> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea?
> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea? I think it's a great idea, but for the sake of argument: One of the more convincing arguments I've heard against a basic income system is that it would end up driving up housing costs: since everybody now has $N money for existing, rents would increase by almost $N. I would argue that such a unilateral increase belies the nature of a free market: if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. But of course, that would come with its own host of problems... > Then, capitalism on top. Incentive to do well, and the freedom to experiment with stuff that may just crash-and-burn. And nobody is ever well-and-truly left behind. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting.
Posted by jcalvinowens on Sep 1, 2014, 9:07 PM
Tags
Related issues
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,000 issues0 comments
reliability (EdTech)
I frankly find the situation around UB puzzling.
I think it depends a little on how and where you work.
Self modifying has some sneaky failure modes with modern CPUs.
> Ban phones from class.
Coolify v5.x
Are you talking about a technical problem, or a conceptual problem?
This is not uncommon in the more blue-collar businesses.
> I wonder though, do people not strace programs any more?
> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea?
> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea? I think it's a great idea, but for the sake of argument: One of the more convincing arguments I've heard against a basic income system is that it would end up driving up housing costs: since everybody now has $N money for existing, rents would increase by almost $N. I would argue that such a unilateral increase belies the nature of a free market: if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. But of course, that would come with its own host of problems... > Then, capitalism on top. Incentive to do well, and the freedom to experiment with stuff that may just crash-and-burn. And nobody is ever well-and-truly left behind. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.