3 ms·
Yeah, you're absolutely right. In which case, the numbers simply do not work out. Makes the article's argument seem even less thought out as the author didn't e
by joesmo 11y ago
Yeah, you're absolutely right. In which case, the numbers simply do not work out. Makes the article's argument seem even less thought out as the author didn't even do some basic calculations.
But this slightly different system I'm describing isn't the same as what we currently have. What I'm thinking is UBI (or whatever it might be called in this system) vs. wages. Pick one. This would automatically make the minimum wage > $30k, probably at least around $40-50k and wouldn't require paying every adult in the US, including ones who already have jobs. The key difference is that people would have a choice of going to this new Semi-UBI system anytime they wanted, no questions asked, with guaranteed income. I think that's one differentiator. Another differentiator would be removing the countless barriers that exist in today's systems. The many idiotic rules around welfare and Medicaid for example are so complicated and require so much time and paperwork, it's ridiculous. It would keep the state from trying to force people to look for jobs they don't want and waste time doing it. It would allow people to go to school full time while still receiving aid (not possible in many cases today). It'd be a real, living wage, albeit low, that could remove the stress and uncertainty of today's welfare systems. And finally, it would hopefully not carry the stigma it has today as artists and thinkers and all types of people might choose not to work at all, rather than have this be only a program for the poor.
So yeah, it's not really UBI, but it could still be a lot better than current systems.
- lazyjones 11y ago> What I'm thinking is UBI (or whatever it might be called in this system) vs. wages. Pick one. This would automatically make the minimum wage > $30k The problems with such a system would be: * even higher threshold for actually seeking a job because you lose BI (yes, the other side of higher minimum wages) * either the BI is sufficient for a decent life or it isn't: if it is, it's probably too expensive because a large part of the population will receive it. If it isn't, it will be a program for the poor/disabled only and enough people will be seeking jobs to drive the effective minimum wages down to the current level.