I like how he kept it professional and didn't attack the man,didn't even use passive aggressive anything, he simply made very informative statements and proved his consistency.
“The fact that we ask, ‘What will people do with all their free time?’ is a sign of impoverishment of our current work lives and imaginations.” He shoots, he scores.
True story: my ex-girlfriend taught art at an Old Folks Home. Most of the residents worked hard, their whole life, raising families. They had little time for such extravagant pursuits like "art". Then they got old. Then all their bills were paid. Then all their basic needs were met. Then art was introduced to them, and they had instruction, supplies, motivation, and no chores to do, no cooking or cleaning to do. Guess what? Out of a population of 200 residents, there were 20-30 people show up each week. And they were amazingly good artists. They became like children again. Happy, and playful and creative. I was kind of blown away with the whole thing. About 10-15% of the population is potentially artists. Imagine if in the United States, 20% of our population were doing art. That's about 60 Million artists.....and how many potential writers are there out there? What kind of creative explosion would a Basic Income help us with? It would be amazing.
Ferdal Dunghyeap What you fail to realize is that, though there is an awful lot of truth in what you say, it's also true that it's simply about choice. Most people in Third World Countries have such shitty economic prospects, that being enslaved to American corporations is vastly superior to the lives they were leading before America showed up.
+Tim_Bucks ~Hi Tim, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Happy materialists, city boys and political propagandas, will always use this argument to diminish the consequence of colonisation and live with a "good conscience". But Americans in Middle-east is no different from the French in Africa. And the fact is that Africa was happier and healthier before it was colonised. Jared Diamond went to find out the answer to this question for himself and studied the question for 20 years. He wrote an extensive research (available as a book) and the reality does not comply with what we would like to believe... Typical rich western people just won't admit the simple truth. We are not rich because we are smarter or better but simply because we were living in favourable material conditions to start with: it's more a question of geography. Worse, as we became wealthy, we were not human enough to want to help poor countries raise their standards of living, but instead, we found more profitable to actually exploit the poor people themselves and/or their countries' resources while we would keep approximatively 97% of the benefits for ourselves! How great is that for the colonised countries...
Hi Tim! Thank you for having shared such an experience. It's compelling. I do understand what you say and I do agree that white colonisation was a necessity for some third world countries to "evolve" in a more modern way. But you see, that is where our respective view seem to diverge. And you are right as it is true that my ideas stick with those of the 60s. I do favour the intellectual thinking of the 60s as I don't trust anymore the intellectuals of today (though I could've even stopped and content myself with the romantics thinking of the 19th century). So, perhaps things have changed as you say it but it doesn't change the fact that we have over-exploited poor countries to create our wealth. Although we can make a lot of things locally, we still exploit these people today as far as most of the products we buy are still made in these countries (even China as it has become richer exploits in its turn Blangladeshis). What I'm saying is that the exploitation of the poors *is* a commodity and that it has always been viewed that way and I don't think it's going to change tomorrow. Where our view, perhaps, really diverge, is that I do *not* consider modernisation as a evidence of progress. If we make the assumption that "happiness is a function of economical growth", well, yes, of course, I would have to agree with your point. But I don't buy in this assumption. Real happiness is to be found in learning to live in harmony with nature (without destroying the natural landscapes). A happy life has nothing to do with the production of goods nor with over-engineering our lifes. I'm not going to debate about nuclear energy, but for sure if everyone learned not to waste and to live mindfully we probably woudn't need nuclear energy at all. I am conscious that you are maybe going to think I'm unrealistic and I would understand that. But I have experienced some alternative ways of living for myself, I have lived in ecological villages, I am vegan, I don't drive a petroleum car and I don't need to buy food when I can cultivate my own in a garden. Having learned self-sustainability there is no need for capitalism in my life and without capitalism there is no need for exploitation anyone anymore. It is this kind of "education" that I think is necessary and that should be introduced in our teachings, rather than the mainstream education of today that tends only to format children to make of them materialists adepts: producers/consumers, and obedient citizens. To come back to the subject, I cannot deny that my country has made a full lot of cash from over-extracting natural resources in foreign countries, and it still continues to do it today :)
adnspirit adnspirit, I have one more thing to add. You said, "I have experienced some alternative ways of living for myself, I have lived in ecological villages, I am vegan, I don't drive a petroleum car and I don't need to buy food when I can cultivate my own in a garden",,,Those are very good thoughts. I have thought of doing similar things, myself. Your comments got me thinking, and trying to combine your vision of an alternative way of living, with my own thoughts on corporations.....to see if there was any advantage, in combing the two. This is what I came up with: I think you have a good vision of life. There are many good things about it. The weakness of what you are saying, is it does not protect the individual. When people live together, work together, combine resources and work, they need rules. These rules need to be well thought out, in order for the communal living arrangement situation to work out. I have never lived on a commune, but here are my thoughts: Communes seem in some ways to be very much like small corporations. They are arrangements, whereby people live in close proximity, and share work and resources, to make it easier for everyone to live. Very similar to how a corporation works. Now suppose that people on a commune came up with their own "corporate charter".....it could be a legal agreement, on how your communal life corporation were to function. You could include things in the corporation's charter, such as: -what are everyone's role? -who is responsible for what? -what work is required of everyone? -how are disputes settled? -what is private property, what is communal property? -how is money to be generated? -who is responsible for the cooking? cleaning? -who is responsible for the care of children? -if people are issued "shares" in the corporation, and the value of the corporation goes up, thru the acquisition of land or other sources of income, what is the mechanism by which people are able to get out of being part of the corporation, and converting their corporate shares into currency, if they wish to move on with their lives, and leave the commune? -what does the corporation earn it's money from? -If the corporation earns money, who controls it? -are there elections to corporate boards? -what are the powers of corporate/communal boards? -if a corporate/communal board member is not doing their job, what is the mechanism for divesting them of their power, on the communal board? -what happens if someone gets sick? What are the responsibilities of the rest of the commune, to this person? -what happens when people get old? Who is to look after them? -what about babies and childcare? Who is responsible for that? My guess is there is a whole lot of things I have not mentioned, that need to be "ironed out." But if done properly, I would think it would mean that people on the commune could live on much less work, than they do in general, in the American economy. In such a situation, I think I would find some people have a talent for administration, some would have a talent for childcare, or cooking, or tending garden, or the clever use and management of money, or conflict resolution, or looking after the old, or looking after the sick, or leadership in general, or many other things. I would guess that some of these communal situations would work well, if proper rules were in place, and others, for a variety of reasons, would turn into total disasters. How well they worked would be dependent on how well the rules were designed, to fit the needs of the community, and whether it was a good mix of people or not. I think the idea of communes has great potential, to enhance human life. I think it is closer to how we evolved as modern humans: we evolved in close, tight knit communities, of tribes of about 30 people, who worked together, lived communally, supported each other and exchanged resources. Right now people live in consumerist, capitalist economies because this is the economic and and legal political form, which works best. If people want to get rid of capitalism, they will have to start to come up with alternative human survival forms, such as your commune suggestion, that provides a superior alternative to present day consumer capitalism. I think that is possible, and I hope some day, those alternative communities form and evolve as they are desperately needed. If they do, I think they would be a great alternatives to current capitalism. They must start with looking at, and providing for, human needs......social, political, financial, economic....in a way that can competitively exist with capitalism, prove superior to capitalism. If it happens, then slowly over time, these new, superior social arrangements would overtake capitalism. If they worked, human beings would be naturally drawn to a better alternative than capitalism, and growth of ideas like this would be explosive, and eventually replace capitalism.
Creativity is disliked by the corporations because they want dumb robots making them money. They have effectively gotten rid of the 40 hour work week because no one makes enough to live on, let alone have time for art.
what a nice guy Robert is,, to the entrepreneur at the end worried about losing your millions while people starve to death and live on the streets in winter, you should be ashamed..Stop thinking poor people are lazy,, they are generally the hardest workers on the planet ffs.
Thank you, Robert Reich for understanding that economic theories only work on paper and that you must also consider human nature and well-being in the equation. 25:32 So many people have been brainwashed to believe that the world would fall apart without entrepreneurs. When one entrepreneur is unhappy about the tax rate or the minimum wage or a cap on profits, there will always be someone else who is willing to accept less and take his/her place. We have been convinced that entrepreneurs are only out for profits, but that is not always true. The entrepreneur who complains about working long hours does so, because he/she doesn't want to work under a tyrannical business owner. It's the freedom of entrepreneurship that drives many business owners, not just profits. Business owners are often very lazy, wanting to take the larger portion of the profits while adding nothing to the production of the business. It's the employees who make a company successful. If the business owner doesn't like paying a fair living wage or taxes, then the business owner should go get a job and let someone else take their place. 25:50 The GREEDY entrepreneurs will leave, which makes way for those who always wanted to be an entrepreneur. There is NO business without demand and there is NO demand without people who have money.
22:51 I don't believe if people have a UBI they will simply sit around and do nothing. Most people aren't wired that way. Most people want to do something!
You certainly haven't seen a lot of people I have that are free loaders and put alcohol, drugs, cigarettes even above buying their self food! Some above their own kids needs, too. I would never be for UBI and I have listened to a good debate on both sides. edit: I just noticed the date on your post LOL
I want to do something of worth instead I do a make work job that is better done by a hand held device, hate every day and accomplish nothing. Why? I need to eat and pay bills.
29:18 Yahoo lost about $4 Billion. And the CEO got $36 Million. Do you think that is entrepreneurialism?! We have the illusion that the private sector works wonderfully well and that the gov works badly. That is an illusion. ----WE are in rich countries. The idea that you could not spend 10% of your GDP and have a minimum basic income so that everybody is brought up to a certain level of security is to me simply absurd.
+danklord ~So true! And it's the same on all the pages where UBI is presented and in most comments of the opponent side too. Some (too many) people just like to throw their dull opinions to the face of others before (or without) even listening to the given material! Though, with this in mind, I sincerely hope that the introduction of the UBI will give these trolls the opportunity to learn to take time to reflect and to think :)
+Mango In terms of the comments, the one about money seemed like preaching to the choir, and the last one about entrepreneurialism was simply wrong on every level, although it was good that it was asked so that Reich could address misconceptions (in America, I bet that every question would have been a more extreme wording of the entrepreneurial "question") about supply and demand that the right continues to push relentlessly. The question in the middle from the woman was overly wordy, but was at least interesting.
We shouldn't have to avoid the 'iEverything" since we need to adopt a resource-based economy at some point (I'm not talking Zeitgeist level stuff) but SOMETHING. Unconditional basic income, a livable income for all no matter what to keep things going seems like the final evolution to getting to that, we cannot NOT have it and not have mass starvation and poverty. Technology replacing 80%-90% of all jobs will happen at some point, what good will Capitalism be then? A new system built on a foundation of the bones of the old and held up with the tech of the new is what we need. I just don't know how the fuck we get there. Thank goodness for guys like Robert Reich
17:20 We still view ourselves as if we are in economies of scarcity. We are not. The question is not any longer how do we create incentives for people to generate abundance...But how we distribute this abundance. 18:30 maybe they want to do social work...but they can't bc they need to do work they are "assigned" so that they can get paid.
hey Matt, that argument about scarcity is true but its a truism being taken advantage of to convince us of a supposed solution without actually understanding the problem.The problem is not money, its the kind of money we are using now, which is fake money, void of buying power.If you study the difference between private and public money, then I think it will help you see through the arguments that are meant to distance us from doing our homework and understanding how fractional reserve lending fucked our world. .. and therefore the knowledge of how to go back to fractional reserve currency that is not irresponsibly distributed and profited from for private gain. or produced and distributed through public control for the benefit of the public. Private money becomes harder to get therefore it ends up measuring scarcity rather than abundance. The saying that money doesn't grow on trees, is a metaphor meant to make you accept that private money is difficult to come by, , it makes it seem natural.In reality the things grown on trees are sold, so money does grow on trees.When I began to understand the scarcity created by private money, I started to perceive a world of abundance that I didn't perceive before, because if didn't know how it was being hidden from us.Public money, lowers the number on the money, increases the value in the money, makes money less important in our lives, less scarce, and we end up having either way more buying power to acquire a better quality of life without being indebted or it can mean having to work much less to acquire the same as we do now. Opening up time to live a richer life , more time on our hands. less stressed. More independent thought process free from that stress and having more time with family, nature or the past times that we enjoy., big hug James
UBI can reduce retail theft losses , allow for rapid and complete automation of the work place., allow for a healthier population, allow for dignity among the stigmatized SA crowd. turbo charges the economy everyone will be able to live happier lives.The list of benefits is boundless
The problem with the current economic model is that it's unstable. The incentives driving the economy will drive the economy down to the point where it will not function. 1. Entities are driven by maximizing profit. Profit is revenue minus the cost of goods sold. The biggest component that can be controlled is labor. Costs such as material costs are fairly fixed. 2. Most consumers, in count and in amount of total expenditure, get their revenue through labor - they work for companies and get paid for their time, whether hourly or annual salary. 3. The law of economies of scale, the unit cost decreases as volume increases, tends to make the dominant entities in any field more dominant. 4. The total revenue of all the "makers" in the economy cannot exceed the total revenue of their customers, their eventual end-users (over time). In the short term, consumers can borrow money, but that will have to be paid back, with interest. So here you have corporations, the "makers", driving down the cost of labor, either through technology or moving manufacturing to low cost countries, which cuts the revenue to consumers, which in turn causes decrease in demand. So over time, aggregate demand will decrease while ownership of assets will tend to concentrate. This is not a rant against making a profit but an argument that the numbers have to add up and arithmetic (math) rules. Actually the revenues of the "makers" have to be in balance with the income (revenue) of the consumers.
It would take the fear and stress out of daily lives. Then working would reflect an oppurtunity to get ahead. Something people have given up on in droves.
Unconditional Basic Income allows one to work (earn) in activities that is satisfying, perhaps. Allows time/interest in entrpeneuring, artistry, invention, service, many things.
The question the 0.01% would ask ... if they cared to reveal their attitudes to the rest of us, is - "why should the American people think they have any more of a right to a certain standard of living than poverty stricken tribes in South America or Africa?" That is the basic capitalist question, which then because of the realities of the world morphs into the question of why should their not be slavery, because in certain cases slavery is more efficient than all this "regulation" under a democratic capitalist system like the rest of the developed world has. The bottom line is that the difference between the US and the rest of the world is one that the US tried to hide as it insinuates agents into the rest of the developed world and very effectively keeps Americans from knowing what goes on in the rest of the world as they clamp down on Americans right along with all the other "native" peoples of the world. Do you think we would have all these immigrants in our country if we really had a society that we thought would scale and could support the social democracy systems the average people want but cannot or will not fight for? I don't.
Lol old ways of thinking..the most important people ARE NOT the entrepreneurs. How many are not in small ways entrepreneurs if given the chance. His answer is spot on.
ITS NICE TO BRING TRUTH!!!... TO.. THE PEOPLE!!!.NOW!!!...LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY...PLEASE?..{THE MISSING LINKS!!!.... AS WE MOVE INTO 2022!!!}..THANK YOU SIR!!! Congratulations!!!
This is amazing. So, we are in heaven now. If we have technology giving us health and prosperity and now we don't need to suffer for it..? I feel like I'm going to exhaust my appreciation of life. I just can't imagine being happy.
We live in a society that calculates value almost solely on the on the basis of growth over time. The present value of a future sum - which is completely dependent on the percentage growth rate of the initial investment. It will require a complete rethinking of the nature of value and a reliable means of measuring and calculating that value to restructure a society wholly dependent on consumption - getting more, newer and better is not the major aspect of wealth and happiness.
14:52 contradicted by 18:18 Which do you believe, do we NEED the incentives that a market economy can create to do productive things? Or, do we already have incentive to do such things without a market formalisation?
The narrative of the hard work of the entrepreneur: It is true - but it is not necessary. They risk financial loss (that could be handled otherwise - banks create loans out of nothing all the time *, of course it makes sense to have some filter for the projects that are more likely to succeed - but given an initial assessment to sort out the pie in the sky projects, the rules for bankruptcy could be much more generous. The long hours young entrepreneurs have to put in come from the need to do it all on your own and from not daring to hire the skilled workforce (for marketing, for IT, for office work). Now a support agency and a web of business angels and mentors (we could pay for it) could be helpful. If the hopeful entrepreneur does not have to bother much about accounting, the administrative rules and regulation, the legal requirements, the game of marketing and sales - she or he can concentrate of their core talent and skill. That would of course mean the failure would not be as bad, something could be learnt of it, it would not be the financial ruin - the person could try again is she has not lost the appetite. Or take the experience to being an employee. On the other hand the success would have many fathers as well. - We to the hero and worship gig with "successful" entrepreneurs - even CEOs of Multinationals get the treatment (they are NOT entrpreneurs). Remember Lee Iacocca ? Reinhold Messner was victorious at Mount Everest without oxygen, Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole - and the entrepreneur made it against all odds as well. The idea is that the fear of bankruptcy and financial loss will trigger the best effort and resourcefulness in an entrepreneur. That is PARTIALLY true. It can be the kick in the behind to improve your game - w/o financial consequences there would be complacency. On the other hand some people just fold under the stress. So that is a mixed bag. Some entrpreneurs are not good in teamwork, in delegating, in letting go of micormanaging. Doing it all on you own. Having a more cooperative style of entrepreneurship would bring other people to the top. it would result in other services and goods and in another culture in those enterprises. Not better of worse - equally useful but different. Let's not forget. We need, food, housing, healthcare, education, transportation, energy, infrastructure, vacation, restaurants, entertainment and media, losts physical goods. And human interaction and enough time to enjoy friends and family - nothing of those things are rocket science - and we had that covered in the 50s. Our technological progress is not THAT important or impressive. With excemption of medicine and renewable energy (which we do not use nearly enough and we do not research as much as we should). We do NOT NEED the "best" smartphones or facebook - or any smarthphone or social media platfrom. So if that had not - yet - been invented... we could survive - and actually have a good life and work no more than 30 hous. So the entrepreneurship of Jobs or Gates is not THAT crucial as the "hero tales" would have you believe. their products take up some part of investments and disposable income. We would spend the money otherwise if we would not spend it on smarthpnes. Bill Gates did not invent everything, he picked up a good idea and ran with it. Sure a lot of people work in the empires they founded - these people would worke somewhere else for another product (like they did before they came onto the scene). We would do just fine if they had never founded their empires. Someone else would have taken that niche - or the niche would still be open. Or we would have a open source solution in use. Despite the beacons of capitalistic entrepreneurship, and a GDP per capita that would make you believe that the U.S. is a rich nation, they do not even have healthcare for everyone (and the effects of climate change have not yet hit us). The hare brained arguments in that discussion (or Trump's presidency, or the "tax" discussion) makes your wonder if mankind - or rather civilization is going to make it. If we do not solve the economic situation of the developing countries (with terrorism and overpopulation as results) AND climate change there will be another World War. These kind of tensions if they mount (likely more in the developing countries) are usually "solved" in war. If the level of healthcare discussion is any indication we have to fear for mankind - again we need ANOTHER ENLIGHTENMENT - another mindset regarding military, economy, solidarity, capitalism, "American exceptionalism". "Russia interfered in the elections", "bad, bad Syria, Yemen, Qatar, North Korea, Iran", etc. - the fear and war mongering seems to work with a surprising number of citizens . After all - IF mankind is to survive it will be hard to make it AGAINST the U.S. (who hold a dominant economic, finance, and military position - not deserved, but they hold it anyway). .
16:00 The word "work" itself is a very funny word...Most people in this world are doing work they would really rather not do but they have to do. Can a rich country aspire to give more of its citizens the possibility of doing less of what the y don't want to do and what more of what they do want them to do? Obviously the answer, in my view, is YES.
(At 25:05) Reich does not answer the question from the older man who suggested that Reich is contradicting himself because entrepreneurs who will be heavily taxed to pay for a guaranteed income will leave the country to avoid such taxation thus depriving the country of their entrepreneurial talents, jobs that they might create and taxes that they would otherwise pay. Reich does not say how a guaranteed income would be paid for in his response. The old guy is right if taxation to pay for guaranteed income falls mostly on earned income. What Reich apparently does not know (which I find hard to believe since all educated economists know about unearned income, they call it "economic rent") or is unwilling to say (which is more likely for reasons that I cannot fathom since we are on the brink of destruction and there is nothing left to lose career wise) is that an estimated 40+% of GNP everywhere is unearned and that taxation of unearned income does not have negative consequences of the kind that follows from taxing earned incomes. I suggest that the only viable source of revenue to pay for a guaranteed income is unearned income. I say, don't bother to do it otherwise since the results will backfire on everyone as the old guy suggests. Unfortunately I suspect he has no idea about unearned income and if he did would continue to obfuscate the issue as most knowledgable conservatives economists and politicians do. The effects of taxing unearned income are just the opposite from taxing earned income from labor and the profits of real capital invested in the real economy where real goods and services are produced. Taxing unearned income merely takes back to the community the value the community creates. Unearned income? Comes from ownership of assets that give rise to unearned income because the value pocketed is created by the community of all people and by government subsidies (another class of value creation by the community by all tax paying people) that Reich does mention. Such value is not created by anything individual owners of these assets do. All economists understand this. They also know that it is not good for their careers to talk about it except in veiled terms. These assets include all land and natural resources, the profits of monopolized capital, patents (legal monopolies way overextended), copyrights (legal monopolies way over extended), interest on money created out of thin air by banks, subsidies given to individuals and corporations by governments (the depletion allowance to energy companies is a prime example as is the failure of governments to tax carbon dumped into the air free of charge despite its well know destructive effects on the climate) , and more. The largest source of unearned income historically and right up to the present day is ownership of the earth, Her land and natural resources. It is 25-33% of GNP all by itself and the most valuable land and natural resources is highly concentrated in ownership by the top few percentage of people and their corporations and is the historical root cause of the disparity of wealth. Today private ownership of land and natural resources pursued for the unearned income it gives is the THE root cause of the abuse of the environment from which we are more likely to die than the poverty embedded in the system. A guaranteed income should be paid for out of taxation of land value and other sources of unearned income because people create land value and the value of all other sources of unearned income. Failure to fund a guaranteed income out of taxing unearned income especially land value will result in driving up the value of land thus enriching the already wealthy and thereby eliminating the benefit of the guaranteed income. Did you know that you do not have a right to be here on this planet? You have a legal right to be here if you can pay the "landlord" and if you can't there is no guarantee of the right to have a place to be here. A guaranteed income is the answer but it has to be funded out of the value that all people give to land, natural resources and for assenting to legal monopolies and politically extracted subsidies. Good luck.
When people argue against UBI I think they are missing the whole concept that there will be no work. We no longer need to motivate humans to chase a cash reward by working. And no one will want their crappy human labor when they have a machine to do it better. Will people sit around and play video games all day? Yes probably and who cares? You have to put yourself into a whole new mindset because most of us can't connect to the idea that people aren't needed for work anymore. It's never happened in human history so we need new ideas and not pretend like its still 1950 and we need to punish the lazy and motivate them.
The problem is the world population is growing and growing and all these need people need jobs to survive. But at the same time technology is eliminating jobs. At some point the model will have to change on how people survive and provide for themselves besides a job.
Government policies - that help workers to buy and run their own companies - and to share equally in the profits of their labor. A democratic capitalist system needs to be encouraged by government policies. To have laws where 40% of all executive boards to be either women or men - and for 50% of all executive boards to have representatives from all levels of workers. These will help change the culture of companies. Without changing the culture of companies - then you will continue to see companies making decisions that are based on giving dividends and profits to company owners and not in the interest in the worker. One thing we need to remember - workers give their labor for a wage - and without that labor there is no profit. So workers should share more fairly in the profits of their labor.
The answer to that question is growth in the precariat, top line growth for businesses will continue to fall while cost savings can’t offset the falling of top line growth any longer. Basically, the economy will continue to implode.
I wish Reich would run for President. Seems like a smart guy and very likeable. My only concern with basic income is that it might just poor more money into the hands of the rich. If we say gave everyone 2 grand a month for free I would think rent would go through the roof because the landlords would know exactly how much money most people got and how high they could push the rent to get more of it. So ultimately what it would lead to is prices on everything being much higher to the point that the "free" money doesn't buy you that much. However, the republican solution of "lets leave it alone and let the market fix it" isn't working either. Technology and outsourcing have eliminated many low skill jobs forcing more people into college as a last resort.
15:00 Robert Reich: "We need incentives to work hard " ??? - that's so 18th century. One way to boost creativitiy and resourcefulness, is scarcity, fear (of losing your house your social position), competition, ambition. Another at least equally successful way is playfulness, cooperation, joy, counting on your social instincts, incl. STATUS, also ambition. This is how the hunter and gatherer societies got their members into line: feeling dependent on each other (and knowing the people on a personal level who do something for you), status and deep social instincts, the craving for the esteem of our peers (or the deep need to avoid the displeasure of the people who are our PEERS). The wish to do something meaningful, to PARTICIPATE in something meaningful, something larger. Where I live a lot of people volunteer in small groups (Red Cross, mountain guards, firefighters). They band together over events (large outdoor parties) and certain folkloristic rituals (sometimes that can include harmless, ritualized mischief). All of that is a lot of work, and you bet all these people put in this work - for free. Mankind does not live off bread alone (to use the word of the gospel).
Then the man with the accent (German? Swiss?) who accused Dr. Reich of contradicting himself: he made the flawed assumption that the economy dictated by the "i-Everything" will remain only in certain parts of the World and that the "job creators" would simply leave for parts without the "Guaranteed Basic Income" and its attendant taxes. He should move in with Mr. Moonbat.
I am opposed to UBI because it produces greater dependence on the government. We need government to create institutions and policies which LIBERATE us from dependence on government. For example, alternative currencies.
So in the US 150 million jobless Americans will be living on 12,000 dollars per year? I am not saying that the idea of UBI is bad. What I think the problem is is that that will be the only income for billions of people. In order for this to work a household should earn per year what a middle class college educated family actually earns. Lets say around 50,000 per year (25K each person). Then if the person works they could earn more money on top of that. Only then I think the system could work.
Customers create the demand for goods and services. They do not create jobs. Businesses meet those demands and often jobs are created in process. Increasingly automation provides those goods and services. ZERO jobs created.
+Gregory Van Der Mewve Yes, it is quite ludicrous to consider a market in the absence of a government and virtually all economists hold the viewpoint that Reich expressed, although I don't know if it would be covered much in an undergraduate textbook, as it is a very abstract consideration.
The problem is being able to pay for this on a pretax basis - this requires a distribution of the means of production through generalized equity ownership in the econeomy as a right of citizenship. After-tax solutions are highly problematic - it gives a false sense of ownership to the wealthy. Long story.
This idea is based on an unrealistic view of humanity. Most people who get enough to get by will not put the effort in to do anything extra, even if they are struggling to get by. Here in Ireland, there has been a scheme for about 40 years where the long-term unemployed can work for two and a half days a week and do what they like for the rest of the week. When they take part in this scheme they are paid more than their dole and can earn any amount of money over the rest of the week without it affecting this payment. On top of that, they can attend training programmes at no cost, to gain new skills. My brother managed one such scheme for ten years and had to do regular reports on the "development" of those on the scheme. Over 50% did not work outside of the scheme, sometimes as high as 80%. About 10% didn't go back on the dole as they had developed new jobs for themselves, using the new skills they learned on the scheme. Of those who went back on the dole over 60% were still unemployed a year later. They had a guaranteed income yet less than half used this security to open a business, learn a skill, do community work or anything else positive with their spare time. Many spent large parts of their free time in pubs, bookies offices or sitting down watching TV. What's more, he could predict which people would benefit from the scheme, who would end up the same and who would be worse off at the end, following their initial interview. Education was the main predictor. As always, there are exceptions but financial security is only part of the equation and will not solve any problems on it's own. Early life experience, especially at school is a major factor on how we live life and how we develop. Giving us guaranteed money at a later stage will not change that.
It seems to me that what would motivate this UBI thing ... and the acrovym is supposed to be Universal Basic Income ... is population control. Pay people to do things that we need done, like work obviously, but also education, not breaking the law, and not having children if you cannot afford it. The US needs its own 1 child policy, in fact the whole world could benefit from this. Say you will feed, house and take care of people at a higher rate if they do not have children. Of course this is problematic, and a lot of people will resent the very idea of it, but we have a big problem with almost 8 billion people on the planet, the Earth is overtaxed ... and the human population should have a general rule of not even getting close to overtaxing our planet that we depend on for everything.
what are you talking about ... stay home? If you are on SSI then you are not living on your social security, you are living on supplemental social security meaning that you probably did not work or work enough while you were younger?
OK, if you don't have a point then why not just say nothing. If you have a point how about quit beating around the bush and tell me what your issue is? What do you mean stay home?
+jfsfrnd > It is it because you are so afraid that if someone is given money they won't work Well, you think I think that, but I don't. What did I say that made you come to that conclusion? That is exactly what I think ... we are better off if people who are hostile and do not want to work don't work. For instance fast food workers who are unhygienic with food, or people who work with agriculture or animals and abuse them, or who just are not friendly or good with people. My main concern is the population ... there are too many people for this planet.
+justgivemethethruth ~Well, that would not be a problem anymore since the experience shows that more a country is civilised in the sense that the citizens feel actually comfortable enough and free to be themselves, and less they tend to make children! So, introducing the UBI is actually a good way of self-regulating natality.
Increasing concentration of capital in the hands of the very few very rich, polarization of incomes, erosion and further disappearance of the middle class, impoverishment of the working class and redistribution of incomes as a solution. This reminds me of what I read while being a university student in the Soviet Union and studied Marxism-Leninism. At that time, courses on Marxist-Leninist political economy, Marxist-Leninist philosophy and scientific communism were compulsory for all university students. Maybe communist ideas were not completely wrong, maybe they just appeared too early, or attempts of their implementation were inadequate. The "spectre of communism" seems to be out again.
One thing I like about an Unconditional Basic Income is that it will end lifetime marriage. Who needs to get married? Is she or he gives you shit, just leave. Bonus!
It seems to me like one of the central arguments for UBI is that it will free people from shitty jobs. But doesn't that mean there will be less services provided in the market? I think it's cool that the starbucks barista would be free to write haikus all day, but I want my coffee more than I want haikus. That's why she has a job making coffees even though she'd prefer to write haikus, because I, the customer, have a greater demand for coffee than haikus. Sorry. So with fewer desired services in the market, it will cost more to get the lower supply of services. That price will go up for me and the haiku writer alike.
No. You're forgetting the growth of automation technologies. We have robots that can do suturing better than humans: spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/robotics/medical-robots/autonomous-robot-surgeon-bests-human-surgeons-in-world-first But somehow making coffee requires human intelligence? God forbid someone invents a "coffee machine".
Because hipsters like wasting money? The only thing Starbucks offers is slightly different beans and more customization, which is still easily automatable if they wanted to. The idea that their machines can't be made completely automated is laughable.
For some weird reason I think the CEO of Starbucks understands his business better than you do and if he'd prefer for there to be human employees to full automation, that's probably the more customer friendly and therefore profitably thing to do. Just because complete automation is possible, doesn't mean it's feasible or preferable to the owner.
That presumes the present set up was a matter of choice for the CEO, rather than their prior existing limitations. As we see with multiple major fast food chains experimenting with self service kiosks such as Wendys and McDonalds, having human employees now doesn't mean that's their plan going into the future. You'd also be wrong: “This is just the beginning,” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz told BuzzFeed News in March 2015. “I would say on the macro level, you can’t be in any industry today, let alone a consumer business, and not integrate the business through the lens of seamless technology.” "Amid these declarations, many of the country’s largest fast-food chains, including Starbucks and McDonald’s, have rolled out or are in the process of developing smartphone apps and in-store kiosks that shift work from the cashier to the customer. " www.buzzfeed.com/venessawong/robots-are-coming-for-some-fast-food-worker-jobs
The one moonbat who says, "Money is the problem" after bringing up aboriginal societies that do not use money. Yes, Mr. Moonbat - if money is the problem for you then you can try moving into a money-less aboriginal society. Send us a postcard, let us know how that works out.
There are problem with universal basic income, its like playing board games Monopoly, you a given sum of money and you use it either for consumption or investment. There are winner and loser. As the winner (richer) gain more and will charge more for cost of real estate and other commodities. At the end the loser (poor people) will have to pay high price. You can see In real estate at any rich city. Most income will go for housing and transport. Less money from the UBI are actually spent on food and other necessity. The problem will remain the same. The inequality just there. Only homeless people can spent money on food.
It's OUR MONEY! Federal tax is both a direct and an indirect tax, and so is 100% unconstitutional...according to our real 1789 constitution that was changed unconstitutionally to make us no longer sovereign. So all of our federal taxes, our parents, grandparents, great grandparents,...since 1913 were illegal. Karen Hudes, former Counsel to the World Bank, says by hook or by crook, 100% of our federal taxes go to the Corporation of the City of London--different than the regular city of London--and 60% goes from there to the black pope. Rothschild, the British royalty and other shareholders of the corporation of the City of London share the 40%. All surpluses of our trusts were invested in the stock market for the corporation of the United States. IT IS OUR MONEY. Each one of us is owed over $640,000, maybe over $1 million just for that. That doesn't count the gold bonds and interest the "bloodlines" owe us for since 1933, which is over $2 quadrillion!!!!!!!! IT IS OUR MONEY! WE ARE EACH MULTI MILLIONAIRES. IT IS NOT OUR GOVERNMENT GIVING US MONEY. THEY OWE US THIS MONEY THEY HAVE STOLEN FROM ALL OF US, AND THESE ALIEN HYBRID BLUE BLOODS ARE INSOLVENT. PAPERS HAVE BEEN FILED. We will be able to work if we choose to earn more money than we get as a basic income, which will have to be $2000 or more, as how can you live properly with less than that, considering rents, etc.
As the founder of the Neo Luddite movement, I can only say - don't dis us. We are not anti-technology per-se, and even the proto movement was not. Our Manifesto is: "Intellect is a property of a species - not any individual or corporate entity."We actually know quite a lot about AI - not your simplistic tool definition. AI is not anything like the old economical definitions of "technology" and productivity. Sure, it looks like tools now - but not for long. YOur conclusions are correct about Basic Income, but your path there looks suspiciously like "playing to the crowd" all your premises are untested and you do not connect any kind of logic from them and your conclusions that can be tested. As always, fame only proves a proficiency at fame - no other skill needs be conflated.
I'm middle class. When I held a job I did not enjoy I retrained and got a better - higher paying job. I did not need government intervention in my life to bring about a change. Government needs to stay out of our lives. People like you need to stay out of our lives. People need to be left alone to be responsible for themselves and their own actions or inactions for that matter. You are pushing a socialists agenda while pretending to be on the side of the ordinary citizens. There is only one root source of inequality. Intelligence. Your plan to "free people to be creative" will fail because everyone is not and can not be creative.
The answer is to produce fewer people who have low cognative abilities. The average IQ of a welfare recipient is 90. The average IQ of a cashier is 100. Birthrates are the highest amongst the poor. We should be paying anyone with an IQ below 115 to not have children. If we want to reduce the number of people living in poverty we have to reduce the number of children being born into poverty. paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html
I am a supporter of UBI but I may have to rethink it if Reich supports it, this guy has never had a good idea or a real job outside of government. but I guess he can be right on one thing
If you are able bodied and poor in America it is your own fault. You clearly do not understand the consequences of your own actions. You need to watch this video. ruclips.net/video/HdJwHx-QofA/видео.html Have A Plan If You Plan To Have
I like how he kept it professional and didn't attack the man,didn't even use passive aggressive anything, he simply made very informative statements and proved his consistency.
“The fact that we ask, ‘What will people do with all their free time?’ is a sign of impoverishment of our current work lives and imaginations.”
He shoots, he scores.
29:00 "We have socialism for the rich,but most people are in a very cruel kind of capitalism"
He nailed it.
He misuses the term capitalism. We haven't had a capitalistic system for many decades in the USA.
True story: my ex-girlfriend taught art at an Old Folks Home. Most of the residents worked hard, their whole life, raising families. They had little time for such extravagant pursuits like "art". Then they got old. Then all their bills were paid. Then all their basic needs were met. Then art was introduced to them, and they had instruction, supplies, motivation, and no chores to do, no cooking or cleaning to do. Guess what? Out of a population of 200 residents, there were 20-30 people show up each week. And they were amazingly good artists. They became like children again. Happy, and playful and creative. I was kind of blown away with the whole thing. About 10-15% of the population is potentially artists. Imagine if in the United States, 20% of our population were doing art. That's about 60 Million artists.....and how many potential writers are there out there? What kind of creative explosion would a Basic Income help us with? It would be amazing.
Ferdal Dunghyeap
What you fail to realize is that, though there is an awful lot of truth in what you say, it's also true that it's simply about choice. Most people in Third World Countries have such shitty economic prospects, that being enslaved to American corporations is vastly superior to the lives they were leading before America showed up.
+Tim_Bucks ~Hi Tim, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Happy materialists, city boys and political propagandas, will always use this argument to diminish the consequence of colonisation and live with a "good conscience". But Americans in Middle-east is no different from the French in Africa. And the fact is that Africa was happier and healthier before it was colonised. Jared Diamond went to find out the answer to this question for himself and studied the question for 20 years. He wrote an extensive research (available as a book) and the reality does not comply with what we would like to believe... Typical rich western people just won't admit the simple truth. We are not rich because we are smarter or better but simply because we were living in favourable material conditions to start with: it's more a question of geography. Worse, as we became wealthy, we were not human enough to want to help poor countries raise their standards of living, but instead, we found more profitable to actually exploit the poor people themselves and/or their countries' resources while we would keep approximatively 97% of the benefits for ourselves! How great is that for the colonised countries...
Hi Tim! Thank you for having shared such an experience. It's compelling. I do understand what you say and I do agree that white colonisation was a necessity for some third world countries to "evolve" in a more modern way. But you see, that is where our respective view seem to diverge. And you are right as it is true that my ideas stick with those of the 60s. I do favour the intellectual thinking of the 60s as I don't trust anymore the intellectuals of today (though I could've even stopped and content myself with the romantics thinking of the 19th century). So, perhaps things have changed as you say it but it doesn't change the fact that we have over-exploited poor countries to create our wealth. Although we can make a lot of things locally, we still exploit these people today as far as most of the products we buy are still made in these countries (even China as it has become richer exploits in its turn Blangladeshis). What I'm saying is that the exploitation of the poors *is* a commodity and that it has always been viewed that way and I don't think it's going to change tomorrow.
Where our view, perhaps, really diverge, is that I do *not* consider modernisation as a evidence of progress. If we make the assumption that "happiness is a function of economical growth", well, yes, of course, I would have to agree with your point. But I don't buy in this assumption. Real happiness is to be found in learning to live in harmony with nature (without destroying the natural landscapes). A happy life has nothing to do with the production of goods nor with over-engineering our lifes. I'm not going to debate about nuclear energy, but for sure if everyone learned not to waste and to live mindfully we probably woudn't need nuclear energy at all. I am conscious that you are maybe going to think I'm unrealistic and I would understand that. But I have experienced some alternative ways of living for myself, I have lived in ecological villages, I am vegan, I don't drive a petroleum car and I don't need to buy food when I can cultivate my own in a garden. Having learned self-sustainability there is no need for capitalism in my life and without capitalism there is no need for exploitation anyone anymore.
It is this kind of "education" that I think is necessary and that should be introduced in our teachings, rather than the mainstream education of today that tends only to format children to make of them materialists adepts: producers/consumers, and obedient citizens. To come back to the subject, I cannot deny that my country has made a full lot of cash from over-extracting natural resources in foreign countries, and it still continues to do it today :)
adnspirit
adnspirit, I have one more thing to add.
You said, "I have experienced some alternative ways of living for myself, I have lived in ecological villages, I am vegan, I don't drive a petroleum car and I don't need to buy food when I can cultivate my own in a garden",,,Those are very good thoughts. I have thought of doing similar things, myself.
Your comments got me thinking, and trying to combine your vision of an alternative way of living, with my own thoughts on corporations.....to see if there was any advantage, in combing the two.
This is what I came up with:
I think you have a good vision of life. There are many good things about it.
The weakness of what you are saying, is it does not protect the individual. When people live together, work together, combine resources and work, they need rules. These rules need to be well thought out, in order for the communal living arrangement situation to work out.
I have never lived on a commune, but here are my thoughts:
Communes seem in some ways to be very much like small corporations. They are arrangements, whereby people live in close proximity, and share work and resources, to make it easier for everyone to live. Very similar to how a corporation works.
Now suppose that people on a commune came up with their own "corporate charter".....it could be a legal agreement, on how your communal life corporation were to function.
You could include things in the corporation's charter, such as:
-what are everyone's role?
-who is responsible for what?
-what work is required of everyone?
-how are disputes settled?
-what is private property, what is communal property?
-how is money to be generated?
-who is responsible for the cooking? cleaning?
-who is responsible for the care of children?
-if people are issued "shares" in the corporation, and the value of the corporation goes up, thru the acquisition of land or other sources of income, what is the mechanism by which people are able to get out of being part of the corporation, and converting their corporate shares into currency, if they wish to move on with their lives, and leave the commune?
-what does the corporation earn it's money from?
-If the corporation earns money, who controls it?
-are there elections to corporate boards?
-what are the powers of corporate/communal boards?
-if a corporate/communal board member is not doing their job, what is the mechanism for divesting them of their power, on the communal board?
-what happens if someone gets sick? What are the responsibilities of the rest of the commune, to this person?
-what happens when people get old? Who is to look after them?
-what about babies and childcare? Who is responsible for that?
My guess is there is a whole lot of things I have not mentioned, that need to be "ironed out." But if done properly, I would think it would mean that people on the commune could live on much less work, than they do in general, in the American economy.
In such a situation, I think I would find some people have a talent for administration, some would have a talent for childcare, or cooking, or tending garden, or the clever use and management of money, or conflict resolution, or looking after the old, or looking after the sick, or leadership in general, or many other things.
I would guess that some of these communal situations would work well, if proper rules were in place, and others, for a variety of reasons, would turn into total disasters.
How well they worked would be dependent on how well the rules were designed, to fit the needs of the community, and whether it was a good mix of people or not.
I think the idea of communes has great potential, to enhance human life. I think it is closer to how we evolved as modern humans: we evolved in close, tight knit communities, of tribes of about 30 people, who worked together, lived communally, supported each other and exchanged resources.
Right now people live in consumerist, capitalist economies because this is the economic and and legal political form, which works best. If people want to get rid of capitalism, they will have to start to come up with alternative human survival forms, such as your commune suggestion, that provides a superior alternative to present day consumer capitalism.
I think that is possible, and I hope some day, those alternative communities form and evolve as they are desperately needed. If they do, I think they would be a great alternatives to current capitalism. They must start with looking at, and providing for, human needs......social, political, financial, economic....in a way that can competitively exist with capitalism, prove superior to capitalism. If it happens, then slowly over time, these new, superior social arrangements would overtake capitalism. If they worked, human beings would be naturally drawn to a better alternative than capitalism, and growth of ideas like this would be explosive, and eventually replace capitalism.
Creativity is disliked by the corporations because they want dumb robots making them money. They have effectively gotten rid of the 40 hour work week because no one makes enough to live on, let alone have time for art.
Robert B. Reich, I like this guy!
what a nice guy Robert is,, to the entrepreneur at the end worried about losing your millions while people starve to death and live on the streets in winter, you should be ashamed..Stop thinking poor people are lazy,, they are generally the hardest workers on the planet ffs.
26:40 Entrepreneurs...Entrepreneurialism stems from a certain degree of freedom. It's not just ambition.
we did listen to this ourselves you know.
Thank you, Robert Reich for understanding that economic theories only work on paper and that you must also consider human nature and well-being in the equation.
25:32 So many people have been brainwashed to believe that the world would fall apart without entrepreneurs. When one entrepreneur is unhappy about the tax rate or the minimum wage or a cap on profits, there will always be someone else who is willing to accept less and take his/her place. We have been convinced that entrepreneurs are only out for profits, but that is not always true. The entrepreneur who complains about working long hours does so, because he/she doesn't want to work under a tyrannical business owner. It's the freedom of entrepreneurship that drives many business owners, not just profits.
Business owners are often very lazy, wanting to take the larger portion of the profits while adding nothing to the production of the business. It's the employees who make a company successful. If the business owner doesn't like paying a fair living wage or taxes, then the business owner should go get a job and let someone else take their place.
25:50 The GREEDY entrepreneurs will leave, which makes way for those who always wanted to be an entrepreneur. There is NO business without demand and there is NO demand without people who have money.
22:51 I don't believe if people have a UBI they will simply sit around and do nothing. Most people aren't wired that way. Most people want to do something!
You certainly haven't seen a lot of people I have that are free loaders and put alcohol, drugs, cigarettes even above buying their self food! Some above their own kids needs, too. I would never be for UBI and I have listened to a good debate on both sides. edit: I just noticed the date on your post LOL
I want to do something of worth instead I do a make work job that is better done by a hand held device, hate every day and accomplish nothing. Why? I need to eat and pay bills.
@@JustMe-ec2ph LOL, yer an idiot.
What an enlightening speech by professor Reich. 👍
so sick and tired of the current cancerous system.
Here is how to change it>> facebook.com/projectMKND/
It's just completely one sided in favor of the rich and greedy. The working man sees no prosperity.
Robert B. Reich for President!
+ChispyReddit - he supports Bernie Sanders, and knows that Sanders would be excellent for the economy!!
For Bernie's Fed.
28:35 What are the other means?
Bernie lost the nomination. Time to defeat Trump.
It would never happen because he actually makes sense.
29:18 Yahoo lost about $4 Billion. And the CEO got $36 Million. Do you think that is entrepreneurialism?! We have the illusion that the private sector works wonderfully well and that the gov works badly. That is an illusion. ----WE are in rich countries. The idea that you could not spend 10% of your GDP and have a minimum basic income so that everybody is brought up to a certain level of security is to me simply absurd.
Those comments were so stupid. EVERY. ONE. I'm glad Reich owned them.
+danklord ~So true! And it's the same on all the pages where UBI is presented and in most comments of the opponent side too. Some (too many) people just like to throw their dull opinions to the face of others before (or without) even listening to the given material! Though, with this in mind, I sincerely hope that the introduction of the UBI will give these trolls the opportunity to learn to take time to reflect and to think :)
Amen!
+Mango In terms of the comments, the one about money seemed like preaching to the choir, and the last one about entrepreneurialism was simply wrong on every level, although it was good that it was asked so that Reich could address misconceptions (in America, I bet that every question would have been a more extreme wording of the entrepreneurial "question") about supply and demand that the right continues to push relentlessly. The question in the middle from the woman was overly wordy, but was at least interesting.
We shouldn't have to avoid the 'iEverything" since we need to adopt a resource-based economy at some point (I'm not talking Zeitgeist level stuff) but SOMETHING. Unconditional basic income, a livable income for all no matter what to keep things going seems like the final evolution to getting to that, we cannot NOT have it and not have mass starvation and poverty. Technology replacing 80%-90% of all jobs will happen at some point, what good will Capitalism be then? A new system built on a foundation of the bones of the old and held up with the tech of the new is what we need. I just don't know how the fuck we get there. Thank goodness for guys like Robert Reich
17:20 We still view ourselves as if we are in economies of scarcity. We are not. The question is not any longer how do we create incentives for people to generate abundance...But how we distribute this abundance. 18:30 maybe they want to do social work...but they can't bc they need to do work they are "assigned" so that they can get paid.
hey Matt, that argument about scarcity is true but its a truism being taken advantage of to convince us of a supposed solution without actually understanding the problem.The problem is not money, its the kind of money we are using now, which is fake money, void of buying power.If you study the difference between private and public money, then I think it will help you see through the arguments that are meant to distance us from doing our homework and understanding how fractional reserve lending fucked our world. .. and therefore the knowledge of how to go back to fractional reserve currency that is not irresponsibly distributed and profited from for private gain. or produced and distributed through public control for the benefit of the public. Private money becomes harder to get therefore it ends up measuring scarcity rather than abundance. The saying that money doesn't grow on trees, is a metaphor meant to make you accept that private money is difficult to come by, , it makes it seem natural.In reality the things grown on trees are sold, so money does grow on trees.When I began to understand the scarcity created by private money, I started to perceive a world of abundance that I didn't perceive before, because if didn't know how it was being hidden from us.Public money, lowers the number on the money, increases the value in the money, makes money less important in our lives, less scarce, and we end up having either way more buying power to acquire a better quality of life without being indebted or it can mean having to work much less to acquire the same as we do now. Opening up time to live a richer life , more time on our hands. less stressed. More independent thought process free from that stress and having more time with family, nature or the past times that we enjoy., big hug James
I love what he said at point 17:20 and just before. I got it.
I see you cling to your "Capitalism forever" beliefs.
How i wish Robert Reich and Andrew Yang would get the opportunity to have a thoughtful discussion.
11:45 Not just widening inequality. It is widening insecurity.
UBI can reduce retail theft losses , allow for rapid and complete automation of the work place., allow for a healthier population, allow for dignity among the stigmatized SA crowd.
turbo charges the economy everyone will be able to live happier lives.The list of benefits is
boundless
The problem with the current economic model is that it's unstable.
The incentives driving the economy will drive the economy down to the point where it will not function.
1. Entities are driven by maximizing profit. Profit is revenue minus the cost of goods sold. The biggest component that can be controlled is labor. Costs such as material costs are fairly fixed.
2. Most consumers, in count and in amount of total expenditure, get their revenue through labor - they work for companies and get paid for their time, whether hourly or annual salary.
3. The law of economies of scale, the unit cost decreases as volume increases, tends to make the dominant entities in any field more dominant.
4. The total revenue of all the "makers" in the economy cannot exceed the total revenue of their customers, their eventual end-users (over time). In the short term, consumers can borrow money, but that will have to be paid back, with interest.
So here you have corporations, the "makers", driving down the cost of labor, either through technology or moving manufacturing to low cost countries, which cuts the revenue to consumers, which in turn causes decrease in demand.
So over time, aggregate demand will decrease while ownership of assets will tend to concentrate.
This is not a rant against making a profit but an argument that the numbers have to add up and arithmetic (math) rules.
Actually the revenues of the "makers" have to be in balance with the income (revenue) of the consumers.
It would take the fear and stress out of daily lives. Then working would reflect an oppurtunity to get ahead. Something people have given up on in droves.
"Labor of Love" instead of the "Labor of Lucre".
Just imagine reducing stress alone on people...so many health problems would be reduced as well
@@gsmith6595 Presere Life?... As It Should Be!!!....Diverting Attention?...
No Because We Want To Live!!
Unconditional Basic Income allows one to work (earn) in activities that is satisfying, perhaps. Allows time/interest in entrpeneuring, artistry, invention, service, many things.
Watching this in November 2019! The only one candidate running on the UBI platform is Andrew Yang!
19:52 Is money the problem? 20:18 It seems like money is the problem. Add if we leave that out. Maybe we have a solution. 20:35 Yes.***
People want to be productive. In order to create, they need education and mentorship. Not just a dollar.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Switzerland is an enormously wealthy country. Very few Swiss understand where money comes from because it was just always there for them
The question the 0.01% would ask ... if they cared to reveal their attitudes to the rest of us, is - "why should the American people think they have any more of a right to a certain standard of living than poverty stricken tribes in South America or Africa?"
That is the basic capitalist question, which then because of the realities of the world morphs into the question of why should their not be slavery, because in certain cases slavery is more efficient than all this "regulation" under a democratic capitalist system like the rest of the developed world has.
The bottom line is that the difference between the US and the rest of the world is one that the US tried to hide as it insinuates agents into the rest of the developed world and very effectively keeps Americans from knowing what goes on in the rest of the world as they clamp down on Americans right along with all the other "native" peoples of the world.
Do you think we would have all these immigrants in our country if we really had a society that we thought would scale and could support the social democracy systems the average people want but cannot or will not fight for? I don't.
Lol old ways of thinking..the most important people ARE NOT the entrepreneurs. How many are not in small ways entrepreneurs if given the chance.
His answer is spot on.
ITS NICE TO BRING TRUTH!!!... TO.. THE PEOPLE!!!.NOW!!!...LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY...PLEASE?..{THE MISSING LINKS!!!.... AS WE MOVE INTO 2022!!!}..THANK YOU SIR!!!
Congratulations!!!
#yang2020 #humanityfirst #yanggang202
This is amazing. So, we are in heaven now. If we have technology giving us health and prosperity and now we don't need to suffer for it..? I feel like I'm going to exhaust my appreciation of life. I just can't imagine being happy.
We live in a society that calculates value almost solely on the on the basis of growth over time. The present value of a future sum - which is completely dependent on the percentage growth rate of the initial investment. It will require a complete rethinking of the nature of value and a reliable means of measuring and calculating that value to restructure a society wholly dependent on consumption - getting more, newer and better is not the major aspect of wealth and happiness.
14:52 contradicted by 18:18
Which do you believe, do we NEED the incentives that a market economy can create to do productive things? Or, do we already have incentive to do such things without a market formalisation?
Although every society has a small number of couch potatoes it's true that most of us have something we enjoy doing.
The narrative of the hard work of the entrepreneur: It is true - but it is not necessary. They risk financial loss (that could be handled otherwise - banks create loans out of nothing all the time *, of course it makes sense to have some filter for the projects that are more likely to succeed - but given an initial assessment to sort out the pie in the sky projects, the rules for bankruptcy could be much more generous. The long hours young entrepreneurs have to put in come from the need to do it all on your own and from not daring to hire the skilled workforce (for marketing, for IT, for office work). Now a support agency and a web of business angels and mentors (we could pay for it) could be helpful. If the hopeful entrepreneur does not have to bother much about accounting, the administrative rules and regulation, the legal requirements, the game of marketing and sales - she or he can concentrate of their core talent and skill. That would of course mean the failure would not be as bad, something could be learnt of it, it would not be the financial ruin - the person could try again is she has not lost the appetite. Or take the experience to being an employee. On the other hand the success would have many fathers as well. - We to the hero and worship gig with "successful" entrepreneurs - even CEOs of Multinationals get the treatment (they are NOT entrpreneurs). Remember Lee Iacocca ?
Reinhold Messner was victorious at Mount Everest without oxygen, Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole - and the entrepreneur made it against all odds as well.
The idea is that the fear of bankruptcy and financial loss will trigger the best effort and resourcefulness in an entrepreneur. That is PARTIALLY true. It can be the kick in the behind to improve your game - w/o financial consequences there would be complacency. On the other hand some people just fold under the stress.
So that is a mixed bag.
Some entrpreneurs are not good in teamwork, in delegating, in letting go of micormanaging. Doing it all on you own.
Having a more cooperative style of entrepreneurship would bring other people to the top. it would result in other services and goods and in another culture in those enterprises.
Not better of worse - equally useful but different.
Let's not forget. We need, food, housing, healthcare, education, transportation, energy, infrastructure, vacation, restaurants, entertainment and media, losts physical goods. And human interaction and enough time to enjoy friends and family - nothing of those things are rocket science - and we had that covered in the 50s. Our technological progress is not THAT important or impressive. With excemption of medicine and renewable energy (which we do not use nearly enough and we do not research as much as we should).
We do NOT NEED the "best" smartphones or facebook - or any smarthphone or social media platfrom. So if that had not - yet - been invented... we could survive - and actually have a good life and work no more than 30 hous.
So the entrepreneurship of Jobs or Gates is not THAT crucial as the
"hero tales" would have you believe. their products take up some part of
investments and disposable income. We would spend the money otherwise
if we would not spend it on smarthpnes. Bill Gates did not invent
everything, he picked up a good idea and ran with it. Sure a lot of
people work in the empires they founded - these people would worke
somewhere else for another product (like they did before they came onto
the scene).
We would do just fine if they had never founded their empires. Someone else would
have taken that niche - or the niche would still be open. Or we would have a open source solution in use.
Despite the beacons of capitalistic entrepreneurship, and a GDP per capita that would make you believe that the U.S. is a rich nation, they do not even have healthcare for everyone (and the effects of climate change have not yet hit us). The hare brained arguments in that discussion (or Trump's presidency, or the "tax" discussion) makes your wonder if mankind - or rather civilization is going to make it.
If we do not solve the economic situation of the developing countries (with terrorism and overpopulation as results) AND climate change there will be another World War.
These kind of tensions if they mount (likely more in the developing countries) are usually "solved" in war.
If the level of healthcare discussion is any indication we have to fear
for mankind - again we need ANOTHER ENLIGHTENMENT - another mindset
regarding military, economy, solidarity, capitalism, "American
exceptionalism".
"Russia interfered in the elections", "bad, bad Syria, Yemen, Qatar, North
Korea, Iran", etc. - the fear and war mongering seems to work with a
surprising number of citizens .
After all - IF mankind is to survive it will be hard to make it AGAINST the U.S. (who hold a dominant economic, finance, and military position - not deserved, but they hold it anyway).
.
28:35 It is affordable.
At 28:35 he said: "taxes are not the only means by which a Universal Basic Income can be supported".
What are the other means?
I spy Guy Standing, especially 25:46
3:55 Jobs ARE being displaced.
+Matt Orfalea Agree. All this "creative destruction" is a kind of religious litany. It has no basis in fact.
It had at the time Schumpeter came up with the theory. Not any more though.
16:00 The word "work" itself is a very funny word...Most people in this world are doing work they would really rather not do but they have to do. Can a rich country aspire to give more of its citizens the possibility of doing less of what the y don't want to do and what more of what they do want them to do? Obviously the answer, in my view, is YES.
(At 25:05) Reich does not answer the question from the older man who suggested that Reich is contradicting himself because entrepreneurs who will be heavily taxed to pay for a guaranteed income will leave the country to avoid such taxation thus depriving the country of their entrepreneurial talents, jobs that they might create and taxes that they would otherwise pay. Reich does not say how a guaranteed income would be paid for in his response. The old guy is right if taxation to pay for guaranteed income falls mostly on earned income. What Reich apparently does not know (which I find hard to believe since all educated economists know about unearned income, they call it "economic rent") or is unwilling to say (which is more likely for reasons that I cannot fathom since we are on the brink of destruction and there is nothing left to lose career wise) is that an estimated 40+% of GNP everywhere is unearned and that taxation of unearned income does not have negative consequences of the kind that follows from taxing earned incomes. I suggest that the only viable source of revenue to pay for a guaranteed income is unearned income.
I say, don't bother to do it otherwise since the results will backfire on everyone as the old guy suggests. Unfortunately I suspect he has no idea about unearned income and if he did would continue to obfuscate the issue as most knowledgable conservatives economists and politicians do. The effects of taxing unearned income are just the opposite from taxing earned income from labor and the profits of real capital invested in the real economy where real goods and services are produced. Taxing unearned income merely takes back to the community the value the community creates.
Unearned income? Comes from ownership of assets that give rise to unearned income because the value pocketed is created by the community of all people and by government subsidies (another class of value creation by the community by all tax paying people) that Reich does mention. Such value is not created by anything individual owners of these assets do. All economists understand this. They also know that it is not good for their careers to talk about it except in veiled terms. These assets include all land and natural resources, the profits of monopolized capital, patents (legal monopolies way overextended), copyrights (legal monopolies way over extended), interest on money created out of thin air by banks, subsidies given to individuals and corporations by governments (the depletion allowance to energy companies is a prime example as is the failure of governments to tax carbon dumped into the air free of charge despite its well know destructive effects on the climate) , and more. The largest source of unearned income historically and right up to the present day is ownership of the earth, Her land and natural resources. It is 25-33% of GNP all by itself and the most valuable land and natural resources is highly concentrated in ownership by the top few percentage of people and their corporations and is the historical root cause of the disparity of wealth. Today private ownership of land and natural resources pursued for the unearned income it gives is the THE root cause of the abuse of the environment from which we are more likely to die than the poverty embedded in the system.
A guaranteed income should be paid for out of taxation of land value and other sources of unearned income because people create land value and the value of all other sources of unearned income. Failure to fund a guaranteed income out of taxing unearned income especially land value will result in driving up the value of land thus enriching the already wealthy and thereby eliminating the benefit of the guaranteed income. Did you know that you do not have a right to be here on this planet? You have a legal right to be here if you can pay the "landlord" and if you can't there is no guarantee of the right to have a place to be here. A guaranteed income is the answer but it has to be funded out of the value that all people give to land, natural resources and for assenting to legal monopolies and politically extracted subsidies. Good luck.
When people argue against UBI I think they are missing the whole concept that there will be no work. We no longer need to motivate humans to chase a cash reward by working. And no one will want their crappy human labor when they have a machine to do it better. Will people sit around and play video games all day? Yes probably and who cares? You have to put yourself into a whole new mindset because most of us can't connect to the idea that people aren't needed for work anymore. It's never happened in human history so we need new ideas and not pretend like its still 1950 and we need to punish the lazy and motivate them.
movie guy99 There are no such machines, technology only drive up the cost not down, the more tech the more intensive labor is required.
The problem is the world population is growing and growing and all these need people need jobs to survive. But at the same time technology is eliminating jobs. At some point the model will have to change on how people survive and provide for themselves besides a job.
They would have done it already. Doesn't look like a humanitarian approach to this transition is their plan.
13:51 ***That anxiety itself is a social bad.
#Yang2020 🔥🚀
Government policies - that help workers to buy and run their own companies - and to share equally in the profits of their labor. A democratic capitalist system needs to be encouraged by government policies. To have laws where 40% of all executive boards to be either women or men - and for 50% of all executive boards to have representatives from all levels of workers.
These will help change the culture of companies.
Without changing the culture of companies - then you will continue to see companies making decisions that are based on giving dividends and profits to company owners and not in the interest in the worker.
One thing we need to remember - workers give their labor for a wage - and without that labor there is no profit. So workers should share more fairly in the profits of their labor.
I think a better question is what if we don't have a basic income.
Sam Fitt UBI is very unlikely at least in our lifetime.
The answer to that question is growth in the precariat, top line growth for businesses will continue to fall while cost savings can’t offset the falling of top line growth any longer.
Basically, the economy will continue to implode.
self driving cars will kill surface transportation jobs.
lol the first question on what can we do instead of work is funny...he has a great answer!
This would be great for me...I'm gonna retire soon and I no longer want to pay into the system...I want to start EXTRACTING and putting nothing back.
You should openly support Andrew Yang, Professor!!!
I wish Reich would run for President. Seems like a smart guy and very likeable. My only concern with basic income is that it might just poor more money into the hands of the rich. If we say gave everyone 2 grand a month for free I would think rent would go through the roof because the landlords would know exactly how much money most people got and how high they could push the rent to get more of it. So ultimately what it would lead to is prices on everything being much higher to the point that the "free" money doesn't buy you that much. However, the republican solution of "lets leave it alone and let the market fix it" isn't working either. Technology and outsourcing have eliminated many low skill jobs forcing more people into college as a last resort.
I would love to see Reich as President
15:00 Robert Reich: "We need incentives to work hard " ??? - that's so 18th century. One way to boost creativitiy and resourcefulness, is scarcity, fear (of losing your house your social position), competition, ambition. Another at least equally successful way is playfulness, cooperation, joy, counting on your social instincts, incl. STATUS, also ambition. This is how the hunter and gatherer societies got their members into line: feeling dependent on each other (and knowing the people on a personal level who do something for you), status and deep social instincts, the craving for the esteem of our peers (or the deep need to avoid the displeasure of the people who are our PEERS). The wish to do something meaningful, to PARTICIPATE in something meaningful, something larger. Where I live a lot of people volunteer in small groups (Red Cross, mountain guards, firefighters). They band together over events (large outdoor parties) and certain folkloristic rituals (sometimes that can include harmless, ritualized mischief). All of that is a lot of work, and you bet all these people put in this work - for free.
Mankind does not live off bread alone (to use the word of the gospel).
#securethebag
What about Unconditional Basic Income in India?
They have done experiments with this that have been successful. You can look up articles about ubi on vox news or medium.com.
The so-called "aggregate demand problem" is referred to as the "primary contradiction of capitalism"
Then the man with the accent (German? Swiss?) who accused Dr. Reich of contradicting himself: he made the flawed assumption that the economy dictated by the "i-Everything" will remain only in certain parts of the World and that the "job creators" would simply leave for parts without the "Guaranteed Basic Income" and its attendant taxes. He should move in with Mr. Moonbat.
I am opposed to UBI because it produces greater dependence on the government. We need government to create institutions and policies which LIBERATE us from dependence on government. For example, alternative currencies.
The thing is right now our government is own-they do not serve our interest.
So in the US 150 million jobless Americans will be living on 12,000 dollars per year? I am not saying that the idea of UBI is bad. What I think the problem is is that that will be the only income for billions of people. In order for this to work a household should earn per year what a middle class college educated family actually earns. Lets say around 50,000 per year (25K each person). Then if the person works they could earn more money on top of that. Only then I think the system could work.
Personal attention jobs are low wage jobs.
Customers create the demand for goods and services. They do not create jobs.
Businesses meet those demands and often jobs are created in process. Increasingly automation provides those goods and services.
ZERO jobs created.
Minister of Labor????
It is ludicrous to have a market without a government? what a fruit cake.
+Gregory Van Der Mewve Yes, it is quite ludicrous to consider a market in the absence of a government and virtually all economists hold the viewpoint that Reich expressed, although I don't know if it would be covered much in an undergraduate textbook, as it is a very abstract consideration.
The problem is being able to pay for this on a pretax basis - this requires a distribution of the means of production through generalized equity ownership in the econeomy as a right of citizenship. After-tax solutions are highly problematic - it gives a false sense of ownership to the wealthy. Long story.
9:50 iEverything
This idea is based on an unrealistic view of humanity. Most people who get enough to get by will not put the effort in to do anything extra, even if they are struggling to get by.
Here in Ireland, there has been a scheme for about 40 years where the long-term unemployed can work for two and a half days a week and do what they like for the rest of the week. When they take part in this scheme they are paid more than their dole and can earn any amount of money over the rest of the week without it affecting this payment. On top of that, they can attend training programmes at no cost, to gain new skills.
My brother managed one such scheme for ten years and had to do regular reports on the "development" of those on the scheme. Over 50% did not work outside of the scheme, sometimes as high as 80%. About 10% didn't go back on the dole as they had developed new jobs for themselves, using the new skills they learned on the scheme. Of those who went back on the dole over 60% were still unemployed a year later.
They had a guaranteed income yet less than half used this security to open a business, learn a skill, do community work or anything else positive with their spare time. Many spent large parts of their free time in pubs, bookies offices or sitting down watching TV.
What's more, he could predict which people would benefit from the scheme, who would end up the same and who would be worse off at the end, following their initial interview. Education was the main predictor. As always, there are exceptions but financial security is only part of the equation and will not solve any problems on it's own. Early life experience, especially at school is a major factor on how we live life and how we develop. Giving us guaranteed money at a later stage will not change that.
We don't need the "entrepreneurs". Tax them out of the country and make them leave their businesses behind for their workers to own and operate.
universal military welfare, we buy more jets and ships a tenth or eleventh aircraft carrier.... damn...
It seems to me that what would motivate this UBI thing ... and the acrovym is supposed to be Universal Basic Income ... is population control.
Pay people to do things that we need done, like work obviously, but also education, not breaking the law, and not having children if you cannot afford it. The US needs its own 1 child policy, in fact the whole world could benefit from this. Say you will feed, house and take care of people at a higher rate if they do not have children.
Of course this is problematic, and a lot of people will resent the very idea of it, but we have a big problem with almost 8 billion people on the planet, the Earth is overtaxed ... and the human population should have a general rule of not even getting close to overtaxing our planet that we depend on for everything.
what are you talking about ... stay home?
If you are on SSI then you are not living on your social security, you are living on supplemental social security meaning that you probably did not work or work enough while you were younger?
OK, if you don't have a point then why not just say nothing. If you have a point how about quit beating around the bush and tell me what your issue is? What do you mean stay home?
+jfsfrnd
> It is it because you are so afraid that if someone is given money they won't work
Well, you think I think that, but I don't. What did I say that made you come to that conclusion?
That is exactly what I think ... we are better off if people who are hostile and do not want to work don't work. For instance fast food workers who are unhygienic with food, or people who work with agriculture or animals and abuse them, or who just are not friendly or good with people.
My main concern is the population ... there are too many people for this planet.
+justgivemethethruth ~Well, that would not be a problem anymore since the experience shows that more a country is civilised in the sense that the citizens feel actually comfortable enough and free to be themselves, and less they tend to make children! So, introducing the UBI is actually a good way of self-regulating natality.
Increasing concentration of capital in the hands of the very few very rich, polarization of incomes, erosion and further disappearance of the middle class, impoverishment of the working class and redistribution of incomes as a solution. This reminds me of what I read while being a university student in the Soviet Union and studied Marxism-Leninism. At that time, courses on Marxist-Leninist political economy, Marxist-Leninist philosophy and scientific communism were compulsory for all university students.
Maybe communist ideas were not completely wrong, maybe they just appeared too early, or attempts of their implementation were inadequate. The "spectre of communism" seems to be out again.
Whos going to unclog the drains when no one 'has' to work?
First audience question says it all. Here is what we need to create for all mankind>> facebook.com/projectMKND/
Slow clap for his last response.
One thing I like about an Unconditional Basic Income is that it will end lifetime marriage. Who needs to get married? Is she or he gives you shit, just leave. Bonus!
It seems to me like one of the central arguments for UBI is that it will free people from shitty jobs. But doesn't that mean there will be less services provided in the market? I think it's cool that the starbucks barista would be free to write haikus all day, but I want my coffee more than I want haikus. That's why she has a job making coffees even though she'd prefer to write haikus, because I, the customer, have a greater demand for coffee than haikus. Sorry. So with fewer desired services in the market, it will cost more to get the lower supply of services. That price will go up for me and the haiku writer alike.
No. You're forgetting the growth of automation technologies. We have robots that can do suturing better than humans: spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/robotics/medical-robots/autonomous-robot-surgeon-bests-human-surgeons-in-world-first But somehow making coffee requires human intelligence? God forbid someone invents a "coffee machine".
The coffee machine has been around for decades yet still people go to Starbucks! Starbucks even has machines, but they require a human operator.
Because hipsters like wasting money? The only thing Starbucks offers is slightly different beans and more customization, which is still easily automatable if they wanted to. The idea that their machines can't be made completely automated is laughable.
For some weird reason I think the CEO of Starbucks understands his business better than you do and if he'd prefer for there to be human employees to full automation, that's probably the more customer friendly and therefore profitably thing to do. Just because complete automation is possible, doesn't mean it's feasible or preferable to the owner.
That presumes the present set up was a matter of choice for the CEO, rather than their prior existing limitations. As we see with multiple major fast food chains experimenting with self service kiosks such as Wendys and McDonalds, having human employees now doesn't mean that's their plan going into the future.
You'd also be wrong:
“This is just the beginning,” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz told BuzzFeed News in March 2015. “I would say on the macro level, you can’t be in any industry today, let alone a consumer business, and not integrate the business through the lens of seamless technology.”
"Amid these declarations, many of the country’s largest fast-food chains, including Starbucks and McDonald’s, have rolled out or are in the process of developing smartphone apps and in-store kiosks that shift work from the cashier to the customer. "
www.buzzfeed.com/venessawong/robots-are-coming-for-some-fast-food-worker-jobs
The one moonbat who says, "Money is the problem" after bringing up aboriginal societies that do not use money. Yes, Mr. Moonbat - if money is the problem for you then you can try moving into a money-less aboriginal society. Send us a postcard, let us know how that works out.
. . . oh, wait - you need money to send a postcard!
Jay.C.Fotografie Do you know what money is? If you're on a deserted island let's see what money can do for you.
There are problem with universal basic income, its like playing board games Monopoly, you a given sum of money and you use it either for consumption or investment. There are winner and loser. As the winner (richer) gain more and will charge more for cost of real estate and other commodities. At the end the loser (poor people) will have to pay high price. You can see In real estate at any rich city. Most income will go for housing and transport. Less money from the UBI are actually spent on food and other necessity. The problem will remain the same. The inequality just there. Only homeless people can spent money on food.
It's OUR MONEY! Federal tax is both a direct and an indirect tax, and so
is 100% unconstitutional...according to our real 1789 constitution that
was changed unconstitutionally to make us no longer sovereign. So all
of our federal taxes, our parents, grandparents, great
grandparents,...since 1913 were illegal. Karen Hudes, former Counsel to
the World Bank, says by hook or by crook, 100% of our federal taxes go
to the Corporation of the City of London--different than the regular
city of London--and 60% goes from there to the black pope. Rothschild,
the British royalty and other shareholders of the corporation of the
City of London share the 40%. All surpluses of our trusts were invested
in the stock market for the corporation of the United States. IT IS OUR
MONEY. Each one of us is owed over $640,000, maybe over $1 million
just for that. That doesn't count the gold bonds and interest the
"bloodlines" owe us for since 1933, which is over $2 quadrillion!!!!!!!!
IT IS OUR MONEY! WE ARE EACH MULTI MILLIONAIRES. IT IS NOT OUR
GOVERNMENT GIVING US MONEY. THEY OWE US THIS MONEY THEY HAVE STOLEN
FROM ALL OF US, AND THESE ALIEN HYBRID BLUE BLOODS ARE INSOLVENT.
PAPERS HAVE BEEN FILED. We will be able to work if we choose to earn more
money than we get as a basic income, which will have to be $2000 or more, as
how can you live properly with less than that, considering rents, etc.
The original text of the Constitution explicitly gives the Congress the authority to levy taxes.
As the founder of the Neo Luddite movement, I can only say - don't dis us. We are not anti-technology per-se, and even the proto movement was not. Our Manifesto is: "Intellect is a property of a species - not any individual or corporate entity."We actually know quite a lot about AI - not your simplistic tool definition. AI is not anything like the old economical definitions of "technology" and productivity. Sure, it looks like tools now - but not for long. YOur conclusions are correct about Basic Income, but your path there looks suspiciously like "playing to the crowd" all your premises are untested and you do not connect any kind of logic from them and your conclusions that can be tested. As always, fame only proves a proficiency at fame - no other skill needs be conflated.
I'm middle class.
When I held a job I did not enjoy I retrained and got a better - higher paying job.
I did not need government intervention in my life to bring about a change.
Government needs to stay out of our lives.
People like you need to stay out of our lives.
People need to be left alone to be responsible for themselves and their own actions or inactions for that matter.
You are pushing a socialists agenda while pretending to be on the side of the ordinary citizens.
There is only one root source of inequality. Intelligence.
Your plan to "free people to be creative" will fail because everyone is not and can not be creative.
But everyone simply can and will get a better job. makes sense
The answer is to produce fewer people who have low cognative abilities.
The average IQ of a welfare recipient is 90.
The average IQ of a cashier is 100.
Birthrates are the highest amongst the poor.
We should be paying anyone with an IQ below 115 to not have children.
If we want to reduce the number of people living in poverty we have to reduce the number of children being born into poverty.
paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html
5:40 4 and a half million people are going to be losing their jobs
I am a supporter of UBI but I may have to rethink it if Reich supports it, this guy has never had a good idea or a real job outside of government. but I guess he can be right on one thing
Why did he not come out in support for Andrew Yang. When even mankiw the economist came out for Yang?
SOCIALISM!!!!!!! COMMIE!!!!!!!
If you are able bodied and poor in America it is your own fault.
You clearly do not understand the consequences of your own actions.
You need to watch this video.
ruclips.net/video/HdJwHx-QofA/видео.html
Have A Plan If You Plan To Have
The Fatal Arrogance...
Trump/Reich 2016