I think UBI implemented now would turn into the "Basic" seen in The Expanse books. We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
>What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
I'd argue that significantly enhancing the social safety net, significantly increasing minimum wages and, most importantly, providing strong incentives toward reduced incomes at the very high end, would provides significant long term economic advantages.
Why do I say this? For a variety of reasons:
1. >70% of US GDP is consumer spending. Increasing the amount and number of folks with discretionary income will boost demand significantly;
2. Enhancing the social safety net would encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. When you have an idea that you want to develop, but most folks don't even have a few hundred dollars available in an emergency will stop those folks from doing so -- In the current environment, unless there's immediate success, it's likely that such a person, and their family, will be sleeping rough and eating out of garbage cans pretty soon. With a robust social safety net, those folks can pursue their entrepreneurial ideas without worrying about starving in the street;
3. Incentivizing lower incomes at the very high end, via income taxes (cf. the 1950s), write offs for new business formation/development and other, similar incentives can boost employment, new business creation and focus resources on an ecosystem of smaller companies with real competition in many (if not most) industries;
4. Raising wages at the low end dovetails nicely with (1) above. Spreading wealth more widely (I am emphatically not suggesting forced wealth redistribution) among the population won't harm those at the top. How many houses, cars, dishwashers, pizza pies, miniskirts, throw rugs, yachts, toaster ovens, ball gags, window fans, telephones, snow globes, etc., etc., etc. can one family reasonably buy/use? Significantly increasing the incomes of those at the bottom will increase demand for all manner of products and services, strengthening the broader economy over the long term.
5. Finally, I'll wonder out loud how much "poorer" or "worse off" someone earning $5,000,000/annum is vs. someone earning $15,000,000/annum?
Having wealth/income more widely distributed across the population would create a stronger, more resilient economy over the long term -- one which would benefit those at the top and the bottom -- and lead to significantly better outcomes for everyone over the long term.
I'd note note that my reasoning doesn't include any arguments for "socialism." Rather, every single one focuses on how to strengthen and enhance a society and economy based on market principles.
Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure many of you will. I'd be interested to hear your arguments and will attempt to respond thoughtfully.
Edit: Fixed numbering.
Giving people money and raising minimum wages is indistinguishable to me. The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. That is the Randian perspective I am referring to.
I do think economic output would be significantly different, regardless of how you "spread it around."
A broader base of consumers will consume more.
A broader base of entrepreneurs will expand economic development.
Spreading the money around will increase consumption and incentivize increased economic output.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "Randian" perspective, based on what I wrote.
My post advocated for an enhanced safety net. I did not put any conditions (like "means tested") on such enhancements.
My post advocated for, in simple terms, "spreading the money around widely", in order to increase economic stability, reduced poverty and economic inequality.
I also implied that doing so would, over the long term, create an economy with less inequality by increasing the share of a (growing) pie by those with the least.
And that's somehow "Randian?"
I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings.
Edit: Added clarity WRT to the impact of increased wages/enhanced safety net vs. UBI.
I'm not GGP who argued against UBI. Nor did I make any argument for or against UBI.
And I didn't make any argument even approaching "if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence."
In fact, my argument was that if we make the safety net robust, we will allow people to be more productive and entrepreneurial.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
I was reacting to:
> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? Why are you injecting yourself into that conversation if you're not supporting the claim that I explicitly referenced, and making it look like you're replying to the things I'm saying by quoting me directly?
>I was reacting to:
>> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
>Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it?
I can't reply to comment that contains the above, so I'll do so here.
Where did I say anything even remotely approaching "We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty."?
I wasn't "defending" anyone or anything. I am not the user who posted the comment[0] you replied to.
And it seems strange that you found my comment adversarial, as it was at worst orthogonal to yours.
Upon reading the your reply to djsumdog's comment, I thought I'd add my own (related, and I thought, relevant) thoughts to the discussion.
Is that not kind of the whole point of this site?
If you had posted your comment without that header I would not have immediately thought you were part of the conversation, and instead taken the comment as an aside and not a direct reply.
>What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
And so I answered your question.
If that was confusing to you, that's unfortunate and I'm sorry that the way I quoted you made you unable to comprehend the next twelve paragraphs of my post.