Jeff Bezos Wants Ideas for Philanthropy, So He Asked Twitter
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The actual end result will be far greater tax payer cost for fully subsidizing people that no longer have any employment, versus partial subsidization.
There isn't an advanced economy in all of Europe for example that doesn't use heavy government (aka the top 50% of income earners) subsidization for the benefit of the bottom 50% of earners. The healthcare systems in Britain and France? The bottom 50% of employed persons are not primarily paying for those very expensive benefits, they're receiving large government subsidies that help offset their terrible pay, in the form of all sorts of welfare benefits. Britain for example has such a low median wage, it barely qualifies them as the 50th poorest US state, how do you think their bottom 50% of workers get by if not through huge subsidies via the government to offset that terrible pay? For some reason when companies in the US do the same exact thing, it's evil.
One key point is that being able to work to subsidize the basic income makes the income much more powerful than "phantom" dollars that disappear as soon as you start to work.
The trick is that the funding level of basic income doesn't have to "fully cover" a family of four. The family of four will be able to supplement the income, rather than today being locked into receiving it. Also, it doesn't mean that programs like SSDI go away, you still can provide national disability insurance.
That's a pretty grim picture that no one seems to be acknowledging.
Grim is having an infection with no way to get antibiotics, but you use your friend's because he had some that he never used.
Grim is going to the food pantry because you ran out of money and then you have to fill out a promise to get financial help if you need to use the food pantry too often, as if you don't know how money works.
Sounds to me like you need to get out more and see how people really live.
I'd rather live in a world where I can't watch all the tv I want cuz i can't afford any, but at least I get basic healthcare.
Maybe you should check profiles before saying ugly things like "you need to get out more and see how people really live."
Like what if it is implemented as a negative income tax?
Would a sub-basic income of $5 (implemented as a negative income tax) be regressive?
The problem I have with the system is that everyone who is actually paying receives the least benefits. It's just wealth redistribution. But inevitably it also disincentives work the more the subsides increase in value, and the sharper the drop-off as additional work is performed.
So how do you structure a system which encourages work? The obvious solution is that benefits should increase as tax payments increase. The makes working super-incentivized, and provides a massive boost to productivity.
Aside from technology improvements, which the economists tell us aren't really providing bang for the buck anymore, increasing the size of the workforce increases GDP growth.
I imagine they would pay less, rather than just break even.
They have workers because they need them to run their business, not out of a sense of charity.
Talk of automation as a 'threat' every time workers rights are brought up is disingenuous and a bit self serving.
I don't really think Unions are the solution to this problem, but it is a real, and important, problem to solve.
"I think there's already a JIRA for that one."
"People are starving in Somalia" is as useful as "people around the world are suffering", or (like in many software projects): "this program is too slow".
But if you can narrow the scope, like, "There is a neighborhood in Baidoa, Somalia, that have no access to fresh water since the beginning of June because a pump is broken" then we could think of possible ways to solve that. And if you also include information about organizations in that area that could help, then we are much closer to a real solution.
Edit: not Python
[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/somalia-dead-...
If I were Bezos, I would fund Elon Musk so Elon can solve as many problems as possible without worrying about investors.
It seems to be thousands, not millions, and I am sure he has a secretary or -- the new PC term -- administrative assistant.
https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
Seriously though, it's going to be thousands of responses, not millions. Get 2-3 people for a day and the ideas can be collated into themes, then reported on, easily.
If the philanthropy is spent on re-allocating labor, capital allocated to existing productive activities (e.g. rice farming, bridge maintenance), to activities which are perceived to improve the human experience, there's a big chance it would cause harm to society instead.
If you're smart and have assets (not living on the edge), then you put as little down as possible because your return will be higher than the PMI or general debt service.
As an example: I bought an investment property about 2 years ago with 10% down and was able to do it because I took a HELOC with a higher rate.
I could have put way more down but my goal was cash on cash return. The higher rate for the HELOC is kind of like having PMI. The rate can adjust upwards too.
The property does 80K/yr and cash flows. After I bought it I used cash to do some upgrades. I refinanced a year later (low fixed mortgage, no more HELOC) and they did a new appraisal at that time. It has ~22% equity now.
I just put an offer out to buy a second property. 10% down again and I'll put cash in to get it ready to rent.
I was approved for the first property as a second home actually so I can afford it with no income. Now that it has income, I got approved for another home.
Point is - leverage is a great idea if you know what you're doing. Don't fear the PMI; there's plenty of ways to beat it. Example: you can do state muni bond funds with the preserved cash - it's tax free income if you buy funds from your state and it's easy to get out if you need the cash back for anything.
Hell, all the contract, part time, whatever workers at your warehouses sure could use it.
Right here, right now, I'm not even talking about wage levels and all the rest.
Just help ensure that people, regardless of their standing in life, can stay basically healthy. In the U.S.
Bigger goal: Around the world.
THAT would be a worthwhile goal, and legacy.
Not exactly a stunning endorsement. Basically the least bad example.
Though I am curious as to what you think of as "affordable" in Seattle. Care to provide some examples?
In North St Louis they tore down the projects that were hud and forced families to move to North St Louis county aka Spanish Lake and Ferguson etc and built HUD apartments there.
Maybe what you want is basic income to live on and afford housing and food, etc?
I truly hope he chooses something to change the world for the better.