11 ms·
Interesting argued. I say: let's try it somewhere that is game, and see what happens. As Bob Reich says, we've been running an experiment in trickle down econom
by mshron 11y ago
Interesting argued. I say: let's try it somewhere that is game, and see what happens. As Bob Reich says, we've been running an experiment in trickle down economics for the past 30 years and it hasn't done most of us much good. I'm not going to buy much in theory either way until I see some attempts in practice.
- peteretep 11y ago> let's try it somewhere that is game Somewhere that's game, but also has very strict immigration rules, or a very low existing quality of life. I like the idea in principle (and I'm very pro immigration generally), but don't see how it can work without strict immigration controls. Eligibility controls will just cause a flood of cheap labour, and an artificial middle class made of those who were eligible in the first tranche.
- eru 11y agoHow do your concerns work out in the case of Alaska? Every American can move there, and they have something similar to basic income.
- peteretep 11y ago$1,800 a year is not in the least bit similar to a basic income. I suspect it barely covers the extra costs in heating alone that living in Alaska entails.
- vlehto 11y agoIn Nordic countries you get state funded unemployment checks if you have permanent residence in the country. No citizenship needed. Any change in welfare should lessen the pressure of immigration or make immigrants more productive.
- mattm 11y agoI really wish this was more the case. When it comes to economic systems, everyone has theories about what will work but most of the time it's just that. Instead we would be better off actually trying things on a small scale to see how it works rather than everyone bickering on their thoughts about how humans make decisions.
- hodwik 11y agoSure it has, although trickle down is a completely inaccurate way to describe it. Real adjusted income per capita is skyrocketing. The only reason it looks like it is going down is because Liberals always quote the household income. Of course household income is going down, households are getting smaller and smaller. A mere 5 percent of those in the bottom quintile in '75 were still there by '91. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZTj_GfalJo8/UCGLgI8nDII/AAAAAAAAFts/LGj6GB3JIB0/s1600/average-real-income-in-us-by-sex-1947-2010.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZTj_GfalJo8/UCGLgI8nDII/AAAAAAAAFt...
- zaroth 11y agoNo one is arguing that real household income has not risen sine 1945. The problem is that it's stagnated and even decreased since 2000, which is exactly what that chart shows.
- hodwik 11y agoWe're facing much more competition globally now. Sure, it's a small loss for us, but it's a huge gain for the world. Things had to equalize, we couldn't ride off WW2 forever. And I don't mean that in a Keynesian sense. I mean that in a 'the rest of the first world was bombed to a pulp so we had no global manufacturing competition' sense.
- gozo 11y agoThat's average income. Look at the median income for men and things look less exciting. Then add the increase in tuition fees and housing cost in urban areas. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aTB7SNmJgkY/UCPmRNHaUxI/AAAAAAAAFwc/aA5SesGKpGs/s1600/median-real-income-in-us-by-sex-1947-2010.PNG http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aTB7SNmJgkY/UCPmRNHaUxI/AAAAAAAAFw...
- twoodfin 11y agoWhy just men? Aren't we glad they have to complete with women in the labor market now?