In other words, substantial majorities of all political groups feel they've achieved the American Dream or are at least getting there. Yet we hear all the time that "the American dream is dead". Take this Chicago Tribune commentary, "The American Dream is dead, and voters are angry". To quote...
As it is, we already have 23 million prime-age (24-54) adults who are not part of the US labor force. Many are unmarried, childless men with limited education and skills. Their numbers keep growing: the rate of inactive prime-age men has more than doubled since the 1970, when it was 4% It is now 11%.
The “world does not end, the blue bird does not return, love does not reveal itself in all of its profound tenderness and charity, and death and mourning and crying and pain do not disappear.” Yuri Slezkine.
Here’s what they said they'd rather do with their time:
So we have at least 6.1 million poorly paid full-time workers with limited earning potential. If they had a guaranteed UBI, I imagine some of these individuals would get off the treadmill and manage with the UBI, perhaps working part-time or taking on the occasional full-time gig.
Family farms of various types together account for 99 percent of all farms, and those account for 89 percent of the production as of 2015.
So how many workers in today's labor market would choose not to work or work fewer hours if they got a UBI? We've already got 35% who are good candidates: rejected applicants for SSDI/SSI and part-time workers.
Now what does this have to do with a Universal Basic Income (UBI)? It's part of my project to estimate (roughly!) how many Americans would drop out of the labor market, reduce their hours, or otherwise downshift their career aspirations if they could count on an UBI.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 15% of American workers are part-time by choice; in other words, they don't want to work full-time. Another 3% of American workers are part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want to work full-time but have either had their hours reduced due to business conditions or simply cannot find full-time employment. These workers are typically young, male, single, and poorly educated.
The number of non-earners (read: non-taxpayers) and part-time workers will likely skyrocket. They will be supported by the rest of the population, especially households in the top two income quintiles.
Want to convince someone the situation is urgent and immediate action is imperative? Well, you're not going to get very far by laying it on with a sledgehammer. This approach usually backfires by triggering resistance and motivating counterarguments.
First, the energy sector. We're mostly talking methane leaks during the production, storage and transport of coal, oil, and (especially) natural gas. Fixing the leakage problem is more than affordable - it's actually profitable, because leaks cost Big Energy potential revenue to be gained from converting methane to more benign products. The reason why companies haven't moved more quickly to take advantage of this business opportunity is the upfront expense of equipment upgrades that would shut down the leaks. Making money costs money.
Home to methane-spewing microbes, wetlands are the largest source of methane emissions in the world.
Diesel transportation and household burning of solid fuels together account for almost 60% of global black carbon emissions. Transitioning to cleaner, more efficient transportation and household technologies would go a long way to making a serious dent in BC emissions.
This post will the first of many addressing the second lever: reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). The main SLCPs are black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone, and some hydrofluorocarbons.
Wealth does not measure the inherent value of an asset, only its market value at a particular point in time. Sources of wealth include real estate, stocks, bonds, bank deposits, pensions, and mutual funds. One's own home is the main source of wealth for the majority of Americans, except the most affluent.
Slowly but surely the US is catching on to the advantages of using nurse practitioners as independent primary care gatekeepers. A big factor in the gradual acceptance of this expanded role for nurse practitioners is the shortage of GPs, which has left millions of Americans without access to primary care providers.
In the US, the incentives are aligned to test more, treat more, and charge more. It's no surprise that, on average, the US spends almost twice as much on its healthcare system than other developed countries. And it's no surprise that our doctors are among the highest paid in the world.
When we're talking about exorbitant medical fees, we're talking mostly about doctors' fees. Physicians make way more in the US than other developed countries - about twice as much. What do other countries do to contain physician fees? Lots of things, including...
I don't equate prosperity with being rich, or even being above middle-class. I think of prosperity as owning a nice home in a nice neighborhood, with health insurance and a degree of financial security. Don't need a big house, don't need fancy.