Universal basic income in the US
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Didn’t read but are there work or volunteer requirements?
The wpa was such a success it makes no sense not to spend money on something that gives the dignity of work.
@syskatine
The wpa was such a success it makes no sense not to spend money on something that gives the dignity of work.
@syskatine
Last edited:
"It is readying plans to deliver $500 a month in donated cash to perhaps 100 local families, no strings attached."
The problem with this is that small scale models of this do not create the artificial inflation a similar program instituted on a large scale would.
I'd guess state level, but its really a math equation. Adding $50,000 per month ($500 x 100 families) to the economy in a California suburb doesn't even move the inflation needle. Adding $5.75 billion per month (11.5 million x $500) by giving this to each household in California would very likely drive inflation upwards.
(This doesn't even get to the conversation of actually paying for this program, as California isn't exactly sitting on $69 Billion in available cash.)
Do you think it would be inflationary if it were tax funded? What about debt funded?
So the entire state of Alaska has 700K population. Its smaller than OKC. Not exactly a realistic 'state' comparison for inflation measures, but it is worth noting that Anchorage, Alaska costs 24% more than OKC in cost-of-living. I'd also note that the payout of the APF is 1/3rd of the annual payout in the Universal Income program.
Irrelevant. If you debt-fund this, (besides screwing future generations), then its all 'new' money and clearly inflationary. If its 'tax funded' (hypothetically only on the uber wealthy), it would be inflation neutral overall, but the sudden influx of money on the low end of the purchasing scale would drive up the cost of 'low-cost' goods, which would be balanced by the reduced demand on the higher end. So inflation for those that you are trying to 'help' with this program will be highest while those that need it the least would likely see some deflation. And the businesses paying for the program through their taxes are going to raise their prices to offset their costs as well.
Not sure there. I used a link from Google called expatistan which showed it at 24%. I just did it again from payscale.com and it shows Anchorage as 28% higher than the national average and 51% higher than OKC.
For the record, I'm not attributing all of that to the Alaskan Fund. I recognize Alaska is a special case due to its remoteness, harsher weather, smaller population, etc. However, you raised their fund as an example of this type of program working without issue, yet there is clear evidence that Alaska has a higher cost-of-living basis and thus your example doesn't refute the statement that these UI programs are inflationary.
California is trying to add approx $3 billion a year in Medi-Cal costs by expanding coverage to illegal aliens up to age 26. At some point nobody but illegals, Hollywood types, and Silicon Valley folks will be able to afford to live there.
Good luck to Stockton.
Good luck to Stockton.
Similar threads
