[taeric]

And where I live, 68k is... Probably not going to let you live in this area. :(

I'm torn. Both sides of this debate can make pretty good arguments. And I'm particularly swayed by the arguments in Case Against Education.

That said... What is the path forward? I'm just not seeing it.

[ethbr0]

IMHO, for starters, we should be subsidizing essential workers*. Indexed to cost of living.

If salary isn't over a threshold, relative to their workplace, they're eligible for subsidized housing (in a mixed-income development) and food.

That we have necessary people unable to live in the communities they serve is insane. And if we're not going to address it from the salary side, at least we can do something from the expense side.

* Where "essential worker" means any job fulfilling a social function in the local community. Teacher, nurse, police officer, firefighter etc.

[taeric]

I'm not sure this works. Basically, sets up dire stakes to maintain a job for as long as you can, and makes perverse incentives on the auditing of the system.

Cards on the table, I'm very keen on some sort of UBI. I also have doubts on much of the reporting I've seen surrounding it.

I further think this needs a way to both double down in access and advancement for those with access, while further increasing funding and effort for those that don't. Main belief is that success affords more and more. Such that you want to double down in success, but you also need to use more of that success to lift up everyone.