Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


With all due respect, I would like to explore more of this article and ask some question:


1, How to define UBI? Is it conditional, age related, monetary linked? 


2,  For clarity purpose, let's consider CCT a form of UBI. Social security is a form of subsidised, conditional UBI, does it doing its purpose?


3, How to define work? Spending entire day scrolling in Facebook, yet with Income , does it consider a form of work? What about spending entire time on the internet as an app developer, does it count as work? If there is income, is it not work? What about without income yet for altruistic purpose like citizen science, citizen politics, citizen movements? 


4, NEET, not in education, employment or training. Another related but distinct term is NINJA, no income, no job, and no assets. According to BLS, anyone that unemployed for more than 12 months are considered out of labour market, as well as the intent of not seeking jobs is out of labour market. Is it a mis-identification that are not well defined? Or it is structural unemployment that preclude a lots of labour force from gaining employement? Or the nature of jobs are evolving into a non-permenant, non-structuralised format that defined as informal sector?


5, What are the consequences of the NEET/NINJA? Is the whole term an outdated work? Let's assume you are an Uber driver, would that be considered as NEET? Let's assume yes, given the fluid nature you can earn exponentially more than "Normal" jobs, wouldn't it be a sign of progressive? 


6, Entrepreneur. A French word. For some means unemployed. Refer to The Social Network where Sean Parker is talking with his date. Should UBI be used to support Entrepreneur and nurture them, enabling them to take riskier move without the worry of falling back? Would this be a better productivity enhancement?


7, In the meantime, each person has their own taste. In economics, it is called Preferences. Whether these preferences would lead to a better outcome or worse is an unknown and debatable issue. What known is the diversity of preferences instead of a one-size-fit-all solution leads to market economy. If there is a demand for something, there creates a supply for it. Do we sufficiently measure the productivity on the demand instead of the supply of it? 


I hope these question leads to more interesting comment on the issue discussed. 

What are the middle class? the 50%? 60%? In the first place, middle class is not well defined. Perhaps Orwellian middle class is neither middle nor classy. It just define middle class as the 18% of outer party, between 80% of Proletarian and the 2% of outer party. 


In term of wealth, guess which group is growing faster? The top 20% earners, defined by having more than $200,000 income. The middle class, in this case earning anything between $40,000 and $200,000, is shrinking fastest. If so, the definition will change "middle" class as the fastest growing demographic group.


The whole article perhaps has a fatalistic outlook, it is a we versus them analogy. Had not those entrepreneurs, working 60-70 hours per week, longer than most average person, is considered a working class as well?


And Microsoft did own by the public. The fact that Bill Gates doesn't own Microsoft, is a testimony of a Public Market. It is not called "Public Limited Company" for no reason. It is now majority owned by the public, whose face unknown and many.