A Novel Approach to Universal Basic Income

I was listening to EconTalk the other day and Mike Munger from Duke University was on talking about Universal Basic Income. I happen to believe that UBI will become a necessity in the very near future, so it’s a subject of interest to me. That said, I don’t often hear any new ideas about it; it’s mostly a conversation about how much to give and how to pay for it.

That is, until Munger reframed the issue for me. I have to admit that I’ve never thought about it in these terms, but I happen to think he’s right.

We already have Universal Basic Income, we’re all getting it, and, what’s more, the apparatus to administer it has been in place since 1862.

I can hear some of you now. “WTF, Eddie? I’m not getting any welfare check! What the hell are you talking about???” But the fact is, you made over $500 a month from UBI last year. You’re gonna make even more this year.

Stay with me, because once you realize this is going on you’ll see that expanding the program to a living wage isn’t all that hard.

Universal Basic Income By Any Other Name

If you’re an American taxpayer, you start every year ahead of the game by several thousand dollars. In 2016, that number was $6,300. This year it’s $6,350.

We call it the Standard Deduction.

It’s the amount by which you get to reduce your taxable income by right off the top. And it’s free money. If you don’t earn enough to push into a higher tax bracket after the standard deduction, you get an actual check in the mail.

So with a couple of minor tweaks to our existing system, we could launch a bona fide Universal Basic Income and not even have to change very much.

UBI According to Munger

Mike Munger’s idea is that we eliminate any and all welfare programs in America and replace them with a $15,000 per year Universal Basic Income. No more food stamps. No more Section 8 housing. No more WIC.

In its place would be a $15,000 tax credit for every American man, woman, and child.

The libertarian case for such an idea is a strong one. Both Hayek and Friedman were heavily in favor of UBI. Here is Friedman schooling that miserable old gasbag Buckley on the subject:

The impact of Munger’s proposal would be threefold: First, it would raise the standard deduction from $6,350 to $15,000. Second, it would convert a tax deduction to a tax credit for those who qualify. This is not a small thing, which I’ll go into in a bit. Third, how do we pay for it? By Munger’s math, it would only require a 3-4% increase in the existing tax rates (by bracket). I haven’t done the math personally, but that strikes me as underestimating by quite a bit.

All things being equal, though, it’s not a bad idea.

For the upper classes, it would increase the standard deduction significantly, though perhaps not enough to offset the increase in taxes. Still, at the upper bands, it shouldn’t be a noticeable bite.

For the middle classes it would likely be a wash.

For the poor, however, it would be a game changer. A family of four would be going into every year with a guaranteed sixty grand. That’s a decent living, one in which parents can consider school choice, relocation for better job prospects, etc…

With the spectre of automation threatening us all, we need to figure out a way to divorce income from work, and this is a good first step.

Your Thoughts

So I know I’m going to get some pushback. I know there are dyed-in-the-wool Puritan work ethics out there who find the idea of money for nothing repellant.

Let me hear your objections. I’m not saying Munger is right, but I’ll admit that he’s close. This is a novel way of looking at the problem and he’s right about already having the apparatus in place to properly administer it.

Please though, guys, let’s try to avoid the platitudes and have a real pro and con discussion. I know I’m not the only one fascinated by this subject.

What say you?

 

Is is less expensive than welfare programs? If so, then do it. If not, then don't.

I tend to lean towards reducing welfare/making it much more difficult to claim because it's being abused at such a great rate, but if this is somehow a more economical model, then so be it. I'd like to see the UBI at maybe only $12.500 or even $10,000 because at $15,000 I think you could see a lot more people not working at all, but if there were another requirement such as each household has to work a minimum of 20 hours a week per adult (1 can do 40 while another doesn't work, provisos for going to school, etc) before claiming the UBI, then that would probably be fine.

UBI/welfare should never be a sole means for able-bodied workers but I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be a supplement and maybe even the solution for people being able to make a living wage while also working as minimum wage.

All that said, how do you think this will affect housing prices? Food prices? Healthcare? I imagine they'd all rise and eat through a lot of the benefit, no?

 
DeepLearning:

Welfare abuse rates have continuously been shown to be trivial. Again and again, studies have proven that it is more expensive to police those on welfare than it is to just give the people welfare who ask for it. Anti-welfare sentiment is much more a product of resentment of poor people than fiscal conservatism, I'm sorry to say.

According to this article, the GAO announced in 2015 $137 billion in improper payments in the entitlement system (not technically welfare, but certainly an aspect of welfare when broadly defined). This doesn't even include waste. I'd say government fraudulent/improper payments to individuals (welfare, entitlements, etc.) are more than just "trivial."

https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/industry/public-sector/fraud-was…

Array
 
DeepLearning:

Welfare abuse rates have continuously been shown to be trivial. Again and again, studies have proven that it is more expensive to police those on welfare than it is to just give the people welfare who ask for it. Anti-welfare sentiment is much more a product of resentment of poor people than fiscal conservatism, I'm sorry to say.

Well, $15,000 per household member is $60,000 per year for a family of four....or $150,000/year for a family of 10. That's a much stronger incentive than the current system. I am of the general opinion that welfare generally goes to a good cause, but even a well-meaning lower/lower middle class family would look twice at those numbers.

 

I like this idea, though maybe not the 15k per person. My two issues are the amount, and the eligibility.

Amount: Alleviating my concerns requires an accurate understanding of per person cost for welfare now. If it comes out to 12k and we go to 15, NBD. If it's 9 to 15, well now that's a big stretch.

Eligability: In no way, shape or form do I believe children should count as the full amount for their parents. Under your example, if I father 9 children, then I get 150k a year for free? Sign me up.

 

Totally agree. If you add kids into the mix, you're talking about some seriously perverse incentives. $60,000 for a family of 4? That's more than median household income in the U.S. of ~$52,000. Imagine if you're a hardworking blue collard worker making, say, $75,000 per year. Why would you work 2,000 hours per year when you could do nothing and collect $60,000?

I like the idea in principle, but if you make the payout too high you're going to create an entire society that subsists on welfare. Talk about the stratification of classes. The wealthy working classes (people who make enough money to justify working despite the incentive not to work) and everyone else.

Array
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Totally agree. If you add kids into the mix, you're talking about some seriously perverse incentives. $60,000 for a family of 4? That's more than median household income in the U.S. of ~$52,000. Imagine if you're a hardworking blue collard worker making, say, $75,000 per year. Why would you work 2,000 hours per year when you could do nothing and collect $60,000?

I like the idea in principle, but if you make the payout too high you're going to create an entire society that subsists on welfare. Talk about the stratification of classes. The wealthy working classes (people who make enough money to justify working despite the incentive not to work) and everyone else.

I'm not completely sure if I support UBI yet (need to learn more) but that doesn't make sense with the system described by Friedman in the OP's video. Assuming a flat tax rate of 30%, the family you described would be taxed ($75,000-$60,000)30%=$4,500 for a net income of $70,500. If you did nothing and earned $0 you'd be taxed ($0-$60,000)30%=-$18,000 for a net income of $18,000. So where is the incentive here to not work for $75,000? It's no different from the fact that moving up in tax brackets should never cause you to earn less net income. If anything the current system fits your complaint more than the system proposed in the OP. In the current system the deduction that the $75k family gets is far less than $60k and so they pay more taxes meanwhile the family making $0 may still get $18k or more in welfare benefits.
 

To add to your eligibility statement, this is already a problem under the current system. I did some community service work in a low income area where everybody seemed to have a ton of children. After speaking with some of the families they pretty much said that they believed having more children became a benefit to them in terms of how much they received for welfare, food stamps, etc.

I'm not 100% sure if the math actually adds up, but that was their assumption.

 

Good post, but I'm not sure the standard deduction is a credit (as you have said) and the logic from increasing it from 6,000 to 15,000 is a non-sequitur. There is some sleight of hand wordplay going on in either your post or his argument that matters, very much. Graduating the effect of the welfare cliff is much different than providing a means for living, and equating two very different things in this manner to support your argument is extremely weak tea. If ya'll haven't noticed, people are very sick of intellectual-elites and their theories on how to use the state to improve their lives.

Finally, this is a prime example of the shortcoming of economic theory and the rationality assumption. Giving people who are most likely the statistically worst in managing their money $15,000 to survive on for a year (even perhaps administered in monthly increments) and expecting them to manage it well is a stupid idea.

Yea it all sounds much simpler, but the various social safety nets and forms of welfare are in place because life, the economy, and policy is extremely complex and certain measures are doled out based to their need: From each according to their ability, to each according to his need - as someone who likes this kind of thing famously said.

To me, the Libertarian argument is extremely weak - and it's more a failed Austrian economics one than a Libertarian one. Something to the effect of: If you are going to have a socialistic welfare state, then let the people use their welfare however they want! Kind of negates the premise of being Libertarian, and rests upon a micro-economic argument that doesn't seem fully thought out or in touch with reality.

 

Is support for a UBI tied to automation/technological advancement (ex. Automation destroys jobs that less-intelligent people could do while creating a lesser number of positions that require a higher IQ?)

I could get behind this argument. After all, I would say it is unfair to expect those who are inherently less intelligent to adapt to and adequately perform the jobs of the future.

However, it still leaves a tricky problem: destroying motivation among a large segment of the population to be contributing members of society. How could this be mitigated?

 

Think there will be huge debates between people who are highly intelligent and likely to earn $100K, or $200K+ vs those that are dropouts, unmotivated, unskilled etc. and how they should be valued. For instance would you pay them the same $5000 a month in UBI? How do you determine price/value?

Should be interesting though

26 Broadway where's your sense of humor?
 

I have a question possible problem with the implementation that I would like to raise.

-What if employers knowing that the government is going to subsidize workers by 15k a year lower wages? We have seen this in the work place before, currently at McDonald's where their execs have admitted to knowing their workers will receive aid and assistance. Take this away from any job that has min wage protection. This happened with the Pullman Railroad porters in the 1900s, and it could very likely happen again.

How would this effect the UBI if implemented this way?

I don't think there is anyone alive today who doesn't think that there should be a backstop for people in tough times. I still think the low interest rate is a tax on savers and the poor and is the biggest threat to America.

 

Samuel Brittan discussed this and his conclusion is that UBI should be enough to cover your basic needs, no more no less. As long as you can pay for food, shelter, some basic necessities (that doesn't include cable for instance)... you have the safety net you need. You are then free to work however much or little to top that off and get the superfluous things in life.

As difficult as the implementation is, this is probably going to be the defining idea in domestic political economy for the coming decades. It takes the sting out of the whole "welfare abuser" line of thinking, clears part of the path to a long-term restructuring of social security/medicare, makes the gig economy a viable concept for the long run, probably prevents trade wars and eventually war on the robots...

The current frontrunner for the Socialists in France has made this part of his platform. Too bad the rest of his platform is a hodge podge of commie garbage.

Hat tip Eddie for bringing this one up.

 

Agreed, it's the wave of the future. My concern, however, is how easy it will be for political candidates to simply "bid up the voters." I remember during a 2016 Democratic party debate, Hillary and Bernie got into a minimum wage bidding war. I don't remember the exact numbers, but Clinton said the min wage should be something like $12. Sanders was like, "Aha! I can one up you! $12? I think the minimum wage should be $15!" And the crowd exploded with glee! I was thinking to myself, "Man, I could mobilize this crowd by outbidding Bernie Sanders. I'd just tell 'em the min wage should be $20."

At that's just the minimum wage. Imagine if tens of millions of people are on a single "program"--the tax credit for UBI. A group of politicians--or an individual running for president--can simply one-up the competition. "My opponent thinks UBI should be $15,000 per person? I say it should be $25,000!" That's scary because you can mobilize tens of millions of people (maybe 100 million, I don't know) with that singular promise whereas certain welfare programs might target a narrow group of individuals for a limited time period.

Array
 

Theory is good in theory, but as financiers we know that theory is not right. As another user mentioned, theory assumes that humans are rational. A UBI is not going to keep hobos off the NYC subway, kick peoples addiction problems, end hunger, or increase equality. Most people do not have the knowledge, discipline, or self-control to be rational in consumption. In fact none of us are, and we are supposed to be the most educated in this topic.

Human behavior and not theory drives the actions of both society and our financial markets. The hobo on the subway is still going to use his money to buy alcohol, just maybe a bit more. Blight will still occur in the inner cities because you still need leadership, drive, and resources to support economic growth. A UBI will not change the attitudes of people, give them more drive, or cause them to incite change. The UBI is not going to make housing more affordable for the poor, in fact an increase in income of our poorest will drive the lowest end of our rental market higher. Will the quality of life improve for everyone? Not necessarily. Do we know what it's effects on wages and inflation would be? You can value the world hypothetically using a DCF, I'll continue to look at it realistically with relative valuation. (Yes that is a finance metaphor)

 
thebrofessor:

interesting that the US would probably support something like this when only 50 years ago we were afraid of communism like the plague. I'm more afraid of Bernie Sanders than I am of Vladimir Putin.

I wouldn't equate a UBI with communism - plenty of classical liberals and (non radical) libertarians support a UBI/Negative Income Tax.

 

You're more afraid of Sanders than Putin? How's that? Sanders wants to maintain and expand the social net in the US. Having lived in Israel, Europe and elsewhere that has more social services, I can tell you it's a GOOD thing. I like being able to see a doctor if I need to, and to have decent education for my kids. Putin is less scary? Please explain.

 

An interesting idea I debate with my roommate constantly. Finland is trying it on a small population to see its merit, however, I don't believe it would have the same success or support in a country the size of the USA. Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare are different approaches to a system like this, but the sheer size of the population and funding required (without cutting other spending in the USA) makes it impossible. My roommate claims to believe once we are all automated out of our jobs, that the only way humans will survive is by a universal basic income.. don't know who is correct, but interesting thread topic

 
Wallstreetneversleeps:

An interesting idea I debate with my roommate constantly. Finland is trying it on a small population to see its merit, however, I don't believe it would have the same success or support in a country the size of the USA. Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare are different approaches to a system like this, but the sheer size of the population and funding required (without cutting other spending in the USA) makes it impossible. My roommate claims to believe once we are all automated out of our jobs, that the only way humans will survive is by a universal basic income.. don't know who is correct, but interesting thread topic

The United States is a federal entity, so a basic income scheme at a national level wherein 330,000,000 people would receive a basic income would be, assuming a basic income of $30,000/p.a., would set you back $9,900,000,000,000 per annum. $9.9 trillion every year. It's unaffordable and a nightmare to implement. I suppose the cities at best or the states themselves at the very least would assess their own programmes, for the cost of living varies significantly between your country. $30,000 gets you further in North Dakota than in NYC or LA.

 

It seems like no one mentions the state of the Finland sate investment fund and oil holdings that are funding the majority of their social initiatives. The US has a form of UBI if you look at all of the various support programs that exist at the national and state level. It is just targeted towards specific types of support rather than just giving everyone money. The problem with UBI is that it is a real incentive killer unless everyone gets that same amount from the government, then you get the usual cries of welfare for rich people.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

Something like the model Charles Murray is suggesting (pretty low UBI that is only meant as a jumping-off point and compliment to work) could work out well if implemented properly (replacing a vast majority of the current welfare state while not mis-aligning incentives as badly). That being said, I think it should only be considered if AI begins to actually take over most work in the country and shows no signs of ceasing. Even then, I'm skeptical as to how it works if the fundamentals of the economy are changing that drastically. We need to try reforms to education, job matching, and welfare before considering this.

 

Leaving the issues of social benevolence aside, one legitimate concern with UBI I've heard is that it increases the risk of totalitarian states. The more dependent people are on the state for their bread and shelter, the less willing people are to protest when the state deprives them other other liberties.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 

Exactly what we have in China. GDP growth was high and consistent for years so many citizens turned their heads on what the government did. Now that the GDP growth is slowing and not as much money is going into people's pockets, there's a growing divide between the conservative folks from the center and western parts of the country and those on the east coast.

 

Here in Brazil we have (in addition to social security/healthcare) direct cash handouts (although it's limited to very poor individuals and the amount is also low). It costs around 1% of our GDP. It did work to help some of the beneficiaries to leave extreme poverty - Basically it allowed these people to at least buy some food to look for a job. However, there's the other side: Recipients also spent the whole benefit on booze, drugs, and the program is known to be a target of corruption, as almost everything down here. Many people say it creates a culture of lazyness and dependence of the Nanny State, but in any case it became impossible to kill, as you can imagine the reaction to any politician who even hints anything related.

In any case, a pilot program in Finland would not be an example for having UBI in any country I guess.

 

An idea which, oddly enough, I would think Republicans should be all in favour of. Cut welfare, cut public healthcare, cut social security, cut every nonessential government service, and replace it all with a UBI - theoretically this should do a better job of aligning incentives than many of our current systems.

In practice? Eh. We'll see.

 
Angus Macgyver:

An idea which, oddly enough, I would think Republicans should be all in favour of. Cut welfare, cut public healthcare, cut social security, cut every nonessential government service, and replace it all with a UBI - theoretically this should do a better job of aligning incentives than many of our current systems.

In practice? Eh. We'll see.

Theory is nice. Reality tells us that the Democrats would make sure the massive welfare state remains in place with UBI. Or that Dems would slowly re-implement the welfare state while expanding UBI.

Array
 
deMaestro:

The idea, that Bernie Sanders is a communist is a creation of Fox News propaganda... Northern European countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland are some of the best countries to live in for everyone. A right wing politician in one of those countries is probably more communist than Bernie Sanders.

I love the constant call outs to Northern European countries. 'Best countries to live in for everyone'. Too bad not everyone can have tiny, ridiculously homogeneous, and oil-rich (e.g. Norway) societies. The Northern European model works for Northern European countries but is unlikely to work in large and diverse nations. Also, pray tell, what have those countries done recently? Have they contributed meaningful innovation on any scale? Have they explored space? Created new drugs? These countries may be great to live in for those living in them, but they are most certainly not the best for everyone. They are a very special case. And they are for sure not engines driving the world.

God damn. Sometimes you just have to say it like it is.

 

I could think of few things more dystopian than having large percentages of the population, relative even to what we see now, dependent on others (Government) for their survival. Who will decide what is an acceptable "income" level? What will stop politicians from pandering to this increasing, dependent population by increasing these income levels IE taxing everyone else?

Every animal on this planet, humans included, either fight for their own survival or are subject to the whim of those that provide their means to survival. History tends to show that the latter group doesn't end up in a fairy tale world, much less the UBI World depicted across the internet where everyone will now "be able to explore their passions" rather than "work a meaningless job". Yeah, okay.

Also, those positively referencing the Nordic countries should, at the very least, remember that just a few years ago, Venezuela could have seemingly been used as a reference to how great Socialism can be. We've seen how that's turned out. Go take a look a how income inequality looks in some of those countries. Hint: It's among the worst in the world. How have their economies, along with the rest of increasingly socialized Europe, done in the past few years? I guess not terrible if compared to Swaziland, where the European Union ranked just behind in GDP Growth rates for 2015.

 

This. Always remember that the same powers that define the "acceptable income" can also decide on a whim that well maybe you earn too much, therefore you have an "excessive salary", therefore they will redistribute this to you. Then why not regulate prices and corporate profits? After all, these must also be at an "acceptable"rate, to avoid "abuses" right? This has to be redistributed! Part of the population will cheer and support, and call you names if you complain about this. Well... You can always do something about it, maybe vote and replace the government, right? Wrong, as now the state holds a large part of electors as dependants to those handouts, and will pretty much do whatever they want.

It's a worst case scenario, I know - But unfortunately this happened in real life, in Latin America we experienced this the hard way.

 
dornelbr:

This. Always remember that the same powers that define the "acceptable income" can also decide on a whim that well maybe you earn too much, therefore you have an "excessive salary", therefore they will redistribute this to you.
Then why not regulate prices and corporate profits? After all, these must also be at an "acceptable"rate, to avoid "abuses" right? This has to be redistributed!
Part of the population will cheer and support, and call you names if you complain about this.
Well... You can always do something about it, maybe vote and replace the government, right?
Wrong, as now the state holds a large part of electors as dependants to those handouts, and will pretty much do whatever they want.

It's a worst case scenario, I know - But unfortunately this happened in real life, in Latin America we experienced this the hard way.

This. People too often lose sight of the bigger picture. Why do we all of a sudden have so many snowflakes in this country??

 

You can't bring Venezuela into this.

90%+ of Venezuela's exports were oil. If oil was high Venezuela would be fine. What would we do if 90% of our gov't revenue was cut in half overnight?

It's not an example of failed socialism. It's an example of why you don't use 100% of one resource to support a country.

(I'm a capitalist 100%).

I'm all for basic income, but then again most of the people I know are at least semi-motivated at smart.

 

Like how Venezuela was a paradise when oil was nearing $180/barrel? Oh wait that's right they were approaching default on payments for a destroyer.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

Absolute bullshit. Venezuela was an economic disaster before the drop in oil prices. Venezuela is the truest, purest form of socialism on Earth today where the state confiscated a large portion of land and businesses without just compensation and attempted to operate the means of production (manufacturing, farming, oil, etc.).

Venezuela is the poster boy for true socialism. Countries like Sweden are just capitalist countries with old, strong homogeneous cultures and large welfare states.

Array
 

How do you define "need"?

Do capable people who could work but choose not to truly "need" aid? My fear with a system like this is that it will destroy the incentive to work. If you destroy the incentive to work, you destroy productivity and efficiency. The economy needs low wage workers to function. If Mcdonalds can't find people who want to work for minimum wage anymore, then they need to raise wages to increase demand. Higher wages means a higher priced Big Mac. A higher priced Big Mac means less discretionary income for everyone. This inflation of goods occurs all across the service sector and overall cost of living increases for everyone as the cost of consumption will increase. Meanwhile, corporate margins stay the same.

However, lower purchasing power means a lower volume of goods will be consumed decreasing earnings for all retail, and service industries. Lower volume means less goods need to be manufactured. If the manufacturers are hurt, then the suppliers to those manufacturers get hurt leading to job losses across the board and higher unemployment.

Higher unemployment and lower discretionary income leave less money for saving and investing, thus the stock market goes down. Lower stock market increases the companies cost of capital and this factor along with decreased demand causes corporations to decrease capital investment. Given the GDP equation of C+I + G+ (Net Exports/Imports), the only way GDP doesn't decline is if the increase in government spending outweighs the losses of consumption and investment. However, drastically increased government spending is unsustainable in the long-term so thus that is how welfare programs destroy capitalistic efficiency.

If the average person understood basic economics, Bernie Sanders would be laughed out of politics. A basic economics course should be a requirement in the American high school curriculum. Rant over.

 
Rags to Hermes:

If the average person understood basic economics.

Ain't gonna happen in our lifetime. What this society needs is a pair of sneakers with lights in them and a "YOLO" baseball cap. Ever thought how dumb an average person is? well half of them are even dumber and yes I'm quoting George Carlin here.
Rags to Hermes:

A basic economics course should be a requirement.

Naaaaah, too challenging. Little Jimmy will not be able to pass and receive a medal for participation.
You killed the Greece spread goes up, spread goes down, from Wall Street they all play like a freak, Goldman Sachs 'o beat.
 

It's almost laughable that once again none of the most ardent critics have taken the time to understand what they're arguing against.

It's a trial, not a widespread program. So let's start there. We'll get to see the results of this trial and then draw meaningful conclusions from the outcome. Amazing idea, no?

Next, the concept isn't to move into communism, it's cutting other social entitlements to the recipients under the assumption that they could more effectively use the cash to their needs than any of the former entitlements being cut. Which sounds to me like an experiment NOT on communism, but on improving the efficiency of current social expenditures.

Gasp, it almost makes sense. What's most appalling, as an American, is seeing all the vitriol because God forbid someone try an idea and risk failure. If it fails...gasp...the world keeps spinning and then they don't enact the program...double gasp. Wait, but if it proves to be a more efficient social entitlement, saving the government money and doing more good than existing programs....gasp....it's a good idea....triple gasp...and then they can have a win-win.

When did the definition of America become a bunch of white men acting like pussies and jumping at their own shadow? I'm sorry if the world asked you to think, shame on them.

 

Agreed 100%. A lot of people on this thread are sounding like retarded red-scare propagandists. People - Ben Shapiro's cool and all, but try to think critically for yourselves from time to time as well. This is a program being tried out by a country in which none of you actually live in (so it comes at no expense to you), so at the very least keep an eye on it and see how it turns out. Maybe it completely fails, maybe it's a moderate success, either way it will have interesting results and consequences.

 

If you truly believe that if this trail program succeeds that when this program is inevitably lauded as a solution for the USA that it will actually be a replacement of existing programs? If so, you do not fully understand how the government works. Those who run existing programs will taint the water and turn the public against ending existing programs while supporting the further expansion.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

This is probably the most effective welfare measure imaginable. Cut out the middle men and give the money directly to those who need it.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

We already 'subsidize losers,' just in a wildly inefficient way. We spend over $80,000 a year on welfare recipients. We can cut this by more than half with this approach, and they'll be better off. If we're going to do it (never mind if we should), we may as well do it efficiently, right?

This in no way can yield inflation or price fluctuations. Income redistribution is a non-monetary phenomenon. As such, it exerts no influence on the general price level. It would yield changes in the pattern of consumption (relative prices), though.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

I'll make one comment here, focused on the broad subset of the guys supporting this on the basis that it will reduce bureaucracy / lessen the actual fiscal burden of low income citizens:

While I'd be very down for that (or even a plan that was revenue neutral but reduced the # of forms we all file), does anyone actually think that's what would happen? I have a very hard time believing that, after giving 40k a year or whatever to these people, all the emotional appeals to provide education/healthcare/transportation/entertainment/day care/time off would suddenly stop.

Life's is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 

You could say that about any reform, right? I'm not saying that there isn't merit to it, because there certainly is, but it defeats the thought exercise. I don't think anyone, perhaps besides the craziest Bernie Sanders supporter, would support adding 40K per person (per year) on top of the welfare infrastructure already in place.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

The majority of poverty can be cured through simple, personal choices. Graduate high school, don't have kids until you are married and economically stabile, don't get arrested. People can't do these things. Handing people a check without strings attached will not solve poverty.

And you are correct, it will never stop. American poor are richer than 90% of this world. The issue isn't poverty in the truest sense. The issue is subjectively poor.

Bad choices = bad outcome. Until we provide everyone with a life nanny, we will continue to provide safety nets and continue to see no real improvement.

 

Necessitatibus fuga sunt aut voluptates perferendis corrupti nobis. Quaerat ad dicta natus voluptas ea aut deserunt. Ut a non odit est reprehenderit ex. Non id voluptas debitis quo. Iusto dolorem expedita culpa sit et. Dolorem eos eaque et. Aperiam molestias expedita qui harum.

Don´t say this in a banking interview: Which superhero would you be and why? I want to be like Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor - me.
 

Earum aliquid soluta qui repudiandae laborum. Aut et quo inventore et adipisci.

Quasi vitae iusto rerum laudantium. Aut quod nihil corrupti voluptatem excepturi tenetur earum. Doloribus aut ducimus reprehenderit consequatur.

Amet est sunt assumenda possimus. Molestias quibusdam tempore delectus possimus ut. Quasi repellendus culpa omnis in qui. Et harum error et voluptatibus et.

 

Earum et assumenda quia culpa. Perspiciatis omnis cum eos molestiae. Iste non saepe dolore rerum.

Perferendis consectetur in delectus fugit eos assumenda. Et dolorum error ipsum numquam minima tempore inventore optio. Facilis id eum placeat magni asperiores libero. Velit assumenda corrupti tempore in. Autem laudantium fuga nihil quisquam porro. Voluptate quo voluptatibus labore explicabo.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”