Let's talk about Universal Basic Income

[AztecSDSU]

Injecting my own arguments into this, you've touched on one of the ideas behind BI. We have dozens of different government agencies to deal with poverty and homelessness specifically. Not to mention things like corporate welfare and minimum wage, among any number of other laws passed in an attempt to fix these social ills. Can you imagine something more inefficient and massive?

We're spending so much money figuring out how to force people to work, how to make more work to force them to, who to give money to, how much to give, when to stop, etc., that we're better off just giving everyone money in the first place and cutting all these ridiculous programs and regulations. A single program to address all these problems; one so simple, a small child could understand and run it.

That's pretty much it, government is not the most efficient organization. So instead of having 50 different agencies overseeing the USDA's food stamp program, different agencies overseeing individual state aid programs, different agencies handling TANF, different agencies handling second 8 housing, more agencies overseeing any state supplemental housing program we get rid of all of it.
We also get rid of things like private homeless shelters, private food pantries, and other private poverty related charities. Americans give a lot of donations to groups that work on poverty and yet we never really seem to have less poverty. We can get rid of all this inefficiency with a BI and then the individual is on his/her own to use to take care of themselves. If they're mentally unable then that BI can be transferred to an institution that cares for them. Basically undoing all the damage Ronald Regan did to state mental health care that has contributed so much to the homeless problem. If an able person does stupid stuff with the money then we're perfectly justified in saying tough luck, learn your lesson.

 

[HannahT]

No worries



Do you have a solution?

Do you have a better method?

Governments are huge organizations and the larger an organization, the more inefficiencies will be present. Large private corporations also have huge inefficiencies present. It is really difficult to measure how inefficient an organization is.

But what would you have the government do? If it seriously downsized it would have to lay off thousands of people and it would get blasted for putting people out of work. And then it would get blasted for not providing services and for cutting programs that people deem as valuable. And it would get blasted for failing to look out for the populace.


One of the biggest problem with democracy right now though: even if citizens do come up with a better way, how would we ever implement it? How do we get our politicians and leaders to listen to us: the people?

Large corporations can't afford the amount of waste here. I can't see a large corporation keeping their employees off work for 8 months plus to see a doctor they deemed okay to state - physical therapy needed. Then they are off work for more time to do that therapy, and in her case waiting for surgeory while paying them the entire time.

Large companies aren't going to pay what we the tax payers did for a website that doesn't work. They would have legal department involved, and trial scheduled. Remember they have stock holders and a board to answer too. They will lose their job, and not just get shuffled to a different part of the country to get them out of the way.

Do they have waste? I'm sure they do, but they also have ways of dealing with that. They have to be, because they can go out of business if they don't. Government doesn't have to worry about that.

Stream lining the process, making things more efficient so we have MORE resources to go to things that they claim they can't pay for now is a bad thing? They may have to move people around, or lay people off I'm sure.
Thousands? I'm not so sure about that. Remember people are always speaking about how they are short staffed - move them!

If we could get some of the major drama queens out of office that scream the sky is falling every time someone from the opposite side mentions anything? That would be a great START! Sadly, most adults that are truly worth their weight in gold don't want to get into politics. Why would they? I don't know how to fix that.

Remember 'we the people' at this point are enablers. The politicians are like shopaholics, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. We enabled them by giving them MORE, and MORE! Where is the true incentive here? Sadly, we have fallen on that part ourselves.

You know what would be nice? Making it popular to start with something small. For example, you know how much federal office space, supplies, machines, etc that go unused and will never be used? Yet we pay for all that every year to watch it collect dust. Sell the real estate we don't use, the supplies, and machines, etc. We have stuff we have held onto for 20+ years, and have never used it...but we still have it. Yet, the government wants it to sit. Then ask you for more money, because they need it.

The Realtor could make a commission. Places could have landlords that hire staff to run the building - while that location is paying property tax we don't get now, janitors could be hired to clean the buildings, security guards would need to be increase due to traffic, etc. No one wants to do it because its a headache. Yet, if it will get them votes to show HOW much they care? That may start a trend!

You know what else would be nice? Comparing which governmental rep is responsible for the least amount of pork to pay off his political favors. Making sure that is popular to show on their report card for 'we the people'. If they get a 'D' on their report card - let them scramble to explain it to us. YOu know why? All we get today is some silly comment about how that amount of money is just a drip in the ocean. If we put together all those drips? You might be surprised at what we are spending....but they claim now they need more money to pay for it.

Believe me its not just them - we the enablers are part of the problem too.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Large corporations can't afford the amount of waste here.

hahahahaha



lol

Large corporations are often in better shape to afford waste than are small companies. As long as you keep your revenue outpacing your expenses, you're good. If you have a successful product, that's not too hard to do. Hedge funds and other financial firms waste tons of money on extravagant perks, but they can afford it, because they pull in tons of money.

I can't see a large corporation keeping their employees off work for 8 months plus to see a doctor they deemed okay to state - physical therapy needed. Then they are off work for more time to do that therapy, and in her case waiting for surgeory while paying them the entire time.

You don't watch pro sports, do you? No, athletes don't wait for 8 months to see the doctor, but they can spend a significant amount of time on the DL, and your neighbor wouldn't be out of work with a strained shoulder. And athletic contracts typically stipulate that they continue to get paid while on the DL.

Large companies aren't going to pay what we the tax payers did for a website that doesn't work.

Yeah, actually, they may, depending on what their contract stipulates.

They would have legal department involved, and trial scheduled. Remember they have stock holders and a board to answer too. They will lose their job, and not just get shuffled to a different part of the country to get them out of the way.

Things aren't over at the federal level. It's going to take time to resolve all of this - just as it would in the corporate world.

Do they have waste? I'm sure they do, but they also have ways of dealing with that. They have to be, because they can go out of business if they don't.

No, not necessarily. As I said, a successful product can enable a ton of waste.

Government doesn't have to worry about that.

No, they have to worry about voters.

 

[Joykins]

Large corporations can't afford the amount of waste here. I can't see a large corporation keeping their employees off work for 8 months plus to see a doctor they deemed okay to state - physical therapy needed. Then they are off work for more time to do that therapy, and in her case waiting for surgeory while paying them the entire time.

Large corporations typically carry insurance to cover these eventualities.

Large companies aren't going to pay what we the tax payers did for a website that doesn't work. They would have legal department involved, and trial scheduled. Remember they have stock holders and a board to answer too. They will lose their job, and not just get shuffled to a different part of the country to get them out of the way.

I work in IT in a large corporation. There is plenty of inefficiency there to be had, including orders to stop and start work on projects that are sometimes never picked up again...there are certainly flashy failures involving lawsuits (warning: pdf), but corporations also have the advantage of setting their own deadlines and changing scope, and typically release huge initiatives incrementally (both of which, incidentally, help hide smaller failures), neither of which were allowed by law for the ACA websites.

Do they have waste? I'm sure they do, but they also have ways of dealing with that. They have to be, because they can go out of business if they don't. Government doesn't have to worry about that.

Waste is immaterial if the profit is big enough in corporations. I've had years where we workers paid every cent for our own holiday party, and years where I've been taken to Broadway shows...I've had corporate events cancelled when I was holding plane tickets, and I've been sent on international trips. Things go up and down. But as a rule of thumb: the bigger the organization, the more waste and inefficiency (but also the easier to absorb it and insure against failure and calamity). It's inevitable.

I guess my point is that it isn't really that much different in big private sector than big government. I'm also convinced that the Federal contracting system (much of the stuff done by the government is actually done by private contractors, many of which are big corporations themselves) is far from the best way to do things, but that horse seems to have fled the stable.

 

[HannahT]

hahahahaha



lol

Large corporations are often in better shape to afford waste than are small companies. As long as you keep your revenue outpacing your expenses, you're good. If you have a successful product, that's not too hard to do. Hedge funds and other financial firms waste tons of money on extravagant perks, but they can afford it, because they pull in tons of money.

Okay. Does government do the same? No.

Is the revenue outpacing the expenses? We wish.

So WHO is handling the 'waste' better?

That was the point.


You don't watch pro sports, do you? No, athletes don't wait for 8 months to see the doctor, but they can spend a significant amount of time on the DL, and your neighbor wouldn't be out of work with a strained shoulder. And athletic contracts typically stipulate that they continue to get paid while on the DL.

Majority of us aren't in pro sports are we? We also don't have their contracts. So I don't understand your point about how it isn't wasting tax payer dollars doing it their way. I really don't.

Yeah, actually, they may, depending on what their contract stipulates.

Yeah. I bet their website would be built correctly, or their accounts payable department wouldn't pay the invoice. Notice we will pay it no matter how over budget they go, and no matter how many new bugs happen. We will pay for all that, and corporations would have a contract that there is no way we are paying for vendor incompetence. So even if you could find a corporation to pay that much for a website? I bet your bottom dollar it would be better built, and work as it is suppose to.

Things aren't over at the federal level. It's going to take time to resolve all of this - just as it would in the corporate world.

I have no doubt they will fix it in time, but a corporation wouldn't have allowed it to go online with security holes - and broken. I mean you even know that. It would be a PR nightmare!

No, not necessarily. As I said, a successful product can enable a ton of waste.

Yet, if they spend more than their income? What happens? Their gone, and the government asks people for more tax money.

No, they have to worry about voters.

If they were really worried about voters?They would be more responsible with our resources.

So, you didn't like the idea of selling the unused real estate and stuff? Report cards for pork?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Okay. Does government do the same? No.

You're right. They don't typically give out lavish perks.

Is the revenue outpacing the expenses? We wish.

So WHO is handling the 'waste' better?

That was the point.

Revenue is not tied to waste. At all. That the government runs on a deficit does not mean that it's being wasteful. It just means that it's spending more than it's taking in.

Majority of us aren't in pro sports are we? We also don't have their contracts. So I don't understand your point about how it isn't wasting tax payer dollars doing it their way. I really don't.

I was giving an example of a large corporation that can and does spend a lot of money to keep people on the payroll while they're not working.

Yeah. I bet their website would be built correctly, or their accounts payable department wouldn't pay the invoice.

The same thing happens in government as happens with large corporations: milestones are set and contractors are paid a fraction of the overall fee each time they hit a milestone.

Notice we will pay it no matter how over budget they go, and no matter how many new bugs happen. We will pay for all that, and corporations would have a contract that there is no way we are paying for vendor incompetence.

What is your evidence that this is how the ACA web site contract was set up?

So even if you could find a corporation to pay that much for a website?

Corporations pay a lot of money for things. Way more than you'd expect.

I bet your bottom dollar it would be better built, and work as it is suppose to.

Right, because private companies never screw up anything, do they?

So, you didn't like the idea of selling the unused real estate and stuff?

I have no opinion on it. I'm ok with whatever is most pragmatic.

Report cards for pork?

That sounds foolish to me.

Also, please don't reply within a quote like that anymore - when I hit quote on your post, none of what you wrote within that quote gets imported to my post. Instead, try breaking up my post into multiple quotes like this:


[ quote ] my comment [ / quote ]
<your response>
[ quote ] my comment [ / quote ]
<your response>

Thanks

 

[Guy1]

So, you didn't like the idea of selling the unused real estate and stuff? Report cards for pork?

Comparisons to corporations aside, can we at least stop to acknowledge the fact that you're posting on the very thread that is currently trying to discuss a big solution to the efficiency problem?