Another California City Launches a Two-Year Guaranteed Income Program (msn.com) 136
The Los Angeles Times reports a new guaranteed income pilot program which within a few months "will begin giving 800 Compton residents free cash for a two-year period," according to mayor Aja Brown:
So far, private donors have contributed $2.5 million to the Fund for Guaranteed Income, a charity headed by Nika Soon-Shiong, daughter of Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong... Each selected family will receive at least a few hundred dollars on a recurring basis, as well as tools that will help them access financial guidance, Brown said. Parents or other residents caring for dependents may receive more. Anonymous researchers will track the participants' spending and well-being.
Brown said she had been aware of the concept of universal guaranteed income for years, but got to see it in action in February 2019 when Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs launched the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, which gave 125 residents $500 a month for 18 months... The concept of giving citizens free money with no strings attached was once a radical idea that has begun gaining traction, partly as a result of the pandemic. Opponents of guaranteed income have argued that extra cash with no strings attached would lead to higher levels of unemployment and that recipients might spend the money on drugs or alcohol or other "temptation goods."
But decades of research has indicated that very few people work less after receiving cash transfers, and those who do use usually spend more with their families, said Halah Ahmad, head of public relations and policy communications for the Jain Family Institute, a nonprofit research firm that helps design guaranteed income pilot programs. In a review of 19 studies on cash transfers between 1997 and 2014 by the World Bank, authors found that "Almost without exception, studies find either no significant impact or a significant negative impact of transfers on temptation goods."
Brown said she had been aware of the concept of universal guaranteed income for years, but got to see it in action in February 2019 when Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs launched the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, which gave 125 residents $500 a month for 18 months... The concept of giving citizens free money with no strings attached was once a radical idea that has begun gaining traction, partly as a result of the pandemic. Opponents of guaranteed income have argued that extra cash with no strings attached would lead to higher levels of unemployment and that recipients might spend the money on drugs or alcohol or other "temptation goods."
But decades of research has indicated that very few people work less after receiving cash transfers, and those who do use usually spend more with their families, said Halah Ahmad, head of public relations and policy communications for the Jain Family Institute, a nonprofit research firm that helps design guaranteed income pilot programs. In a review of 19 studies on cash transfers between 1997 and 2014 by the World Bank, authors found that "Almost without exception, studies find either no significant impact or a significant negative impact of transfers on temptation goods."
If the govt gave me $500 a month (Score:2)
I'd put it in the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
This is still (Score:2)
Now scale it up (Score:1)
125 people paid $9,000 over the course of 18 months amounts to a hair over a million bucks. Great start! Now try that for the entire population of California, and tell me where the money (about 185 billion per year, if you only include people 18 and over) will come from.
Re:Now scale it up (Score:5, Informative)
The GDP of California is 3.2 Trillion and the fifth largest economy in the world.
As such, that would be a little less than 6% of their economy and would actually be one of their cheapest anti-poverty measures. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
6% of their economy
Engineers and business men will go to work, but plumbers, construction workers, burger flippers, and welders will stay home and drink and beat their spouses. The GDP will plummet for sure.
Re: (Score:3)
6% of their economy
Engineers and business men will go to work, but plumbers, construction workers, burger flippers, and welders will stay home and drink and beat their spouses. The GDP will plummet for sure.
Well over half of American GDP is based on consumer spending.
We practically asked for this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also it wouldn't actually cost $185 billion because the tax system could be adjusted to claw 100% of it back from people who don't need it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Now scale it up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't we already have unemployment? Welfare? Food stamps? Free food banks? What exactly is UBI for?
In at least one variation, it's supposed to replace those things. I don't know enough about all of the plans to know if that is how it would end up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Now scale it up (Score:2)
Except that wages are way way below the levels they should be. Median wages have retreated in the last 40 years compared to inflation.
In1985 my father could own a large house two cars 5 acres a boat and afford a stay at home wife with the kids.
In 2015 at the same salary I could afford a house half that size let alone a wife or kids.
The 2010 economic recovery recovered everything but wages. Right now amazon and hobby lobby have nation wide minimum wages of $15 -$17 an hour. It is the only way to hire peop
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of reasons wages stagnated (they were recovering, pre-covid numbers were awesome), not one was a lack of a government funded allowance. The very notion that a radical new wealth-redistribution program is a reasonable approach to restoring conditions from 40 years ago is pretty silly. No offense, but since your father didn't buy that house using universal income, I don't see how it co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Relative to the total economy is a terrible way to measure the cost of new government programs. The current state budget is $214.8B [wikipedia.org]. So an extra $185B would increase the budget, and thereby the taxes, by 86%. In a state where people already complain about the taxes being too high.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, keep in mind you take out current welfare spending.
if it is ~100 billion already, making it 185 only adds 85
https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]
"California, with its suffocating cost of living and huge population, is home to an inordinate number of households receiving public assistance. In fact, with $103 billion going toward welfare, the Golden State’s spending on the financially needy is more than the next two on the list combined."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
125 people paid $9,000 over the course of 18 months amounts to a hair over a million bucks. Great start! Now try that for the entire population of California, and tell me where the money (about 185 billion per year, if you only include people 18 and over) will come from.
Well for starters we spend about $462 billion in welfare per year, or about $2200 per person over 18. That wouldn't completely go away with a $6k yearly UBI, but if even half of it went away you are nearly 20% there. Then there is $1250 per person on police and prisons, which would also slightly reduce if the primary catalyst for crime was reduced. Even a 20% reduction goes a long way.
The other 75% or so comes from progressive taxation. If actually put into place, you would probably see something like no ta
Re: (Score:1)
The top 25% of tax paying households would then pay for the benefits of the rest.
Why try to be successful then? Why not be a hack and let the successful pay you for it? A person in the 26th percentile will be worse off for being in the 25th percentile.
Re: (Score:1)
2.5M from California (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You talk like you you're always giving everyone medical treatment or a everybody draws a basic income. Neither of those things are true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. Only a handful countries like Switzerland and Norway spend more than $500 a month (or $6,000 a year) per person [wikipedia.org] on healthcare.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The same way you give away UBI. You steal it from someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way that modern capitalists make money, they steal it from someone else. Well, sometimes there's rent seeking and others ways to insert themselves as the middle men in economic transactions. But actual labor, that's just so unnecessary, it's what the riffraff do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Billionaires that pay just $750...
So? The people employed by that person are paying taxes they otherwise would not be paying. If you make that billionaire pay more, jobs will be lost and taxes will go down. being a BILLIONAIR means NET WORTH, not income. You cant tax a person on NETWORTH. Imagine if you tried to tax bezos on his net worth. he would have to liquidate so much stock that it would crash and no nobody has a job and the gov gets NO TAX from him. If you tax people on their paintings, they will have to sell the paintings in mas
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Exactly. That's why I refuse to pay my taxes too. After all, the tax money that I spent on luxuries for me kept people employed, and they paid *their* taxes, so it's totally fair. I don't know why everyone doesn't operate this way - we could all refuse to pay our taxes on grounds that someone else will do it for us!
It is also completely impossible to tax someone on their net worth. There's just no possible way to do it! After all, no-one would buy anything off the internet anymore if we taxed Jeff Bezos! Ju
Re: 2.5M from California (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! "Free" medical. Amazing. How do you get all the doctors and nurses and people to work for free? I mean, they aren't getting paid right? It is FREE!
Almost nothing is free by the definition you are implying. The word would lose almost all meaning. If you took it to an even greater extreme of including conservation of energy then I'm pretty sure nothing is free.
Free "anything" simply means the person receiving the goods or services is not directly paying for them. Of course someone is paying for all the personnel and raw materials required throughout the supply chain. I understand you know that and are just making a weak political point, but you might no
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! "Free" medical. Amazing. How do you get all the doctors and nurses and people to work for free? I mean, they aren't getting paid right? It is FREE!
Almost nothing is free by the definition you are implying. The word would lose almost all meaning. If you took it to an even greater extreme of including conservation of energy then I'm pretty sure nothing is free.
Free "anything" simply means the person receiving the goods or services is not directly paying for them. Of course someone is paying for all the personnel and raw materials required throughout the supply chain. I understand you know that and are just making a weak political point, but you might not realize how weak your position is.
It's also how a lot of the people who are pushing the idea are selling it, put more honestly. One of the great maxims about free stuff is that it tends to be worth what you paid for it--unless it's being done to get your goodwill and/or sell you on a product, the person who is paying for it doesn't have much incentive to care about the quality, and often has incentive to care about getting as much as possible as cheaply as possible. Which, in the case of free medical, includes being very cheap about payin
Re: (Score:2)
Of course someone is paying for all the personnel and raw materials required throughout the supply chain.
Yeah, I AM. And I will leave the state for a better tax situation, or leave the country for a better tax situation if my taxes go up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I AM [paying for it]. And I will leave the state for a better tax situation, or leave the country for a better tax situation if my taxes go up.
You may leave, although you almost certainly won't. The research is quite clear that the wealthy do not flee areas of high taxation for that reason. It is just an empty threat used to keep taxation low.
Re: (Score:2)
It is just an empty threat used to keep taxation low.
Are you sure?
During that 12-month period, California saw a net loss of just over 138,000 people, while Texas had a net increase of more than 79,000 people. Arizona gained more than 63,000 residents, and Nevada gained more than 38,000.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1... [cnbc.com]
The top states with net domestic migration loss were California (-203,414)
https://www.census.gov/newsroo... [census.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
First off, interstate relocation is not the same as international relocation, which is why it is important for these types of programs to be national instead of state run to reduce race to the bottom.
Second, middle class migration is far more common than wealthy migration, and they are generally fleeing high cost of living in general not high taxes. 2.4% of US millionaires move to a different state each year, while the working class is closer to 4.5%. Most people fleeing states are because they are a poor e
Re: (Score:2)
which is why it is important for these types of programs to be national instead of state run to reduce race to the bottom.
I'd call it a race to the top.
Second, middle class migration is far more common than wealthy migration
Middle class folks also pay taxes. Source: I am middle class and live in CA.
All of the links you gave are for general migration
Did you even read the title of the article?
Californians fed up with housing costs and taxes
But anyway, by all means, keep telling us overtaxed and underserviced Californians living in dystopian hell that we will never leave the state. I don't think that's going to keep us here, but keep up the good fight.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd call it a race to the top.
"Race to the bottom" is a term specifically used to describe government deregulation or tax reduction (or the resistance to regulation or new taxes) in order to attract or retain economic activity. If you want to use these terms correctly, if you describe the worry that taxes will cause economic activity to move elsewhere you are describing the concept of a race to the bottom.
Middle class folks also pay taxes. Source: I am middle class and live in CA.
For the most part middle class folks don't pay for the services of the poor and middle class. At best they pay for their own services
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to need to retake econ 101, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the big problems with US healthcare is that almost all of the significant actors in the system are incentivized to increase rather than decrease health care costs. Insurers are one of the culprits. That's the case in many other western countries as well, but to a much smaller degree: health care spending in the US is just over $10k a year per capita, almost twice the amount spent by similar countrie
To funny "Anonymous researchers" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Crime? (Score:1)
What good is cash if people are going to steal your stuff and cops aren't really able to do anything about it? Sounds like CA is trying to attract people back but that's kind of hard when you walk down the street in fear of druggies.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, California is still affected by the federal government's war on unprofitable drugs. That really shits on the whole country, and much of the rest of the world besides.
opponents (Score:1)
"Opponents of guaranteed income have argued that extra cash with no strings attached would lead to higher levels of unemployment and that recipients might spend the money on drugs or alcohol or other "temptation goods.""
No, the biggest argument against it is who pays, scalability, affect on economy, affect on job market, affect on inflation etc etc. Those that blindly support it cherry pick an argument like the above.
Re: (Score:3)
"Opponents of guaranteed income have argued that extra cash with no strings attached would lead to higher levels of unemployment and that recipients might spend the money on drugs or alcohol or other "temptation goods.""
No, the biggest argument against it is who pays, scalability, affect on economy, affect on job market, affect on inflation etc etc. Those that blindly support it cherry pick an argument like the above.
They were only mentioning the reasonable arguments against UBI. It is reasonable to be worried about what would happen to our economy if the working class felt less inclined to work. It also used to be a reasonable concern they would spend it mostly on "temptation goods" but there has been a significant amount of research in the past decades to show that is a very low concern.
Worrying about how it would be paid for is a red herring from conservatives, since progressive taxation would easily pay for such mea
Re: (Score:2)
Worrying about how it would be paid for is a red herring from conservatives, since progressive taxation would easily pay for such measures.
you were doing well till you made this moronic statement. No one has ever been able to come up with a model that is easily paid for yet, they pretty much all would require a huge amount of taxation reform and tax increases as the current taxation base doesn't come close to covering the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Motivation for people to work is a big thing... and not just for those not working or at the very bottom. I actually worry far less about a UBI for those unemployed. Hey, if I could pay people to just smoke weed and play video games and they'd otherwise wouldn't burden society, I would.
I worry far more about those actually working. The key to a UBI is that everyone gets it regardless of circumstance. I'm a hardworking person with so-called immigrant values. Why would I work if I could grab a UBI without any
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if I could pay people to just smoke weed and play video games and they'd otherwise wouldn't burden society, I would.
You lost me there.
It's private money, not gov funds (Score:3)
"So far, private donors have contributed $2.5 million"
Hey, if it's private money, not a big deal. In my universe, private people can spend their own money in any smart, dumb, legal way they want to.
Certainly, giving people money for nothing isn't the best use of money. You'll get people buying stem cells, mechanical stilts, a hundred cups of coffee, and/or burglar tool sets. However, the occasional goos soul might spend their free money buying food for hobos.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying they are going to buy stem cells to improve their night vision, so they can use the mechanical stilts to climb up to a window late at night while on coffee to rob a place using burglar tools? Sounds legit.
Re: (Score:2)
"So far, private donors have contributed $2.5 million"
Hey, if it's private money, not a big deal. In my universe, private people can spend their own money in any smart, dumb, legal way they want to.
Certainly, giving people money for nothing isn't the best use of money. You'll get people buying stem cells, mechanical stilts, a hundred cups of coffee, and/or burglar tool sets. However, the occasional goos soul might spend their free money buying food for hobos.
+1 Futurama reference
Re: It's private money, not gov funds (Score:2)
What's the world coming to when one can't get even one mod point for subtlety working futurama references into a post while still making a salient point? Some of my best work.
800 people only? (Score:2)
Any experiment is worth doing, but you've created an elite class (granted $500 a month won't get you country club membership.) It's not really mimicing UBI exactly, but OK I guess it will provide some useful data. Although we kinda already have that experiment it's called trust fund kids. Can we google what happens to them?
Corona Unemplyment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not UBI (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Freeman supported UBI as a substitute for government programs. Being strong believers in the free market they believed that spending money on government programs was wasteful. Giving that money directly to people instead would results in markets and free enterprises that would deliver these same services more efficiently than the government ever could.
Giving people free money and keeping government programs completely misses the point.
Re: (Score:2)
No the problem is with the current UBI proposals were are seeing. Unless you're talking about shutting down government programs and sending that money directly to the public you're not advocating the same UBI system that Milton Freeman. You're not talking about delivering services more efficiently. You're just talking about giving away money, which is dumb.
That's not social security (Score:2)
What does $500/month actually buy in California? Not a place to live, for sure; maybe a cheap tent on a sidewalk somewhere. Even food may be tricky at that price level, given that the homeless have a more difficult time cooking their own (which is both the cheapest and healthiest option, but requires a kitchen with a minimum level of utensils). So your idea of social security is "if you play it right, you might be able to avoid starvation"?
The socialist nations of Europe do this better: the unemployed are n
Another useless experiment (Score:2)
Why don't all of these experiments combine and do an actual, true UBI test - provide a living wage guaranteed income to 3 generations of people in one small city. Don't pick "only people who need it", give it to everyone from a local millionaire to the people who live under the bridge. You need 3 generations so that you can study the behavior of parents when they know their kids have lifetime UBI, and behavior of kids having parents who have UBI and knowing their kids will have UBI too. You can even limit t
Re: (Score:1)
UBI proponents like to wave their hands over how to pay for it
Enter proponents of MMT, which also can never be put to a real test, but only can be revealed like a magic trick
Agenter (Score:1)
It is still a radical idea. (Score:1)
It's starting to seem like there is a coordinated effort to promote this, inherently ridiculous, idea with excessive coverage of miniscule pseudo-implementations that are too small and too carefully targeted (cherry-picked sample = worthless results) "experiments" designed to show positive resu
Re: (Score:2)
When you are in control, and people become reliant on you for everything, you will always be in control.
It has, and always will be, a power play disguised as humanitarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
mmmm drugs... (Score:1)
Just print it (Score:3)
In the past year, the Fed has increased the M2 money supply by $3 TRILLION dollars, and our Federal Government has increased the US budget deficit by another $3 TRILLION (if there is another "stimulus" bill, it will be over $4 TRILLION). Most of that was used to keep stock prices inflated (in the case of the Fed) or to provide tax cuts to rich people. This is over 4x higher than any previous administration.
If the US can spend this kind of money to enrich wealthy people it can goddamn well spend a small fraction of that to make people's lives better.
https://apnews.com/article/vir... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Government doing stupid things. Lets double down on it, amiright?
Slingin' Benjamins around Compton? (Score:2)
Financial Education (Score:2)
They would be better off investing the money in teaching people about how to handle money.
I have the strength of my convictions. (Score:2)
Spend that money solving homelessness, damnit! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The increase in pie happens from the many people who want to make more than the UBI for themselves (which they are free to do) who can either afford to take the risk of going into business for themselves or who can get more customers early on because people have more to spend on them.
It doesn't matter if you have the best new idea in the world if you can't take enough time to put it out there or nobody can afford it when you do.
Re:free crack (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post is either disingenuous or a gross simplification of economics. The idea that modern economics are like pie is to basically say all economies are purely agrarian...
Moreover, UBI doesn't try to make the second variable equal among all members. UBI is a split approach between a level of socialism and capitalism where all citizens are guaranteed a certain amount income which should be enough for basic substance. Of course people want more and so many of those people would partake in traditional labor. These people may make a little less under this system but if they took a second, they would realize they have actual social security which is that no matter what happens to their job, they are still provided a "basic income". Likewise many environments would feel much better and likely be safer -- for instance areas with unemployed. As companies move to greater automation, UBI is the means by which capitalists "pay forward" the hard labor of the working class which has built up a given nation. This in turn avoids mass unemployment which is essentially what precedes events of large social unrest.
Now as for the pie. Well the gist of the idea is that when people have free-time they will eventually find something to produce with it. This in turn means the economy actually grows thought the sectors of growth are normally more in the arts. However producing arts is important and periods in time like the renaissance are full of art. What else is the renaissance full of -- inventions. Funny enough if you go search for some TED talks you will find some on how useful boredom is. The problem is that there is the conclusion that "busyness equals business" but that's not true at all. Just because you are keeping everyone busy with a 40-hour job doesn't mean a lot is being produced and if you want to keep everyone busy you probably are going to just have to start making up meaningless work. Likewise capitalism actually is fueled by unemployment. Having an unemployed workforce in any area keeps the wages down because they can take the job at a cheaper rate. The trick is balancing this number of unemployed which is where UBI fits the bill, by providing these people with the security to be unemployed but if subject experts, they still will be interested in taking a decent wage for their area of expertise.
I agree with some of your points like education reform and while I agree some about capital investment I think there is a blatant mistake in your conclusion which is that we are debt-based economy and not all individuals start with the same initial capital. As such those with larger capital to start with often have more opportunities presented to them despite education or fiscal ability. Just consider Trump and how many bankruptcies he has filed. Do you think it's wise to take financial advise from Trump? Many more examples of this could be given but frankly these one trumps them all...
As for the pie and equal wages to all -- there is a lot you seem to be missing or misrepresenting.
Sources:
https://www.ted.com/talks/mano... [ted.com]
https://www.ted.com/playlists/... [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Los Angeles and California is more liberal than many surrounding states and locations. They tax the heck out of everyone (California has the among the highest taxes in the nation from sales tax to state income tax) and half of it is for all their social programs 'to end homelessness'. Yet what did it all just end up doing? It created more homelessness.
and the original quote
"decades of research has indicated that very few people work less after receiving cash transfers"
Is a lie and misleading on so many fron
Re: (Score:3)
Los Angeles and California is more liberal than many surrounding states and locations. They tax the heck out of everyone (California has the among the highest taxes in the nation from sales tax to state income tax) and half of it is for all their social programs 'to end homelessness'. Yet what did it all just end up doing? It created more homelessness.
Heck yes, this.
If you ask any politician from city councilmember to governor they tell you homelessness is the #1 problem in the state, yet the problem has gotten orders of magnitude worse. Why do we keep electing these people when they can't even work themselves back to zero on their stated #1 problem?
Folks that don't live in CA really can't comprehend what it's like. It's full on dystopian sci-fi future here. There is a park / nature trail by my home where I used to walk my dog and ride bikes with my chil
Re: (Score:2)
while you can look back at the "good old days"
Yes, 5 years ago. The "good old days". Now call me boomer.
you seem to offer no solutions to any of the issues
Hundreds of politicians can't figure it out, I'm hardly ashamed that I can't. And friend, if you had the answers you wouldn't be arguing with me on /. in the middle of the day. Humility is a wonderful personality trait.
you don't want to admit that you probably would just like these people to burn, be chemically castrated, or something equally as heinous
Leftist theory 101: if someone doesn't agree, demonize them. There's no comeback to that!
Re: free crack (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of those things are things that exist, they're simple ideals with reality in the middle where you refuse to acknowledge you live.
Re: free crack (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now you want to give people money to produce even more unwanted children
Sure why not? More votes for them, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well the gist of the idea is that when people have free-time they will eventually find something to produce with it.
Good one.
The folks that fit your description are already productive individuals in the current system. The ones that don't are going to be transformed by making them more comfortable in their current state.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though we don't know that because UBI has never really been applied on any large scale for any prolonged period of time
Sure... but the problem is that once you have it, there's no getting rid of it. No politician will ever support taking it away, no matter what it does to society. That behooves us to really, really think about what we are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shame you probably think you actually know a single fucking thing you're talking about. You've packed a lot of stupidly wrong things in a single post.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see:
Total Dollars on earth: 80 trillions ($80,0000,000,000.00 DLLS)
Total number of humans on earth: 7 billion (7,000,000,000)
80 Trillions divided by 7 billion aprox. $11,000.00 DLLS.
On Sunday, money is distributed.
On Monday the %1 get all those loans to re-build
their empires because they are too big to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
This opinion is basically 2 centuries old, ignoring every possible advancement we have made in behavioral economics, decision science, cognitive science, and psychology along the way. Bravo for holding strong to such an utterly backwards and unsubstantiated position.
First, UBI does nothing to increase the pie? Do you know what grows our economy? Nearly 70% of GDP is consumer spending. Our economy lives and dies by that category of spending alone. Do you know what *does not* add to consumer spending? Having
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me if they gave this money to residents of Rancho Palace Verdes instead of Compton, the money would be put to better use.
Umm, the Venus sisters are from Compton so there are parents there who understand the idea of good money making decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
$100,000 degree in Compton? How about a $10 burger-flipping training course for realism?
Re: (Score:2)
You will still need to go to work. Your $100,000 debt for your Communication degree will not be discharged. I get it that you want UBI and the government to pay off your debt so you can write insightful blogs and play video games, but it ain't gonna happen in this country.
Oh, I'm sorry, were you ignorantly speaking the humans you assume will be employable in 20 years?
Go yell at the robots and AI instead. I promise you'll get farther, 'cause you know what else is going to become a problem far faster than you ASS-U-ME?
Having enough jobs for the humans.
And no amount of just-go-get-an-education is gonna fix that. Solve for Greed, or go yell at the machines.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a considerably bigger assumption that robots and AI will permanently replace even a tenth of the working population. Time and time again new industries spring up. Jobs being obsoleted by technology has been a thing since time immemorial. In fact technology ends up making new classes of jobs possible. It wasn't until we had boats that we had sailors.
Re: (Score:2)
The only possible way someone in Compton has a 100k debt for a degree is if a scam university that the US government approved signed them up and then taught them nothing. Then, when congress passed a law to negate that debt, The Secretary of Education illegally ignored that law and then ignored the court order telling them to negate that debt.
Re: (Score:2)