I believe that UBI is an important concept and that Yang has broken ground by introducing it to the conversation. But an extra $12k/year is nothing compared to the savings Americans would get if we didn’t have premiums, copays, or medical debts. Really it’s not even close.
-
-
Interesting - how so? I thought if implemented properly (i.e. enough money) it could help curb into the fallout of automation. I guess increasing funding to already existing social programs could do that too.
-
The rationale that it’s a response to the inevitable unemployment crisis resulting from automation hides the cold reality that it will provide cover for small government billionaires like Yang to decimate social services. It’s a replacement for them, not a complement to them
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
UBI has great potential to fill in many gaps that other programs don't address. Only catch is that said "other programs" are MORE essential than UBI and must be instituted first.https://twitter.com/alan2102z/status/1222920342475300865 …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.