Scholarship table
Good stuff chick. Really enjoyed the article. The stuff on basic income was interesting....and it even connected back to the original topic! I love the idea in theory but can't imagine something like that ever being passed in the US. The studies they reference seem to contradict the narrative that handouts lead to lazy poor.
Even as someone who considers herself a fiscal conservative, I find the idea of basic income intriguing, especially if that includes the premise that literally everyone gets it (from Donald Trump on down) and all other entitlement programs are completely eliminated. It would likely be far less expensive than our current programs to administer. Here are the main issues I see with it:1. How much does a child get? If an adult gets, say, $20K a year, do you get $20K for each kid you pop out as well? Is it a sliding scale based on the age of your child?2. What would be the cultural and societal ramifications of having tens of millions of able-bodied adults that have literally nothing to do all day? As the say, an idle mind [and body, for that matter], is the devil's playground.3. How long before we start making exceptions and additions to the basic income for certain people until we are right back to where we started, with dozens of specialized programs with their own bureaucracies and set asides?
On the flip side I could see it really freeing up innovation. Could you imagine if Einstein hadn't needed to be a patent clerk?
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
I agree, at the end of the day, technology and automation will create more jobs than it eliminates. Most of them don't exist now and many of them have not even been thought of. Like eBay sellers, YouTube personalities, Uber drivers, Airbnb, task rabbit, etc. ... before connected computers even if it was proven you returned in a time machine from the future, past generations would not believe these could be actual jobs. Likewise, the new jobs that technology will create, that your grandkids might have, you cannot even imagine today.But first, comes the productivity increases and the loss of existing jobs first, then comes the creation. See the rapid adopt rates of new technology. What different this time is the automation will come fast and the existing jobs will disappear fast. The new jobs will come to slower.,In 1900, 50% of all jobs were on a farm. In 2000 it was less than 2%. This took generations. Today's automation could do the same to the economy but now in just a few years.
Back in 1980 or so, my best friend at MU wrote a philosophy paper titled something like: "Computers ... They Must Be Destroyed!"Who knew he'd turn out to have been right?
One of the funny things(not haha funny but ironic funny) is that right now, fully one-third of US citizens are on some form of government health insurance (Medicare or Medicaid), I even found an article that indicates that half of all health insurance is government-based (though I'm dubious of the source). Let's assume the 1/3 number is more accurate....if the healthcare system is broken or not working then those programs have to be at least partially responsible for the break, however reforming or changing those programs seems to be a non-starter.There is no doubt those programs provide a necessary service (I have nephews that receive necessary care from programs supported by medicaid that would otherwise be unavailable) however, they have somehow transformed from providing extraordinary care to providing standard care which reduces the effectiveness of the overall system. So for every kid that needs services for say autism there are adults who are using it for standard healthcare delivery for various reasons. This trajectory is unsustrightble.http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicaid-and-medicare-enrollees-now-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers
Ted Kaczynski on technology: “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”He may have been nuts, but he wasn't crazy.
Yes, major fraud. Just because the PR department has an excuse handy, defrauding taxpayers out of millions and millions of dollars is major fraud.If a "welfare queen" did something 1/10,000th as bad, it would be Major, Major, Major Fraud to many, and they'd want to lock her up.
$1.3 Billion in fraud potentially found, largest in US history? Gov't going after over 400 people Everyone needs their day in court so let us see how it is resolved. If they are found guilty, you don't think it is a good idea to send a message to others that this will not be tolerated anymore? That the $1.3Billion should go to the people that really need it? Go after the corporations and the individuals I say.http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/07/13/largest-health-care-fraud-takedown-us-history-412-people-charged-schemes-worth-13-billion
Yes, I saw this story earlier today, and of course I think they should be punished. All of these accused are doctors, nurses and pharmacists.Again, if a welfare queen commits "fraud" so she can get $10 extra per week to feed her kids, many want to lock her up. But that problem is so overblown, with the Reagan-era scaremongering starting much of it. It is the large-scale fraud we should be going after first, second and third - the insiders (as in this probe), the corporations, etc.I'll be interested in following this case to see what actually becomes of it, to see if jail time is actually meted out, and to see if the powerful people of means see one day in jail.
The larger point you're missing is that duping the bureaucrats running a monopoly that doesn't have a bottom line that has to be met is way easier than defrauding people in a relatively transparent, competitive and free market. If governments squander our money due to inefficiencies or fraud they just take more $ to cover the losses. Businesses under those conditions cease to operate.
The larger point you're missing is that Health Care is not a transparent, competitive and free market. Health care agencies fraudulently tae our money due to greed. They do not cease to operate, because health care is a need and is not governed by a free market.
Ever hear of AIG? GM? Chrysler (twice)? TARP? The Savings and Loan industry? Bear Stearns?The notion that it's only government that can get away with squandering money due to inefficiencies and fraud without ceasing to exist is plainly false. It's equally false that it's only government that takes more of our $ to cover the losses. Corporations do it to the tune of billions of dollars. They just need their friends in Washington to serve as their bagmen.And that's not even going into how the government offering protection via bankruptcy to businesses that fail due to inefficiencies and fraud turns into added costs for us consumers.To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any particular bailout ... that's a whole other debate. Just pointing out that the notion that businesses fail due to fraud, inefficiency, etc., often are allowed to survive at a high cost to taxpayers.
Healthcare is not governed by a free market because that is the way the government has set it up. Yes, healthcare is a need but so is food, we manage to purchase that on a relatively free market without issue, healthcare should be on the same type of spectrum.
Examples of ways to make healthcare more truly free market:-Eliminate state based definition of healthcare requirements (allow insurance to compete across state lines)
-Treat healthcare provided by companies to employees as revenue and tax it accordingly-Eliminate companies ability to self insure, this will require individuals to purchase their own insurance on the market.....additionally it should make insurance truly portable as the individual is buying it not the company.
Those are largely one offs, there isn't a systemic policy of government stepping in to save a company from it's own mistakes, especially those involving fraud (WorldCom, Enron, etc).
And companies have no bankruptcy protection is loss is associated with fraud they committed.
With all due respect, it's way off to suggest these are "one offs" when there were 972 recipients of just TARP funding. Chrysler alone has been bailed out twice. The S&L bailout involved hundreds of institutions.What about inefficiencies?
These things appear to be mammoth taxes/cost impositions upon workers. Or are you assuming that companies will automatically transfer their healthcare costs into wages? If so, that's a pretty large assumption.