We see over and over that cash assistance is preferable to providing goods (like food or housing) directly.
But to the previous commenter's point, free food is exactly how you end up with famines. We are NOT beyond the era of great famines. Food production rose faster than population in the 20th century but there is only so much land, so much sunlight. It will catch up. When there are good times, people multiply. Poverty is inherent to nature -- some bears are born rich (big and strong), while others scrape by their entire lives, and may or may not reproduce. If they all had as much salmon as they wanted, their population would increase until there was poverty again. Same principle, in the long term at least. Only workaround is eugenics, and I would rather have freedom to reproduce and poverty than totalitarianism and the "theoretical promise" of no poverty.
Easily debatable.
Not that we should be providing government healthcare anyway.
Also debatable, and if single-payer healthcare does exist it implicitly means that obesity has an effect on others. It's silly to take liberalism to an extreme.
there is only so much land, so much sunlight
Land used for agriculture has actually stayed the same or slightly declined since 1990.
When there are good times, people multiply
Evidence suggests that in developed economies, people do precisely the opposite.
there are good times, people multiply. Poverty is inherent to nature -- some bears are born rich (big and strong), while others scrape by their entire lives, and may or may not reproduce. If they all had as much salmon as they wanted, their population would increase until there was poverty again.
Humans are not bears. A large number of people have essentially unlimited access to food, and yet done reproduce en masse. I expect, though I haven't looked, that birth rates would actually inversely correlated with wealth.
Only workaround is eugenics
You have failed to demonstrate a problem to be worked around.
I would rather have freedom to reproduce and poverty than totalitarianism and the "theoretical promise" of no poverty
A preposterous non sequitur, given that it's quite possible to imagine ways to eliminate poverty without reverting to totalitarianism.
You should look, then. Wealth is positively correlated with fertility.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1692/2015...
What's inversely correlated with fertility is education, but fertility declines with rising education only because parents realize it is advantageous to spend more resources per child.
> Evidence suggests that in developed economies, people do precisely the opposite.
That's because you're arguing from a false premise. Perceptively, then, maybe things are not as good as you would think (especially not as good as people in the SV developer bubble think), otherwise people would multiply at a much higher rate. I implore you to do some actual math to see how much one needs to earn to be able to have kids above the replacement rate (so, around 2.2), without receiving any government assistance (thus entering a poverty trap) and where that earning rate resides relative to the median household income in the US right now.
The results may surprise you.
> A preposterous non sequitur, given that it's quite possible to imagine ways to eliminate poverty without reverting to totalitarianism.
One great way to eliminate poverty is to keep redefining the poverty line until there are no longer people in poverty! And it's completely totalitarianism-free.
Must we worship at the altar of the free market a priori?
The "free market" in the case of food has had disastrous health consequences by optimizing for profits over health. The entire incentive structure is to manufacture foods with an addictive quality out of the cheapest possible ingredients, because the negative health outcomes are too distant and dilute to be factored in in any meaningful way. There is a marketing advantage to claiming some processed food is healthy, and there is ample science available that can be distilled down into an unending cycle of specious claims that fall apart on the mildest inspection, but who really has the time to evaluate those claims anyway?
That's not to say government regulation is a silver bullet, but the government does ostensibly represent the people, and what other organization has the clout to balance out the fundamentally broken incentive structures within the food industry?
The parent commenter is right, the free market optimizes for cheap and addictive because it's what sells and what will continue producing sales for many years. There's absolutely no incentive for companies to produce even cheap healthy food because the addictive qualities are a much more secure bet that your customer will come back to your food in the future.
Sure, but "a third party intervening in prices is the antithesis of a price system where the producer sets their own price" is an empty tautology without any argument for why the world is better off for people being able to obtain soda more cheaply and balancing the budget with a non-distortionary poll tax instead.
Similarly,if you're going to make sub-Malthusian arguments that free food is "exactly how you end up with famines" it would help if you could name one example of a famine significantly influenced by prior availability of free food. In the interests of fairness, I'll name three that definitely weren't: the Irish potato famine, the Holodomor and the Bengal famine. Developed countries are a long way ahead of the era where free food is likely to have a statistically significant effect on the birth rate and all the data would suggest causality ran in the opposite direction with birthrates having fallen sharply against a backdrop of increasing access to better nutrition and increasing universal welfare access. It's developing countries, where people have to ensure enough surviving descendants to guarantee they continue to be fed in old age, that are the ones with the higher birthrates and rapidly growing populations...
Soda tax is a way (albeit a somewhat flawed one) for state and local governments to nullify the effects of agricultural grain subsidies, which is something I wholeheartedly support. If rural constituencies have a right to spend urban tax money to support their crops, then urban constituencies have a right to claw that money back with a tax on products made with those crops. Now, if the federal government dropped all grain subsidies tomorrow, I'd drop my support for a soda tax.
> It will catch up.
No it won't--TFRs have been dropping across the world for a few decades now, and soon it will be at or below the replacement rate. People don't have kids for shits and giggle or just because they can--it's just that in the past, for agricultural and pastoral societies children were short-term investments, not long-term ones, and child mortality was high, so having more kids==better. It takes a while to shed traditional wisdom, but it does happen.
> I would rather have freedom to reproduce and poverty than totalitarianism and the "theoretical promise" of no poverty
Speak for yourself. If I had to give up reproductive freedom in exchange for prosperity and all other freedoms, I'd do so in a heartbeat. You don't need to control every aspect of citizens' lives in order for them to have less children.
Maybe you should visit India or the Philippines and let me know how soon you expect that cultural shift to hit them. Something happening in your world does not equal global paradigm shift. The western world is not "the world." I do agree that it's happening in western Europe, though.
I was speaking for myself (in case you missed the use of "I"). You go ahead and believe all the promises that strongmen tell you in exchange for little bits of freedom. The NSA, FDA, etc. will take care of you. Sleep easy champ.
Oh we in the cities would love to get rid of the subsidies, but rural areas are overrepresented under our political systems. Clawing back the subsidies is the second-best option.
> Maybe you should visit India or the Philippines and let me know how soon you expect that cultural shift to hit them.
It's hitting them already. India's TFR is down to 2.4, which is pretty close to replacement, and while the Philippines is still at 3 or so, it's still down from 6-7 a generation ago.
> The NSA, FDA, etc. will take care of you. Sleep easy champ.
I had to live under the Ministry of State Security and the People's Armed Police for the first decade of my life. Compared to those guys, NSA are a bunch of cuddly teddy bears. Hell, they can't even arrest anybody!
In this case you should consider: who is hurting whom? The research of Ariely and the experimental results of the marketing industry have made it clear that your choice to buy soda is not simply a transaction between yourself and the grocery store. It involves the government’s need for cheap calories to prevent social unrest, and it involves the sugar industry’s ongoing efforts to keep carbohydrate overloads socially acceptable. Soda is the industry hurting you.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/the-food-industry-is-...
I believe that healthcare is a basic human right.
Health care requires someone else to do something to provide it. Therefore it isn't a basic human right.
That is your definition. If you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1], the definition they employ is much broader. E.g.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health
and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to
security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood,
old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.
All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social
protection.
Reminds me I still have my unread copy of Nozick gathering dust.
Equally good healthcare for everyone, independent of their wealth, is a worthwhile goal for society, and all but one of the so-called developed countries have pretty much achieved it.
That's a nice fantasy, but it's also a fantasy. If you think Canada has equal healthcare for all, then please explain why various prime ministers and EU dignitaries come to the US for major operations.
On a tangent, I do think the US has an arguably worse healthcare system than some of these socialist countries, but not because the socialist system is good -- it's because we have such a distorted market. We have Medicare/Medicaid which basically social healthcare, almost any prescription for $5, but it's even worse than social healthcare because it only applies to some of the population, driving prices up for those who don't yet qualify. We have overbearing occupational licensing. It is TOO hard to become a doctor. We have overbearing malpractice regulation -- a huge percentage of a doctor's salary goes to malpractice insurance, making regulators/lawyers richer. We have a stifling FDA, which combined with our over-powered IP system grants monopolies to drug companies and enables price gouging.
We have nothing resembling a free healthcare market, my friend, so don't blame capitalism for America's problems.
educate me here. but ignoring government healthcare, wouldn't private healthcare companies have higher costs for health conscious members if many of their members are making poor health decisions?
if someone chooses to smoke cigarettes and ends up getting lung cancer, I don't feel great about paying for their lung transplant even with private healthcare.
The money these people spend on insurance could have been better spent elsewhere in the economy.
Humans need a lot more than food to "reproduce". And there's plenty of proof that as people move up the pyramid of needs having a litany of kids becomes a chore few people want.
Yes, the population will increase until 2010 by most estimates, but it will increase at a decreasing rate.
And if as animals driven by evolution we have 1-2 kids per couple we still achieve our evolutionary goal while maintaining balance with nature.
It's optimized to produce cheap, addictive food because that's what the people crave. Much like Brawndo.
I strongly disagree with the concept that another person knows better than I do which food I should eat or how I should otherwise live my life.
That said, there should be more education around nutrition. Even free healthy food doesn't help anything if people are too dumb to choose it over junk.
A significant portion of human beings are wired for addiction. It's a fiction to claim that people are all free and are responsible for every choice that they make. We for instance control market on all drugs that have any potential for addiction, food has a potential for addiction for lots of people. If people are so free to choose to stay healthy and eat well, then why are all drugs not freely available to anyone who wants them. Opiates, benzos, etc.
No one is saying that anyone else should tell you what to eat. I am simply saying that free food that is healthy should be freely available. No friction and no excuses to not eat healthy. And economically there is a huge incentive to eat that free food as it's free.
But they are a great example of just how useless it is trying to control people. Heroin is illegal, yet overdoses are at an all time high. A lot of people only end up on heroin because it's so difficult to get less powerful opiate pain killers. Prohibition doesn't work. People are going to do what they want to do anyway.
Some portion of the population are going to make really stupid decisions no matter what. The rest of us need to get over it and stop trying to "help" them if they don't want it.
Nobody makes the absolute best decisions every single time, but in general they certainly make better decisions for themselves than a stranger.
How do you propose to do better by having the government mandate specific foods?
I don't propose the government mandate anything. I propose the government give out good, healthy food for free. The market can continue to compete for people who wish to participate in it. Food is already subsidized heavily. So what if we give a certain amount of it for free to anyone who wants it.
So the burden is on you to propose a system that would be less-wasteful than our current method of destributing produce. Government-run systems can be more efficient (see: NHS), but the details matter.
EDIT: by details, I mean the specifics of "give people food". If putting it on their doorstep every morning, is it already cooked? Who chooses what is in the packages? How do you know how many people live somewhere? Can I use the unretreived packages to find empty houses to rob?
The US has a bit over 315 million people.
To pay everyone minimum (barely livable) wage, every person should get $15,000 ( http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full... ). That's $4.5 trillion per year.
The GDP of the US is 16.77 trillion.
So unless we have close to 100% tax on above-(federal) minimum wage, UBI won't work.
Even if you want full basic income, I'd argue that $15,000 is high. As a (Canadian) student in an expensive city my living expenses (everything but tuition) are easily under $10,000 USD. Using the numbers you linked we're almost certainly talking about less than $8,000/person to keep everyone above the poverty line (the exact number depends on what the average family unit looks like, which I don't know).
(All numbers per year)
You rent a room or have a few room-mates?
New York (which has skyscrapers) average rent is $3000 a month for a one bedroom apartment.
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/map-of-average-rent-by-...
There's a reason minimum wage is so high, and it's not because the government is so generous.
New york is a really expensive place to live, the conclusion is that people who are relying on only basic income shouldn't live there. Likewise living alone is expensive. The conclusion is people living only on basic income shouldn't (especially if they are living somewhere which is already well above average pricing wise). Basic income isn't "everyone lives a luxurious life", it's "everyone can afford food, clothes, and a roof over their heads".