Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by GeographyDude, Apr 11, 2019.
You'd need the collapse of high modernism and the managerial state for that.
On AH, we spend a fair amount of time on Nixon's FAP, even though it was never enacted.
But the Earned Income Credit (EIC) was enacted in 1975.
The maximum credit for tax year 2018 hitting the plateau with three or more children is $6,431 (six thousand, four-hundred and thirty-one dollars). That's significant.
If we combined this with overtime provisions with teeth that really encouraged companies to spread out available jobs, we might really have something. Besides universal income (which I'm not exploring in this thread although I'm okay with other people doing so), this might be another way to heaven! At least part of the way to heaven.
And I'm interested how this would interact with more volunteer activity.
If child care was more affordable, that would appreciably help lower-income, middle-income, and even some upper-middle families!
I agree that a lot of regulation is merely going-through-the-motions. For example, I don’t think the licensing involved in setting up a day care business does much good.
Now, unannounced spot inspections do a lot more good.
And that combined with social media might give us higher solid quality than we have today. Count this as a leftie version of libertarian economics if you wish!
Ok. So you need to cut into the money aid to child-care providers per child (including lowering demands on base quality of care and necessitating higher child-per-caretaker ratios) or push off the cost onto somebody other than the parent. I'd also argue that if you start removing regulation, due to the issues of verification/quality control of independent operators, you're far more likely to end up with a corperatization/insitutionalization of the practice with large "Megadaycares" which can give parents a larger sense of security for their child, especially in low-income communities where the level of social trust is lower in general. That affordability will also go down the drain of your new costs since, according to your job-splitting proposal which as I pointed out earlier is almost inevitably going to gut per- full time employee fixed cost compensation like insurance, is just going to see spare income disappear into paying for your kid's doctor's visits, basic dental work, ect. And if you're trying to pay child care providers in guiter lessons or homemade jam or what have you, than we're back to the Barter System problem
The smart thing to do from many perspectives, if politically impossible due to people's "pro-business"/"meritocratic" attitudes would be have UHC, a basic income, a few other services to redistribute things/keep money flowing but otherwise don't really regulate the economy(outside of pre-1975 style finance regulation) all that much.
I suspect a country that did this would grow really fast economically for at least a decade, as all kinds of bureaucratic inefficiencies/a parasitic financial sector no longer have to kept afloat. The end result wouldbe a richer country, a freer population but the "downside" would be MUCH fewer middle class "good jobs" -- cubicle bureaucratic jobs
Which wouldn't matter nearly as much without the cost of living being jacked up by asset inflation. Doubly so with the basic income adding support to lower level wages.
I put downside in quotes. My opinion of these kinds of "good jobs", especially management and HR should be quite clear.
ITT: White supremacy, orientalism, jingoism, and general capitalist boot-licking.
This is a shock? You can't pay for the "middle class good jobs"/bureaucracy needed to create those jobs normie cons/liberals want without keeping the third world down, after all.
Russia is allowed a limited degree of internal cultural autonomy because of how much the EU depends on it's oil, while China's allowed the same due to being the source of cheap consumer goods. The Saudis? Oil obviously.
most people do not challenge the foreign policy of their country. This is true of American citizens, Vietnamese citizens, Serbian citizens, Cuban citizens, Korean citizens, etc.
There are no salt of the earth people.
But all the same, I think we did better in the ‘60s when people weren’t so pre-occupied with their economic futures, than in the top-heavy corporate world of today.
I’d also encourage you to look at the messy reality of EIC (Earned Income Credit), which has aspects of a universal income, and finds much greater political acceptance.
You guys really think you "won" the Cold War, don't you?
Separate names with a comma.