The main dictionary definition of "conservative" is "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." In European and Latin American history, "conservative" usually referred to supporters of the Church (and sometimes landed gentry), which was opposed to business interests. A strong strain of paternalism runs through the history of the European/Latin brand of conservatives. Pro-business advocates were (and still are) called "liberals" in Europe ...
Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release (March 30, 2016), the total number employed in the US for All Occupations was 137,896,660. ...administrative support jobs are by far the biggest occupational group. And yet for decades, prognosticators have been saying the computer will make office work near obsolete. So why are there more office jobs than ever?
According to the ICI Fact Book, an estimated 90 million individual investors owned mutual funds in 2014. These investors held 89 percent of total mutual fund assets, directly or through retirement plans. About 53.2 million households (43% of all households) owned mutual funds.
Affluence is mostly a matter of age and education in the US. The median net worth (2011) of young adults (less than 35 years) is $6,676; for 65 to 69 year-olds, it’s $194,226; for 75 and older: $155,714. Basically, people start accumulating wealth in their late 30s and then slowly deplete it after retirement.
Denmark’s generous safety net is made possible by high taxes – and not particularly progressive taxes at that. Kicking in at incomes of roughly $6300/year, the lowest tax rate is 37.5%. The highest rate is 59%, starting at about $50,400/year. Counting all sources of taxation, taxes comprise 49% of GDP – the highest in Europe.
Denmark draws the lines differently. Pro-union doesn’t mean anti-business. Having a strong safety net doesn’t mean squeeze the rich. Maybe it’s more accurate to say that the lines are not there to begin with- that the ideal of ending poverty, facilitating economic mobility, and making sure everyone has access to the basics – healthcare, education, and family services – doesn’t have to pit Most of Us against a Despised Other (or at least an Undeserving Other).
This is a continuation of the Denmark explorations. This time around, we’ll be checking out Denmark’s pension system.
Summary so far: Denmark has an extensive safety net and high taxes. As per usual, the situation is a lot more complicated than the buzz. Last time we looked at the health care system. Now we’re going to take a closer look at unemployment benefits.
Denmark has an extensive safety net and high taxes. As per usual, the situation is a lot more complicated than the buzz. So we’re going to take a closer look, starting with the health care system. As previously advertised, Denmark provides “universal health care”. What does this mean?
The many attractions of Denmark include a generous safety net that provides unemployed workers 90% of their old salary up to 2 years. Parents receive up to 52 weeks of leave per child and daycare is heavily subsidized. Overall, working-age families receive more than three times as much aid, as a share of G.D.P., as their U.S. counterparts. Danes enjoy the world’s shortest work week and have the right to 5 weeks of paid vacation a year. College students not only have free tuition but get a stipend of over $900 a month.
...Speaking of “per capita” gun ownership rates in the US, it's true that Americans own more guns "per capita" than any other country but that stat is highly misleading, being based on number of guns divided by number of people. It doesn’t say anything about how many Americans actually own guns. As it turns out, gun ownership by household has actually been declining in the US for years.
A reliable, unconditional and generous BIG would probably encourage procrastination and discourage self-sacrifice in the service of long-term goals, especially in those for whom school and full-time work aren’t exactly enticing prospects. Live with mom or a bunch of roommates, work part-time in food service or take an occasional gig, and prolong adolescence a few more years – and before you know it, the ol’ brain is past its optimal age for learning and skill acquisition...
The idea of "too big to fail" is that certain corporations, especially banks, are so large and interconnected that the government would have to bail them out in the event of failure to avoid catastrophic ripple effects throughout the economy.
If I were president, we’d have a modest BIG, which would be paid for out of the existing federal budget, as follows: $150b – elimination of safety net programs (TANF, EITC, and SSI) $150b – state matching funds related to the above $ 70b – half of SSDI funds $ 25b – half of the HUD budget $ 25b – budget reductions in some remaining programs (e.g., Pell/SEOG grants) $ 25b – elimination of redundant programs (guided by US Gov. Accountability Office) $100b – unemployment compensation..
Savings are important for investments that create opportunities later (e.g., school, car, first/last/deposit for moving) and research has shown that people are more likely to save when they receive occasional lump sum payments than when they receive modest monthlies. Also, an important poverty-reducer is geographic mobility and savings makes it a lot easier to move. A BIG should not make it easier to live in low opportunity areas, and if doled out in bits every month, it might do that (at least for some people).
Here’s another advantages of the modest Basic Income Guarantee (BIG): child support could be electronically deducted from BIG directly, so less time and money would be spent chasing down fathers and at least some child support would be guaranteed. Automatic child support deductions would likely influence the dynamics of gender relations by making men a bit more cautious about casual sex.
The idea is that a modest BIG would eliminate severe poverty but not be so generous as to disincentivize work any more than the current safety net system does.
In the last post, I found $545 billion in federal and state budgets to pay for BIG, all by transferring existing funds. While most adults would receive a monthly BIG, most would also pay the entire BIG amount back in taxes – from the middle income quintile and up. I’m thinking people would have the option to have the government set aside their BIG payments – perhaps in interest-bearing accounts – to pay back in taxes or as a way to save for major expenditures.
The thing about monopolies is that they are mostly harmful when they are truly monopolies - that is, there is no real competition for the product/service they provide and the price of entry is steep for potential competitors. But what constitutes the competition is not always obvious. Take Greyhound. Greyhound could be considered a monopoly in some areas of the country, but only when competition is defined as other companies of the same kind, i.e., other bus companies. We know that’s absurd. Greyhound’s competitors are also other forms of transportation: cars, planes, trains.
BIG would be funded through the portion of government budgets devoted to safety net programs (about 11% of the federal budget, with states contributing matching funds). Let’s see if we can cobble together a decent BIG budget through the elimination of the programs that BIG would replace, plus selective reductions in other programs.