A minimum to live
- Started
- Last post
- 36 Responses
- ukit20
@ _niko
I don't think prices would go up just because you give people money. If you gave everyone a million dollars, the cost of a loaf of bread would not increase by a million dollars, canceling out the payment. The way I understand it (caveat: also not an economist :) prices go up because of either increased labor costs, or in some cases increased demand. It's arguable whether basic income would lead to either of these happening. In terms of labor cost, it's potentially a net positive for businesses since usually basic income would be tied to more flexible labor practices (since people have more security).
- no but the breadman might increase it by 25¢ figuring that people have more disposable income and wouldn't mind._niko
- multiply that by all the grocery stores, gas stations, coffee shops, restaurants ect and it becomes a wash._niko
- I notice this phenomenon with real-estate, interest rates go down and drive the house prices up, and the inverse happens when the interest rate goes up._niko
- ...happens when the interest rate goes up._niko
- but, the flip side is that with more disposable income, there might be more breadmakers, thus adding competition and keeping prices low._niko
- ...keeping prices low._niko
- The breadman can try to do that but what happens when the other business down the street doesn'tukit2
- You're basically describing a system of collusion where companies arbitrarily set prices however they wantukit2
- Your RE example is purely supply and demand - lower interest rates = more demand, inflating pricesformed
- Part of the inflation equation in fiat currency system is also demand and supply of money.yurimon
- Frosty_spl0
We don't need an enabler society more than what is already in place.
Most lower class people with shitty jobs will all quit in droves and just live off the government.
- ESKEMA0
I wonder who will volunteer to clean toilets.
- formed0
Sure seems like it'd make for a lot of people sleeping in.
Why don't we just start with free health care? That'd take a burden off businesses and eliminate the billions wasted in lawsuits, over billing, etc.
Just giving people a check, imho, would make for Samsung's and Apple's (probably Sony's and MS for games too) stocks sky rocketing. Most people have no comprehension of saving or spending responsibly.
- ukit20
What's interesting if you read the article is that he's actually questioning the idea of whether full employment is still realistic because of technology and automation making companies more efficient. Everyone always talks about how we need jobs but what if its just not possible or efficient to employ everyone anymore?
- Full employments is never reachable anyhow. As you approach it, wages costs skyrocket (supply and demand),monNom
- Yeah but the point is that the world is changing because of technology, globalization etcukit2
- "Imagine a point in the future when robots do more of our physical labour, computers do more of our mental labour, and our mechanized-digitized economy is ten times more efficient."ukit2
- our mechanized-digitized economy is ten times more efficient. Between now and then two things can happen, either we do 90% less work, or we demand ten times more goods and services, or a bit of both."ukit2
- either we do 90% less work, or we demand ten times more goods and services, or a bit of both."ukit2
- ukit20
Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money
A guaranteed income would reduce the humiliations of the current welfare system while promoting individual responsibility.
- murry's plan sounds really bad. miltons key is the percentage to provide a incentivedeathboy
- ... and of course the majority of comments base their opinions on the false idea that the poor are just unproductive, lazy drug addicts.IRNlun6
- addicts.IRNlun6
- its matter of self worth... maybe. some people just depressed and self destructive.yurimon
- the people running the world are pure psychopaths..yurimon
- mekk0
Who pays it?
- detritus0
A nice line—
‘If you burn all the notes in your wallet right now, you haven’t made the world any poorer, you’ve simply reduced your personal claim to available resources. There is always more money.’
- qoob0
@mekk
The idea is to abolish the current welfare system and replace it with a basic income to live that is paid out to everyone. They suggest raising taxes on the rich and closing corporate tax loopholes but even if that didn't happen there is still enough money to do it just by phasing out existing welfare payments.
- MrT0
Fascinating. Thanks qoob.
- monospaced0
Don't get riled up, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
- qoob0
monospace, the counterargument to that is that this is also an idea that has been endorsed by people like Milton Friedman and Gary Johnson.
I would consider it more "left libertarian" than socialist since it would actually reduce the size of government. It could also help the economy by giving people more time to work on projects and ideas they wouldn't otherwise have time for.
- karj0
This idea seems so difficult to buy into upon first encountering it, but I think that's because we're so ensconced in our current economic/work model that we can't imagine anything else being possible.
That said, I've heard the same argument come up with increasing frequency as of late, and the more I learn about it, the more sensible it seems. Most of us (myself included) just aren't that good at imagining what might be.
- pr20
Let me spell it out: there are two kind of people - those who make future for themselves and those who let others make their future. [It's not as black and white as most people are a mix depending on an issue or a concern but even those are more one then another] If you are the "maker" then whether you have basic social minimum or not - you keep on generating ideas or jobs for others.
I just filmed for my documentary at a music festival in Ireland - voted best indie festival - all ran by volunteers. In Ireland, as far as understand it the unemployed get a basic $150-200/week for living expenses - not much money but enough to survive. Since everyone is unemployed even though they all generate ideas and "job" it seems since it's understood that so little money is in circulation very few people are working for money. I'm sure it has an effect on how far those people are willing to go for the proverbial buck still - to know that a group of volunteers can bring 5000 people together is a testament to human perseverance.
- Social welfare in EU, and especially Ireland, is the cause of unemployment, not a solution for it.shaft
- i don't see too many minimum wage earners starting successful music festivals here in US.pr2
- Ireland's economy is messed up, only afloat because it is an easy money laundromat for US corporations.shaft
- The govt. won't touch the welfare because it gave the most massive welfare payment to the banks in 2008.shaft
- you are REALLY missing the point: here the welfare allows for new ideas to spring up.pr2
- You were in Ireland for a week, spoke to young people who were getting free money and - surprise - liked it.shaft
- i was in Ireland for 2 two week visits making a doc about new ideas springing up from disadvantageous conditions. Saw what young people were doing and indeed liked it.pr2
- Saw what young people were doing and indeed liked it.pr2
- pr20
To continue, the idea is NOT a solution. When everyone gets basic living expenses minimum then that money has very little impact - everyone starts with 2 hands and not everyone uses those 2 hands. Everyone starts with one brain and... You know what i mean. I've know people who spend their welfare check on expensive sneakers or a cellphone and then complain that they have nothing to live on. Everyone has different priorities in live - for some is food, for others shelter, for yer others apparel. To assume that if everyone starts with something every month will make a big impact is a bit naive.
- yup... it actually all comes down to education and a culture surrounding itmonospaced
- robotron3k0
...we'll all be equal soon when there is a dearth of part-time employees across USA by 2014. by making everyone part-time employers can avoid paying Obamacare and put the responsibility on the employee.
- Knuckleberry0
I'm in
- deathboy0
I dont know what gary johnson suggested but I'm guessing with friedman youre referring to the negative income tax deal. Which is seems to be far different than a guaranteed free ride of X dollars. More of cutting minimum wage and other government programs and allowing people to receive 50% of the income level they didnt reach. Seems to offer more positive incentives. So a person who doesnt work wouldnt get the same pay as a person that did work but didn't reach the level. However it has the same political downfall as every other social program in that a politician who wants to elected will arbitarily talk of raising the minimums in order to get votes. However if you cut all the other political programs and barriers and just went with only a negative income tax and let private charity fill in the gaps I wouldn't mind seeing how it works out. Right now it seems all the regulations and welfare in place is only helping to shrink the middleclass.
- qoob0
Actually that's pretty much exactly what Friedman proposed, a free ride. The only difference was that he called it a "negative tax" instead of a guaranteed income. So his idea was that if you had no income you would get a payment to live on, and then the more money you made, the less you would get.
I kind of like the guaranteed income version better because it's simpler, and it would remove the stigma of people being on welfare.
- No the 50% is a big difference. and the removal of other programs for it. Including minimum wage.deathboy
- if a person who doesnt work gets a full amount and a person who does but doesnt make it only sees the difference what incentive is there to workdeathboy
- what incentive is there to work?deathboy
- http://www.youtube.c…deathboy
- shaft0
Why would you want to remove the stigma of being on welfare? Welfare systems only sort of worked when welfare payments were a sort of a bridge in times of need, not a lifestyle choice; when it was there to help but in the long term it wasn't ok to be a loser.
It all gets turned upside down when people get fooled into treating welfare recipients as victims (of the system, corporations, government, whatever), not people who were on it because of their laziness or their bad decisions.
I knew quite a few people who were on welfare at some point, the reason all of them were on it and most rode it as long as possible was always the same: because they could.
- you are turning it into oversimplified conversation of who benefits from name calling.pr2