And this house having the ideal size for your family (and you even gave each kid their own room) why would anyone buy and build their own house?

I am an economist with several degrees (bachelor, master's, phd) in economics as well as other related degrees, and with all my heart, I can honestly say that the claim in this post is PURE AND UTTER NONSENSE.

In economics, we differentiate between REAL and MONETARY / NOMINAL variables. Money is not a real variable and Changes of its quantities does not have real long run consequences. Changes in Money supply can NEVER have a positive impact on a functional (properly working) economy and it will only harm it possibly at the cost of some short run benefits. Monetary policy is only instrumental if the economy is away from its long run equilibrium (potential level, as in recessions).

First of all, this is a social science, a study does not find a certain result, they don't have a perfect simulator machine! It is all a thought-experiment after probably some vague economic model. Let me bring it to you, 90% of economic models are wrong (some are inaccurate, most are dead wrong).

Secondly, there are already many countries doing the exact same thing one way or another. Free education, free healthcare, free transportation, free broadcasting, food and rent subsidies etc all are direct or indirect aids to people that amount to way more than $1000 a month per adult. Guess what, they have negligible effect on the level of GDP (but a substantial impact on the income distribution!).

Third, giving away money is nothing but a re-distribution of income, which will create inflation (dozens of countries have already experienced this; Germany, Yugoslavia, South America, Turkey etc...), and instead of handing out money, US should tackle with the more fundamental issues in the country such as those counted above. The vast majority of the disposable income goes to SERVICES in America, and they need to be addressed. A few things that should be done.

1) Fierce price controls on health care and universal completely free (basic) healthcare.

2) Education price controls and free education till college. The number of colleges must be kept to a low (there are way too many colleges in the US, where everyone, even the non-smart people go, and the education level is too damn low).

3) Any private insurance must be entirely abolished. Car insurance or insurance for goods etc are complete scams.

4) Fierce rent controls must be placed especially on public institutions (such as college dorms etc).

5) Fierce property taxes should have a certain bracket of exclusion. For instance, depending on the state, say houses valued less than 50K must be excluded from property tax. On the other hand, government should pay a certain amount of rent for everybody below a certain income level.

6) Eliminate the Wall Street and Federal Reserve entirely, and give the monopolistic non-interest yielding money issuing right to the American state.

etc etc etc...

However, I know none of these will happen because the US and the government is entirely hijacked by corporations and everything is run by a business model. It is not about the level of income (as US is rich enough to have a very comfortable life for everybody) but it is the distribution of it.

Most of the stuff you mention can also be handled by robots in the future. The rest can be handled by a small fraction of the company's employees (finances, tasking, management) and those positions exist already, and the introduction of robots won't increase the amout of these positions, on the contrary, it takes a lot more to manage humans than robots.

Anyway, why would a company adapt automatition, if they wouldn't save money on salaries?

Well as you have multiple degrees you know pretty well that government control of economy (yours 6 points are basically forms of government control) never ends up being good for the economy.

Faster production doesn't equal more sales, there's something called demand.

Anyway. it's extremely naive to think companies don't do it to save money on salaries, that's a really easy way to secure profit. Why wouldn't they?

Robotics will reduce the amount of unskilled available jobs.
But it will increase the amount of skilled jobs... Which means people need to upskill more.

As computers and robotics becoms more common... You need people to maintain them, update them, build them, design them and so on.

Let's not forget that the barrier of entry to skilled employment also drops. If computers were as inaccessible today as they were 30 years ago then most people wouldn't use one. Thanks to modern day Robin Hood Bill Gates, computers have become simple to use and because of Steve Jobs, toddlers are using them before they can crawl.

But will the increase in skilled jobs make up for the decrease in unskilled jobs? And how long until skilled jobs start becoming more and more automated?

So let's go through a number exercise...

2016 population estimate via us census bureau is 323,127,513.
22.8% of which is under 18
That puts the adult population at 249,454,440 adults (older then 18)

At $1,000 per month, the monthly cost for said program is $249,454,440,036.00 per month
Over the course of a single year said program cost $2,993,453,280,432.00 per year (that's 2.99 trillion)
Supposed GDP gain for this program is $2,480,000,000,000 after 8 year or 310,000,000,000 per year (310 billion).
So in essence for every $9.66 of cash handout, GDP will rise $1.00.
This doesn't even take into account additional spending that would be needed to actually run the program.

Pass