Should increased spending on public infrastructure versus spending on means-tested welfare programs alleviate income inequality in the United states?
Yes it is a excellent idea.The pay fir such workers has to be substantially greater than means tested welfare to create the positive economic incentive as this work is often difficult and hazardous requiring some amount of training. The public infrastructure chosen should be determined by the greatest return on investment which likely includes repairing existing roads, bridges, aging water pipes (Flint Michigan anyone ?), dams, electrical grids, etc ... Basically anything the the federal, state and local governments own outright that are used by a majority of citizens.It is amazing that the lack of USA government infrastructure spending has a high net negative cost as all citizens bear the increased cost of commutes delays, excessive fuel costs due to congestions, excessive transportation costs due to congestion (time is money especially in commercial transportation), preventable vehicle repair bills caused by potholes, health problems incurred from an aging water supply, etc ...So why is the USA in this economically inefficient state ? Simply because the rich do not use public infrastructure per se preferring to use their own infrastructure when possible. The rich are highly concerned about future tax liabilities. That is why the GOP repeatedly promotes the blatant lie that the USA does not have enough money to fix its infrastructure. Public infrastructure is a net positive economic factor with a positive return on investment requiring no net outlay as the project costs will be covered by the increased long term economic productivity. Increased earnings will result in increased tax revenues.Most of the infrastructure of the USA is long past it's useful economic lifespan as it is time for a wholesale replacement using a careful measured return on investment caculation as opposed to the road to nowhere approach. The USA is running on borrowed time as the massive infrastructure investment of the 1930's thru 1950's have essentially decreased to nothing in the last 60 years.
Do you support the idea of a Universal Unearned Income, paid by the state to every citizen, as a way of eliminating poverty?
No, not for a second!People who are paid for doing nothing, …will do nothing. The requirement for initiative is diminished. For those who do decide to work, motivation is muted, production is reduced, and mediocrity becomes acceptable.Here’s a hypothetical test:Step #1 Tell the teenager next door you will pay him $10 EVERY TIME HE WASHES YOUR CAR. Watch and See how clean your car is during the course of a month, and how much it costs you.Step #2 Tell the teenager next door you will pay him $50 ON THE FIRST DAY OF EVERY MONTH. HIS ONLY JOB IS TO WASH YOUR CAR EVERY TIME IT NEEDS WASHING. Observe the difference in frequency, amount of detail, and thoroughness of his cleaning visits.Nothing different would happen if instead of a teenage boy, you were paying a factory worker, fast food, motel/hotel employee, bank teller or somebody in the construction, plumbing, or welding trades.When you take away the incentive for people to try harder, do better, work longer, or produce more, they don’t bother to do it. When a person sees an advantage, financial or otherwise, to giving, doing, being, or trying more, and competing, or going the extra mile, then they improvise, adapt, take classes, apprentice, intern, volunteer, prepare, learn and advance.There has been a “Dumbing down” of America for decades. Trophies for everyone! …Whatever you do is good enough! ..Nobody has the right to make you do what you don’t want to do! Little Johnny isn’t good at Math, so he signed up for Band. Now you want to “PAY” people for doing NOTHING?!The world isn’t getting less complex, easier, and less competitive. On the contrary, the “Predators” ...those who are willing to get up, get started, get involved, compete, innovate, adapt, overcome adversity, and maintain momentum, are the people who will succeed.The “easily offended, unmotivated, non-competitive, Liberal, core math educated, spoiled American ( who, at 40 years old still lives in mama’s basement ) plays video games for a living, and draws a fat government check … “so he’s not poor” … won’t stand a snowball’s chance. He’ll be eaten alive by citizens of every other country in the world…people who intend to actually make something of themselves, do something with their lives, and not surrender to ROUGH, (Retirement On Unearned Government Handouts).
Why could the universal basic income be a bad Idea?
Thanks for the A2A. I have answered a nearly identical question on Quora, as follows:https://www.quora.com/Why-could-...(Here's the text of that answer.) It's a seductively simple solution to a problem that's not so easily solved. Consider the following challenges:Poor countries that cannot afford infrastructure such as roads,schools or even fighting epidemics will not suddenly leap from no safety net to this. Yet Oxford research has found them to be at greater risk fromtechnological unemployment than more advanced countries.The only countries that are now seriously considering this arewealthy and homogenous. In divided countries such as the United States, aguaranteed minimum income will be derided as a gimme, and there will be massive opposition from many who will regard this as encroaching socialism.If a country without strong border controls, or for that matter a city or region within a country, implements a guaranteed income, it will become a magnet for immigration. This makes such a program impractical in muchof Europe, which is one of the few highly populated places that can afford it.Even if a country can successfully surmount the political hurdles, there are enormous economic ones as well. Those who think that new taxpolicies or other types of redistribution of assets can be implemented without significant, well-funded, savvy opposition by some of the most entrenched interests are not fully thinking this through.Finally, it does nothing to replace the other major benefit mostpeople get from their work: a sense of meaning in life. That's why involuntary loss of job is a suicide risk factor, and why companies such as IBM have refused to grant severance packages to people being outsourced until they had received substantial counseling on their "after IBM" plans.I've written an article that goes into more depth about this, which I expect to soon be published in a journal. Accelerating technological unemployment is thegreatest threat facing humanity at this time. However, a guaranteed income isan insufficient solution. We need to start exploring truly new solutions now,before the problem hits us like a tsunami in the 2020s and beyond.I propose one such solution in my book.PS—There is now a viable approach to UBI. It answers all of my objections. It's MUBI by Michael Haines.
Would you support a Universal Basic Income in your country?
Yes, most likely.The Finnish Universal Basic Income experiment ended in December 2018. The results will be out during the spring 2019, so it’s not yet known how receiving UBI affected the life of the people involved in the experiment.Unfortunately the experiment wasn’t ambitious enough, since it only included unemployed people who, according to the Finnish laws, would have received unemployment benefit anyway.The difference was that in the experiment they continued to receive UBI also in case they started to work. The idea was to test if that helped unemployed people to accept also short temporary jobs, which would in turn increase activity and tax revenue.Until we have evidence of the opposite, I consider probable that the current Finnish social security system doesn’t encourage people optimally to accept short-term job offers.Welfare traps really are a thing.If your monthly income, all different social benefits considered, decreases when you accept a job offer, it doesn’t make sense to do so.UBI will be gradually paid back in the form of taxes when a certain income level is achieved, so those who don’t need that money will not benefit from it.The key word here is “gradually.” Otherwise we would just be changing one kind of welfare trap into another.If UBI functions ideally, it will incentivize people to be active, work part-time if there is part-time work available, set up enterprises, and—most importantly—prevent long-term unemployment better than our current bitty system. As a result, the tax revenue will increase.But I wouldn’t hasten to introduce such a fundamental change right away.I would first wait for the results of our UBI experiment, and if they are encouraging, I would conduct a much more inclusive experiment extended to workers, students, people who take care of their children at home, etc.Only after that can we extrapolate the true viability of a system where UBI has a major role in replacing the current forms of social security.Further reading about Finnish social security:Our ServicesThank you for asking, Henry!
Why don't conservatives embrace universal basic income?
Some of us do. I’m conservative, and I’m all in on UBI, as long as it replaces our existing structure of handouts. No more unemployment insurance. No more SDI, no more WIC, no more SNAP and OASDI. You get a basic income, everyone gets a basic income, and we’re not pretending that some animals are more equal than others. Everyone gets their piece of the pie.To the extent that I’m opposed to UBI, it’s because I don’t believe it will do what Andrew Yang and other proponents think it will do…which is make people comfortable doing nothing.People aren’t stupid. They understand that dollar bills have no value on their own. The value of money isn’t the cool paper and the green ink and the pretty pictures of dead white dudes. The value of money is in what you had to give up to get that money.And if you didn’t have to give up anything for that money, well…that money is worth what you had to give up for it.So, UBI doesn’t solve anything. It just shifts the bottom end of the scale. If the bottom end of the scale today is doing nothing for government benefits…the bottom end of the scale under a UBI will be the exact same. We’ll just call it a “Freedom Dividend” instead of welfare.Great, that pretty name will be good for about as long as the initial EBT lasted when they decided to give up food stamps for a card. Everyone knows what those cards look like today; everyone thinks the same thing when someone pulls one out in the checkout line that they used to think when someone pulled out a sheet of actual stamps.But, if we can replace all the bullcrap hoops the current welfare system makes you jump through…I’m still in. Replace the perverse incentives in today’s welfare system with a straight-up check, and you’re restoring sanity. It’s not often you get to quote a cartoon, but, as the eminent sage Dash Parr once said…when everybody is special, no one is. Which means we’re back to incentives that work. It’s better to be married. It’s better to be in a single household than paying two utility bills, two cable bills, two rent bills. It’s better to work than not.And, if we can get that worked out…I’m all about Universal Basic Income.
Why are poor people poor?
My life experiences have taught me that poverty, in America at least, is a choice for the vast majority of people. If you make good life choices, don’t have children out of wedlock,stay out of trouble with the law, get a job, work hard, and delay gratification by saving and investing you will never be poor.I like to give this scenario of how only a high school graduate can get out of and stay out of poverty. Let’s say you graduate high school and get a meager job at Wal Mart making $10/hour. Working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year gives you an income of $20,800 a year probably not enough to live on. So you work overtime or get a second job to increase your income. Need a cheap place to live? Find a local YMCA where a single young man can rent rooms very cheaply. Or go to the library, get on the internet and go to Craig’s list to find a couple of roommates in similar circumstances. If you find two other young men who are making $20,800 a year and combine your resources the 3 of you will have a combined income of $62,400 a year, probably enough to rent a decent sized 3 bedroom home or apartment (as long as you are not living in New York City, San Francisco, or Los Angeles). So now on a salary of $10 an hour you have a place to live and enough money to buy food and clothing. You can buy inexpensive clothing at any Goodwill store and WalMart has good prices for food. While working at WalMart you go to night school to learn a skill or trade that will give you a career that will pay you enough to eventually not need roommates.This is a simple formula for success and never being in poverty. It is not easy; it is hard and requires a lot of discipline and hard work. But any able bodied person has the capacity to do this unless they are physically disabled or mentally challenged…a very small minority of people.I don’t have disdain for poor people. I want them to do what I did and anybody can do it. Being poor is not the problem. It is staying poor that is the problem because one can escape poverty by making good decisions like don’t get in jail, don’t have children out of wedlock, get a job, work hard, and have a plan for success. The concept is easy but the implementation requires very hard work. Many people who stay poor don’t understand this or, worse, don’t want to do this.