The humanity needs to be seen in terms of during slavery, owning one as a status symbol and then having the domestics as a measure of ones worth in society. Having your humanity denied this but the concept of visibility is trying to get at. You can watch this and other programs online. Charles murray proposes his plan to replace the current welfare system by setting up a universal basic income. He is in conversation with the former chief economic adviser to Vice President joe biden. [inaudible] in indication that we generally enjoyed talking to each other about issues which we disagreed and i dont even know to the extent on the topic. I had published a book on this in 2006 and have been interested in the concept since the 1980s. Saying we couldnt afford it right now with the same budget we had a code by 2011. I was actually off by a couple of years back w that we past bae break even point past 2009. Its going to get worse if we think of it over the next several years because we do have rising entitlement costs and we can look in the future and see the budget deficits that are extremely serious. Im aware of a huge shift taking place in the job market. Its the thing white Truck Drivers and the advent of driverless trucks and cars. After decades of being hyped, Artificial Intelligence is going to carve out very large numbers of jobs that up until now have been held by people that offer College Degrees and average intelligence. It wont necessarily be the vocation as defined in terms of the nine to 540 hour week job. Im going to make a very brief statement on what the plan consists of. We can go back and forth on the things we do disagree on the. If it were an addon to the Current System it would be a disaster for the reasons a lot of people say that it would be and if it replaces Everything Else that could financially becomes feasible and a variety of things would have been otherwise. So we would replace all transfers with the universal basic income and by all transfers i include in that Social Security, you care, medicaid, welfare programs, all agricultural subsidies, corporate welfare and anything that constitutes a transfer. You need to have an electronic deposit. In the monthly installments now here is a stipulation we have 3,000 of that that must be used for health insurance. That is a very complicated subject. Im going to leave it out of this initial presentation and say one way or another carve 3,000 of that out and lets say we are talking in terms of money, disposable income 10,000 a year. You cant live on 10,000 a year, youre right without reference to anybody else thats true and if you dont want to work at all thats true. If everybody else has 10,000 a year in you are willing to cooperate. If you can get together with a boyfriend or girlfriend or relative or friend or anybody else, just the two of you thats 20,000 a year. If you hold down a minimumwage job lets say 7. 50 and you work for 15,000, thats 25,000. If you are living with someone else that is 35,000. You can go through a love. A lot of permutations and its easy for people doing ordinary things to live well above the poverty line. It makes it easy to get into the middle class. If you have a 20,000dollar increment your getting into the middleclass incomes and with that comes progress against poverty that has eluded us with the last 40 years. It has all sorts of ways of making the retired and easier than it is under Social Security for low income earners. A lot of these things are issues to make the case. A couple features in the plan that are really important but me pause for a moment, i know that this plan could never be enacted as i specify a. What i say is whatever version this might be considered need to be taken into account. One is you need a high api complained. I start to fall back part of the grant of 30,000 of earned income and at that point you pay a 10 tax on every thousand dollardollars there is a graduax schedule between 30 to 60,000. The point is current programs have terrible marginal tax rat rates. It can be very dicey because you lose those. If you are on disability and i think the people in this room are aware of the Disability Program that includes lots of people that may have a real disability for certain kinds of jobs that could easily fool other kinds of jobs the kind oft go to work without jeopardizing that they had as he guaranteed income and quite naturally not all people want to do that. So if you have the high payback point, you sidestep all of those and lure people into working until they cant afford to quit so if somebody has been working at a job and got raises they have a net of 40 in at that point i dont think very many of them will quit working because they have to pay a small amount of the grant back and go for a 40,000 a year lifestyles of a 10,000 year lifestyles. Let me move on to a brief outline of why i say that they offer the advanced revitalized american Civil Society. Its a complicated argument in a lot of ways. One of the things brought up is the way you dont want to do it. People do drink up their money before the end of the month and if you take it away all the Government Programs deal with this thing to happen to these people and. They have to talk to the boyfriend from derivatives friends and salvation army. We have changed the dynamic. There is a history of not letting people die in the streets in france dont have a history of lettin of letting fre in the streets, so heres the kind of response i envisioned which i do not think its naive i think it is entirely practical, but you are going to have two say im not going to let you starve, so dont tell me that theres nothing you can do a. Its time you got your act together. What im saying is dealing with those human beings are going to be pushed down to the level you have the best chance of getting an effect. We have a helping hand of sympathy and other people need a kick in the pants. The people that are closest to them, the people that are most effectual addend letting the got bureaucracies and they must be run by rules that are not very easily adapted to the complexities of human needs a. People have lots of problems and need to have those problems addressed. In terms of their eye isp came e in the 19th century and said weve never seen anything quite like this and that is the extent to which American Communities especially in the north and west dealt with their problems in forming associations as they described. There are very few if any societies around the world that did it as needed. I have sometimes made the case and tried to document it with numbers that if you took the philanthropic efforts in new york city im willing to say the amount we spend on those who are far more than the tax base new york city could have ever matched in terms of Government Services if they decided to do the Government Programs. A lot of that has gone away and i would like to see that come back because that is the stuff of life of communities. Thats what makes it rewarding in the same way that you worry about what makes a vocation rewording and a family rewordi rewording. The title of the book comes from the concept of putting life back in our hands as individuals and families and as communities. So i will stop there and turn it over. Thank you, charles. It is a pleasure to hear you talk about civil discourse because i consider you a master of that for one of the reasons i enjoy interacting with you. Charles wrote a book called coming apart and i liked a lot of what i read and i didnt realize at the time a lot of the dynamics in th the current viewd if you havent read that you should go back and look at it. What i would like to do is talk about why i think the idea for the universal basic income is misguided in the sense that it would compound some of the problems we have in our economy and get rid of a lot of important programs that have evolved in ways that which they are having their intended effect and extremely effectively and efficiently. In addition to what we have not broken, dont fix it. Charles is part of a Larger Movement where many social and economic commentators are very much concerned about the future of work from the perspective of charles and thinking im going to disagree with that but if i end and this will take ten minutes tops on the notice of agreement in areas in which i think charles as he always does its something with elevating and perhaps agreeing upon. So this may be but i will assert based on extensive evidence that Social Security, medicare, medicaid are all working very well having their intended effects there are certainly aspects of those programs that need work as charles suggested and they must be resolved for the social Insurance Program but in the very first page of the book it says suspend political disbelief which is a very reasonable thing because youre going to read about a very large game changed. The social insolvency of the program is a less heavy lift and getting to any of these kind of changes. So let me start with Social Security and work my way through that list quickly. Social security in the absence of elderly poverty would be about 44 , Social Security takes it down to about 9 of. Its 5 of the benefits paid. Social Security Risk adjustment provides the same return as the kind of Stock Market Investments charles have. Its the risk of putting the retirement account in the stock market and we have the account with gw bush and one of the reasons it went away was in part because the market kind of tank around the debates that reminded people of the importance of the accounting for risk talking about the pension program. Medicare not only is a deeply beloved program but i think he would have some real headaches to deal with that aspect. But again its a very highly Efficient Program and if you look at the cost of the Cost Increases and of course if you want to ask where are the fiscal pressures coming from they are from the cost pressures of health care in particular you will find that consistently year in and year out it grows more slowly than the private Health Coverage even controlling peoples medical conditions. Get yourself a favor it isnt hard to find. Look at a plot of the uninsurance rate, the share of the population that lacks insurance and all a line where it comes into place. If you do this for them on children and adults you will see particularly what i mean by the way getting rid of the child insurance as well. Drawing the line where it comes into play you will see that for the year in and year out on insurance rate drop off the cliff was going to go down because of the rate of people that were uninsured with 50 in 2012010 is about 9 today. This also has to do with changes in medicare delivery. If you look at projections of healthcare spending, the kind of delivery measures that are in other things. Its like 8 billion if you take this out a couple of decades. So, these programs are proving to be the efficient, effective and as we used to say bending the cost curve in ways that are extremely important and i fear are going to the private sector solution that charles advocates. Now the safety net. I very much disagree with the assertions about the extent of the safety net. I think that there may have been a time when it was more of a problem. But over the last 20 years, the safety net has become increasingly conditioned if youre a disabled and elderly were working person, the safety net is now tilted towards you than against you and this causes another problem that has a share of households in deep poverty disconnected from the job market and by the way, here the cash grant would probably be helpful on top of what we are doing as opposed to replacing it. As again we are not doing powerpoint which is fine. Its often cited incorrectly. Its the antipoverty effectiveness of the earned income tax credit and the expansion of the nutritional support, those arent in the official race but in the supplemental race its come down from about 26 in the late 1960s to about 14. 5 today about a 45 decline. Moreover, look at how it performed in the Great Recession, the deepes deepest we had since the great depression. That means that Counter Cyclical impact of the safety net is more effective than it has ever been before. Two more planes and then we will turn things back over to charles. It is simple math that if you are going to take a system of transfers that is disproportionately tilted to thosthose at the lower end of te pay scale, for simple arithmetic that if you are going to take a transfer system that is disproportionately targeted at poor and lowincome people in this debate among everyone, you are going to dilute the distributional impact of the transfer system that is you will be pushing back on the equity or the equality inducing aspects of the safety net. So as i mentioned at all facets of equality that we have seen in the market incomes and they take that away and push back the other way by taking a set of programs that are targeted at the low end and diluting the lowincome effectiveness by distributing them broadly. The kind of robots are coming for our jobs crowd i want to stipulate that and charles doesnt say things lately, so i want to defer to certainly the possibility that future will be different i than the past. However, it is true in the idea that the future technology will be inducing in the future has never been correct. But here is why i am so specifically doubtful about this claim in at least the nearterm if in Fact Technology or leaderr substituting capital if in fact capital of substitutes for the workers. If we are creating more out of this productivity accelerates the. Certainly you cant find any evidence that would lead you to believe that you would want to take apart a system that i think is working extremely well and replace it with one that is inequality inducing and less effective. I will save my areas of agreement. So we have these Efficient Programs. In the transfer payments we have millions of people in the poverty. We have an intransigent set of people that are not able to live in the decent distances in spite all of these programs. I will skip over the fact i have an entire appendix on the transition cost and i will skip over. Lets think about a guy who is low skilled and will never be anything except low skilled. He works 1,500 a yea 1500 houro thats 15,000. That means 10,000 doesnt quite double but it augments the. Under the Current System but can they get . You know these numbers better than i do, they can get food stamps or some other type inference of what it can do and the entry into not just escaping from poverty but entry into a more comfortable life is pretty much shut off to him in lots of ways. Theres a lot more than those things for the low skilled work. Now, think about marriage which has been declining rapidly in the working class. Marriage which is one of the best ways for all sorts of good things to occur. All at once if you get married and yo your low income. Giving them an avenue they can look forward to and my plan does that its a huge transfer of money towards the lowest income. Its for the medicare and Social Security but i would say that advantage of my plan is really important. So that guy is underserved by the system i was touting and interestingly one of the ways to help them believe it or not there is bipartisan interest in doing this is to expand the earned income tax credit. That is a single worker, take the guy that charles described with the earned income credit. The safety net shouldnt be viewed simply in terms of lining up dollars and things more but i still think i would come out on top of. Its suggesting the bottom fifth gets on average about 15,000 a year. Thats before Social Security and thats important as i wasnt just a minute. To defuse a bunch of transfers at the income scale even given the marginal tax rate on the higher income people you would still be distribution only, it would be not equalizing. We have a very nice paper that came out recently from the center that makes this point in a way that we want to be explicit about it. If you take them on with a couple of kids, she is working halftime at the minimum wage she ends up with an income based on the benefits of her food stamps over 6,000 the Child Tax Credit is close to 700. She doubles her effort and is working full time. 7. 25 is too low we might even agree on that. So its a very low minimum wage and double the work gets to the point of the work disincentives. Does she end up with less . She ends up with 1. 5000 in food stamps and more than makes up without into eit c. In the Child Tax Credit it goes from 18,000 to about 26,000. Thats the work incentive currently built into the system. Recognized as that is going on, she is contributing to Social Security and paying people taxes. Getting rid of Social Security is the part of the plan that i dislike the most because he says everybody should invest in the stock market. There is no rule that they have to do that and i would agree with his admonishment that is what you should do. A lot of people wont do that because they cant afford to do it. They might not because they have the hyperbolic great meaning they are not giving a crap about the future, a different way of saying the same thing. And the solution in this case isnt a guaranteed pension mike Social Security so again this is that private account im happy to have once again although we did this very thoroughly. Here i have an issue to move the topics along the. A lot of people dont get so scared. You could be 65yearsold with a variety of conditions you either get very little Social Security or none at all if they had been all their lives they didn didny that pennsavethe penny and got n grand. Let me