash because wall street decided to light the planet on fire?
The problem with making such broad generalizations in absolutes is theyāre almost ALWAYS wrong.
edited: to remove the carrots I had around āinsert illness hereā somehow it didnāt like those
Thatās one way of looking at things. Of course, that moral argument rests upon a number of unstated assumptions (eg, the absolute right to property) that, if successfully challenged, render it groundless.
Does welfare help more people who need it or enable more people to carry on bad behaviour and sap their will to rise up from their circumstances?
If we had to choose between charities or government vetting potential welfare recipients, which one would better reward the right people while minimizing the money going to the wrong people?
True. And exactly the same thing can be said of and same argument used against all negative rights. There are a lot of assumptions made to arrive at the conclusion people have a right to life. If you successfully challenge any of those assumptions, arguments against murder are groundless.
In reference to a UBI there is no vetting. Itās citizen vs non-citizen. I tend to agree it saps peopleās will to rise up from their circumstances ā if they know it is indefinite.
The difference being, I can make a compelling argument against absolute property rightsāor perhaps more accurately, proponents of absolute property rights are unable to make a principled argument that withstands close scrutiny. Iām not sure if the same can be said regarding murder.
