How much of the "follow your dream" notion is coming from Universities, and how much of it is coming from parents that wish they had because they aren't fulfilled by their job, or parents who are, and would like the same for their children?
I think parental influence is huge, for better or for worse. For example many particular inherited skills seem to follow along in families, e.g. teaching, business, science etc.
Inherited traits like being self initiating, where in my experience only 10% of kids have it, can play a huge role in their success in the workplace. Also willingness to go where the jobs are, can greatly increase their chances of success.
On the other hand there can be generations of kids, who for parental reasons, are satisfied with living off welfare.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flamesfever For This Useful Post:
Agreed. This is why this is a common core education challenge than it is a higher ed issue. Vocational training and channeling individuals into vocations needs to start earlier than post-secondary education. The challenge with vocational training is making sure that the individuals are indeed going to be engaged in this vocation long-term, and then supporting their needs.
The problem with what you are suggesting is that most people are not prepared to select a career at a young age. All you're doing to forcing students to make a decision based on a vocational interest. Kids are not prepared to make that call. Most people coming out of high school are not prepared to make that call either. That is why general education is as successful as it is in our economic system.
But you're locking student in at that young age. That is the complaint about the European systems that leverage this vocational focus. The Finish model of education is very highly regarded, probably the best education system in the world, but there are problems with their vocational focus. For students who enter that branch of the system it is hard to transfer to the other because they have gone down a divergent branch where learning is very different. The community college systems routinely see students that have to make these transitions and it is difficult for student to change modalities. They struggle and it takes time. So it is important we keep that in mind or align teaching modalities so they are similar in structure and can more easily translate. The branching is intentional to leverage the interests and strengths of learning style for the students, so this may hurt both systems. Interesting discussion though.
You're not locking students in though. They can still get back into the academic stream, but just like in our current system it takes work, for example, upgrading or repeating courses.
Much better, IMO, to at least provide the option of training in a vocational field, as opposed to have a high school student get a D in remedial math after multiple tries.
Personally I think the genie is now out of the bottle and we are looking at UBI as if the liberals run on it, the CPC will have to offer something similar.
I have no idea how we are ever going to,pay for this
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
There's a reason more people don't gravitate towards the trades, and it's not because of teachers or guidance counselors. It's because it's usually pretty physically demanding (and sometimes dangerous) work in often uncomfortable conditions. And even if you're OK with those things, most trades still require skills, talent, and intelligence that not everyone is capable of.
Thinking that anyone can be suited for trades work and they're just too brainwashed to realize what they're missing out on is as tone deaf as people telling out of work coal miners to "learn to code".
And honestly, one of the biggest obstacles is some of the people in the trades themselves. Just like with police or prison guards, the jobs are sometimes self-selecting in terms of the type of personalities they tend to attract. If you want to attract more people to the field, then changing the whole attitude and atmosphere is one place to start. A lot of journeymen/companies are great for apprentices to work under, but way too many have awful safety standards (this is particularly bad in residential construction), tolerate hazing and verbal abuse of apprentices, and seem to think that screaming at employees is a great way to motivate them. I know multiple people who started as apprentices or pre-apprentices and ended up changing fields because they couldn't stand that atmosphere.
Firstly, the focus here is on trades, as Canada has a shortage of trades people. However, vocational schooling goes beyond just physical trades.
But yes, the attitude towards skilled tradesmen needs to change dramatically. A major part of the problem is the emphasis has been taken away from the fact trades people are often highly skilled. Instead, it's seen as a place that people go after they haven't realized their self-fulfillment goals. This needs to change. As this changes, the atmosphere on site should change too. The kind of person involved from the beginning would change, and vocational schools would create a far more monitored atmosphere with more professionalism.
Firstly, the focus here is on trades, as Canada has a shortage of trades people. However, vocational schooling goes beyond just physical trades.
But yes, the attitude towards skilled tradesmen needs to change dramatically. A major part of the problem is the emphasis has been taken away from the fact trades people are often highly skilled. Instead, it's seen as a place that people go after they haven't realized their self-fulfillment goals. This needs to change. As this changes, the atmosphere on site should change too. The kind of person involved from the beginning would change, and vocational schools would create a far more monitored atmosphere with more professionalism.
Yeah, trades are definitely not someone carrying heavy things from one place to another, but I honestly think my people view trades as a path to a job as a circa-1880s coal miner.
I think a better model would be skill based education. Take a 6 month course multiple times throughout your life to upgrade skills or change streams.
That solves the "I don't know what to do when I'm 17 problem" because you aren't investing 4 years and 50k in either something unsuitable or "finding yourself" in a generalist program. If the first thing you try isn't a fit retrain and try something else.
To expand upon this response and bring more context into play:
Yes, because education and other components of our social systems play directly into the UBI discussion. Say we abandoned public education because we needed the money to pay for UBI. Education then becomes a cost passed onto the recipient of UBI who then have increased costs to take into consideration. Same with healthcare and every other aspect of the social safety net. UBI then shifts from being a discussion of a supplemental income adjustment, it then becomes a discussion of the living wage and how that is determined and provided.
Here are some of the main programs that are part of the social safety net and allow for support or upward mobility in our society.
Head Start
Social Security Disability
Social Security Retirement and Survivors Benefits
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Medicaid
Medicare
Welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or T.A.N.F.)
G.I. Bill
Veterans’ benefits
Pell Grants
Unemployment Insurance
Food Stamps
Government Subsidized Housing
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
Hope and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
529 accounts (qualified tuition programs) or Coverdell education savings account (Education I.R.A.’s)
Earned-income tax credit
Employer subsidized health insurance
Employer subsidized retirement benefits
Federal student loans
Family Planning
Consolidated Health Centers
Transitional Cash and Medical Services for Refugees
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit — Low Income Subsidy
Medicaid
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
Indian Health Service
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Additional Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable component)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
Early Reading First
Rural Education Achievement Program
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Academic Competitiveness and Smart Grant Program
Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
Rural Rental Assistance Program
Water and Waste Disposal for Rural Communities
Public Works and Economic Development
Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
Community Development Block Grants
Homeless Assistance Grants
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Public Housing
Indian Housing Block Grants
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Weatherization Assistance Program
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Food Program Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Nutrition Program for the Elderly
Indian Education
Adult Basic Education Grants to States
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
Education for the Disadvantaged
Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I-A)
Title I Migrant Education Program
Higher Education — Institutional Aid and Developing Institutions
Federal Work-Study
Federal TRIO Programs
Federal Pell Grants
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP)
Child Support Enforcement
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (social services)
Community Services Block Grant
Child Care and Development Fund
Head Start HHS
Developmental Disabilities Support and Advocacy Grants
Foster Care
Adoption Assistance
Social Services Block Grant
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Emergency Food and Shelter Program
Legal Services Corporation
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (employment and training component)
Senior Community Service Employment Program
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult Activities
Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (employment and training)
Foster Grandparents
Job Corps
Grants to States for Low-Income Housing in Lieu of Low-Income Housing Credit Allocations
Tax Credit Assistance Program
Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers
Older Americans Act Family Caregiver Program
Indian Human Services
Support services is an extremely complex beast to take on, and many of these programs keep families, and most importantly children and the elderly, from experiencing crippling poverty or loss of essential services. A number of these programs have dedicated accounts behind them where tax collection is to only fund these initiatives. To support culling these programs would require a massive change in our tax code and law. I'm sure the same exists in Canada. I think there is a lack of understanding of the importance of many social programs that people believe the government could just raid to create a comprehensive UBI.
I'm not sure how you could possibly argue that our society requires UBI, as there isn't enough work for everyone, when we have huge swaths of relatively high paying jobs that go unfilled. So the issue of properly training our work force is directly related to the issue of UBI.
There's a reason more people don't gravitate towards the trades, and it's not because of teachers or guidance counselors. It's because it's usually pretty physically demanding (and sometimes dangerous) work in often uncomfortable conditions. And even if you're OK with those things, most trades still require skills, talent, and intelligence that not everyone is capable of.
Thinking that anyone can be suited for trades work and they're just too brainwashed to realize what they're missing out on is as tone deaf as people telling out of work coal miners to "learn to code".
And honestly, one of the biggest obstacles is some of the people in the trades themselves. Just like with police or prison guards, the jobs are sometimes self-selecting in terms of the type of personalities they tend to attract. If you want to attract more people to the field, then changing the whole attitude and atmosphere is one place to start. A lot of journeymen/companies are great for apprentices to work under, but way too many have awful safety standards (this is particularly bad in residential construction), tolerate hazing and verbal abuse of apprentices, and seem to think that screaming at employees is a great way to motivate them. I know multiple people who started as apprentices or pre-apprentices and ended up changing fields because they couldn't stand that atmosphere.
I think we focus too much on the trades, and not enough in STEM, and with both we think those are the only jobs available which isn't necessarily true.
I think the point is there are fields with lots of unfilled jobs, whether that be the trades, STEM or anything else, but our education system is failing miserably in filling those jobs.
Personally I think the approach of telling kids they are special and should do what the love (hello Liberal arts degree) is a guise in elitism and has failed our society miserably. It is also the reason we have higher levels of unemployment among young people, why kids live with their parents longer, cannot afford a house, higher levels of depression, suicide, etc.
Do we actually need more evidence as to why our current education system and the corrupt fools that run it need to be kicked to the curb?
Even in this thread where I think we all agree that it is an issue, we still have ol' Lanny telling everyone why the 4 year debt laden post secondary degree is still necessary, when in fact more and more companies are trending away from this. But hey, lets not listen to Google, one of the biggest employers of the STEM field. They don't know what they are talking about.
Ignoring of course the fact that Google consistently trends highest among happiest employees, most desirable places to work, highest compensated, etc, etc. Those evil bastards. How dare they suggest my special post secondary degree can be replaced with a 6 month online certification that can be completed for $400.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Well they never ran out of jobs to do in the past 300k either.
The point I was making is that the rate of technological advancement in the past 300 years (and especially in the past 50 years) has been many orders of magnitude faster than the rate of advancement in the prior 300k. The trend is only going to continue. With new technology comes job losses, that much is established beyond any reasonable doubt. The big question is whether or not there will be new jobs added at the same pace or faster than jobs lost, and I haven't seen any solid case made that this will in fact be what takes place. It's easy to look at a token example of a company adding jobs and say "Hey look over here! Jobs are being created!"... it's another thing to actually show that jobs in the economy are being added, at minimum, the same pace as they're being eliminated. Which brings us to...
Quote:
I would agree that tracing people for these jobs and transitioning people whose jobs have become obsolete to new jobs will (and always has been) challenging.
And is therefore a major problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Spoiler!
To expand upon this response and bring more context into play:
Yes, because education and other components of our social systems play directly into the UBI discussion. Say we abandoned public education because we needed the money to pay for UBI. Education then becomes a cost passed onto the recipient of UBI who then have increased costs to take into consideration. Same with healthcare and every other aspect of the social safety net. UBI then shifts from being a discussion of a supplemental income adjustment, it then becomes a discussion of the living wage and how that is determined and provided.
Here are some of the main programs that are part of the social safety net and allow for support or upward mobility in our society.
Head Start
Social Security Disability
Social Security Retirement and Survivors Benefits
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Medicaid
Medicare
Welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or T.A.N.F.)
G.I. Bill
Veterans’ benefits
Pell Grants
Unemployment Insurance
Food Stamps
Government Subsidized Housing
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
Hope and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
529 accounts (qualified tuition programs) or Coverdell education savings account (Education I.R.A.’s)
Earned-income tax credit
Employer subsidized health insurance
Employer subsidized retirement benefits
Federal student loans
Family Planning
Consolidated Health Centers
Transitional Cash and Medical Services for Refugees
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit — Low Income Subsidy
Medicaid
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
Indian Health Service
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Additional Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable component)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
Early Reading First
Rural Education Achievement Program
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Academic Competitiveness and Smart Grant Program
Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
Rural Rental Assistance Program
Water and Waste Disposal for Rural Communities
Public Works and Economic Development
Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
Community Development Block Grants
Homeless Assistance Grants
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Public Housing
Indian Housing Block Grants
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Weatherization Assistance Program
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Food Program Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Nutrition Program for the Elderly
Indian Education
Adult Basic Education Grants to States
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
Education for the Disadvantaged
Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I-A)
Title I Migrant Education Program
Higher Education — Institutional Aid and Developing Institutions
Federal Work-Study
Federal TRIO Programs
Federal Pell Grants
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP)
Child Support Enforcement
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (social services)
Community Services Block Grant
Child Care and Development Fund
Head Start HHS
Developmental Disabilities Support and Advocacy Grants
Foster Care
Adoption Assistance
Social Services Block Grant
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Emergency Food and Shelter Program
Legal Services Corporation
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (employment and training component)
Senior Community Service Employment Program
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult Activities
Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (employment and training)
Foster Grandparents
Job Corps
Grants to States for Low-Income Housing in Lieu of Low-Income Housing Credit Allocations
Tax Credit Assistance Program
Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers
Older Americans Act Family Caregiver Program
Indian Human Services
Support services is an extremely complex beast to take on, and many of these programs keep families, and most importantly children and the elderly, from experiencing crippling poverty or loss of essential services. A number of these programs have dedicated accounts behind them where tax collection is to only fund these initiatives. To support culling these programs would require a massive change in our tax code and law. I'm sure the same exists in Canada. I think there is a lack of understanding of the importance of many social programs that people believe the government could just raid to create a comprehensive UBI.
And yet, there really is nothing positive that these programs accomplish that UBI wouldn't. If you're really concerned about crippling poverty, I would think that you'd be in favor of a program that eliminates it directly, while at the same time eliminating a lot of bureaucratic bloat.
You mentioned upward mobility. I think there's too much preoccupation in today's society with upward mobility. However, people attaining new knowledge/skills is always a good thing, and should always be encouraged. I don't know if there's anything more obstructive to personal development than people being trapped menial, draining, drudgerous jobs that they aren't interested in.
And yet, there really is nothing positive that these programs accomplish that UBI wouldn't.
What in the ####??? How does UBI address these issues? $1,000 a month is going to replace plethora of services that were listed above? Lost healthcare insurance coverage eats the entire UBI payment. A single semester in university eats the yearly UBI. You're out to lunch on this. Unless the UBI is going to equivalent to a living wage every person receiving welfare assistance is going to see a shortfall, and then no support program to help out. The same people are still going to be unemployed, the same social problems are going to exist, you're just shifting the money around, reducing it, and calling it something new.
Quote:
If you're really concerned about crippling poverty, I would think that you'd be in favor of a program that eliminates it directly, while at the same time eliminating a lot of bureaucratic bloat.
So UBI is not going to be impacted by the same problems? Any large program like this is going to require substantial overhead and substantial oversight. Also, it is not going to eliminate poverty. Based on the lack of payment, it is likely to allow poverty to skyrocket. You're Utopian perspective on this is difficult to square with the remainder of the system. The only way your UBI system works is if you literally burn every system to the ground and start over. The market economy has to catastrophically crash and fail. The government has to be completely reconstructed, including our foundational documents and how the states interact. Most importantly, people have to completely change their expectations and desires as a society. We have to shift from a consumer economy that focuses predominantly on wants and then starts to focus only on needs.
Quote:
You mentioned upward mobility. I think there's too much preoccupation in today's society with upward mobility. However, people attaining new knowledge/skills is always a good thing, and should always be encouraged. I don't know if there's anything more obstructive to personal development than people being trapped menial, draining, drudgerous jobs that they aren't interested in.
You think there is too much focus on upward mobility? Of course you do. As a 20something white male that is an easy thing to do. But try being a visible minority or someone born into soul crushing poverty. The only way out of those situations is upward mobility, and that is a reality that so many citizens are trying to achieve by taking advantage of these various programs.
One of my cohorts during my PhD was a woman born into poverty. She had never been out of West Virginia and had only visited her university in WV. Never been on a plane and had only been out of her county to go to university on the back of Pell grants. Without those grants she never would have had opportunity to break the poverty cycle, get on a plane, visit the other side of the nation, and complete a PhD. UBI never would have provided for that. A UBI would do nothing but maintain status quo for her. The same would exist for millions who use these services to better themselves and leverage upward mobility to get out of poverty that has impacted their family for generations.
What in the ####??? How does UBI address these issues? $1,000 a month is going to replace plethora of services that were listed above? Lost healthcare insurance coverage eats the entire UBI payment. A single semester in university eats the yearly UBI. You're out to lunch on this. Unless the UBI is going to equivalent to a living wage every person receiving welfare assistance is going to see a shortfall, and then no support program to help out. The same people are still going to be unemployed, the same social problems are going to exist, you're just shifting the money around, reducing it, and calling it something new.
Please go back and reread the thread. I never called for eliminating government-run health care; I called for slimming it down to reduce costs, and introducing modest user fees.
Also I said 20k/year UBI (roughly $1667/month).
Quote:
So UBI is not going to be impacted by the same problems? Any large program like this is going to require substantial overhead and substantial oversight.
Eliminating means testing will remove a lot of bureaucratic costs.
Quote:
Also, it is not going to eliminate poverty. Based on the lack of payment, it is likely to allow poverty to skyrocket. You're Utopian perspective on this is difficult to square with the remainder of the system. The only way your UBI system works is if you literally burn every system to the ground and start over. The market economy has to catastrophically crash and fail.
Wrong.
Quote:
The government has to be completely reconstructed, including our foundational documents and how the states interact.
Perhaps.
Quote:
Most importantly, people have to completely change their expectations and desires as a society. We have to shift from a consumer economy that focuses predominantly on wants and then starts to focus only on needs.
Some shift, but not the catastrophic scenario you seem to be trying to paint.
Quote:
You think there is too much focus on upward mobility? Of course you do. As a 20something white male that is an easy thing to do. But try being a visible minority or someone born into soul crushing poverty. The only way out of those situations is upward mobility, and that is a reality that so many citizens are trying to achieve by taking advantage of these various programs.
One of my cohorts during my PhD was a woman born into poverty. She had never been out of West Virginia and had only visited her university in WV. Never been on a plane and had only been out of her county to go to university on the back of Pell grants. Without those grants she never would have had opportunity to break the poverty cycle, get on a plane, visit the other side of the nation, and complete a PhD. UBI never would have provided for that. A UBI would do nothing but maintain status quo for her. The same would exist for millions who use these services to better themselves and leverage upward mobility to get out of poverty that has impacted their family for generations.
That's one of the main purposes of UBI, to make sure that no one gets born into crushing poverty.
Please go back and reread the thread. I never called for eliminating government-run health care; I called for slimming it down to reduce costs, and introducing modest user fees.
Modest user fees? So there would be costs associated with healthcare? That eats into the $1667 a month should someone get sick, or god forbid, they have a catastrophic health emergency. Terrible idea, PERIOD. You don't have to look any further than the United States for proof.
Quote:
Also I said 20k/year UBI (roughly $1667/month).
Great. You're still 28K short of the living wage for the cheapest state in the US (Mississippi - $48K a year). So you're killing all of the programs that help poor people to get food, housing, healthcare, education, and so on, but hey, you're giving them $20K to live on. How are people going to make up the difference?
Quote:
Eliminating means testing will remove a lot of bureaucratic costs.
A means test is one very small part of the process in supporting a program of this size. The savings are negligible.
Can I ask a simple question. What do you do for a living? What experience do you have to think you understand how government works in this regard?
Quote:
Wrong.
Actually, that's 100% right. The system is set up to take all the traffic will bear. If you give the market and inch, they'll take a mile. Corporations are also not going to sit by and let you tax them to what they consider ridiculous levels. They are not going to volunteer to give up the money you are going to demand from them to pay for UBI. For all of these things to happen the system will have to completely collapse and a new set of rules, norms, expectations, and regulations implemented. As it currently is, the larget corporations in the United States don't pay a damn cent of tax (most get rebates) and that is the way the system is set up. It would take a global collapse of the market economies to see a change like this. You try and implement this stuff, prices will skyrocket to maintain bottom lines and investor expectations. This is the reality of the market-based economy we live in.
Quote:
Perhaps.
Again, yes. There would have to be a complete destruction of our systems of government. The constitution would have to be made null and void. A new system of government would have to be established because the one in place right now would never support the idea of a UBI nor have the mechanisms to make it work. Have you never heard the term "no taxation without representation?" It was central to this document called the Declaration of Independence and led to the revolutionary war. The people down here are pretty fanatical about taxes and what is considered tyranny. This would be considered the greatest over-reach since the Stamp Act of 1765.
Quote:
Some shift, but not the catastrophic scenario you seem to be trying to paint.
Some shift? Sure. I guess if eating and having a roof over their head is "some shift." When you're talking about eliminating the very programs people depend upon to meet their basic human needs, and then giving them 41% of what they need to live on, and then fail to acknowledge the systemic problems you're going to create with some of your other ideas to fund this, you're forcing people that already have limited options to have even fewer.
Quote:
That's one of the main purposes of UBI, to make sure that no one gets born into crushing poverty.
Except that is exactly what this would do. You're killing off the vast majority of social programs that the poor rely upon, and then giving them a pittance to live on. Again, the living wage in the poorest state in the union is $48,000 a year, and you're suggesting that $20,000 will cut it. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Here's the problem with your plan. You've dreamed it up with only your perspective in mind. You're a young white kid who likely has some education behind him and had a leg up from mom and dad. You have likely never been exposed to poverty or systemic racism that makes mobility an issue for so many. You get to have a very idealistic perspective on this because you've never had to face the challenges that so many face. It is easy to say that $20K is a great start, because you have the prospects to get a good paying job and will always have the system working in your favor. You need to walk a mile in their shoes and understand the world they live in.
Mississippi
Missouri
Michigan
Maryland
Do you think $20K is going to change the plight of anyone in these locations? This is a systemic problem. UBI does not and never will impact this. Where do these people go to get services once the government pulls up stakes and tells them they are on their own? UBI does not address poverty in any shape or fashion. The only thing that changes poverty is to help people to achieve the mobility to permanently get out it.
Maybe I missed it in all the trade school dialogue but isn’t this thread about a Canadian UBI?
It’s getting confusing mixing in American context, although very fascinating knowledge New Era.
In Canada, I did see some math from I think Bizaro that tried to account for the funding. I believe it showed us still to be short the entire federal budget.
We can’t simply tax ourselves to pay ourselves. Someone has to pay for it. I’d be concerned that inflation will hurt the same people UBI is supposed to help.
Also as New Era was demonstrating, the govt giveth with one sound bite and taketh with the fine print. Again hurting the very people UBI is supposed to help.
As said. It’s an interesting idea I just don’t think it can be executed on due to the natural mechanics of our market driven economy.
Maybe I missed it in all the trade school dialogue but isn’t this thread about a Canadian UBI?
It’s getting confusing mixing in American context, although very fascinating knowledge New Era.
In Canada, I did see some math from I think Bizaro that tried to account for the funding. I believe it showed us still to be short the entire federal budget.
We can’t simply tax ourselves to pay ourselves. Someone has to pay for it. I’d be concerned that inflation will hurt the same people UBI is supposed to help.
Also as New Era was demonstrating, the govt giveth with one sound bite and taketh with the fine print.
As said. It’s an interesting idea I just don’t think it can be executed on Sinotech due to the natural mechanics of our market driven economy.
You can increase tax as a percentage of gdp from about 40% to about 50% and fund a 20k GDP per year in Canada. any nations sustainably run around this point. That only includes UBI replacing retirement, EI programs and Child benefits, and not healthcare or education, or other programs.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
You can increase tax as a percentage of gdp from about 40% to about 50% and fund a 20k GDP per year in Canada. any nations sustainably run around this point. That only includes UBI replacing retirement, EI programs and Child benefits, and not healthcare or education, or other programs.
So a 25% increase in taxes, can be a mix of corporate, income or POS?
Also what happens to EI deductions? Just convert to income tax?
Any idea what that math looks like?
What impact does imposing a 25% global tax increase have on our society? Surely it’s not just a matter of “nothing will change”.
Modest user fees? So there would be costs associated with healthcare? That eats into the $1667 a month should someone get sick, or god forbid, they have a catastrophic health emergency. Terrible idea, PERIOD. You don't have to look any further than the United States for proof.
Great. You're still 28K short of the living wage for the cheapest state in the US (Mississippi - $48K a year). So you're killing all of the programs that help poor people to get food, housing, healthcare, education, and so on, but hey, you're giving them $20K to live on. How are people going to make up the difference?
A means test is one very small part of the process in supporting a program of this size. The savings are negligible.
Can I ask a simple question. What do you do for a living? What experience do you have to think you understand how government works in this regard?
Actually, that's 100% right. The system is set up to take all the traffic will bear. If you give the market and inch, they'll take a mile. Corporations are also not going to sit by and let you tax them to what they consider ridiculous levels. They are not going to volunteer to give up the money you are going to demand from them to pay for UBI. For all of these things to happen the system will have to completely collapse and a new set of rules, norms, expectations, and regulations implemented. As it currently is, the larget corporations in the United States don't pay a damn cent of tax (most get rebates) and that is the way the system is set up. It would take a global collapse of the market economies to see a change like this. You try and implement this stuff, prices will skyrocket to maintain bottom lines and investor expectations. This is the reality of the market-based economy we live in.
Again, yes. There would have to be a complete destruction of our systems of government. The constitution would have to be made null and void. A new system of government would have to be established because the one in place right now would never support the idea of a UBI nor have the mechanisms to make it work. Have you never heard the term "no taxation without representation?" It was central to this document called the Declaration of Independence and led to the revolutionary war. The people down here are pretty fanatical about taxes and what is considered tyranny. This would be considered the greatest over-reach since the Stamp Act of 1765.
Some shift? Sure. I guess if eating and having a roof over their head is "some shift." When you're talking about eliminating the very programs people depend upon to meet their basic human needs, and then giving them 41% of what they need to live on, and then fail to acknowledge the systemic problems you're going to create with some of your other ideas to fund this, you're forcing people that already have limited options to have even fewer.
Except that is exactly what this would do. You're killing off the vast majority of social programs that the poor rely upon, and then giving them a pittance to live on. Again, the living wage in the poorest state in the union is $48,000 a year, and you're suggesting that $20,000 will cut it. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Sadly, it looks like we've reached the point in the conversation where you have to resort to strawmen and ad hominems in an attempt to undermine my position.
The US does not have a government-run health care system. Canada does. Absurdly, you're comparing what I'm proposing with the US health care system. I'm not calling for anything close to that. Just a modest fee each time you access a clinic or hospital, to deter frivolous use of the system.
The notion of "living wage" sounds nice in principle, but it implies a rather generously comfortable lifestyle. Don't try to tell me that a person can't meet his or her basic needs on $20k/year. If you must, get a roommate and split rent, to make your $20k stretch farther. Basic needs are met. Beyond that, offer your services to the market to attain more money.
What huge administration costs are you talking about? We're literally just talking about sending out money to each adult citizen... what grandiose bureaucracy do you think needs to be in place to do that?
Ad hominem attempt - not taking the bait. I could just as easily ask about your personal situation, and look for potential sources of bias impacting your viewpoint...
Prices are determined by supply and demand. I don't buy into this notion that corporations have magical powers to crash everything if they don't get exactly what they want. Politicians have been bribed for far too long into doing the bidding of banks/corporations, and it needs to stop.
"Taxation without representation" is an extremely vague statement, far too vague to have major legal pull. If it did, it could have been used to stop anything from FDR's New Deal to Obama's ACA.
Fanatical brainwashed people... yes, and they are directly standing in the way of decency and progress. These people are completely enamoured by the psychotic rantings of Ayn Rand (which are directly antithetical to everything I believe in). At some point, you have to pick a side...
Quote:
Spoiler!
Here's the problem with your plan. You've dreamed it up with only your perspective in mind. You're a young white kid who likely has some education behind him and had a leg up from mom and dad. You have likely never been exposed to poverty or systemic racism that makes mobility an issue for so many. You get to have a very idealistic perspective on this because you've never had to face the challenges that so many face. It is easy to say that $20K is a great start, because you have the prospects to get a good paying job and will always have the system working in your favor. You need to walk a mile in their shoes and understand the world they live in.
Mississippi
Missouri
Michigan
Maryland
Do you think $20K is going to change the plight of anyone in these locations? This is a systemic problem. UBI does not and never will impact this. Where do these people go to get services once the government pulls up stakes and tells them they are on their own? UBI does not address poverty in any shape or fashion. The only thing that changes poverty is to help people to achieve the mobility to permanently get out it.
At this point, it seems like you're trying to obfuscate the conversation. You've posted a bunch of pictures of people living in poverty, then turned around tried to paint UBI as some sort of bogeyman that will make their situation worse.
If anything, your attempt at arguing this point may actually work against your position. The people in those communities may be collecting benefits from some of the programs you listed, but these conditions have nevertheless occurred. If anything, it shows that the status quo isn't working, and that the current programs that you want to keep in place so badly aren't the saving grace that you see them as being.
At current, when people work jobs and collect income, benefits get clawed back based on how much money they get from their jobs. UBI, by contrast, gives people a floor from which to build on, so none of the UBI benefit gets clawed back as they bring in more income from their jobs.
If anything, I think your "solution", of depending upon upward mobility to solve everything, actually contributes to the problem. It only gets people out of poverty on an individual-by-individual basis. We will never eradicate poverty by taking that kind of approach. Individual problems require individual action; collective problems require collective action. Poverty is a collective problem, not an individual one.
As for systemic racism, yes that is a serious problem, but trying to weaponize it as some sort of argument against UBI, is absurd. If anything, if we lived in a society that didn't have a psychotic obsession with "creating jobs" and didn't see foreigners as "stealing our jobs"... maybe, just maybe, there would be less racist attitudes out there...
So a 25% increase in taxes, can be a mix of corporate, income or POS?
Also what happens to EI deductions? Just convert to income tax?
Any idea what that math looks like?
What impact does imposing a 25% global tax increase have on our society? Surely it’s not just a matter of “nothing will change”.
I copy and pasted some numbers from my previous some of which I stole from Mathgod and Bizaro.
Quote:
OAS/GIS 50 billion
CPP- 50 billion
EI - 20 billion
RRSP tax deductions 23 billion
Child benefits 23 billion
CPP current fund of 355 billion at 3% per year 10 billion
So you have access to about 180 billion so need 220-300 billion more.
Our GDP is about 2.1 Trillion Canadian so 1% increase in public spending as a % of GDP is 20 billion. So if the Canada chose to become among the most socialist large nations (And assuming no impacts on GDP for now as a result of this grand exeperiment) you have the ability to raise about 320 billion if we move to 56% of GDP spent (really more redistributed) by the government.
Which does get us to the threshold to offer every adult a UBI.
To hit your 20k figure and 400 billion we just need to collect about 50% Of GDP in terms of taxation which in Europe is still high but certainly not an outlier.
Given that you are just rebating the money in cash for people to spend and if this tax was implemented on a progressive scale it might actually be stimulus.
In general giving money to people to buy necessities is really good stimulus. I’m not sure about the consequences relative to increasing business taxation or personal income tax. I think on the personal income tax each dollar of redistribution is stimulating becuase it’s more likely to be spent locally. If you could convince the US to do it with Canada then the business affects might be mitigated.
Unlike most tax increases which cause drag because the government spends less efficiently then people In this case you are giving the money to people so the only drag is the cost of redistribution. That’s the theory behind Carbon taxes any ways.
Sadly, it looks like we've reached the point in the conversation where you have to resort to strawmen and ad hominems in an attempt to undermine my position.
You present very limited facts behind your position. It's all theoretical and based on Utopian beliefs with no basis in reality. You are making systemic assumptions that no one in their right mind is willing to accept as a possibility. You treat everyone's condition as if they are the same, facing the same situations, when they are not. You have to take into consideration the situation of all individuals and find solutions that raise all people, but provide the greatest lift to the least fortunate and most in need of help. What you're doing is shifting the money from programs that help and provide mobility to a lot, weakening those systems, and then providing a system that helps very few. It just does not follow any logic in any shape or form.
Quote:
The US does not have a government-run health care system. Canada does. Absurdly, you're comparing what I'm proposing with the US health care system. I'm not calling for anything close to that. Just a modest fee each time you access a clinic or hospital, to deter frivolous use of the system.
User fees do not work. You are applying a tax on people who have chronic conditions and require healthcare services more often. You are penalizing people for conditions that are beyond their control. If those individuals are from a situation where they rely on welfare or government assistance, and you remove that assistance and replace it with a substandard form of income, those people are the ones who are hurt the most. This is a failure of the system.
Quote:
The notion of "living wage" sounds nice in principle, but it implies a rather generously comfortable lifestyle. Don't try to tell me that a person can't meet his or her basic needs on $20k/year. If you must, get a roommate and split rent, to make your $20k stretch farther. Basic needs are met. Beyond that, offer your services to the market to attain more money.
A "living wage" implies a generously comfortable lifestyle? Do you have a clue what you're talking about? The "living wage" is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs (food, housing, and other essential needs such as clothing and hygiene needs). That is not generous, that is basic.
Quote:
What huge administration costs are you talking about? We're literally just talking about sending out money to each adult citizen... what grandiose bureaucracy do you think needs to be in place to do that?
So this money is just going to magically get sent out? The program is going to self administer? There will be no governance over the program and no needs for people to interface with the department responsible for UBI? Again, do you have a clue what you are talking about? Do you have any idea how government or governmental programs operate?
Quote:
Ad hominem attempt - not taking the bait. I could just as easily ask about your personal situation, and look for potential sources of bias impacting your viewpoint...
It's not an ad hominem, its an attempt to understand where you're knowledge base is coming from and what experience you have to make such claims. For example, if you're still living with mom and dad, and haven't had the responsibility of many of the things we're talking about, then it clearly brings into question if you have the experience or knowledge to speak these larger issues. I mean, you're suggesting that $20,000 is enough for someone to live comfortably on, which is below the poverty line pretty much everywhere. So it is very important to have context and understand what your experiences are to be able to make these judgments.
So you know I'm not trying to get you to walk into a bear trap, my experience is I have 28 years in private enterprise, 17 years in government, and almost a decade in the C suite. I've been very fortunate to have seen the insides of both interests that would have to cooperate to make UBI a reality, hence my commentary on the dramatic systematic changes that would have to take place and the incredible level of skepticism that these interests would come together to make the system work. I just don't see this happening in any shape or form.
Quote:
Prices are determined by supply and demand. I don't buy into this notion that corporations have magical powers to crash everything if they don't get exactly what they want. Politicians have been bribed for far too long into doing the bidding of banks/corporations, and it needs to stop.
You're not acknowledging that the market can be easily manipulated, and is manipulated to a high degree. The fossil fuel industry is the best example, how one interest or a collusion of interests can create a monopoly and artificially inflate or deflate the price of product depending on how they control availability of their product. The stock markets are another perfect example. You're refusing to accept that this is the way the system is and the corporations are not going to change or suddenly grow a conscience, doing the right thing for society. They don't care. The only responsibility corporations have is to generate profit and value for their shareholders. For this to change, the whole system has to crash and burn.
You also fail to acknowledge that government institutions are not likely to change as they have very specific rules they have to follow. They have these annoying things called constitutions and laws they are compelled to follow, and they have a great level of oversight in the services they provide. Politicians cycle through the system, but the system remains pretty stagnant because of the way the institutions are setup to function. That is part and parcel of the operation of government. Because these are public interests there is a great degree of oversight to generate the transparency the public demands in using their tax dollars and sensitive information. Unless the system is burned to the ground and new institutions are defined in new and different ways, the forced transparency is always going to create that bloat you reference. This is the cost of being public interest and being accountable to tax payers. You need to understand this and recognize this as component of government.
Quote:
"Taxation without representation" is an extremely vague statement, far too vague to have major legal pull. If it did, it could have been used to stop anything from FDR's New Deal to Obama's ACA.
No, its not vague. It is very specific and has been used in arguments against programs where government funds were allocated without proper process.
Quote:
Fanatical brainwashed people... yes, and they are directly standing in the way of decency and progress. These people are completely enamoured by the psychotic rantings of Ayn Rand (which are directly antithetical to everything I believe in). At some point, you have to pick a side...
Hey, great, we agree Ayn Rand was a shrew. Baby steps.
Quote:
At this point, it seems like you're trying to obfuscate the conversation. You've posted a bunch of pictures of people living in poverty, then turned around tried to paint UBI as some sort of bogeyman that will make their situation worse.
Because it would make their lives worse. You have stated you would eliminate the vast majority of the social safety net to pay for this UBI. I have been trying to show you that these programs are crucial to people's lives and maintaining a minimal standard of living, if you want to call it living. Giving someone 41% of what they need to survive on, and then eliminating the very means that could lead to some form of economic mobility is not only near sighted but cruel. This is literally pulling the rug out from the most vulnerable in our society to attempt a social experiment. Putting a face on the poverty you have no experience with is a way to show you how dire the situation is, and how UBI would make their lives worse.
Quote:
If anything, your attempt at arguing this point may actually work against your position. The people in those communities may be collecting benefits from some of the programs you listed, but these conditions have nevertheless occurred. If anything, it shows that the status quo isn't working, and that the current programs that you want to keep in place so badly aren't the saving grace that you see them as being.
So your solution is to eliminate all the support mechanism they have and then give them a nominal amount of money that does not meet their basic needs. Swell of you.
Quote:
At current, when people work jobs and collect income, benefits get clawed back based on how much money they get from their jobs. UBI, by contrast, gives people a floor from which to build on, so none of the UBI benefit gets clawed back as they bring in more income from their jobs.
You are missing the point. The vast majority of people living in poverty do not have access to good paying jobs, so they aren't seeing anything clawed back. These are people who are living in areas (ghettos or rural areas) where jobs are scarce and there are no services to speak of outside of those provided by the government. Again, I don't think you understand poverty or the challenges these people face. I have a feeling you are insulated from this part of society and can't appreciate the systemic failings that have come to them.
Quote:
If anything, I think your "solution", of depending upon upward mobility to solve everything, actually contributes to the problem. It only gets people out of poverty on an individual-by-individual basis. We will never eradicate poverty by taking that kind of approach. Individual problems require individual action; collective problems require collective action. Poverty is a collective problem, not an individual one.
UBI does not solve poverty. Giving money to people does not solve poverty. Education and accessibility to the institutions that can provide the capital to make change in communities is what will solve poverty. To solve the problem of poverty you have to solve the problem in the communities where poverty is problematic. You need to elevate the community as a whole, and the only way you do that is through change agents. You need to elevate the people within that community by increasing their ability to provide for themselves. That comes through education. That comes through loans to the individuals who can then work within the system. UBI does not address the systemic changes that have to happen within communities so the economic and social well being of all can be elevated. That only comes with the communities having the support to make change.
Quote:
As for systemic racism, yes that is a serious problem, but trying to weaponize it as some sort of argument against UBI, is absurd. If anything, if we lived in a society that didn't have a psychotic obsession with "creating jobs" and didn't see foreigners as "stealing our jobs"... maybe, just maybe, there would be less racist attitudes out there...
Sorry, but what??? I'm not even sure where you are going with this. You lost me here.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Who says we need to pay for anything? Basically everyone in the world is in a race right now to out-print each other to stave off deflation. If we haven't reached full employment, print away!
You present very limited facts behind your position. It's all theoretical and based on Utopian beliefs with no basis in reality. You are making systemic assumptions that no one in their right mind is willing to accept as a possibility.
This is a total mischaracterization of my position, and comes across as a desperate attempt to undermine it.
Fact is, every person has the same minimum basic needs - nurturing food, clean water, safe & suitable shelter, reasonable clothing, social interaction, and health care when the person gets sick and/or too old and requires care. No one chooses to have these needs; they are simply inherent to being human.
My opinion is that anything beyond that list is a luxury.
Quote:
You treat everyone's condition as if they are the same, facing the same situations, when they are not. You have to take into consideration the situation of all individuals and find solutions that raise all people, but provide the greatest lift to the least fortunate and most in need of help.
Which is what UBI + a strong health care system does. Any money made from a job is for the worker to keep, without worrying about UBI getting clawed back. Furthermore, taxation would not significantly impact those on UBI and low income jobs, as most taxation would fall on things like higher-income tax brackets, property tax, and non-essential consumption.
Quote:
What you're doing is shifting the money from programs that help and provide mobility to a lot, weakening those systems, and then providing a system that helps very few. It just does not follow any logic in any shape or form.
It does not help "very few". It helps everyone. If we live in a society where people aren't tossed aside like trash as soon as they don't do as society demands of them, we'd see a lot less crime happening everywhere. A lot of crime (I'd argue most crime) is done by people acting out of desperation. And before you say this is "baseless" and "Utopian fantasy", I can assure you that it's absolutely not. Just give it a bit of thought and you'll understand it. When faced with the choice, "I can receive 20k/year no questions asked, or I can get involved with criminal activities and risk messing up my life". Who in their right mind would choose option B?
Quote:
User fees do not work. You are applying a tax on people who have chronic conditions and require healthcare services more often. You are penalizing people for conditions that are beyond their control. If those individuals are from a situation where they rely on welfare or government assistance, and you remove that assistance and replace it with a substandard form of income, those people are the ones who are hurt the most. This is a failure of the system.
Not an issue as long as the fees are kept low.
The Canadian health care system in its current form creates moral hazard. If there's no deterrent to going to the doctor every day for every minor little ache or pain, what reason is there not to go? I also think there's not much incentive for people to live active healthy lifestyles and eat properly.
Quote:
A "living wage" implies a generously comfortable lifestyle? Do you have a clue what you're talking about? The "living wage" is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs (food, housing, and other essential needs such as clothing and hygiene needs). That is not generous, that is basic.
$48k/year in the poorest state covers "basic needs" and nothing else...? I strongly disagree. See what I said at the beginning of this post.
Quote:
So this money is just going to magically get sent out? The program is going to self administer? There will be no governance over the program and no needs for people to interface with the department responsible for UBI? Again, do you have a clue what you are talking about? Do you have any idea how government or governmental programs operate?
Strawman. Of course there has to be some administration. But you're the one acting like the cost of means testing (and all the public sector workers required to carry it out) is minuscule compared to the cost of automatically sending direct deposits to bank accounts on a monthly basis...
Quote:
It's not an ad hominem, its an attempt to understand where you're knowledge base is coming from and what experience you have to make such claims. For example, if you're still living with mom and dad, and haven't had the responsibility of many of the things we're talking about, then it clearly brings into question if you have the experience or knowledge to speak these larger issues. I mean, you're suggesting that $20,000 is enough for someone to live comfortably on, which is below the poverty line pretty much everywhere. So it is very important to have context and understand what your experiences are to be able to make these judgments.
So you know I'm not trying to get you to walk into a bear trap, my experience is I have 28 years in private enterprise, 17 years in government, and almost a decade in the C suite.
It absolutely is an ad hominem, and a backhanded attempt at stereotyping me as some young naive kid. I cringe every time someone tries to play the "I've been around longer than you, so I'm more qualified to speak on these matters" card. While it may seem logical on its surface, it ignores potential biases that may have developed in the person as the years have gone on. Bottom line, more experience doesn't always translate into better judgement.
Another strawman! I didn't say $20k/year is enough to live comfortably. I said $48k/year is enough to live comfortably. I said $20k gives you basic necessities, and the power to walk away from any ###### employer who wants to treat you like garbage, without having to worry about the prospect of perishing on the street.
Quote:
I've been very fortunate to have seen the insides of both interests that would have to cooperate to make UBI a reality, hence my commentary on the dramatic systematic changes that would have to take place and the incredible level of skepticism that these interests would come together to make the system work. I just don't see this happening in any shape or form.
You're not acknowledging that the market can be easily manipulated, and is manipulated to a high degree. The fossil fuel industry is the best example, how one interest or a collusion of interests can create a monopoly and artificially inflate or deflate the price of product depending on how they control availability of their product. The stock markets are another perfect example. You're refusing to accept that this is the way the system is and the corporations are not going to change or suddenly grow a conscience, doing the right thing for society. They don't care. The only responsibility corporations have is to generate profit and value for their shareholders. For this to change, the whole system has to crash and burn.
But at the end of the day, the government is the government, and can seize assets if corporations decide to make nuclear decisions. It's not ideal to do such a thing, but we absolutely cannot allow major corporations to hold us hostage like that.
Quote:
You also fail to acknowledge that government institutions are not likely to change as they have very specific rules they have to follow. They have these annoying things called constitutions and laws they are compelled to follow, and they have a great level of oversight in the services they provide. Politicians cycle through the system, but the system remains pretty stagnant because of the way the institutions are setup to function. That is part and parcel of the operation of government. Because these are public interests there is a great degree of oversight to generate the transparency the public demands in using their tax dollars and sensitive information. Unless the system is burned to the ground and new institutions are defined in new and different ways, the forced transparency is always going to create that bloat you reference. This is the cost of being public interest and being accountable to tax payers. You need to understand this and recognize this as component of government.
This goes back to what I said earlier about your attitude of inevitability and defeatism. These systems absolutely can be gutted to save money. Transparency is actually increased when government is simplified, and every dollar can be (relatively) easily traced. With UBI, the bulk of government spending is going right back to the people in direct payments, and only a fraction of spending goes to priorities such as health care, education, law enforcement.
Quote:
No, its not vague. It is very specific and has been used in arguments against programs where government funds were allocated without proper process.
It's extremely vague. Who is to say when taxation is "without representation" and when it isn't? Or when there is "proper process" and when there isn't? It's almost entirely subjective.
Quote:
Because it would make their lives worse. You have stated you would eliminate the vast majority of the social safety net to pay for this UBI. I have been trying to show you that these programs are crucial to people's lives and maintaining a minimal standard of living, if you want to call it living. Giving someone 41% of what they need to survive on, and then eliminating the very means that could lead to some form of economic mobility is not only near sighted but cruel. This is literally pulling the rug out from the most vulnerable in our society to attempt a social experiment. Putting a face on the poverty you have no experience with is a way to show you how dire the situation is, and how UBI would make their lives worse.
You showed me pictures of people living in extremely dilapidated buildings, then telling me that this is what $48k/year gets you. I'm not really sure what to say in response to that, other than it flies in the face of every single thing I've seen in my life to this point.
Quote:
So your solution is to eliminate all the support mechanism they have and then give them a nominal amount of money that does not meet their basic needs. Swell of you.
You are missing the point. The vast majority of people living in poverty do not have access to good paying jobs, so they aren't seeing anything clawed back. These are people who are living in areas (ghettos or rural areas) where jobs are scarce and there are no services to speak of outside of those provided by the government. Again, I don't think you understand poverty or the challenges these people face. I have a feeling you are insulated from this part of society and can't appreciate the systemic failings that have come to them.
Help me understand then. Can they not move to a place that has more jobs and better opportunities? Wouldn't a UBI help them do that? Let's say 2 of these people live together in one apartment, that's $40k/year UBI between the two of them, in addition to what they earn from their jobs. How is that unreasonable? Help me understand what I'm missing here because clearly I'm missing something...?
Quote:
UBI does not solve poverty. Giving money to people does not solve poverty. Education and accessibility to the institutions that can provide the capital to make change in communities is what will solve poverty. To solve the problem of poverty you have to solve the problem in the communities where poverty is problematic. You need to elevate the community as a whole, and the only way you do that is through change agents. You need to elevate the people within that community by increasing their ability to provide for themselves. That comes through education. That comes through loans to the individuals who can then work within the system. UBI does not address the systemic changes that have to happen within communities so the economic and social well being of all can be elevated. That only comes with the communities having the support to make change.
We have different views on what poverty is and whether upward mobility actually solves the problem. See my previous post.
"Upward mobility is the answer to everything" is pretty close to what Ayn Rand believed. Just sayin.
Quote:
Sorry, but what??? I'm not even sure where you are going with this. You lost me here.
You brought up systemic racism, so I pointed out that one of the sentiments fuelling racism in today's society is the idea that non-white people are "stealing jobs" from white people. Maybe this sentiment would disappear if we, as a society, weren't so preoccupied with the idea that every person needs to have a job.
