That's empirically not true, devoid of any justification, and just sounds like you didn't get your cookie so you're throwing a temper tantrum. Capitalism can work, but it has a number of flaws that become pretty glaring when it doesn't have rules. Or when they are circumvented. Or when either winning or losing has unrestrained positive feedback that forces more of the same.

The latter is what the U.S. tends towards -- the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater, because capitalism has demonstrably increased the wealth of everyone. You correct for the positive feedback, on both ends. Mixed market economies do that, sometimes too much, causing productivity failure which makes everyone's life worse. Sometimes too little, causing wealth/income disparity and shameful inhumanity. But you don't declare math and reason invalid because just you're upset, and you don't advocate avarice and greed because you're just grubby.

Doctors? Not too long in historical terms before they'll be confirming automated diagnoses and signing prescriptions, except for the very best ones. Financial consultants? Robo-advisers are already often more cost-effective for investment allocation. Teachers, caretakers, therapists? Check what the typical one gets paid and see how you'd like that. Sex workers, that's the future.

You do nothing, just like the current practice now for those who receive public assistance. They learn not to do that again. And,I realize Slashdot discourse is heading for the sewer, but there's no need to go on the attack with your response, I don't think I attacked you.

If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation since 1968 (the high point of the minimum wage in constant dollars) it would be a little over $17hr. now, based on CPI data from the Federal Reserve. The Consumer Price Index (inflation, as commonly stated) is probably a bit high as an indicator, since it does not take into account consumers shifting around what they buy to the extent they can. The (Personal Consumption Expenditures index) is probably somewhat more accurate, and a bit lower. Still, however inflation is measured, the minimum wage has not kept up, even approximately.

If a UBI is phased in, I think the minimum wage should be set to whatever it would have been without the UBI, minus the hourly amount of the UBI, and at some (decades) later point, eliminated entirely. Say if the minimum wage would have been $12/hr. and the UBI is $1000/month, then the minimum wage with UBI would be set to somewhere around $6.00/hr. This would be perceived by employers as a reduction in the cost of hiring an employee, benefitting commerce.

Employers would notice one big difference however -- they no longer are their employee's only source of income, and they'll have to treat them better, however that gets manifested. This is in many ways a good thing, because while employers/owners do accept the majority of the "long term" financial risk, they almost always have far less immediate risk when negotiating with an employee. This kind of asymmetry in an economic relationship takes away a lot of the "freely entered transaction" aspects of it, and that's economically not a good thing.

So how does it get paid for? Well, for those who work they wouldn't pay a thing at very low income levels. At higher, but still quite low, income levels the IRS would start taking a bit of that UBI back, and that percentage amount would increase the more you made. (At no point, however, would working more get you less money, like welfare can do now.) At a certain income level, the IRS is taking it all back so it's financially neutral relative to the current tax setup. Above that level, you would be paying it all back and then some. If you work in software, for example, there's a good chance you do that now, especially if you have moved along in your career.

But you make UBI and all other non-healthcare assistance an opt-in either or proposition. If you are on some form of public assistance (again, not healthcare) you are given a choice, if you are provably a citizen -- take the UBI and we'll stop hassling you, or can choose to continue the way you are now, but not both. Making it a choice will largely silence the complaints about something being taken away. That will make it possible to incrementally sunset the existing welfare programs -- people will choose to on their own.

If you are a high-income taxpayer, then you are paying the leftover amounts for either the current public assistance scheme or the UBI one, for any given hypothetical beneficiary. One pays more people and is highly efficient (cutting checks and withholding wages, plus validation of citizenship, age of majority, and a pulse) and the other has a lower payout to the recipient, but a shitload of inefficiencies and government intrusion and perverse incentive associated with it.

If it is paid for (at least to the extent the government currently pays for things) and not funded by printing dollars, it will not increase the money supply, so it won't be inflationary in that sense, except as a short term "shock". What it may do is impede commerce/work by reducing the penalty for not working, but this is not a comfortable amount for anyone to live on, much less build a future on. Conversely, the reduction of the minimum wage as perceived by employers might increase commerce and consumption, mostly at the lower income levels. The demand curve for employment will shift, but the supply curve will shift too, likely not as much.

If you are planning on a retirement based on savings, and not on some form of investment, things are not going to work out well for you..

Few voters are rational, but the vast majority of them want more money, even if they have to work to get it. That part doesn't change. What changes is that if the jobs shift and you aren't employed because of that, you won't starve, or be sucked into a system of welfare that has no incentives for you to get out of it.

You provide the same way that Social Security benefits are provided, once per month.

You start out by providing the option to get other forms of welfare (not counting any healthcare here) or get UBI. UBI is no questions asked, no requirements, forever. But only if you are a citizen (and can prove it).

You get UBI whether you work or not. Minimum wage is eliminated. As you earn money, there are extra taxes that take the UBI back, until at some income level the IRS has taken all the UBI. This is where the bulk of the funding comes from.

Above that level, you're paying more in to support UBI than your getting from it every month. If you're in software, you're probably above this level, especially later in your career. Anecdotally, I know I'm way above the level where I personally get back what I pay in right now. I don't mind it (OK, at least not that much) because I'm well aware of the profound inefficiency of bureaucracy, I realize that it contributes to me not living in a shithole society.

You structure it so it's much easier and more reliable to just get the UBI instead of welfare, even though it may be just a little less. People shift off of welfare, are free to get a job, although it won't pay much at first because no minimum wage -- work and developing a skill at what you're doing becomes the only shot at living a life that's eternally kinda shitty, but you can feed yourself and maybe stay off of the street, even when you're unemployed for a long stretch.

Actually, not all early programmers were men. Beth Holberton's title was "Chief of the Programming Research Branch" when she worked for the Naval Surface Warfare Research Center. She designed and programmed the first mainframe sort/merge algorithm, and participated in the design of the first programming languages.

I think there are some languages that are more toward what you were expecting, but they are all domain-specific.

Perhaps meant Turbo Pascal..

Anders Hejlsberg - architect for Turbo Pascal, Delphi, C#, and participates in Typescript.

Would you pronounce that, "sequels"?

For the duration of this topic, could you change your sig to read "Do not look into particle beam with remaining eye"?

Actually, no he doesn't. He has a Bachelor's from Wharton. And Daddy had to buy that.

Sounds more like no-Win to me.