Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
state governemts have grade pay and it takes away motivation as the slugs get the same pay as the movers and shakers who then doal back their enthusiasm.
Or more like, working for your welfare check, except you can choose to do the nice jobs.
So, whats the problem with that? So you think that handcuffing people to a job they despise, which is probably shortening their lifespan, igniting mental disorders, and possibly contributing to substance and physical abuse, is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda
countries such as where?
do you mean dysfunctional 3rd World nations that rely on foreign aid money, and where families have to send their grandmothers out in the streets to scavenge?
Who said anything about countries? I said societies
By the way, most third world countries are run by dictators and are practically devoid of the resources it would take to supply their populations.
The USA is very unique in that it is one of a few dozen countries on the planet that contains the resources to support itself.
For sure the rents would go up , as would many other things.
The only way around this would be to have massive socialised housing projects and/or fixed rent prices.
Current housing stock outstrips need. Rents almost certainly would not go up, theyd just be redistributed as people who werent chained to living somewhere because of a job moved to places they found more desireable. Primarily, people stuck in cities would probably spread out more, therefore bringing rural housing prices up, and dropping urban prices.
Most neccessity goods would also stay the same, because demand wouldnt increase much, since food stamps and other forms of welfare are currently artificially inflating it.
So you think that handcuffing people to a job they dispise, which is probably shortening their lifespan, and possibly contributing to substance and physical abuse, is better?
Do you have reliable scientific studies or sources to support this claim? If so, please provide them.
Current housing stock outstrips need. Rents almost certainly would not go up, theyd just be redistributed as people who werent chained to living somewhere because of a job moved to places they found more desireable. Primarily, people stuck in cities would probably spread out more, therefore bringing rural housing prices up, and dropping urban prices.
Most neccessity goods would also stay the same, because demand wouldnt increase much, since food stamps and other forms of welfare are currently artificially inflating it.
Actually, the rash of foreclosures coupled with tighter lending practices have rental vacancies at a 10 year low. Based on the short supply, rents are increasing all over the country. In case you want the facts:
Actually, the rash of foreclosures coupled with tighter lending practices have rental vacancies at a 10 year low. Based on the short supply, rents are increasing all over the country. In case you want the facts:
This has coupled with record rates of empty housing and a record collapse in housing prices, so what? This was simply people in houses moving to apartments, what does that have to do with anything?
People stuck in cities would spread out? LOL. Yeah, all New Yorkers are just dying to move to Iowa.
Not all, some. Others would move when things like rent control laws are removed, and public housing is bulldozed to the ground, because they simply cant afford to live there.
Check any board on this site for any city, there are dozens of post from people fed up with the city.
Overall I would lean towards something like a national guaranteed income. If nothing else, it guarantees the business world at least SOME business activity. If your customers have no money, they won't buy anything. That's just basic economics. With some exceptions they aren't likely to take out loans if they foresee themselves having no money to pay the loans off in the future, and eventually businesses will be forced to lower their price of goods out of desperation. Otherwise, your product will just sit there, maybe forever.
The feds can afford it. They certainly could afford the bailouts and the various welfare schemes we have today. Just replace those with a guaranteed income. Tax-free, lien-free, judgment-free, garnishment-free, and legally protected. For people calling it a wealth-redistribution scheme, isn't every economy some sort of wealth-redistribution scheme? Are you meaning to tell me that the customers of the business world aren't giving their wealth to business owners when they do business with them? People at the top get bailouts and freebies all the time. Some aren't directly freebies or benefits to them but a lot of the ultra wealthy probably had some help from Uncle Fed to get them where they are today.
Oh, and the USA is as capitalist a country as Somalia is a developed country. Give everyone a break here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
