4 ms·

All startups would be instantly ramen profitable.

by MaysonL 17y ago

dangoldin 17y ago
According to the article Alaska comes close due to the subsidy. Maybe Alaska is the next Silicon Valley?
- patio11 17y ago
  $3,290 a year, which is the Alaska permanent fund dividend, will not take any startup to ramen profitability. https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/ https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/
- kingnothing 17y ago
  According to http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-149993 http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-149993, every Alaskan in 2007 received just shy of $3,300. I wouldn't call that enough to live on, but it's not a bad start if you're looking to have just enough to scrape by.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    If that's every person, then a family of 4 would get $13000. Allowing for differences in cost of living I'd say that's about 75% of what I'm living on in the UK (and we run a car). If you own housing then I'd say that's more than enough to live on. If you're happy to supplement that income by growing some of your own food (allotments in the UK are very low cost) then I'd say you can live quite comfortably.
    - kingnothing 17y ago
      I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it's everyone over the age of 18.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  Alaska has an amazingly high cost of living, as I discovered when I stayed there to visit a late relative.
maxharris 17y ago
Startups, or the companies that they would later turn into would have a substantial tax burden keeping them down. (You can't hide an economic inefficiency - the effect of taxing to pay for it would have a negative impact.) There is no such thing as a free lunch.
- jacobolus 17y ago
  The "economic inefficiency" associated with a guaranteed minimum income, or wage subsidy, plus a basic level of government provided health insurance, has less distortionary consequences than the current system with a minimum wage and employer-provided insurance. But really, this kind of reduction in inequality has generally quite positive effects on economic growth and productivity, and everyone in the society, including the rich, winds up better off after the improvements have compounded for a few decades.
- wlievens 17y ago
  But starting would be easier. That's his point.

All startups would be instantly ramen profitable.

by MaysonL 17y ago

All startups would be instantly ramen profitable.

dangoldin 17y ago

According to the article Alaska comes close due to the subsidy. Maybe Alaska is the next Silicon Valley?

patio11 17y ago
$3,290 a year, which is the Alaska permanent fund dividend, will not take any startup to ramen profitability. https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/ https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/
kingnothing 17y ago
According to http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-149993 http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-149993, every Alaskan in 2007 received just shy of $3,300. I wouldn't call that enough to live on, but it's not a bad start if you're looking to have just enough to scrape by.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  If that's every person, then a family of 4 would get $13000. Allowing for differences in cost of living I'd say that's about 75% of what I'm living on in the UK (and we run a car). If you own housing then I'd say that's more than enough to live on. If you're happy to supplement that income by growing some of your own food (allotments in the UK are very low cost) then I'd say you can live quite comfortably.
  - kingnothing 17y ago
    I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it's everyone over the age of 18.
tokenadult 17y ago
Alaska has an amazingly high cost of living, as I discovered when I stayed there to visit a late relative.

maxharris 17y ago

Startups, or the companies that they would later turn into would have a substantial tax burden keeping them down. (You can't hide an economic inefficiency - the effect of taxing to pay for it would have a negative impact.) There is no such thing as a free lunch.

jacobolus 17y ago
The "economic inefficiency" associated with a guaranteed minimum income, or wage subsidy, plus a basic level of government provided health insurance, has less distortionary consequences than the current system with a minimum wage and employer-provided insurance. But really, this kind of reduction in inequality has generally quite positive effects on economic growth and productivity, and everyone in the society, including the rich, winds up better off after the improvements have compounded for a few decades.
wlievens 17y ago
But starting would be easier. That's his point.