Of course details matter. A super modest UBI might take the edge off of poverty without disincentivizing work and have little effect on tax rates or revenues. But what constitutes "super modest"?
Viewing entries in
Politics and Economics
To keep the Republican party in check, Trump has to keep his troops motivated. He has to tweet. He has to balance presidential displays with divisive rabble-rousing. A reasonable and humble Trump would lose his base and therefore the power to punish those who cross him.
"Technical manuals for 47 interest inventories were used, yielding 503,188 respondents. Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d _ 0.93) on the Things–People dimension."
- Su, Rounds and Armstrong (2009) Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests.
Are male engineers simply more sexist and less welcoming of female students and coworkers than, say, male doctors and lawyers? Why would that be? If we were only talking about the perniciousness of men, we would expect similar gender patterns in a broad range of traditionally male-dominated occupations. But we don't. There's something special about engineering.
...mindfulness teachers and advocates, whom I assume don't want to drive away potential converts by creating a political litmus test for membership in the mindful community. Even groups that have promoted mindful political engagement shy away from explicit party affiliation
Arguments against the Deserving Rich:
- Retaining wealth is undeserved when others are in need.
- Most wealth is acquired through exploitation and force.
- Even if ability and hard work generate wealth, luck is the ultimate cause because a person's wealth-producing qualities are a product of favorable circumstances.
- Lots of hard-working people remain poor.
- Lots of people get rich because of connections or lucky breaks.
- Size matters. No one deserves to be filthy rich.
Assuming some degree of inequality is compatible with the principle of fairness, on what basis would some people deserve more than others? In surveys and lab studies, participants have generally considered it fair to reward ability, effort, and moral behavior with more stuff. But when people are presented with hypothetical scenarios of economic good fortune, they're fine with "brute luck" as a source of riches. No begrudging the lottery winner.
Let's unpack what's so bad about inequality in and of itself. Say we eliminate poverty and create conditions that facilitate individual social mobility; healthcare is universal; housing is generally affordable...
The Japanese healthcare system does illustrate how regulation can sometimes be the friend of innovation. The government overseers set low reimbursement rates for MRIs. So what did the Japanese do? Develop cheap MRI machines. Create the right incentives and inventions will follow.
There's no way you can go from making it easier to buy health insurance, or to incentivize buying health insurance, and get to universal coverage. Some people just can't or won't buy insurance. The US would still have millions uninsured if we had a completely voluntary system.
America used to be the mobile society. People would pick up and move to the next opportunity or adventure. Oregon Ho! Sure, moving could be scary - failure was always a possibility - and yet we took that risk time and again. Then we stopped. What happened?
Canada and Finland have recently begun pilot studies designed to assess the feasibility of a universal basic income (UBI). Both studies involve providing a basic income to disadvantaged individuals for a substantial period of time. The Canadian study is set to last two years and the Finnish study three years. Payments are not means-tested and will continue for the duration of the study period regardless if the recipients find work or better employment.
Getting, keeping, and mastering a job is a huge confidence-building experience. Hope falters without confidence. Effort falters without hope: if nothing will come of my effort, why try? Chronic unemployment zaps the will and can lead to a downward spiral. That’s why it's so important for employers to be willing to take risks on 'non-optimal' job applicants.
We have no idea what the actual wage increases were, since the “tip credit” was used by many employers. Also, Seattle was booming during the period studied. How did the researchers control for the effects of skyrocketing employment and economic growth in Seattle?
Now let’s look at Financial Shocks, focusing on sudden cut-off of an income stream. Usually we’re talking about a job lost to employer action (being laid off) or disability. If people are less worried about financial shocks, they may save a little bit less than before.
According to one study, being around the rich makes us want to buy status-enhancing "visible goods", like fancy cars or clothes. And that might reduce household savings by about 3% a year for the non-rich folks.
...plenty of environmentalists include humans in their circle of caring. It's just that their circle includes more than humans. Such caring doesn't need a rationale. It doesn't even need to be rational.
In the olden days, substantial down payments were required to buy a home. Rule of thumb was 20% - imagine! Nowadays, the average down payment amount for first time buyers ranges between 5 and 10 percent.
Between home equity, investment savings, pensions, Social Security, Medicare, and supplemental insurance, most older Americans have the assets, income streams, and protections against adversity that are the envy of the age-impaired.
The decline in savings among rich countries is global, so whatever is behind this trend is unlikely to be specific to the US.