|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Please answer this........ /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1502394053 Message started by raydawg on 08/10/17 at 12:40:53 |
|
Title: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/10/17 at 12:40:53 If everyone of us in the USA had a million dollars in cash, would we all be rich? Would a higher number help to achieve that threshold? Thanks. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/10/17 at 12:46:35 I wonder if you know how good that question is. I can't wait to see the answers. Surely the Living Wage minimum wage proponents will be quick to support it. This will tell us who understands basic economics. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/10/17 at 13:49:15 I hope people field it, but I dunno..... Jog, why do you only link this to economics? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/10/17 at 17:36:53 Because How having a million dollars will affect people differently. But what everyone having a million dollars would do economically is a given. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/10/17 at 18:15:11 What's the answer? Where are the smart people? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by MnSpring on 08/10/17 at 19:47:07 Today Can buy a loaf of bread, for a 1.00. (Freshly baked, good stuff) Can buy a dozen eggs for 2.50. Can buy a gallon of Milk for 3.25 etc, etc, etc, If the bread cost, 30.00 If the Eggs cost, 75.00 If the Milk cost, 97.00 etc, etc, etc, No Matter, I am a ‘MILLIONAIRE’. (Another) Ok, I make 10.00 a hour flipping burgers. (7.50 take home pay, after all the deceptions, er, Deductions) Now, I am making 15.00 a hour. WOW !!!!!!!!!! Thanks Bernie !!!!!!!!!! (10.50 take home pay) But Bread went up to, 2.49 Eggs to 3.49 Milk to 3.95 But hey, I am making 15.00 a hour. Oh Yea, works Real Well !!!!!!!!! Only a, ‘Fairy Dust Sprinkler’, can not see. " Tax the Rich " Because they make a widget, for .50 cents, Which you buy, for .80 cents. But you, TAXED the, ‘Rich’, And their ’Tax is .02 cents’. So now the widget, Cost’s YOU, .87 cents. Can a, “Snowflake’ say: ‘WHO Pays The TAX " |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/10/17 at 20:03:14 Taxing the rich isn't part of the deal HERE. What happens when Everyone is a millionaire? Yeah, people quit jobs, What else? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by WebsterMark on 08/11/17 at 05:14:54 56455D40455343240 wrote:
Of course not. If you ran a store, you would immediately raise prices to preserve your inventory. Economics is based on scarcity. If I had a million dollars, I'd probably first go buy two other motorcycles I'd like to have along with several other thousand people too. Not enough bikes to go around so the dealer's prices go up to the point where his inventory moves at a rate equal to his ability to replace it. So no, we would not all be rich.We would all be in just about the same boat. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by T And T Garage on 08/11/17 at 06:02:57 7D6E766B6E78680F0 wrote:
No. To simplify it - if everyone had superpowers, then no one would be "super" (paraphrase from The Incredibles - lol) But seriously, it wouldn't do any good and actually might do harm. I'm not saying what's happening now is great either - class warfare is a real problem. But to give everyone in the US a million dollars, in the world we live in now? Chaos. There's a reason the US personal debt is staggering ($12.7T - over $1T in revolving debt!). A person can be financially responsible - but people as a whole in the US are clueless when it comes to finances. To answer the other part ("Would a higher number help..") - there is no number that would make it "successful". To get philosophical - "rich" is in the eye of the beholder. I consider myself to be very rich. Family, a house, a car, a few bikes, good friends, etc. Too many people I know fail to see what real success and wealth is. The look at what they don't have as opposed to what they do. I take stock in the tangibles of life. Money, when it's all said and done, means nothing. Relationships, how you treat others and how they feel about you is what's really important. Keeping it real though - of course I'd like more money to do more things! LOL... But money doesn't really give me anything more than I already have. Remember that old phrase - you can't take it with you... |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/11/17 at 06:49:18 t. If you ran a store, you would immediately raise prices to preserve your inventory. And if you were a plumber or surgeon, your prices would go way up. When the amount of money in circulation increases without a corresponding increase in goods and services available for purchase, you have inflation. The reason I Go straight to economics is because your hypothetical question is an economic question. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by Ed L. on 08/11/17 at 08:03:59 I would expect that there would be a sudden increase in spending as the "have nots" go on a spending spree to to catch up with what they perceive to be the American Dream. Once their money runs out the spending will drop off. In the long term once again it would be a redistribution of wealth from the "have nots" to the wealthy who have always profited off the system. It's a simplified answer for a very complex question. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by MShipley on 08/11/17 at 08:29:43 The bigger question would be after 5 years how many of the people would again be poor and what % of the people had all the money? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by verslagen1 on 08/11/17 at 09:01:45 5E407B7A637F766A130 wrote:
Bingo! Just look at Obama's tax rebate? where we all got $100? How many spent it the next day? ie beer/tv/drugs How many had spent well before they even got it? ie paid down debt. And how many still have it? A million bucks? when everybody comes to, they'll be broke again and go back to work. The rest will be outta debt or will have socked it away for retirement. Some will have new businesses. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/11/17 at 10:04:16 Thanks for the replies! So, would I be correct is stating this..... Presently, as we view what a million dollars could do in our life, immediately, IF........ it still represented the same value. But can it? Would our understanding of its "ability" to assure us comfort, etc, change, when everyone else has a million too? If yes, then how was our fix, not a real fix, after all? Lets say our well meaning political leaders, wanted to just help out the poor, have nots, the under-privileged, etc, and gave everyone in need of a million dollars, the money. It would in their eyes, level the playing field, give everyone a fair chance, etc. How caring and compassionate is that, awesome. If folks had that kind of money they could then be less dependent upon the goverment to meet their needs, and now with wealth, participate on more equal footing with others, in the game of life. I like it........ No? Why :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/11/17 at 10:34:48 When the amount of money in circulation increases without a corresponding increase in goods and services available for purchase, you have inflation. Give everyone a million dollars and it's gonna be immediate chaos. Toss $300,000,000.00 into circulation. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by MShipley on 08/11/17 at 10:39:42 If the Gov. placed a million $ in everyone's hands tomorrow, who would get up the next morning and make your doughnuts, open the grocery store and the gas station? NEED and WANT are great motivators. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/11/17 at 11:07:44 NEED and WANT are great motivators. How so? Can you explain that, please. Seems they could very well be polar opposites, yet you say that both can motivate, to a same cause, or outcome/result? Thank you. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/11/17 at 11:19:28 I NEED to eat every day AND I WANT to eat every day. Each motivates me to do what I must in order to eat every day. What I might do in order to accomplish that can be pretty radical. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/11/17 at 11:42:53 Ok, I will assume you would kill an animal, to satisfy that need, yes? How about a primate? If no, why..... What (reasoning) do you use to surrender your need, if you are not willing to kill, say, another human, for you to survive? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/11/17 at 11:52:00 Read about the Donner party. Read about the After the Plane Crash—and the Cannibalism—a Life of … news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/...plane-crash-canessa-ngbooktalk Remember the TV series Lost? About the plane that crashes on a desert island? Well, this is the real thing. Except the island was the Andes mountains, and Reality changes those high minded ideas. When people are hungry, they are dangerous. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/11/17 at 12:37:14 I read the book about the soccer team that crashed in the Andes, I believe it was. So Jog, are you saying man's instincts are dangerous? Would that be a natural trait, or taught? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by LockeClone on 08/11/17 at 13:08:27 2C320908110D0418610 wrote:
Meh, robots make everything anyway, and I'd rather use self-checkout... In the more reasonable scenario of the government putting about $1000 in everyone's accounts every month regardless of income or need, you'd still have to go to work for a decent living, but you could sit in a job search for a while, pay for ramen as a student so you have less debt at graduation, have an income when you start a business, weather a medical emergency, and buy a decent set of clothes/and RV if you're homeless. We're still going to be here and need income when we're mostly automated out of the workforce in the next 50ish years, so something like this will probably happen in most of our lifetimes. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/11/17 at 13:25:15 20332B36332535520 wrote:
Ask yourself Who Taught them to eat others? Desperation causes the natural instincts to survive override the Be good That is in the hearts of decent people. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/11/17 at 14:05:06 Am I a good provider if I feed my family.... Regardless of how I came about it? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/11/17 at 14:06:26 0C2F232B25032C2F2E25400 wrote:
Meh, robots make everything anyway, and I'd rather use self-checkout... In the more reasonable scenario of the government putting about $1000 in everyone's accounts every month regardless of income or need, you'd still have to go to work for a decent living, but you could sit in a job search for a while, pay for ramen as a student so you have less debt at graduation, have an income when you start a business, weather a medical emergency, and buy a decent set of clothes/and RV if you're homeless. We're still going to be here and need income when we're mostly automated out of the workforce in the next 50ish years, so something like this will probably happen in most of our lifetimes.[/quote] Everything huh? Reading your reply to Jog on a different thread, I got the impression you don't like when people use generalities. Why a thousand? How did you arrive arbitrarily at that number? Couldn't we then just lift that support upward and solve some of the other issues, concerns, you list? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by LockeClone on 08/13/17 at 12:39:42 "everything" is a generality. Obviously we still need and will still need human labor for the foreseeable future. But what happens when every sector of the labor economy becomes like manufacturing, arcitecture or journalism? We're already deep in the process out automating humans largely out of the workforce. $1k seems like a reasonable number to me based on very little. I'd be happy to discuss otherwise. It seems reasonable, as it's probably enough to barely survive on in most of the country, this keeping the incentive to get a job. I dunno. If you have a better solution to distribute wealth in a post automation society, I'd love to hear it. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/13/17 at 13:01:00 dunno. If you have a better solution to distribute wealth in a post automation society, I'd love to hear it. Seems earning it has always worked pretty good, well, that was until some folks thought they could make it more fair and just. Problem is, they inserted themselves into a position, by default, or on purpose, really doesn't make any difference, as the outcome is the same. They took away a persons ability to "earn" his self respect, and "worth", through his own ability. Why do you feel we need to "distribute" worth? Who decides who gets what, and who has it deducted from them? Sure, we need safety nets, any reasonable person can see the value and need in that. But to enable able bodies to access charity without real need serves no one..... Fact is, it sets up resentments. I see folks coming here from Asia, who have a extremely hard drive to achieve, and they work tirelessly toward that goal. What is it about that culture that provides such motivation? Do you think life can be made "fair" by man? How? PS: Automation can lead to a lower manufacturing cost, with much benefit beyond the obvious. It can lower pollution, save energy, resources, etc. Man can perhaps get back to a one wage family earner, and have a 30 hour work week, etc. You don't need to be so pessimistic, we have lots of women working on these technical advances ;D |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by LockeClone on 08/13/17 at 17:36:06 I can't follow your narrative about some group of "them" creating economic chaos by attempting to make things more fair. Union membership was over 70% of the workforce in the early 60's, when one could still expect to support a family on a single wage. Now it's less than 7%... Similarly, take a gander at the tax rates of the post-war era. Way more progressive. I'm not saying that more regulation is necessarily good, but your narrative doesn't track because we, the labor pool, was doing a lot better when we were more unionized and capital ownership was more highly taxed. I can see you're trying to frame this as a fairness argument. I am not. This is a supply and demand argument. When horses weren't in demand, we could simply breed less horses, but this doesn't really work because the entire point of human civilization is to increase general prosperity. Demand for the labor that humans are good at is and has been in decline which depresses what we make compared with cost of living. This is offset by cheaper elastic goods, sure, but not inelastic goods like housing, healthcare and education. Furthermore, a universal basic income is not a charity. Everybody gets it, regardless of income. If there is a shortage of jobs, which there already is, then we still have to distribute wealth or else our social and economic problems will only get worse. These jobs are not coming back. What we do reshore is only a shadow of the employment it once was because if automation. Automation is fantastic. It's one less crappy thing a human has to do, but the market won't simply fix this on its own. This is happening very quickly. You can blame Democrats all you want, but this is a natural consequence of our technological evolution, and no political party could or should have such a profound effect. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/13/17 at 18:00:17 no political party could or should have such a profound effect Dream much? ;D I am union. The union leadership killed us too, in cahoot with the employer. You want to cherry pick from the past, and extend it, forward, good luck with that. You bring your 4 barrel dual exhaust to the drags, hope you can get your rear wheels over the start line, before the race is over...... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by LockeClone on 08/13/17 at 18:55:57 So no comment on automation? You believe that there will be jobs aplenty for the foreseeable future? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by T And T Garage on 08/13/17 at 19:10:25 61424E46486E414243482D0 wrote:
As you will see, or have already seen - trying to actually converse with several on here is akin to talking to a turnip... or brick wall. Instead of replying by saying "you might have a good point", or "I never thought of it that way", you're more likely to get a super defensive, yet elusive response. But - don't give up. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/13/17 at 21:13:08 6A49454D43654A494843260 wrote:
How can I answer such a question? If I had the ability, I'd be at the racetrack ;D Sorry you didn't like my answer to your previous question. But it is a possibility this automation, which, has been around a spell now, as those who preach doom and gloom with it, could enhance opportunities. It can bring with it all sorts of new jobs too. In the commercial airplane manufacturing, we have been on the forefront of utilizing such technologies. Not only has it taken over hazardous jobs, freeing mechanics of risk and injury, it has brought the cost down, and opened up new jobs to oversee the equipment, run it, etc. Mankind has always shown the ability to adapt. Look at what we are doing now, with chips. Was once a time a Texas Instrument calculator was very costly. Now, it is cheap technology. This evolving will do away with the old, like newspapers, saving all sorts of resources, etc. Television we grew up with is quickly dying, as folks have more choices to entertainment, etc.... Yet it will still require a live person to do much of the work involved in it. What I can say, with as much certainty as I can offer, is yes, we will have jobs, for those who want them, and always appreciate the opportunity to "earn" a living as a privilege, not as a right, guarantee, or with expectations before they prove their worth. Simply put, automation can be a asset to our lives, freeing us to do many other things, and improving the quality of our lives. You are free to believe otherwise, if it serves you kindly. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/13/17 at 21:13:35 726C63626F726974060 wrote:
As you will see, or have already seen - trying to actually converse with several on here is akin to talking to a turnip... or brick wall. Instead of replying by saying "you might have a good point", or "I never thought of it that way", you're more likely to get a super defensive, yet elusive response. But - don't give up.[/quote] - |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by LockeClone on 08/13/17 at 21:48:52 I have to calibrate here, I'm not trying to argue about whether automation is good or bad. I'm trying to back up and point at the very measurable trend of job sectors being decimated when new technology examples, like some of the ones I mentioned roll through. No value judgement here. PLEASE take a step back and think this through. Look at what is happening, then make value conclusions after, if you like. Yes, we have had employment generally available. Yes, we can surely absorb more waves of automation. This isn't a binary question. The question at hand is how we distribute wealth when the labor pool is so oversaturated that your job pays you kibble because there's a million desperate people lined up to do it for less. Unless you own enough capital too but your own means of production, you and I are just talking horses waiting for the day when our usefulness diminishes... But you are probably very comfortable at the moment and/or haven't been in a position to watch this happening or read about the numbers. I'm also not saying that a basic income is the only way forward. But you probably haven't thought about it much as you seem to believe that something as tenuous as a jobs/labor ratio will always be favorable despite the probable fact that you've probably read articles written by a bot, or have been legally aided by a bot without your knowledge. They're finding that boots are better at primary care diagnosis than primary care physicians. Beta Self driving trucks have already logged a few million miles. This is happening, and it's not realistic for every one of us to become programmers overnight. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/13/17 at 21:55:36 What happens when production is automated? If people don't earn money, who buys the products? I'm not against automation. I like machines, maybe too much. But how do producers sell to people who have been replaced by machines? |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/13/17 at 22:02:28 Ok, I think I get your question and concerns, but like tomorrow, we really don't know if we need to pack our lunch, do we? Yes, it sounds trite, I admit, but it is a possibility we don't make it out the door tomorrow. Of course we plan on it, and chances favor us greatly, we'll eat that lunch. But to guess too far off into the future over things as complex as the work environment, well, it's just too hard to say how it will end up. I would venture to say we will adjust accordingly too, as I mentioned reduced work week hours, etc. What in normal now, might not be, in the future, as it can be redefined according to how things develop. I can't fathom folks not having a work life, just staying home and having their needs met. Hell, that ain't life, that is a parasite, mankind would vanish under such circumstances. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by T And T Garage on 08/14/17 at 05:38:14 Oh - hey ray! Guess what? Remember when I said I'd let you know when I found an adult (besides myself) on here - I found another - Locke. You're welcome. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by Trippah on 08/14/17 at 06:11:12 This is a discussion about a real set of issues. Yeah! Most of the jobs that automation has removed are labor - whether it is coal mining, driving, agriculture, auto manufacturing etc and as Lockeclone noted the trend is not reversing anytime soon. What will future life look like? Will we have one wage earner famiies again, it would probably be good for many. Yet the child rearing segment is only 20-30 years. What to do with all the others. Retirement used to be 4-10 years after 65, but now people live well into their late 70s. If you average out first 20 years for schooling, the next 45 working, then the next 10 years retirement, that means your 45 years of working must (in our present system) provide for 35 non working - non income years as well as the 45 you worked. No wonder the system is imploding. (Yes, and since the 20 years for schooling are actually spent on the next generation, and the retirement years are, with inflation, you are really at much closer to even earning -not earning situation. This means you will have to save 50% of your earnings to fund it!! |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by Trippah on 08/14/17 at 06:48:30 Orwells' "Time Traveler" tried to glimpse into such a future, where one portion of the population had "evolved" into artsy types with no clue how to provide itself with sustanence, the other portion providing food etc but at a sacrificial cost. Wonder if he got it right? The 50%/50% issue is growing more pressing, because more of today's wealth is held by a smaller and smaller percentage of people. Thus the funding of the 50-50 becomes impossible with more and more people left in the fringes. Neither political party is forthcoming with solutions to this not to far in the future bomb. |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by Serowbot on 08/14/17 at 08:42:13 30 hour work week?... |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/14/17 at 08:58:58 Well lets look at some possibilities... Lets assume we do go back to a one wage earner per family. Lets say our work week is 20 hours, over 4 days. Let say because of technology, food is cheaper, as well as products, and energy. The money used/circulating, for those things are now free to go elsewhere. Perhaps travel, will become a big and affordable option for a lot. That will require lots of infrastructure/support jobs. I am sure lots of others could be thought up. Now lets look at housing, in those childless years/retirement, etc. Why do we need all that space? I think it will become the norm to move into a something like a planned city, communal type, where energy saving can be a big win. Think of a GIANT mall, with housing, medical, stores, entertainment, food/eating, etc. All without the need of a car.... Sorta like New York city without the crime ;D A real self contained, and supporting, enterprise that frees up all sorts money and time. The hard part is to think outside of our comfort, or what we already know, zone. I think cash will be gone, and I think financial crimes will be a thing of the past, as the money system will be all computerized with 100% accountability, like trying to use your credit card on line now, only thousands of times bigger and better. Can you imagine going to the doctor. You are having some medical problems. They scan you, like a CT scanner, only way smaller, etc. It reads your complete body functions instantly, analyzing it on the spot. Say if you need a procedure to clear a blocker artery, or a pinched nerve... They take you to a different machine, give you a sedative, arrange you on a table, and then this machine does the surgery on you in minutes. Because of science advancements, their is no recouping, or recovering, needed, you walk out on your own accord, fixed :) I think they already have machines that perform sex..... That is why Bot is no longer posting ;D edit: WTH, he just returned from the grave to post in front of my reply.... No matter, that is where he has been still stands! However, I will be a rebel, living off the land on my island ;D |
|
Title: Re: Please answer this........ Post by raydawg on 08/14/17 at 11:13:34 Another view/input: By Dan Nidess Aug. 10, 2017 6:19 p.m. ET Leading voices in the tech industry—from Mark Zuckerberg to Sam Altman —are warning that increased automation risks leaving an unprecedented number of Americans permanently unemployed. In response, many concerned Silicon Valley luminaries have called for a universal basic income, or UBI. Guaranteed income from the government may seem like the easiest way to address long-term unemployment, but UBI fixes only the narrowest and most quantifiable problem joblessness causes: lack of a reliable income. It completely ignores, and may exacerbate, the larger complications of mass unemployment. Finland has been testing a basic income for 2,000 of its unemployed citizens since January, and UBI proponents say the Nordic country is providing an example for the U.S. It will be interesting to see the Finnish results, but Americans shouldn’t read too much into the outcome of a small-scale, early-stage trial. Look instead to Saudi Arabia, which for decades has attempted the wholesale replacement of work with government subsidies. Perhaps more than half of all Saudis are unemployed and not seeking work. They live off payments funded by the country’s oil wealth. And what has Saudi Arabia’s de facto UBI created? A population deeply resistant to work. Efforts by the Saudi government to diversify the economy have been hamstrung by the difficulty of getting Saudis to trade in their free income willingly for paid labor. Regular citizens lack dignity while the royal family lives a life of luxury. The technocratic elite has embraced relatively liberal values at odds with much of the society’s conservatism. These divisions have made the country a fertile recruiting ground for extremists. It’s true that Saudi Arabia has a host of other social problems. For one, it is ruled by a hereditary monarchy and a strictly enforced set of religious laws. Yet the widespread economic disempowerment of its population has made it that much harder for the kingdom to address its other issues. Don’t expect the U.S. to fare any better if divided into “productive” and “unproductive” classes. At the heart of a functioning democratic society is a social contract built on the independence and equality of individuals. Casually accepting the mass unemployment of a large part of the country and viewing those people as burdens would undermine this social contract, as millions of Americans become dependent on the government and the taxpaying elite. It would also create a structural division of society that would destroy any pretense of equality. UBI supporters would counter that their system would free people to pursue self-improvement and to take risks. America’s experience over the past couple of decades suggests that the opposite is more likely. Labor Department data show that at the end of June the U.S. had 6.2 million vacant jobs. Millions of skilled manufacturing and cybersecurity jobs will go unfilled in the coming years. This problem stems from a lack of skilled workers. While better retraining programs are necessary, too many of the unemployed, or underemployed, lack the motivation to learn new skills. Increasingly, young unemployed men are perfectly content to stay at home playing videogames. UBI would also weaken American democracy. How long before the well-educated, technocratic elites come to believe the unemployed underclass should no longer have the right to vote? Will the “useless class” react with gratitude for the handout and admiration for the increasingly divergent culture and values of the “productive class”? If Donald Trump’s election, and the elites’ reactions, are any indication, the opposite is likelier. Rapid technological advancement is already presenting American workers with unprecedented difficulties. Facing this challenge is going to require creative approaches from the government and the private economy. UBI is a noble attempt. Perhaps it could work as only a supplement to earned income. But as currently envisioned, UBI addresses the material needs of citizens while undermining their aspirations. In the same Harvard commencement speech in which Mr. Zuckerberg called for a basic income, he also spent significant time talking about the need for purpose. But purpose can’t be manufactured, nor can it be given out alongside a government subsidy. It comes from having deep-seated responsibility—to yourself, your family and society as a whole. Silicon Valley’s leading innovators should understand this better than anybody. In an era when civic participation in all forms is falling, employment is for many the last great equalizer. It is worth preserving. Mr. Nidess is a writer in San Francisco. Appeared in the August 11, 2017, print edition. On a personal note, I have seen the effect of the Indian Tribes here in Washington, becoming something all together never intended, when the government tried to repair past inequities, with financial restitution, etc. It removes a very important necessity, from a persons deep need, of being able to achieve, in their own eyes, worth. This trait, is at the very core, of our unique individuality. You remove that, you remove part of their soul. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |