One is that in 2006 we couldnt afford it right now with the same budget that we could afford if by 2011. I was off a couple of years by the breaking point but now we are well above the breaking point and we can implement the plan that i present in the book for less money than we have in transfers and that situation is going to get dramatically worse if you want to think of it that way over the next several years because we do have rising entitlement costs and we can pretty confidently into the future and see budget deficits that are extremely serious, and i would say one way or another there has to be major reform. Congress isnt due major reform unless it has to and i think it will absolutely have to. That is one reason. The second reason is that much more than in 2006, i am aware of a huge shift thats taking place in the job market and its ten or 20 years down the road. Theres trucks and Driverless Cars within a decade. And in just the sheer numbers and the nature of the changes are in white collar jobs where after decades, Artificial Intelligence is going to carve out. Large numbers of jobs but up until now have been held by people with College Degrees and average intelligence and having to make complex decisions and allow those jobs to go away. Think of travel agents in terms of things. That is a second thing. I will finish that off by saying we are looking at a future in which living a satisfying life will still involve location but it wont necessarily be defined in terms of a nine to 540 hour a week job. Its the same reason that i was interested in the guaranteed income in 2006 and that is i think it offers a chance to revitalize the Civil Society. Im going to make a very brief statement on what the plan consists of and what i hope it achieves and try to hold up within ten or 11 minutes and then have a chance to respond at length and go back and forth of all the things we disagree on and open up for questions later. First the basics of the plan. I will start by saying that a universal basic income could be a disaster. I think that it would add on to the Current System it would be a disaster for all the reasons a lot of people say that it would be. However, if it replaces Everything Else but both financially becomes feasible and a variety of good things happen that wouldnt have been otherwise. So we replaced all transfers with the universal basic income and by all transfers i include in that Social Security, medicare, medicaid, all Welfare Programs, all agricultural subsidies, corporate welfare, anything that constitutes a welfare from some american taxpayers to other citizens as opposed to things like protection and National Defense and so forth. Its in the plan of 13,000 per year for every person in the United States from a citizen who is 21 years or older. You need to have an electronic deposit into a known bank account to get the plan. There are some reasons for that stipulation. In monthly installments. Now here is that stipulation. The only situation i have been my plan is to thousand dollars of that must be used for health insurance. That is a very complicated subject and if the chair wants to get into that i would be happy to do it. Im going to be that out of this initial presentation and say one way or another carve 3,000 of that out and say we are talking in terms of money, 10,000 a year you cant live on 10,000 a year. Youre right if you want to live all by your self without reference to anybody else thats true and if you dont want to work at all thats true. You can very easily make a decent living for yourself if everybody else has 10,000 a year and be more 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 still not working thats 20,000 a year. If you hold down a minimum wage job lets say 7. 50 an hour and you work for 2,000 a year that is 15,000 so thats 25,000. If you are living with someone else that is 35,000. You can go through a lot of permutations and say that that universal basic income make it really easy for people doing very ordinary things to live well above the poverty line and forget the poverty line. Makes it easy to get into the middle class if you have a couple where you have a 20,000dollar increment and fairly lowpaying jobs. And with that comes progress against poverty that has eluded us for the last 40 years. It has all sorts of ways of making a comfortable retirement easier than it is under Social Security especially low income earners and a lot of these are issues i have to exculpate to make my case. A couple features in the plan that are important, and let me pause for a moment. I know this plan could never be enacted as i specify. Whatever version of this might actually be considered the things im about to see need to be taken into account. You need a very high payback point. Part of the grant is at 30,000 of earned income and at that point you pay a 10 tax on every 10,00 10,000 theres a graduatd schedule between 30 to 60,000. The point is this current programs have terrible marginal tax rates so that if you have medicaid and some forms food stamps and other forms of assistance it can be very dicey to get a job because you lose those. If you are on disability, and i think the people in this room are aware of the massive increase that includes lots of people that may have a real disability for certain kinds of jobs that could easily hold other kinds of jobs they cannot go to work without jeopardizing and quite naturally a lot of people dont want to do that so if you have the high payback point, you sidestep all of those tracks and you lure people into working until they cant afford to quit so if somebody has been working at a job getting raises and gets up to 30,000 they had a net of 40 and at that point i dont think very many of them woke with working because they have to start paying a small amount of the rent back and go from a 40,000dollar a year lifestyle to a 10,000 a year lifestyle. Let me move on to that from a brief outline of why i say that i think ubi offers the chance to revitalize american Civil Society. Its a complicated argument in a lot of ways. Let me put it in terms of one of the things most commonly brought up as a reason you dont want to do it you will have people who drink of their money before the end of the month and if you take it away all of that Government Programs deal with this whats going to happen to these people whats going to happen is they are going to have to seek help but it cant be going down to the bureaucracy downtown. They will have to talk to the girlfriend or boyfriend or relative or friend, Salvation Army and say i tapped out. I dont have anywhere to go you have to help me. You have changed the dynamic. The person who is doing that no longer is the victim who has no resources. Americans have a history of letting people die in the streets and friends dont let friends die in the streets so heres the kind of response i envision which i do not think it is naive, i think it is practical that youre going to have two say okay im not going to let you starve so dont tell me that theres nothing you can do because i know the first of the monkeys have another 800 some coming into your bank account and its time you got your act together. Multiply that kind of interaction by millions of times every day around the country in terms of people who have human needs, and what i am saying is that dealing with those human need is going to be pushed down to the level where you have the best chance of getting an event because if there is anything but people have worked in serious problem knows it is that some people need a pat on the back and a helping hand and sympathy and other people need a kick in the pants and the people who know best how to do that are the people who are closest to them through our most ineffectual at doing that our government bureaucracies because they must not be run by rules, and rules are not very easily adapted to the complexities of human needs. But the ways in which it revitalizes Civil Society is not limited to the people who have lots of problems and need to have those problems addressed. It goes to one of the things that made america exceptional not exceptional in our eyes bragging about the United States but exceptional in terms of the europeans eyes who came over here and went on saying weve never seen anything quite like this and if that is the extent to which American Communities especially in the north and west dealt with their problems forming associations is famously described also all sorts of informal ways there were very few around the world that did it as we did. I sometimes made the case to document it if you took the philanthropic efforts in new york city at the end of the 19th century i am willing to go to the wall to say they were far more than the tax base then they could have ever matched in terms of government services. That is the stuff of life of communities. Thats what makes living in the community rewording in the same way that you worry about what makes a vocation rewording. Its in our hands as individuals and as families and as communities. I will stop there and turn it over. Thank you. It is a pleasure to hear you talk about civil discourse because i consider you a master of that oneonone and its one of the reasons i enjoy interacting with you. A couple books ago you wrote a book called coming apart which i read at the time and i liked a lot of what i read and i didnt realize at the time but it very much pre age is a lo is a lot e current dynamic in my view it if you havent read that you should go back and look at it. The current book i have many more disagreements with and 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 of some of the problems we have in our economy and it would get rid of a number of important programs that have evolved in ways that in which they are having their intended effect and strangely effectively and efficiently doing what they are supposed to do which isnt easy to do in social policy in the 18 plus trillion dollar economy. A lot of my reactions in this position was what we have not broken, dont fix it and the fix is a lot worse than the Current System. Then i want to talk about the notion of jobs and the kind of future of work because here 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 thinking that its a solution im going to disagree with but im going to try to end and this will only take ten minutes tops on the notion of agreement and areas in which i think as he always says it is something worth elevating and perhaps agreeing upon if we can. I have a pretty significant wrangling going to dangle in front of you to see a few nibbles. So, this may be but i will assert based on extensive evidence that Social Security, medicare, medicaid, the Affordable Care act and the safety net are all working very well. Having their intended effects efficiently and effectively there are certainly aspects of those programs that need work as charles suggested solvency issues must be resolved for the largest social insurance programs, but in the very first page of the book he says suspend political disbelief which is a reasonable thing because if youre going to read about a very large game changer you kind of have to suspend if you are talking about any policy in the town. I would argue that it is a less heavy lift them the changes charles is introducing so i hope in the commentary i can say more about this but let me start with Social Security and work through quickly. Social security in the absence, elderly poverty would be about 44 . Social security takes it down to about 9 . The administrative cost used to be 2 of benefits paid which is anything but a privatesector Retirement Program of the type charles is advocating for and it is now down to. 5 . The administration is. 5 of benefits paid. Social Security Risk adjustment provides the same return as the stock market investment and by the riskadjusted what you have to factor in is the inherent risk in putting the retirement account in the stock market. We had this debate during the days of gw bush and one of the reasons why it went away i was happy to see was in part because the market kind of tank where we were having a debate which reminded people of the importance of accounting for the risk when we are talking about a Social Security guaranteed program. Charles also said a thing about the transition costs which is huge when you are moving away from Social Security and its something more variable. Medicare not only is like Social Security a deeply beloved program so i think it has some headaches dealing with that but it also is again a highly Efficient Program and if you look at the Cost Increases and you want to ask where are the fiscal pressures coming from you will find that year in and year out medicare and medicaid grow more slowly even controlling peoples medical conditions. So again, highly efficient. Do your self a favor it isnt hard to find. Look at the own insurance rates. Of the population that lacks insurance and draw the line when it comes into play. If you do this for adults you will see what i mean. Draw the line where it comes into play and you will see the uninsured rate drops off cliff. You want this to go down 16 in 2010 and its about 9 today. This also has to do with changes in medicare delivery if you look at the projections of healthcare spending, the kind of delivery measures and other things going on at the same time have reduced the projections of healthcare expenditures by four Percentage Points but Something Like 800 billion if you take this out a couple of decades. So, these programs are proving to be both efficient, effective and bending the cost curve in ways that are extremely important and coming to the privatesector solution that wont get us there. I very much disagree with the assertions about the extent of the safety net. There may have been a time that was more of a problem but over the last 20 years, the safety net has become increasingly conditioned on work and in fact, if you are disabled, elderly or a working person, the safety net is now much more tilted towards you than against you and this causes another problem that we have a large share in deep poverty disconnected from the job market and by the way, here a cash grant would probably be helpful on top of what we are doing already as opposed to replacing it. But again we are not doing power plants which is fine but let me describe the graph. If you look at the poverty rate that is often cited the poverty rate adjusting for all the things that we have done to increase the effectiveness of the earned income tax credit, the expansion of nutritional support, those are not in the official rate during the supplementabut during thesupplen from about 26 to about 14. 5 today about a 45 decline in the supplemental rates and moreover, look at how it performed in the Great Recession but greatest since the deep depression. That means the countercyclical impact of the safety net is more effective than its ever been before. Two more planes and then we will turn back over. It is simple math that if you are going to take a system of transfers which is disproportionately tilted toward those of the lower end of the pay scale so it is a simple arithmetic if you were going to take a transfer system that is targeted at poor and lowincome people and distributed among everyone you are going to dilute distributional impact of the transfer system that is you will be pushing back on the equity or the quality inducing aspect of the safety net so it offsets the increase in the market and come ubi takes that away and pushes back the other way by issuing a set of programs that are targeted at the low end and diluting their effectiveness by distributing them broadly. Now finally on jobs, here is the thing. And maybe right, nobody knows. I want to defer certainly to the possibility that the future will be different than the past. However it is true the idea that technology will be on employee and de juicin using in the futs never been correct but heres why i am so specifically doubtful about this claim in at least the nearterm, if in Fact Technology or labor substituting capital, if in fact the capital that substitutes workers and labor was entering the workforce at an accelerating rate, we would see productivity great accelerate. Its nothing but output per hour so if we were creating more output with less work which is what they tell us we would be seeing productivity and accelerating instead we are seeing at the celebrate and in fact i would argue its not what we really should be arguing about up here. Folks talking about robotics without looking around the distant corners weve never been right about those in fact im afraid we are not now. And in fact you want to take apart a syste the system that is working at strangely well and replace it with one that is any quality inducing and less effective by a word save my areas of agreement. Let me stop. We have these Efficient Programs we are spending the state and local altogether about 2 trillion a year. There is an intransigent set of people despite all of these sufficient programs and i guess what i will skip over in the transition cost and i will skip over that but i will never make a big deal of the cost of the bureaucracies lets think about a guy that is low skilled and is never going to be anything thats close certificates to the labor market lets say it will be 10 an hour and he works 1500 hours so thats 15,000 so it doesnt quite double but it does augment. What can they get, he can get some food stamps and he doesnt get anything close to ten grand every year in terms of what it can do. The entry into not just escaping from poverty but