I'm reading the Wright Brothers Bio right now and what struck me is how they came from a really poor family ( dad was a travelling preacher ), and they owned a small bicycle shop in a small town, yet they had no trouble owning a big house, and could afford to leave the shop for several years in their 20s to go across the country to do flying experiments.
That would be unthinkable today due to rent & food & healthcare costs.
Basic income should be coupled with government initiatives to increase the supply of housing (eg. zoning and regulation changes to allow increased density, subsidizing non-luxury apartments, land value tax).
It's not clear that this will be enough to offset inflation, but the truly excellent Basic Income subreddit FAQs [1] addresses inflation specifically, and in essence there has been little to no evidence of it in practice.
I personally have always been a fan of Henry George who not just advocated an LVT, but suggested that this should be the only tax - all other taxes were unfair. I realise I am in a minority and some taxes can help with social/healthcare issues (e.g. on tobacco and alcohol).
That said, UBI with a rigorous LVT would be my ideal. Alas, voters utterly despise both, at least in the UK, so it's unlikely we'll see either any time soon.
Whether or not there is a basic income, it's the right thing to do. Income should be either earned (by creating value) or shared equally (if derived from land and natural resources).
The government zones the way it does today on purpose, to create a built environment and social structure that insures you have to work all the time to afford housing and a car. This makes you docile and governable and taxable.
3D printing won't help with any of those.
I say the federal government should pass laws invalidating most municipal restrictions on new housing development. These laws are nothing more than rent seeking by property owners. Yeah, some neighborhoods will see increases in noise and traffic, but that's the price we have to pay for accessible, affordable housing.
By today's standards, many people were "poor" back then - it's all relative. Maybe in 100+ years they'll look back and marvel at how "poor" Andreesen/Gates/etc... were too.
You can be poor today and still make it big. You don't need a college degree or the massive debt that entails, you can make up for that with a good idea + hard work + persistence + live as frugal as possible + a little luck. It's not exactly the same - some things are harder and some things are easier, but overall it's still doable.
if you'd like a review first: http://www.ctka.net/2016/book-review-pepper-mlk/the-plot-to-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Flat_tax_w...
How high should that income be?
If there's no ad targeting, it'd just be coincidence, right? If there's some sort of ad targeting based on some demographic data, what does that say? It may just mean that you happen to match some criteria, like you happen to live in a certain location. How about if the advertiser is targeting certain videos or types of videos? Should that be allowed? Disallowed? Allowed only in some circumstances? Maybe just not this advertiser under any circumstances? How would you set up Google's advertising?
I guess I'm not sure what "someone thinks it is okay to do this now" implies. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you?
