jazzdude

Agree with Clark. Immigrants bring much more than their labor. They bring their norms, cultures, and values, and some of these may be directly at odds with what America currently values. Might be good, might be bad.

And there's the crux of the problem. Do we allow companies to design their business around exploiting workers so they can have at least a substandard job, and shift the social burden onto government (aka the taxpayer)/society at large? If the argument is that Uber drivers are just making a little extra cash, then who cares if there's extra regulations? People aren't going to be out of work, they just lose some side income. If it's that requiring Uber to pay fairly will cause people to be unemployed, well, those people are working in a field that is unsustainable anyways, so it's a matter of when, not if, they become unemployed. Yes, taking action drives a short term increase in unemployment, but where were these people working at before Uber came along? Uber's business model allowed society to kick the can on dealing with the unemployment problem. Also don't forget Uber's long term vision, until very recently, was for driverless cars to provide transportation, so as soon as the technology catches up, the many drivers will be out as well anyways. Though it'll be hard to argue they are not a taxi service if they own the cars, unless they shift the ownership and maintenance to "independent contractors" as well. If Uber uses their business model to drive taxi companies out of business, any bets on if they will raise rates in that area? Or if any of those raised rates will trickle down to drivers? After all, if they need to work to try and make ends meet, and nothing else is available, they don't really have a choice to go anywhere else despite knowing they aren't getting paid what they are worth. Along similar lines to the AF pilot retention; there's a strong correlation between bonus take rate and airline hiring. When people have better options, they take them. And if they don't, many are inclined to accept a known struggle over making a jump into the unknown with a guarantee for short term hardship.

Can they negotiate a higher rate? Is the fare offered reasonable for the work performed? If you have bills to pay, some money (accepting insufficient) is better than no money (rejecting the fare). Especially if you view not working as morally wrong, socially unacceptable, or against their values. It drives people to take whatever job they can get, and allow unscrupulous businesses to take advantage of people in that position. If you take a pure capitalist view, then sure, this is the free market. But if you're going to take that stance, then don't complain when the free market "suppresses your rights" or takes advantage of the consumer in other portions of society, like say internet communications...

Short term it can be great for an individual. It's nice to have flexibility on hours. Long term, how do you handle access to medical care? Retirement (independent contractors have to contribute to social security on their own)? You could say they can make their own decisions and suffer consequences. But what happens if many people make "bad decisions"? You can't ignore them, especially if they band together. Plus it can be an artificial choice: maybe a driver can't work a normal job due to other life factors (childcare, second part time job etc) that demand flexibility, but still have to make ends meet, so Uber ends up being their sole source of income. They get hurt by not being treated as an employee (which they still can). Uber could offer flexible hours (work when you want, or as much as you want, with benefits kicking in at some point). Or Uber could allow them to set their compensation rates as an independent contractor, though they'll be undercut by the next type of driver. But that would make Uber's model unsustainable, since now they have to compete with taxi companies on equal footing regarding employee rights. Contrast that with an Uber driver who has other employment, or has benefits through a spouse- they are just making extra cash, and the low pay doesn't hurt them.

Can an Uber driver or door dash delivery person set it negotiate their own compensation for providing their service, like a freelance writer or wedding DJ can? Same with etsy or ebay? That's the difference between when independent contractors are appropriate or inappropriate.

Technology displacing jobs can be an overly simplistic explanation, hence why all three examples have drastically different debates. Convenience is great, but should I support (or the government allow) businesses that exploit others? At the extreme (though not technology), should companies be allowed to use slave labor/indentured servitude where it's legal or ignored to deliver cheaper products to consumers (a clear benefit for consumers in a capitalistic world, though morally wrong)? Uber undercuts prices of legacy taxi companies, driving competitors out of business. They don't use technology to change or disrupt the underlying fundamental business-it's still a car, driven by a driver, transporting you from point A to B, on demand. Their primary method is to not have employees, and rather have "independent contractors", which circumvents many protections for workers. It also doesn't really create jobs, just shifts them (while placing the burden of employee benefits such as commercial car and health insurance). Technology and automation hasn't really caused jobs to be lost in this case (though you could argue that taxi dispatchers lost out, and we're replaced by software engineers), denying employee benefits is what drives costs down. Conversely, coal miners are being driven out of work by technology causing a fundamental shift in the underlying business of providing electrical energy. They aren't being displaced by other coal companies using gig workers to drive down costs, rather they are being replaced by other sources of electrical power such as wind/solar/etc. A parts manufacturing job loss is a straight forward replacement by automation. This increases individual workers productivity, at the cost of needing fewer workers. So this job loss is normal business: a company is seeking ways to become more efficient, and there's no fundamental shift in the core business. However, it differs from Uber because the parts manufacturing company still employs the remaining employees, and doesn't contract the work out and solely pay "independent contractors" per widget produced, or require them to provide our rent their own tools like Uber does. Though I guess if you're fine with unbridled capitalism/libertarianism, Uber's model is fine. But that has impacts within our society, and allows those with resources/power/influence to accumulate more, creating a divide between the haves and have nots.

I agree with Clark. At the individual level, yes, streamlined immigration is great for the individual. And one individual immigrant usually doesn't have a significant impact, whether it's economically, socially, or politically. And it can be heartbreaking if they are denied entry (though it makes for great headlines) However, a challenge exists at the nation level (or really, any established community with it's own norms). For a nation, mass or uncontrolled immigration causes a jobs problem; the market gets flooded with workers, driving down wages and potentially displacing citizens from jobs. Whether citizens get displaced from work, or legal immigrants can't find jobs, the nation will have to deal with people being out of work. On one extreme, you're dealing with maybe petty crime as people try to survive, on the other violent protests and riots. It also brings a change to social norms. Many things we consider to be "American" aren't law, but really just social norms that we've tacitly agreed to (for example, the American brand of work ethic and individualism). Large population shifts change these social norms, which can lead to political changes. A similar example would be Californians moving to Texas, or New Yorkers moving to Florida. They are free to move, the only barrier is the cost of the move (porous borders). But they bring their norms and customs with them to the new community, which changes that new community, both socially and politically, and can measurable shift life in that new community. So once a community (whether it's a state, nation, or any other group with established norms) has established itself and its system is running, it can be difficult for the government (or whoever maintains the community norms) to maintain the order (economic, social, political) it has constructed when faced with large population shifts within the community. So the immigration bureaucratic red tape is an effort by the government to balance opportunities to people from different countries, and with different skillsets. Sucks for the individual trying to immigrate in, but protects the national interests. Unfortunately, this gets played as not having a heart or being incompassionate, but this completely sidesteps the discussion on how to absorb the extra population while maintaining our values, or debating when our values need to change.

I guess it depends what you think you are insuring against. If you see social security as insurance against getting old, then yeah, I see your point, it's not insurance and it's just welfare for the elderly. If you look at it as insurance against losing a defined benefit (pension) retirement because your company's pension fund collapsed, the stock market crashing right before you retire and decimates your 401k account, or you have a major medical expenses requiring you to access and spend your retirement on treatment, then it starts to look a lot like insurance in how we normally view it. Denying benefits based on an individual's wealth in retirement (needs based) was likely politically distasteful, so it allows everyone that paid in to draw a benefit. Otherwise, you'd have wealthier people lobbying to eliminate it (or be allowed to opt out) so they don't have to pay in because they get no benefit, which then puts the entire program's funding at risk (it's set up like a ponzi scheme). But I agree, we'll probably need to move to a needs based benefit for it to be viable in the future, especially as our population growth has slowed down (reducing funding for those collecting retirement now and in the future). Unless there's going to be another baby boom generation to infuse a bunch of cash into the system when you and I are reaching retirement age. And like you mentioned earlier, if people suck at managing their money, maybe the government should force people to save for their retirement, which it has done to an extent with social security.

What makes all this hard is that sometimes it *can* be politically motivated. If there's one thing both political parties have gotten really good at, it's how to exploit narratives to gain and maintain their power.

Don't forget that burning down (or threatening to first, if you feel particularly diplomatic) your competitor's store/factory/inventory is an option to level the playing field... Hence why the US government employs many of us on this forum. Blah blah war is politics through other means. The problem I have with libertarians is they assume order and peace is kept through shared social norms (in your example, that a competitor won't resort to violence in response to an unfair market).

Don't forget that we can't just consider countries in this. Amazon, Google, and Facebook all yield a tremendous amount of influence around the world, as brokers of information and communications, and likely have more than many smaller countries. They can lobby for their interests in countries around the world, and are large enough to fight aggressively against any regulations not in their interests any where in the world, except for China. And it's not just tech companies. Look at food conglomerates: there's something like 10 companies that control a significant portion of the food market. Their size again allows them to again lobby aggressively for their interests and cross international boundaries to defend their interests.

I'll lead off with I agree with your last paragraph, the status quo isn't good enough, and we need to do better in discouraging abusing the system while making it available to people who need it. So I think we both want to see us get to the same end state. I will however, challenge some of your assumptions, mainly because years ago I held very similar beliefs and viewpoints you did (and that's not to say I'm right now and you're wrong, but I've questioned some of my assumptions when presented with different viewpoints I hadn't considered and it changed my opinion). You assume that the construction worker could get a job with better benefits: those are likely to be more competitive, and limited. But let's assume they have good work ethic, and don't want to be in unemployment waiting for a "good" job while taking a government handout, so they take whatever job they can to pay their bills. If they then have a workplace accident that results in their leg being crushed and subsequently amputated, then what? "Sorry bro, life sucks and you had bad luck? Thanks for your contribution to the economy in building stores/homes, good luck finding a job with one leg, hope someone donates a prosthetic leg?" Sure, there may be some workers comp available, and that may cover the initial hospital bills, but what happens long term? Being in crutches permanently isn't conducive to many low skill jobs, and while discrimination against disabled is generally illegal, an employer can usually find another reason (plausible deniability) to hire someone else without a disability, especially for low skill or entry level work. And retraining into a new field of work costs money, both for training, and to cover expenses while in training (though admittedly unemployment benefits can help bridge the gap). I agree that the welfare system should have changes to prevent abuse. But we have to address social and economic barriers to do so. Some of it is practical (those financial cliffs mentioned earlier in the thread). Some of it is learned behavior from multiple sources. I don't dispute your experience with workers in welfare. All I will say is be careful generalizing based on a small population. Maybe your assessment is correct for the overall population of people on welfare in America, but then again maybe not. The way to draw generalizations needed for policy is to study a relevant portion of that population, while controlling for other factors. If you have a minimum wage or low paying job with decent (i.e. non high deductible plans) health insurance, great. If you get sick and have to go to urgent care, that $20 copay may mean skipping meals to make ends meet, not to mention the cost of any medicines required. Referred out to specialty care? That's an extra $50 copay, and likely half a day missed from work (increasing the financial pain). Need an operation done? Hope you have the $1-3k available for your deductible and you don't have coinsurance requirements. So while they may have health insurance, you may not be able to practically use it except in an emergency, at which point it may drain any savings you have anyways. And if you don't have paid sick leave, you may just deal with the issue and show up to work anyways because you need the money to make rent. But if you keep hours to the point you remain on welfare, you end up not having to pay those medical costs, and may not have to skip means and go hungry to get medical care. You don't have to work about an emergency wiping out your work because there's nothing really to lose. So there's this painful transition point. If you can get through it and start earning more money (maybe you get a raise after 1 year of work), you can be better off than on welfare. But you've got to get through to that point, and the way welfare is set up doesn't allow for a graceful transition. Maybe an individual has tried to make that jump and failed, and it's now disincentived to try again because of their previous failure. And even middle class workers can be wiped out by a medical event despite having okay health insurance due to deductible and coinsurance requirements. Maybe this speaks more to problems in healthcare, but it's still intertwined with the welfare issue. On the behavioral point, how do we get people to shift their mindset and actions? Also consider that many factors influence how a person chooses to live: family, race, gender, friends, religion, location, culture, etc. All of which influence your values and your decisions. You could teach finances in school, though the education system has incentive to focus on standardized testing (which right now doesn't measure financial planning knowledge) for school funding. That testing focused on skills to make the individual more valuable in the workforce, not skills needed to navigate life, with the assumption that the latter will come from the parents (who may not be good examples). How do you change a social group's norms? Part of it may be showing examples of people that made changes in their life and we're able to "succeed." I used to think it was dumb for all these "firsts" for race/gender/pick you group. To some extent, it still is when it's done for purely political reasons or for virtue signaling (potentially a wrong action for a "right" reason). But if a disadvantaged group can see people from their group be successful, it can provide hope that they too can be successful and escape their current circumstances. So those "firsts" may not mean anything to me as someone outside that group, or just seem like a waste if time, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning to some people within the group. And it doesn't really cost much if anything to recognize people's accomplishments. So it's less about dividing the country based on certain group affiliations, but rather showing a group they are accepted and can succeed within the greater society. On the flip side, there's the whole crabs in a pot problem, where if someone starts to make progress escaping their circumstances, others around them pull them back down, making it harder to escape. A person trying to escape welfare may be ridiculed or cut off from their friends/family (maybe seen as being "too good" for them anymore), making that transition harder because now it is being done without a social network to support or encourage them. Do people on welfare spend money on drugs and alcohol because they are pursuing pleasure ahead of essentials (they can't budget right!), or are they using them as tools to escape their life/circumstances for a bit and take the edge off their pain for a while? Put another way, are they poor because they abuse drugs/alcohol, or do they abuse drugs/alcohol because they are poor? The answer may not be the same for everyone, but usually conservatives will assume the former (poor because of drug abuse), I know I did for a long time. It goes back to the belief that if you work hard, there's no way for you to be poor, so if you are poor, you must have a moral failing and poor work ethic. The use of drugs further reinforces the belief that the poor are immoral (regardless of if the person making that judgement also uses drugs, usually with a hand waive of something along the lines of "I've earned it" and the poors are just being financially irresponsible). Compare the response to prescription opioid abuse vs heroin abuse: one is predominantly abused by wealthier people and viewed as them needing therapy to address their underlying issues (get them medical care, not jail time), and the other is abused by poorer people who are breaking the law to get high and should be punished for breaking the law since they should know better (give them jail time, not medical care). Plus, poor people on welfare likely won't have access to treatments for depression, so they self medicate with whatever is available and cheap. I will say that there are lots of good charities out there that fill some of the gaps our government doesn't cover. And a lot of these issues with being poor are community issues. But I think government money, spent wisely, can help enable charities and communities be more effective in addressing problems.

I guess penalty might not be the right word. Agree that what you get should be based on what you paid in, and that's generally fair. (Though you can make an argument that's it's not, since a high wage earned that has paid in more is also more likely to have other sources of retirement income). I was disagreeing that they should also have their retirement age (based on what they paid in) *also* pushed back due to having been in unemployment. Their benefit has already (potentially, if they don't make it past 35 years with income) been reduced to account for the time not worked. I wouldn't call it being penalized for starting work early: it's insurance (and really that's all social security is). Sure, if someone starts work later at a higher income and only works 35 years, they've paid less into the system while maximizing their benefit. But it assumes no life circumstances arise in say their late 30s that takes them out of the workforce early. In your Karl and Karen example, it assumes they stay married. Divorce statistics I found seem to range from 29-50%. If Karl and Karen get divorced at 9 years and 11 months, Karen's social security benefit is $0, and she missed out on almost 10 years of qualifying credits (the amount of full time work required to be eligible for social security). If they get divorced at 10 years, then Karen is entitled to 50% of Karl's benefit (it doesn't reduce his benefit though), so long as she doesn't remarry, though if she were to work and her benefit would be higher on her own, she could take that instead. If she remarries, that previous ex spouse benefit goes away, and the clock restarts again for eligibility of the new spouse's benefit. Meanwhile Alice has worked enough to become eligible for her own social security benefits (though small) in the event she gets divorced. So sure, you can try to plan for a certain outcome, but you have to make assumptions about the future that may or may not come true. Life is messy, and full of risks and unknowns, which require us to make assumptions about the future. I doubt most people make life decisions based on social security benefits, I know I don't. But I also recognize that I'm paid well, and have that option to plan for retirement in the manner that I am. Just like in an AF career, luck and timing can make all the difference, and people can fall through the cracks in the system through no fault of their own. You could just tell people it sucks to be them, they should've worked harder and known the rules of the game. Or you could make changes in the system to make it better, and maybe fix the rules to avoid unintended consequences.

Agree that eliminating middlemen creates short term pain, but it's often necessary for long term good. But government should be proactive. As those middleman industries start to die, people will be in transition, so how does government help get them back working faster? Someone that has their basic needs met (food, shelter, security/safety) met has much more energy available to innovate or invent. And don't forget that in the US, healthcare is largely tired to employment, so how do people in transition gain access to healthcare if needed? Again, a healthy worker is a more productive worker. So you can think of things like skills training and unemployment benefits as society's investment in individual citizens, so that they can get back on their feet and contribute to the economy (which is the payback to society). And I think you misunderstand my stance on technology and automation. It's coming, and it's going to cause change, maybe significantly. I'm not advocating for slow rolling the transition, but rather to embrace that things are going to change, possibly faster than we'd like, and to adapt our society to those changes much faster than we have been. Change is happening faster, but our policies and laws have not caught up, and are only falling further behind. This exacerbates the middleman problem, because technology can bring about changes much faster than it had in the past, and could affect a broad cross section of industries at the same time, vs a narrow slice of an industry. Patent law probably also needs revisiting, because of the pace of change in technology, and how much faster inventions and innovations happen. Like it or not, cell phones and internet access are essential in modern American life, and not having either places you at a distinct disadvantage for jobs. Internet should be regulated as common infrastructure-most banking is electronic and online, and much of our communication is online. Access to government services and information is largely available online, reducing the cost of government. Employers expect employees to be reachable off hours, if nothing else for schedule/shift changes. But many people, particularly Republicans, see those as luxuries, and the older ones hold onto their experiences and say they got by fine without internet and cellphones, so the new generation can as well and just need to stop being so lazy, which completely ignores how society has fundamentally shifted online. Your cellphone is likely more important than your computer. I know the only thing I use my laptop for is going school papers-pretty much everything else is in my cellphone. A $300 smartphone gives a lot to a person: multiple communication methods, the internet (job/skills training, job hunting sites, banking, news, education), and entertainment; it's the most important device for the average person. We also tend to not fund legacy infrastructure, much less new infrastructure. And when were do, we are bad at maintaining it, often kicking the can down the road with a waiver. China will just steal whatever they need that they can develop at home, and it doesn't help that many companies don't see the danger in cutting corners to secure their data from a determined adversary. No one is going to call them out on it; they gave strong economic ties around the world and can use that as leverage, and can absorb hours due to their authoritarian form of government. China also has the advantage of operating from pretty much one vision and direction, allowing them to be much more responsive than we are, and to make long term investments and strategies.

Social security already penalizes you if you don't work, assuming you qualify. Your entitlement is based off an average of your 35 highest earning years. If you have years where you don't work, that $0 for those years significantly pulls down that average, reducing your benefit. So in your example, 8 years of $0 is really going to hurt that social security payment, and delaying their already reduced payment penalizes them a second time for the same gap in work. Putting numbers to your example, someone earning $70k per year (a decent job in many areas in the country) for 35 years would have a benefit based on their average income of $70k/year. But if they are out of work for 8 years, but earn $70k the rest of the years, their benefit is based on an average income of $54k. And don't forget that a spouse that stays home to raise their kids, or someone who takes care of a family member full time, or someone that takes a sabbatical to do volunteer work full time while living off their savings are all unemployed for the purposes of social security, and may have their benefit reduced the same amount as someone who was lazy and just didn't want to work.

Can you point to studies that back your claim? A quick Google search shows a fairly mixed bag, especially when viewed in conjunction with studies/statistics on the working poor and their mobility in the economy. If you're poor, it makes it hard to take steps to dig out from there-covering immediate needs may hinder longer term investment in training or education to get a better job. Sure, there's some abuse of the system. But there are also financial cliffs where making the transition off of assistance challenging, especially when the jobs they get are not secure whereas government assistance is relatively secure. So how do you separately those whom want to work but can't find work and meet their basic needs for themselves and their family, and those that are just lazy? And if the answer is don't have kids if you can't afford them, how do you enforce that? But along your line of reasoning... Why should military members get VA disability when they can work post military service? Especially if they draw retirement? Sure, there are disabled vets who truly can't work anymore. And then there are those that are capable of working a normal job, but maybe have limitations on specific career fields. Why not just provide jobs or skills training in a field they can work in and earn a living instead of paying a stipend each month? (Oh, that job or skills training already exists in the GI Bill). Or if a disabled vet gets a job, that disability check should be decreased at a 1:1 rate. And VA clinics (in theory) could address care for any service related injuries as the vet works in the civilian world. I'm sure civilians working physical jobs such as construction would love to have a government check for life after no longer being able to work in their field due to injuries, or transition assistance to get trained in another field.

My contract (AD FY19 bonus) stated: So I guess it's technically possible, but unlikely. Though I think SecAF also approves palace chase as well, so who knows, maybe if you have a unique skill the AF wants in a reserve unit, then maybe you're odds are better? It's a pretty one way contact in that regard, you'd have to sell the AF that releasing you to the reserves is in the best interest of the AF, who, if they do nothing, has you locked into your ADSC anyways and bringing you closer to the retirement incentive to stay in AD anyways.

Agree that the market adapts, and people will find new ways to make money. The hard part is that automation and the job shifts it can cause increases the wealth gap in our country. It can also make it difficult for new businesses to complete against established competitors who can make full use of technology to drive down costs to a point a new entrant can't compete. This allows for an accumulation of wealth, which then brings power/influence to the those at the top of the business. It begins to give them increased access to and influence on political leaders, since the business executive's business decisions can have big effects in an elected official's district over you standard constituent. Automation and technology significantly boosts worker productivity, but workers generally don't see pay increases with that increased productivity, unless there is a union/collective bargaining happening. We've been moving to a services based economy like you mentioned. But we've also seen service companies start to move toward the extensive use of "independent contractors" to execute their businesses as a core businesses model. And since they are independent contractors, many worker protections aren't granted, and benefits like medical care, which have traditionally been obtained through employers in the US, or sick leaves, are now the responsibility of the individual. So great for business, not so great for the individual. There's been a lot of resistance from Republicans to increase corporate taxes, or tax increases for the wealthy (income or capital gains). And those that might support it are afraid that the Dems will squander that money on what they see as government overreach. So this gives those at the top of major corporations a twofold advantage: their business is taxed less, driving up profits and their bonuses, and those increased bonuses from the company profits aren't taxes at what they used to be. Meanwhile, they are protected by the police and the legal system (funded by taxes) from their workers banding together and striking, or threatening to "burn down the factory" in response to poor working condition or wages. They could pay their workers more, but why? They don't have options to move to a better opportunity, otherwise they would've done so already. I guess I'm saying that maybe we should think proactively regarding the effects technology has or can have on our country, both at the macro level and for individuals, rather than waiting for a crises to develop and scrambling for a solution (just like in the whole "is internet access common infrastructure, or a modern luxury" debate). But I'm not going to hold my breath that Congress will be proactive, and that large businesses won't be pitching their financial interests to Congress through lobbyists. But one can hope.

This would require those that have power and influence (including landlords and shop owners) to not get greedy and adjust prices based on the additional money consumers have. The plus side though is people can spend the money on what they value (better food with a cheaper home vs cheap food with a nicer home) It's the same problem we see with college education in the US: money (primarily loans) became more available, so the provider of a service (colleges) raised their prices significantly because students had more access to money to pay higher prices, and the college could do so without incurring any risk to the college financial model (society has pushed college education as a means to move up in economic class, and colleges push this as well, keeping demand high). This instead not only passes the risk to the individual, but inflated the risk because college is now much more expensive. And since more people have degrees, a business may desire someone with a degree over someone who doesn't, even if it has no bearing on the job, creating more demand for college degrees, even if that job doesn't pay for that level of expertise (just like the de facto requirement for a master's degree for promotion to major in years past). So the net effect is more money went to industry (colleges), and individuals were left with the bill. Not saying that you are wrong, but the economy is complex, and you have to find ways to discourage or prevent greed by individuals within the system, regardless of if you take a top-down or bottom-up approach. Especially in a country where individualism and materialism are strong values.

Disagree here. For the most privileged/richest, they are intertwined with the economy, just in a different way than the "average" person. Their money is tied up in investments, which help arguably funds the economy (or at least the portions that are funded on the open market, or in their business). So in a sense, their wealth is tied strongly to the economy. But with more money comes more options. They could sit on a big pile of physical cash and hoard it like a dragon, but I don't think anyone really does that. Even just having money sit in the bank allows the bank to make loans and investments based on that money sitting in a savings account, and keeps money moving in the economy. Or they can move money to better investments. About the only ways I can think a wealthy person can minimize engaging in the US economy is to move money over to foreign markets, or hoard physical assets (like precious metals) in lieu of money. But they'll have to participate at some level unless they leave and take their assets with them. There is some level of trickle down effect as well (not that I'm a big believer in trickle down economics). Take Elon Musk for example. He holds a large portion of Tesla's stock, and Tesla employs many people in various jobs and fields of work. His and other shareholder money allows a pooling of talent and resources to do things an individual or a small company just couldn't do, and creates many jobs that wouldn't exist otherwise (asking the lines of middle management, accounting departments, etc) However, if Elon decided to cash in his Tesla stake (say Space X is almost ready to go colonize Mars, and needs a large infusion of cash to fund the launches), Tesla would probably go under as a business, or it would at least significantly hurt their financials and ability to operate (loss of significant capital, which would drive stock prices way down, resulting in a further loss of capital), and would lead to layoffs, factory and storefront closures, and other economic impacts to the surrounding communities as Tesla workers are furloughed or fired. On the other side, Space X would be purchasing more good and services from subcontractors and suppliers, and have a positive impact economically for the communities Space X touches. So Elon's movement of money would have a big economic impact. Though I guess going on a one way trip to Mars to create a self sustaining colony is another way to exit the US economy if you are rich enough. Also, there's another choice to avoid the economy: Straight up theft of goods and services. At least until you are caught. Means nothing to be a member in a society if you can't get your basic needs met (food/shelter) following society's rules. And if there's no connection to the society, there's no reason to obey or comply with that society's rules in order to meet your basic needs.

80/20 is a heuristic (rule of thumb), and works well enough that you can describe pretty much anything using that and it'll sounds reasonable. Often it can be a good starting point, but isn't so much a "law" as it is a good estimation starting point. A person out of work going into the pandemic was not in a good place to get a job as the pandemic progressed (with layoffs, furloughs, or businesses just going under), and many people have lost their jobs (or had reduced income) as well in the course of the pandemic. You make the assumption (like in my previous post) that because they were out of work, that they are lazy (personal failure): they just need to try harder. But any number of things could've driven them being out of work (moved to a new town for better opportunities, an injury forcing a shift in career fields, just finishing school/training and in the process of job hunting, for example). Could just be bad luck and horrible timing, and not anything an individual may be able to actually control. If you focus on the people gaming the system, or are just lazy, you may miss many other people trying to work and earn an "honest" living, but can't find a job. Maybe money to individuals isn't the right answer. But what about funding food/groceries? Like a food bank or soup kitchen, but government backed providing food essentials during the pandemic for anyone who needs it? Hell, don't have any restrictions except maybe you can pick up a certain amount in a certain time period. People with stable jobs will likely buy their preferred food ahead of a handout, and the people that need it have at least for security to help pay rent or other bills, especially if they faced an hours cut. The hard part about checking for bona fide need is that it creates a lot of overhead to collect, determine, and adjudicate need, increasing costs with no additional benefit. Alternatively, you can assume and accept there will be a certain amount waste (which will it exist at some level regardless), but that on the whole is beneficial. This is especially true if the cost of anticipated (or actual) waste is less than the cost of oversight and administration. But this can be distasteful to some, because people of differing values/assumptions can point to the waste and say the program is a failure, and ignore the good that is happening elsewhere. So going back to the pareto principle, you could say 80% of the fraud/waste in a government program is caused by 20% of the people receiving the benefit, which I'd argue is a pretty reasonable estimate to start discussing with. Does that mean the program should be ended because fraud is occurring? What about the 80-ish% that weren't committing fraud that the benefit actually provides measurable help to? The next logical answer may be to eliminate the fraud through installing additional oversight. This means hiring a staff to assess each request for benefits before it's paid out, and if you want to provide the benefits in a timely manner, hiring enough staff to do so (while accounting for vacations, sick leave, and emergencies), which adds costs to the government program. So if there's $800k in fraud/waste happening, but it costs $1M to hire adequate staff to administer the program in a timely manner and eliminate the fraud, is there any tangible benefit to eliminating the fraud, outside of punishing those that have committed fraud, or for political optics or virtue signaling? This is the crux of the small government idea (and in this instance I think less government oversight is the right answer based on the assumptions I laid out, unless it can be shown that additional oversight at fair and reasonable wage/benefits would drive costs down).

Checking accounts are free, but often only if you maintain a certain amount of money in the account. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck, a checking account could be an extra expense you have to deal with. Same with ATM fees. Or buying checks. And this assumes you have a device with internet connectivity to check your balance instead of maintaining a checking ledger and going it adds up at the end of the month. And you may have to pay for paper statements. I agree we're seeing a change due to technology, but I don't think it's so much a decentralization as it is a flattening of the system and eliminating the middlemen (which you've mentioned). Better communications technologies and automation allows the end users more direct access to core businesses. This is great for both the consumer and for the business providing that core good or service. However, so many businesses fill the middleman role, or employ a large portion of people acting as middlemen (just processing paperwork). What happens when those jobs are eliminated (or outsourced some where cheaper)? Where do they go to earn a living? A lot of outsourcing concerns have generally been to overseas, but the pandemic has shown US companies they can outsource within the US to cheaper cost of living areas and drive down personnel costs (much cheaper to hire an engineer living in Kansas than one in California). This can also drive significant changes in worker's lives, as they may be forced to move (without assistance) to compete for potentially their own job, or just suck up the hit on income and make it work. AI and machine learning is still in its infancy, but as those technologies mature, they risk eliminating creative work (like engineering, analysis, and design), further exacerbating technologies impact on the workforce. The free market doesn't really care what happens to those people that are out of work due to automation or outsourcing, so long as there are consumers out there to but their products or services. And as long as the government protects the businesses from violence (though maintaining normal law and order), businesses don't have an incentive to care about what happens to their former workers or their impact on society. But desperate people will resort to desperate measures, so unless we as a society (either through government, or "ethical" employers) make changes to adapt to how technology is changing society, we probably will see more civil unrest in the future.

The time to prepare and adapt is only because that's how it's always been for us, and what we are used to. It makes it hard to really do anything major (like prepare budgets, or major initiatives) when you know what your working on doesn't matter because as soon as the new administration is sworn in, you'll have to redo it all with new guidance. So it creates a lot of wasted time in government. And for the average citizen, it just doesn't matter. If you're candidate lost, it doesn't matter if you have 1 day or 2 months to adjust, you'll just have to come to terms with it (preferably without violently storming the Capitol, but I digress). And assumes the incumbent won't do anything out of spite, especially with how much executive power has grown. What happens if the president decides they are done with North Korea and orders a nuclear attack on them on Jan 19? Singlular authority placed in the President, with no check on their decision, outside the missleer in the capsule deciding to disobey the order to launch. If we shorten the time, we'll adapt our processes and norms. A candidate that has a good chance of winning should have a list of appointees for key positions going into the election, but if not, all of those positions usually have a career deputy that can keep everything running while appointments are sorted out. I do like ranked order voting. However, implementing would be challenging. Do you eliminate party primaries? Do you allow anyone that meets the qualifications to get on the ballot? What happens to political parties? We'll never get it though because it means the political parties will have to give up a significant amount of power and control over the election process. They lose control over the narrative, and would lead to a fracturing of the party's position and ability to vote as a block. All of this is good for the voter though, but when have the political parties really cared for the voter except as a means to access power?

Really great points. You're correct on training med techs. I'm not sure how long it takes to train a med tech, but it is much shorter. I see your points with paying people to stay home. I think they're valid from an individual's point of view. From the business' point of view, that's still a worker lost, so they are either going to fill that position if they can, or find ways to gain efficiencies and eliminate that position. I'll admit that I left off post pandemic that many jobs will come back, but may force people into different job fields. But that's life and timing. But you bring up a good point-Congress was very hesitant to give money directly to individuals, and elected to give money to businesses with the hopes that it would trickle down to workers, primarily in continued employment. Both options have their issues, and it's a trade-off between variables that are intertwined. Been reading some interesting stuff online on wealth and morality in the US. Short version is we in the US, as a capitalistic and individualistic society, have tied being poor with being lazy and immorality. The corollary to that is that being rich means you worked hard to get rich, and must have shown great work ethic to get there, putting you in a position of moral superiority. In some cases, that's true. But if you have rich or well connected family, more opportunities come your way than if your family wasn't rich or well connected, which opens the door for more opportunities. So it makes it very easy to look down on people who are struggling or poor as being lazy, or for some other personal failing, when maybe they just need a hand to get back on their feet, or have an opportunity to prove themselves. On the flip side, the rich are looked up as role models, even though they may just be extremely lucky with their connections (the Kardashians, for example). I think that's why many Americans, especially conservatives, have opposed direct payments. And Republicans are catering to businesses. Even the stimulus check we got were just that- spend money on the economy. Doesn't matter on what. It wasn't really pandemic relief for individuals, it was to keep the economic machine running since people typically start saving and cutting expenses when hard times come about. Your example of mixed risk households is valid, but there are others that make it more difficult. (What follows isn't a spear, just my ramblings about me) My wife is pregnant, putting her at high risk for severe COVID complications as well as bad outcomes for the baby. We are fortunate enough (and have discussed) dropping down to a single income if needed to protect her and our baby, especially since she's a nurse that interacts with COVID patients. So great for us, and definitely coming from a place of privilege for that to be a legit option for us. Though we both did manage to catch COVID (likely through her work), and fortunately my wife and our future kid are well, though I'm still working through lingering complications with my flight doc despite not being hospitalized. But other pregnant nurses she works with can't afford to drop down to a single income, though your proposed payment would likely change that, while the current plan did nothing for them. If all the pregnant nurses left my wife's clinic, their clinics would take a major hit to their patient capacity, because they already make heavy use of med techs and typically only have a couple nurses on the floor in a given shift, and are short staffed on nurses to begin with. Not to mention the couple of nurses pulled from the schedule for being COVID positive. Plus their company has a 6 month training program before they are cleared to work unsupervised. So with this in mind, can or should the government force skilled essential workers to work regardless of their risk level in the interest of the greater public good? Lastly, I agree with you that I, as an married FGO with no kids, probably shouldn't have gotten a stimulus check (and I'm pretty sure I'll have to pay it back anyways since my income in 2020 was significantly higher than my 2019 income used to determine eligibility for to a deployment)

The other crazy thing in all of this is our election timelines. With faster modes of travel (or the ability to telecommute), modern communications, and technology to help speed up counting votes, why is our election so far from our from the actual inauguration? I can see in the past needing time to: - Manually count votes by hand - Travel on foot or by horse to aggregate results at multiple levels -Having electors gather and vote -Having congressmen travel to deliver that vote to Congress -Time to communicate the overall electoral votes and winner back to their home states and to the candidates -Travel for the winning candidate to DC (if they aren't already there) I can see why that took months originally, but maybe we should shorten it given modern technologies we enjoy now, versus keeping lame duck administrations who's only reason not to do something crazy in that time period is tradition (which arguably has now been broken).