tv In Our Hands CSPAN November 27, 2016 3:30am-4:31am EST
not in 50 years down the road but 10 or 20. for like truckdrivers the advent of driverless trucks and cars but actually the month most scary aspects is the nature of the changes of artificial intelligence will carboy very large numbers of jobs up until now were held by people with above-average intelligence are college degrees and a lot of them will go away think travel agents in terms of things that was the second but the third recent action level finish that off that i think
we're looking forward to a future in which living a satisfying life will not necessarily the vocation in terms of nine to 540 hours per week the third reason is the same that i was interested in uglier and teed in come 2006 it offers a chance to revitalize american civil society i will make a very brief statement on what the plan consists of them led i hope to achieve then chaired will have a chance to respond then we will go back and forth of what we do disagree that we will open up. buffers to the the basics as i present that the universal basic income is a disaster
and i think it would add onto the current system would be a disaster for all the reasons that people say it would be however if replaces everything else that is this more feasible so we've replace all transfers with universal basic income that is included social security medicare/medicaid although fair programs and, all agricultural subsidies subsidies, anything that constitutes a transfer would from a taxpayer to a system in other than police protection and national defence with $13,000 per year for every person in the united states, every citizen 21 years or older. you need to have the
electronic deposit into a bank account to be put in monthly installments the only stipulation is 3,000 of that must be used for health insurance and that is a complicated subject but i will leave that out with the initial presentation but talking in terms of money money, but senate cannot lifland -- live on $10,000 a year your right. if you don't want to work that is true. you can make a decent living for yourself if everybody else has done thus dollars
so adjust to a few is 20,000 if you hold down middle-age at $7 to antisense per hour and he may 15th thousand dollars now that is $25,000, if you live with somebody else that is 35,000 you can say that universal basic income makes it easy for those of doing ordinary things to go above the of poverty line and it is easy to get into the middle class summer at the $20,000 increments with some low
paying jobs and with that comes progress against poverty that has eluded us over the last 20 years, all sorts of ways to make a comfortable retirement easier especially with the social security i will make half to extricate to make my case but then to move on. i know that this plan could never be enacted as exactly as unspecified but whenever version could be considered when then needs to be taken into account of earned
point and then you lose people into work for now they have another 40 then they were all stop working working, and go from the $40,000 lifestyle down to attend thousand dollars per year lifestyle. but i will move on with the brief outline why i think this helps to revitalize american society. is a complicated argument. xx will have people that drink up their money at the end of the month if you take it away then what will happen to the people?
then they will have to seek help. but it cannot be going down to the bureaucracy downtown. to say i have nowhere to go help me you help to change the dynamic the person who was doing that no longer has resources so here it is the response that it l. think it is naive and to settle not let you start but don't tell me if dino the first of the month you have more money coming into a bank account.
and take that interaction in terms of people who have human needs. dealing with those human needs where you have the best chance because of there is one thing to anybody but serious problems knows what that some people have sympathy and other people need a kick in the pants. other people who are closest to them. those that our most in effectual. and rules and not very easily adapted.
but the ways in which every finalizes civil society to those who have lots of problems and they need to have those problems addressed one of the things that made america exceptional not in our eyes to brag about united states but in terms of the europeanize we have never seen anything quite like this. and that is the extent to which the american communities especially in the north and west dealt with their problems pdf. but also very few of any society as we did. sometimes i made the case that some if you took the philanthropic efforts of new
york city at the 19th century i am willing to save the amounts of money spent were far more them the tax base of new york city ever could have cashed of government services i want to see that come back the cuts that is the stuff of life that is what makes living in a community with rewarding or what makes a family rewarding.
of those are involved to have the intended effect effectively in the efficiency do with they are supposed to do which is not easy with social policy with an $18 trillion economy. so what we pat is not broken several fix it and the fix is a lot worse than the current system. and then to talk about the addition -- and notion because there is a larger movement the social and economic commentators to say that is a solution but i will fed of agreement pat
something is worse of delegating or perhaps agree if we can. there is a significant wrinkle. so here at 80 i will assert based on extensive evidence medicare/medicaid the safety net is working very well. there are certainly aspects of those programs that need work as charles suggestion like the insurance program but to suspend political disbelief which is very reasonable because read
about that game changer you have to suspend almost any policy changes. but i would argue that cheating that solvency is less heavily than in getting to these changes. they like to say more with the commentary about with social security in the absence of social security party would be about 44% men it is 9% the listing% of benefits paid that is already far above any type of private sector retirement program that charles is advocating for it is no as 0.5% of benefits paid.
social security risk adjusted shows the same returns as the stock market investment that charles has so you have to factor the inherent risk to put a retirement account in the stock market. live those private account days with a blush and one of the reasons that it went away was in part because the market tanks as we have that debate that reminded people of the importance of accounting for risk with the pension program he also says nothing about when you move away from social security. medicare is not only like social security so i'd thank you would have some
headaches to deal with getting rid of that but also it is a highly efficient program. if you look at the cost increases and ask where are official -- fiscal pressures coming from? then you will find consistently in - - year in an erotic grows more slowly and to even control for their medical condition. a highly efficient program. so first of all do yourself a favor look at the and insurance rates of the of population that lacks insurance. drop a line where the hca comes into play. for non children just do this for adults especially
we looking age adults you will see right away what i mean. with a childhood insurance you will seek the an insurance rate you want this to go down it is the rate of the uninsured in this about 9 percent today. the california -- the deliberate measures in the aca have reduced project one projection of expenditures here in gdp likely and a million-dollar so these programs are proving to be efficient and effective and bending the cost curve in
ways that are extremely important with that private sector solution. and i very much disagree and their it is time when there is a problem has become increasingly conditioned and there is a disabled elderly or working% now it is more tilted toward you than against you. that is another problem now we have households better in poverty and disconnected from the job market. although that cash would be helpful on top instead of replacing it but we're not doing counterpoints here but to address if you look at
the poverty rate not an official rate which i do think decided incorrectly but adjusting for all the things that we have done to increase the anti-poverty effectiveness child tax credit, nutritional support in the supplemental rate that has come down from 26% to about 41-point 5% today moreover, look at how it performed in the great recession. especially for kids so that safety net is more effective than it ever has been before . it is simple math that if you take a system of a system of transfers of
disproportionately tilted toward those at the lower end of the pace scale, if you take a transfer system disproportionately targeted and distribute among everyone is as with the distribution impact of the system you will push back on the equity or quality inducing aspect of the safety net. so that notion of sunset increase of inequality and then will push back the other way to take those programs with that anti-poverty effectiveness. finally on jobs, and here is the thing.
that the robots are coming for the jobs you may be bright but nobody knows. charles does not say things lightly although i will differ to a the possibility that the future will be different than the past however it is true i have been wrong that the technology will be unemployed in inducing in the future has never been correct specifically i am doubtful about this claim in the near term at least. technology or labor substituting capital the substitutes for workers or laborers will trade the workforce at the accelerated rate we will see productivity growth excel. nothing abut output per hour
of work so if we were creating more output with less work which is the symptom nbc productivity excel rate and i would argue what we really should be in arguing appeared not necessarily upi and that is evidence there is something wrong with the hypothesis that is very near term. israel look around the distant corners we have never done right to probably not now but certainly looking at any evidence to take apart a system i think is working extremely well that is quality inducing and less effective. idea have london will agree with but we will get to that later. >> i will not try to react
to everything that he said ravine willoughby's speaking all day. so we have is sufficient programs we are spending state local national up that $1 trillion spent the transfer payments them still have millions in deep poverty, we still have millions without insurance we still have the intransigent set of people who cannot leave one negative two cannot live despite the program's. so i guess i will skip over the fact that have the entire appendix over the transition cost and i never make a big deal of the cost
of the bureaucracy. so let's think about option of the man low-skilled will never be anything but if he gets in the labor market and stacey will not stay at minimum-wage maybe $10 an hour. he works 1500 hours per year . that means is $10,000 does not quite cover the added does augment his in come under the current system you know, the numbers better one footsteps but he does nothing close to that every year of what he could do but entry not just from poverty
one but a more comfortable life is pretty much shot off to him lots of ways because the labor market will not pay more for the low-skilled work. that now think about marriage and is falling but to medically for the working class and that is one of the best ways for all of the good things to occur gold once to get married even if his wife does not work that is a big difference if she does work a little bit better guess i say that the current system is really bad at those to get the short end of the stick with personal abilities not to
give them an avenue that they could have a reasonably good existence and then there is a huge transfer of money because part of the agreement for the of people who are above $65,000 of income that is the price of the payoff to the losing social security medicare but that part of the plan is really important. >> so let's go back and forth on that day little bit . the guided dimension does not have a family greg. >> i started that way but then ended up with the wife of. [laughter] for him he is underserved by the system i agree with that
point and interestingly away to help him believe it or not there is some bipartisan interest to expand the earned income tax credit to reach him that his is a single worker with no children gets very little from the air didn't come credit although some the with a couple of kids get 6,000. so in fact, i want to talk about that. first of all, what should not be viewed simply in terms of lining of dollars and if you did that i still think i come out on top because of was looking at the numbers. it is complicated it involves a lot of calculations and benefits
but a colleague of mine were showing me some works adjusting the bottom fifth on average gets 16,000 per year in the transfers we are talking about that is before social security. so i think my mathematical point is if you look data bunch of transfers even with your marginal tax rate still it would not be equalizing. we have a very nice paper that recently came out that i think makes this point to want to be explicit if you have a mom with a couple of kids working half time at the minimum wage she ends up with the income based on of
benefits of her foot stamps which it is over 6,000 the itc is 3,000 child tax credit is 700 if you take our payroll taxes should make 17,000 instead of working halftime should doubles the ever working full-time $7.25 is too low. that is very low minimum-wage some of this gets to the point of the disincentive dishy end up with less? she loses $12,005 in food stamps she makes up $2,500 of the itc and another 1300 of the child tax credit hurt income goes 18,000 up at about 26,000 pat is the work
incentive currently built into the system recognizes as that goes on now she pays payroll taxes. social security is the part of charles plan that i dislike the most because he says everybody should invest in the stock market and put to thousand dollars per year in the stock market there is no rule i do agree with his astonishment but guess what? the lotus people will let do that because they cannot afford to or they have a discount rate or they don't care about the future and his solution is a variable pension. is a guaranteed if they retire in a bad year they
will feel that. so i will stop there. >> here i have an issue of one to move the topic. oddball. >> allotted people don't get social security if you're 65 years old you either get very little social security or nine at all. all their light the they have not saved the penny if it 10 grand or 20 grand will make a blanket statement that i think if you talk about putting money into the pockets of the lower income i think it would look very good. by will put that aside there is another topic that is the
future of work in christine and right now labor force participation has been dropping notoriously among whites and even more among white males we are now down to historically unprecedented rates of able-bodied males you are out of the of labor force. edition we have a question and this time is a very dicey proposition. i will argue with the previous transition to have foreseen that things will not be so bad when the of forces were no longer but
you will need these other types of things so what do you need? to replace the jobs of the drivers? the largest sector that is without jobs and billions of white-collar. i have to raise this quickly fed data written about i.q. and in terms of aikido, we have a society and iq of 110 which is above-average that there is a lot of good paying jobs because we couldn't do things that require these judgments and it is really scary to the vast majority that they will
disappear. i will put it this way. can i prove to you this dive is different i can within the confines of the sour i could go three hours but something i think oliver should be thinking carefully about. >> i agree. >> one final comment. the decline of social capital has continued and allot of the reasons it has continued past to do with the fact that other things occurred as with the labor force that was a good thing to have collateral. and one of those was what women contributed was used with social capital as making communities work.
i am not in any way or any form to be perfectly clear clear, i am not recommending we encourage that but i say that upi would make it possible for those who want to be out and at home with raising children to be deeply engaged in makes it easier for that to happen and it opens up ways those that do not have a place in the labor force can find the ways that they legitimately for what is valued and those are important. >> i will make a closing statement you land in a place that there may be some agreement to one of the things that i like the of the universal income of some sort is it does palau people
not to take lousy jobs they don't want that increases the of bargaining power, if you are still in of the wage distribution and the lack of bargaining power is critical to the lower income people. so i will close with a final critique of the idea so maybe there is common ground . it was interesting to hear carl say i left out defense and police because they don't count as transfers and i agree with that. they are a grievance that the public wants to fund but i cast an umbrella more than charles does but what i share with most americans is the idea of investments of retirement security such
that we as a nation have agreed to have a guaranteed pension for the elderly. the idea of the variable to have a guaranteed pension. and this is medicare and we're going to have a safety net of as stamps he itc, medicaid, headstart over generations there are quite investment the to less obesity better outcomes better earnings outcomes so kids who grew up get these benefits actually did better
these are investment programs and investments are an areas where the market's failure will not lead to health care deprivation. but that is my signature rejection to the plan. now about the jobs he has worth reading a new book on this i guess the new book is to disagree with people from a 80 i laugh laugh -- from teen 20. but the problem that we had our eye spend my working days but it is lack of demand we have the output
gap that the potential for gdp consistently is above the actual gdp in a fully employed we regenerate more output we only have 30 percent of the time since 1980 this is a massive market failure with poland women only 30% with that cbo data that is a uh calculation you can do yourself. but until be established that we have tapped all the demand that we can with those cyclical benefits whenever the points that we made is the employment population ratio fell so much during the great recession has come
two-thirds of the way back in this and that people are running away from work but that there are not enough jobs. so with that output gap in a weak demand to sign-off on uh technological unemployment that is especially low to replace them that will increase quality. but instead of upi what about a guaranteed jobs program? we may disagree but l.a.'s based on the numbers i cited macroeconomic deficits what about instead of to guarantee them in, we give them a job? that is less had the because now people from even at this
instance will not like at just write-in attack so but about data guaranteed job? >> my problem is that the government is a lousy employer. >> private jobs? >> subsidize private jobs? >> so you hear these are employers that are trying to run their businesses they say all i want is somebody to show a part-time everyday and doesn't take half-hour bathroom breaks every three hours and can deal with his co-workers. and i am having a terrible time getting those and the stories about jobs going one
[inaudible] this decade think we are right to ignore that we are worried about how to make america work better been. >> >> let him respond. >> i m sensitized this year with this political campaign with globalization to say in the course of this i am not paying sufficient attention that my fellow americans
have been screwed over. so i am wary about how to make america work. >> next question. >> i thought about calling only on the t20 colleagues. >> so the plan seems to be people will either make good financial decisions however there is strong evidence and psychology that if they are in poverty they think of money differently. so is there any scientific evidence?
>> even if everybody squanders everything they are getting uh $10,000 per year. that is $20,000 per year. said to be completely stupid with no future time horizon. but you can kind of guarantee that certain things about money if everybody has 10 grand and that has common knowledge among those people in this room is the topic of conversations and barbershops and cafes and bars such as the they will walk into the bar where they will buy tulips in their
ability people who do that but other people will bother rise to say really what you need is a diversified portfolio. now the barbershops will be a lot more and that is part of what we did not get to is the ways in which everybody has 10 grand, uh david m. exchange within communities how people talk to each other and the assumptions they make the bible not go off on that. >> that is an objection that i have as well that i worry that to evade do not investor it is inadequate on average that system now pays $4,000 per year. >> again this is for the arguments but i think social
security is extremely pervasive for any citizen in the country for the requisite amount of years can get a security but i will just a to have a similar objection to is health care plan that basically it is a catastrophic plan to take the of money off of the top to buy catastrophic health care in the private market. this is basically a very high deductible plan. then what comes into play is what we have found for middle income people, doesn't make them look price conscious but they don't go to the doctor when they are sick. in some even more because it'll get the preventative
different outcomes for different people. but a couple of things that we have gotten right and what else has to do with having children the from the women's point of view today that creates an income stream so now she gets the money but having a baby creates set in scotland as the income stream. and then you're not draining the system because having a baby that it is more brutal appropriately so. you cannot force taos
support he is in the grey market or has no income but through upi now he has the electronic bank account and it is easy to establish without a shadow of a doubt all the judge has to do is kurdish pete xx think that will get around? >> creates with. >> where people are functioning in their communities and for what they are doing.
>> thanks to both the few. -- of hugh and with that society what would bdm explanation over the last century of the and? but if paul ryan tamara said this is an for the next term those of the first deadline to say no way. >> i will be real quick books have bed written about the question. but for me one of the things
with the programs that were done with the greatest options that is very at the first national welfare program and second, it is simple at the time also in the '60s and fundamentally if they don't have jobs give them jobs mothers don't know how to take care of children then teach the parents said it seems to be simple only after they begin that it became obvious all sorts of implementation problems but by that time that to which as ben assumed to be the responsibility is the government's job. >> i really have a very different view that i will
put it this way. look around every advanced economy with the upi but those economies that decide that we shed not been port the elderly should not be health in secure that it is better to provide this bottles with those resources they need to raise their child verses depriving them as a punitive measure. . .