3 ms·
While I don't think ideas like this are a substitute for approaches like UBI which try to increase security and decrease inequality in a more stable, predictabl
by marojejian 1y ago
While I don't think ideas like this are a substitute for approaches like UBI which try to increase security and decrease inequality in a more stable, predictable and scalable way, I do think this is a good "yes, and" direction to go.
All people should start life with some opt-out capital, and some part of redistribution should come in a form that aligns incentives with the economy, just like some level of equity compensation is good.
That said, it's far from a panacea, and opens up many potential problems, as we can see in today in equity comp. or the casino culture of retail investors and meme stocks.
- slwvx 1y agoWhat do you mean by "opt-out capital"? Is this something to limit r>g (Piketty) inequality?
- marojejian 1y agoNo, I just phrased that lazily. I mean that everone should start with a little capital "invested" in the system, vs. say getting cash and then being given the choice of investing. The phrase was meant to draw analogy with UX where you can either opt-in or opt-out of a choice, and opt-out structures always lead to much higher uptake. Which is why it's better to make the default option investing in a 401k. My optimistic hope is that, even when the amounts are small, this is a beneficial step, since already being an "investor" will both encourage some people to invest more, and encourage people to learn investing-related skills, and care about the health of the system.