[eric-hu]

I think Temporal and I share similar views on this matter. I believe neither he nor I are arguing that a properly executed welfare system* is bad. Speaking just for myself, it seems rational that most billionaires in America would try to minimize their contribution to social welfare. It would take some authoritarianism to prevent them from parking their money in tax havens, setting up trust funds for their kids, and so forth.

To revisit the comment above:

> Why can't progress in technology replace population growth through higher productivity? We tend to cut costs and reward the capital managers... but why not maintain costs while rewarding employees?

This _can_ happen, but I don't believe it _will_ without some authoritarianism. Otherwise, the wealthy will find legal means to reward themselves disproportionately more than their workers. Individuals in America have widely varying interpretations of what it means to take a fair cut. The law is very slow to respond to companies like Walmart or Amazon paying shamefully low warehouse wages. Even usury is borderline legal: I believe most states have some kind of payday loan company.

To be perfectly clear on my views, I think the goals of universal healthcare and universal basic income are good. I don't believe the American socio-cutural system is capable of achieving these in my lifetime. I hope for the sake of my friends and family that I'm wrong, but I'm planning my life around finding a country on a track I believe in.

* I would have preferred a less loaded term than this. The American welfare system is far from effective in it's goals IMO.