In addition to your thoughtful points, our local governments do not have the resources to pass out free money. I was appalled to hear that Cook County continued the program even at a very small scale. I would be more open to a targeted UBI if it were funded by hard cost savings in other parts of public assistance.
Gee. I must've forgotten to pay a compliment to Austin as my comment was hidden. Okay, here's a very obvious non-opinionated question: "Guaranteed income isn’t the answer to Chicago poverty" If Chicago has so much poverty it needs to entertain this kind of 'solution,' where will the solution come from? Certainly not the unemployed it plans to fund even more than they already do. Must have a hidden agenda... Oh! I forgot! Outstanding article!
Outstanding article. You're exactly right. It is common sense that if you give me a thousand dollars a month, I am less likely to work as much because I no longer have to. That's just basic behavioral economics, and your point about the penalty for working is completely 100% spot on. In fact, it's hard to believe that such a system has been set up. But there it is. It should certainly be a gradation schedule, wherein the incremental dollar perhaps has an equal and opposite effect, but not on a huge cliff like that. So, I couldn't agree with you more, and I will tell you that I have recently found myself in a position to work with people who are hourly, and they are very much interested in being independent, not in being dependent. Some of these folks are working three jobs and going to school. These are ambitious people, particularly the younger people. To disincent them from becoming independent is nothing but a power play by the Democratic socialists and their ilk to own them and control their votes. Plain and simple. There's no doubt about it in my mind, having observed the workforce that I've been privileged to work with over the last week or so, frankly.
The plan has always been to keep people dependent on the government. That is how you control them.
In addition to your thoughtful points, our local governments do not have the resources to pass out free money. I was appalled to hear that Cook County continued the program even at a very small scale. I would be more open to a targeted UBI if it were funded by hard cost savings in other parts of public assistance.
Gee. I must've forgotten to pay a compliment to Austin as my comment was hidden. Okay, here's a very obvious non-opinionated question: "Guaranteed income isn’t the answer to Chicago poverty" If Chicago has so much poverty it needs to entertain this kind of 'solution,' where will the solution come from? Certainly not the unemployed it plans to fund even more than they already do. Must have a hidden agenda... Oh! I forgot! Outstanding article!
Outstanding article. You're exactly right. It is common sense that if you give me a thousand dollars a month, I am less likely to work as much because I no longer have to. That's just basic behavioral economics, and your point about the penalty for working is completely 100% spot on. In fact, it's hard to believe that such a system has been set up. But there it is. It should certainly be a gradation schedule, wherein the incremental dollar perhaps has an equal and opposite effect, but not on a huge cliff like that. So, I couldn't agree with you more, and I will tell you that I have recently found myself in a position to work with people who are hourly, and they are very much interested in being independent, not in being dependent. Some of these folks are working three jobs and going to school. These are ambitious people, particularly the younger people. To disincent them from becoming independent is nothing but a power play by the Democratic socialists and their ilk to own them and control their votes. Plain and simple. There's no doubt about it in my mind, having observed the workforce that I've been privileged to work with over the last week or so, frankly.