I don’t think OP argued to bail out the rich. They only argued that UBI doesn’t make sense.
Maybe UBI makes sense. Maybe it doesn’t. I’m on the fence, personally. But bailing out the way we did in 2008-2009, where CEOs and other saboteurs got massive bonuses instead of jail time, was highly immoral. Some of believe that that caused latent inflation.
Bailing out the rich has nothing to do with UBI.
I’ll welcome an UBI scheme that doesn’t wreck personal agency and responsibility. But the onus is on the proponents to prove that it isn’t a terminal civilization’s 21st century version of the Roman “bread and circus”
Btw, a great implicit UBI is to
- reduce the work week to 30 hours. Shares existing jobs with more people
- change the “part time” rules to discourage hiring “part time” employees to avoid benefits
- increase minimum pay. Yes, that too. But it has to be local government in a manner that makes sense to their local economy. Alternatively the federal imposed min. wage should depend on geography
- Bring back weekends to low wage earners (my wife’s entire family works at Walmart or similar places. I see how weekend instability wrecks their ability to enjoy being together). Either close on weekend, or have workers choose a week day they always get off. Mandate 50% overtime for work on weekends.
- Put a 15% tariffs on all goods (no exceptions!). This acts like a sales tax (counter cyclical to the economy. Big plus one) that isn’t as regressive as a sales tax since it encourages local jobs for cheap things and for fancy things the rich pay).
Didn't want to imply or criticize OP in any way, just make an observation.
I think your arguments against UBI make sense, I also know a lot of good pro arguments.
But ultimately, whatever the arguments, as long as we bail out the rich, I don't care about potential downsides of UBI. Nobody cares about the downsides of bailing out the rich, so why should I care about the downsides of bailing out the poor?
In short, if: "UBI wrecks personal agency and responsibility", than so does QE, bailouts etc. for the rich. So these points aren't the real reason why the one thing happens and the other doesn't.
Fully agree with all your points, a better labour market is better than UBI.
Maybe UBI makes sense. Maybe it doesn’t. I’m on the fence, personally. But bailing out the way we did in 2008-2009, where CEOs and other saboteurs got massive bonuses instead of jail time, was highly immoral. Some of believe that that caused latent inflation.
Bailing out the rich has nothing to do with UBI.
I’ll welcome an UBI scheme that doesn’t wreck personal agency and responsibility. But the onus is on the proponents to prove that it isn’t a terminal civilization’s 21st century version of the Roman “bread and circus”
Btw, a great implicit UBI is to
- reduce the work week to 30 hours. Shares existing jobs with more people
- change the “part time” rules to discourage hiring “part time” employees to avoid benefits
- increase minimum pay. Yes, that too. But it has to be local government in a manner that makes sense to their local economy. Alternatively the federal imposed min. wage should depend on geography
- Bring back weekends to low wage earners (my wife’s entire family works at Walmart or similar places. I see how weekend instability wrecks their ability to enjoy being together). Either close on weekend, or have workers choose a week day they always get off. Mandate 50% overtime for work on weekends.
- Put a 15% tariffs on all goods (no exceptions!). This acts like a sales tax (counter cyclical to the economy. Big plus one) that isn’t as regressive as a sales tax since it encourages local jobs for cheap things and for fancy things the rich pay).