Re:When Stockton gave people cash, they got jobs
by godelski on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @01:42PM
(#27121062)
The irony of a lot of this is that capitalism depends on the circulation of money. The poorer the person the less likely they are to put that money into some investment fund or the bank (which I wouldn't call trapping the money but it does make it less liquid). A UBI just seems like a great way to ensure that cash actually flows.
Re:When Stockton gave people cash, they got jobs
by nemo44x on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @01:57PM
(#27121292)
I think you’re forgetting about globalism. The global middle class is much larger than ever before. Free Trade agreements and outsourced labor make relying on a local middle class a relic of the past.
Re:When Stockton gave people cash, they got jobs
by Retric on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @06:44PM
(#27124540)
Trade is a small percentage of US GDP. In 2019 it was only 2.5T in exports out of a 21.4T GDP.
That’s no where near enough to keep the economy moving.
Re:When Stockton gave people cash, they got jobs
by nemo44x on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @09:49PM
(#27125777)
What about products being made in foreign countries and sold in different foreign countries that are owned by an American company? That’s sort of what I was getting at.
Re:When Stockton gave people cash, they got jobs
by Retric on Wednesday May 12, 2021 @10:50AM
(#27130989)
US companies is really misleading here. Google is a very American company but it isn’t 100% owned by Americans. That’s why economists break things down by imports and exports.
Re:When Stockton gave people cash, they got jobs
by godelski on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @02:52PM
(#27121980)
I think that depends on what perspective you're looking at. There is still a fractal nature to this. I think there's still an advantage if you're coming from the perspective of empowering your country. If you're a rich elite and trying to profit maximize I think your perspective matters more. But the goal makes a difference.
Cue Henry Ford on wanting his employees to be able to afford his products.
Moreover, it works even better when it's universal. If only your company or your industry had to pay higher wages, that's probably not great for you. Most of your customers aren't your own employees, so most of the benefits go to others while you pay a disproportionate cost.
But doing it for everyone helps everyone. People can afford more of everything, so they buy more of everything, so companies produce more of everything and make more money. Enough at scale to offset the higher wages -- by definition, provided the level of savings is unaffected. And if savings increase then that's good too because "savings" are invested which makes it easier for companies to raise capital.